NONURD Posted August 21, 2023 Posted August 21, 2023 Does your DVD player outperform your dedicated vintage CD player? I'm keen to hear from other members with a similar experience or anyone with an informed opinion. I'm new to stereonet so go easy on me if I'm expecting too much here by way of feedback. Maybe no-one will chime in anyway. [PS: I tried to submit this topic under the section on digital output and DACS but the page wouldn't let me select that option]. I recently bought a vintage Sony CDP-397 (1992-3) to compare to my DVD players. I did not have hopes of brilliant CD sound or anything special but I was profoundly disappointed. I don't know if I was expecting too much from a vintage CD player compared to a more modern DVD/BluRay player. But I was expecting a dedicated CD Player with decent specs to perform as well, if not better than, a cheap DVD player. I will set out my testing/comparisons below. I bought the CDP-397 to see if I can better the SQ from my Denon DVD-1720 or my Sony Blueray BDP-S1100 for standard CD playback. I think I paid about $130 inc delivery on ebay - not a lot of dosh really if I can turn it into a successful project with a soldering iron. It works and seems to be in good cosmetic (near new) condition. I was hoping for an improved sound from this player - I mean, analogue PCM output via RCA into either of my amplifiers - without further digital processing. The 397 has no digital out. My denon DVD-1720 (by no means a high quality Denon) sounds better with RCA out. My Sony BD lacks RCA but sounds better set to PCM output via coax. My Kenwood Amp used for testing is RCA input only. My Yamaha RX-V793 is often hooked up to my denon by both RCA and optical. Whichever connection/amp/speaker combo I use the CDP-397 sucks. It's almost as if Sony have filtered out the bright/detailed/forward sound I was expecting. I can deal with a bright sounding cd player - all the sony's I have owned before had a decent sound-stage. I have owned a Sony Carousel from the 90's and a sony single back in the late 80's. My first impression of the CDP-397 was a flatter not-so-lively, not-so-dynamic sound compared to what I was expecting. The Bass is there, but slightly less defined compared to my DVD players, and I have a set of very punchy towers (a tight 37hz+). I noticed a very subtle HF fuzziness whenever the player converted a track with high treble cymbals. It renders a very subtle and barely discernible treble halo (like a hazy resonance) that trails off the high notes - I didn't go looking for it - I just heard it with the tweeters at ear level... definitely an artifact and it bugged me. There was no real hiss at any point including the silent sections of the tracks. So I unhooked the 397 from my Kenwood, connected it to my bright sounding Yamaha, hooked up my bright sounding Auditones and retested it. Artifact confirmed. Turning up the treble from flat only served to wash out more clarity in the upper range. The cdp-397 is probably not as bad as it sounds to me after an hour of listening and comparing - because when you focus on these things they become exaggerated. But not imagined. So I ask, should a dedicated CD player without defects sound better than a cheap modern DVD player? Maybe component age is the problem here (given the annoying HF artifact) - maybe an IC filter issue? Capacitors? Comments anyone? Sure, the Denon DVD/Sony BD players are rated 24bit/96khz & 24/192 respectively. But this adds nothing to the SQ of a standard CD recorded with limited 16bit/44khz resolution. The average CD also has a maximum Dynamic Range at around 96db, I think that's right. I don't believe the architecture of more modern DVD players is any advantage either. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The Denon's Dynamic Range is 98db, SNR = 115 (Sony BD player is similar). The old CDP-397 is also 98db (SNR=100). There's nothing in these specs alone that should make any real difference in sound quality (for standard CD playback). Am I wrong? Are the DACs and circuitry IN A DVD PLAYER superior for standard cd reproduction? I'll need some convincing that they are. I fully expected the 1992 Sony to sound better, but it doesn't. It uses a KSS-240A pickup and yes it jumps badly from vibration (e.g. Bass) - I half expected it would. Usually a sign the laser is weakening or needs alignment? But this should have no effect on sound quality - a laser either reads or it doesn't. (BTW, I can't even make The Denon DVD-1720 jump, nor the Bluray player). The CDP-397 has 10 IC's listed below. Some of these are DACs, others are Filters and maybe some are OPAMPS that I can't identify - I don't have the expertise to work out what every chip does from its layout in the schematics. 2 of the DACs are well regarded and common to other Sony models in this era, and feature in more expensive brands. Of course its the implementation not just the DAC that makes a good sounding player. These DACs are CXD-2561BM C-PULSE, and CXD2560M from the list below. There's nothing in the service manual indicating how many DACs are used in this Sony. DAC + Filtering in the same chip was less common in the early 90's and there's a fair number of separate IC's in this unit. If anyone is familiar with the component chips listed below your comments in terms of their 'sound quality' would be welcomed: LIST OF IC'S - CDP-397: uPD75216AGF-661-3BE GP1U52XB M5293L RC4556M-A LA5601 CXD2500AQ CXD2560M CXD2561BM RC4558M (x2) Any comments about the overall sound quality of this unit would be appreciated. I really want to know if this CD player should be performing as good as my DVD players and why/why not. Or maybe I need to upgrade my expectations? ===============================================================
muon* Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 You would have done better with a earlier Sony CDP-555ES. All players are not equal, some sound great, some sound crap, and everywhere between. 1
muon* Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 Brands have different tiers in quality, for instance with Sony the ES range was their better efforts. 1
SonicArt Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 no offence intended but you bought a cheap old cd player, I don't like the term vintage, most of the old stuff is not worthy of the term vintage. most of my digital playback is "vintage", the cheapest I guess being an Arcam delta 70 with TDA1541 dac, cost me around 500 bucks to import, it's a good player but my dac and transport is better. not sure why you would buy old if you want a bright forward sound? most of us are looking for something that's closer to our turntables hence the hunt for vintage, but specific vintage not just any old thing
surprisetech Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 I think of it this way. In the audio chain, both do essentially the same job. Read the disk, process the digital data (DSP), convert to analogue (DAC), filter & amplify to provide suitable o/p impedance & level. Apart from maybe that last step, the demands placed on all the processes in a DVD/Blu-ray/Universal player by the other formats are way higher than in a dedicated CD player, so playing a CD on one of those machines is a lazy stroll in the park. I did away with a dedicated CD player a long time ago in favour of universal players from Pioneer, Yamaha and now Cambridge Audio. Never regretted it. I'm not convinced a dedicated CD player of a similar type and quality would sound better. Technology certainly hasn't stood still in the 30 years since that CD player was made. The upscaling, DSP & DAC capabilities of modern DVD/Blu-ray players can be an advantage, so I wouldn't be surprised if the DVD/BluRay players sound better. The Sony was a budget model but with a few extra functional features thanks to Sony's economies of scale. However, I wouldn't expect the extent of the differences to be as significant as what you have observed. Aging components may be playing a part in this case.
davewantsmoore Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 They made as much junk as they did in 1992 as they do today.....
TP1 Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) There are some specific models that stood out. A couple of notable ones were the Sony CDP-715 and the CDP-555ES as mentioned by @muon*. Modern universal players are a safer bet than early CD players and some like Oppo 205 sound very good indeed. However, if I was looking for an older CD player to hold its own against the average universal player , I would look at the Sony SCD-XA777ES - Top class CD and SACD player Edited August 23, 2023 by TP1 1
muon* Posted August 23, 2023 Posted August 23, 2023 There were many standouts under various brands, but a lot more average and less than average players too.
NONURD Posted August 24, 2023 Author Posted August 24, 2023 (edited) OK thanks guys for the replies. I think I prefer to go with what SonicArt and others are saying about my Sony cdp-397 being a cheapish- to-crap player i.e. a bad example for a SQ comparison with my DVD players. That makes it easy to write off. Some of you seem to be saying the SQ of DVD players is superior to all but the best of vintage cd players. That means I should invest in an external DAC or a late model Yamaha or Denon cd player if I want better than DVD SQ. But I'm still having trouble moving on from this player. There are a lot of misleading generalizations on audio forums about how even the cheapest cd players are superior to DVD players (like the late 80's/early 90's players from sony, technics etc). I wouldn't know what to believe. But this crap sounding 397 shares its DAC combination (CXD2561, CXD2560M) with 16 other Sony players incl C87ES, C90ES, C77ES, C715. Some of these have good reviews on SQ. The 397 also shares one of its DACS (cxd2560m) with at least 4 of the CDP-X-ES series from that era. What if it just needs a replacement part or maybe a little upgrading? The problem is no specific reviews of the CDP-397. I bought it out of curiosity based on generalizations ....now I feel encouraged to forget about it ... based on generalizations. Would it be worthwhile replacing any components on the board? Given the sound test in my original post would anyone have some suggestions here? Keep in mind I don't have an oscilloscope or any equip other than a Multi-meter and a soldering iron.... and the service manual schematics. thanks All for your feedback. Edited August 24, 2023 by NONURD grammar/untidy
muon* Posted August 24, 2023 Posted August 24, 2023 (edited) DVD players come in all levels of quality also, there are crap ones and good ones and all in-betweens. I had once what I think was a Denon DVD-1710, it was a decent sounding enough player, and I used it for a while. Modding that Sony with better caps ect' is likely not the best idea, there are likely circuit differences between it and those ES models, the higher end ones tend to have better circuitry, better power supplies and better output stages and sometimes better mechanisms.. Edited August 24, 2023 by muon* 1
SonicArt Posted August 24, 2023 Posted August 24, 2023 I dont think its worth putting money into it, wasted I fear. The dac chip/s is only one aspect of a player, and a quick readup of your dac chips says they are single bit, cascaded lower order loops with a result of third order noise shaping, referred to as MASH. (simplified explanation from what I was reading, its quite interesting actually). My Arcam DELTA70 uses a CDM2 transport and the philips TDA1541 chip, highly regarded and sought after by the old skool audiophile brigade, the output stage as I understand it is discrete class A, it gets rather warm in the back of the case where the output is, and it sounds very good, its not lacking in the top end, not as soft as a 1540, but its still quite musical and more akin to good vinyl playback than to the average CD playback. I have a Cambridge 650c that was a covid project, dead laser, it runs sanyo drive, same laser as CEC belt drive transports which I have in stock, new laser and it was like new again. It runs dual wolfson dacs, also well regarded as musical not so digital sounding, I did some simple upgrades to this player, caps around the dac power supplies, output caps, it sounds really good considering its value, certainly something worth looking for. Main CD presently is CEC belt drive transport with lampizator output mods done, running into a seriously vintage VIMAK DS1800 dac, a dac which puts many amplifiers to shame in sheer weight and build quality. 1/2" thick alloy panels over steel chassis copper clad inside, around 20kg in weight, From an original 1991 hifi show review: The heart of the DS- 1800 is a Motorola DSP-56001, using proprietary software which is upgradable via the rear panel comms ports. Digital-to-analogue conversion is 18-bit with 64-times oversampling, the data filtered and resampled through a 5th order Delta Sigma processor which converts the information to single-bit format. Four single-bit PDM DACs are used for each channel, controlled by a proprietary dual PLL reclocking system claimed to reduce jitter to 50 picoseconds. Its one of the most analogue sounding dacs I have ever had, its very rare as Vimak had a capacitor batch issue and they all had leaky caps which destroyed many of these dacs, I saved mine, discovered the issue in time and recapped it. What I am saying I guess is you can find a 'vintage' cd player, or dac for that matter, it wont be peanuts, you will need to be looking at $500-1000 I feel, to get something worthy. Meridian 500 series with their crystal dacs are quite nice, very popular with the vinyl brigade as they are quite analogue sounding, class A output stages afaik, some find them boring sounding so maybe not for you. Maybe try to find an older cambridge with the wolfson dacs to have a listen to, its quite balanced. 1
SonicArt Posted August 24, 2023 Posted August 24, 2023 Quick look inside a Vimak, bear in mind this is a full width chassis which is deeper than it is wide! 1
muon* Posted August 25, 2023 Posted August 25, 2023 Something like the NAIM CD3 is even very good, with It's CDM9, good layout and TDA1541A S1 chip. "CD3 sound is very dynamic, rhythmical, natural sounding" 1
Ian McP Posted August 25, 2023 Posted August 25, 2023 plenty of info to digest here! http://www.lampizator.eu/lampizator/CD_ALPHABETICAL.html 1
NONURD Posted August 26, 2023 Author Posted August 26, 2023 (edited) Wow! thanks guys. That's what i was after. A great education in the context of me groping for a perspective on what makes a decent dedicated (vintage) cd player. Or, why my Sony CDP-397 sounds like crap . I feel spoilt by the pics but can def see the difference with the more elaborate circuitry, and those cap arrays! That looks like a massive coil in the NAIM CD3 - surely that's not a toroidal transformer in a cd player? Just for laughs, check out the internals in my glorious player (2 pics attached). What a piece of over-engineered technology!. A veritable POS! As you roll forward into the mid 90's you start to see more empty cases (at the cheaper end obviously) with all that glorious circuity of the early 80's reduced to a single board behind the switches, single chips replacing multiple IC's. I think Sony were leaders in this trend. Then the cases shrunk. Much like every modern DVD player I've pulled apart. With manufacturers saving production costs and volume retailers moving a cheaper product I guess it wasn't in their interest to lament the decline in SQ on the cheaper players like mine. I've noticed how the narrative in the commercial reviews shifted from "poor to average sound" to "great sound" with the caveat 'based on price'. Looking at circuity in players like the ones you guys have posted on this thread, I have to marvel at how my DVD players sound as good as they do - despite their internal vacuum. But if it was a full bodied sound I wouldn't be looking for a dedicated cdp in the first place. Bugger the vintage stuff at the prices they want - I can't justify that - i'd have anxiety about ageing components in anything too dear. I'll keep my eye out for a used Cambridge or a good price on something new with an analogue-weighted sound. =============================================================================== Edited August 26, 2023 by NONURD correction -
muon* Posted August 26, 2023 Posted August 26, 2023 21 minutes ago, NONURD said: surely that's not a toroidal transformer in a cd player? It is. Not like the dinky things you often see in your average DVD players. Also complex circuitry is not always an indicator, Clay's TDA1541A DAC goes for a simple but great approach and it sounds marvelous. It's how well It's executed be in more or less circuitry.
stereo coffee Posted August 26, 2023 Posted August 26, 2023 (edited) On 22/08/2023 at 7:53 AM, NONURD said: Does your DVD player outperform your dedicated vintage CD player? I'm keen to hear from other members with a similar experience or anyone with an informed opinion. I'm new to stereonet so go easy on me if I'm expecting too much here by way of feedback. Maybe no-one will chime in anyway. [PS: I tried to submit this topic under the section on digital output and DACS but the page wouldn't let me select that option]. I recently bought a vintage Sony CDP-397 (1992-3) to compare to my DVD players. I did not have hopes of brilliant CD sound or anything special but I was profoundly disappointed. I don't know if I was expecting too much from a vintage CD player compared to a more modern DVD/BluRay player. But I was expecting a dedicated CD Player with decent specs to perform as well, if not better than, a cheap DVD player. I will set out my testing/comparisons below. I bought the CDP-397 to see if I can better the SQ from my Denon DVD-1720 or my Sony Blueray BDP-S1100 for standard CD playback. I think I paid about $130 inc delivery on ebay - not a lot of dosh really if I can turn it into a successful project with a soldering iron. It works and seems to be in good cosmetic (near new) condition. I was hoping for an improved sound from this player - I mean, analogue PCM output via RCA into either of my amplifiers - without further digital processing. The 397 has no digital out. My denon DVD-1720 (by no means a high quality Denon) sounds better with RCA out. My Sony BD lacks RCA but sounds better set to PCM output via coax. My Kenwood Amp used for testing is RCA input only. My Yamaha RX-V793 is often hooked up to my denon by both RCA and optical. Whichever connection/amp/speaker combo I use the CDP-397 sucks. It's almost as if Sony have filtered out the bright/detailed/forward sound I was expecting. I can deal with a bright sounding cd player - all the sony's I have owned before had a decent sound-stage. I have owned a Sony Carousel from the 90's and a sony single back in the late 80's. My first impression of the CDP-397 was a flatter not-so-lively, not-so-dynamic sound compared to what I was expecting. The Bass is there, but slightly less defined compared to my DVD players, and I have a set of very punchy towers (a tight 37hz+). I noticed a very subtle HF fuzziness whenever the player converted a track with high treble cymbals. It renders a very subtle and barely discernible treble halo (like a hazy resonance) that trails off the high notes - I didn't go looking for it - I just heard it with the tweeters at ear level... definitely an artifact and it bugged me. There was no real hiss at any point including the silent sections of the tracks. So I unhooked the 397 from my Kenwood, connected it to my bright sounding Yamaha, hooked up my bright sounding Auditones and retested it. Artifact confirmed. Turning up the treble from flat only served to wash out more clarity in the upper range. The cdp-397 is probably not as bad as it sounds to me after an hour of listening and comparing - because when you focus on these things they become exaggerated. But not imagined. So I ask, should a dedicated CD player without defects sound better than a cheap modern DVD player? Maybe component age is the problem here (given the annoying HF artifact) - maybe an IC filter issue? Capacitors? Comments anyone? Sure, the Denon DVD/Sony BD players are rated 24bit/96khz & 24/192 respectively. But this adds nothing to the SQ of a standard CD recorded with limited 16bit/44khz resolution. The average CD also has a maximum Dynamic Range at around 96db, I think that's right. I don't believe the architecture of more modern DVD players is any advantage either. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The Denon's Dynamic Range is 98db, SNR = 115 (Sony BD player is similar). The old CDP-397 is also 98db (SNR=100). There's nothing in these specs alone that should make any real difference in sound quality (for standard CD playback). Am I wrong? Are the DACs and circuitry IN A DVD PLAYER superior for standard cd reproduction? I'll need some convincing that they are. I fully expected the 1992 Sony to sound better, but it doesn't. It uses a KSS-240A pickup and yes it jumps badly from vibration (e.g. Bass) - I half expected it would. Usually a sign the laser is weakening or needs alignment? But this should have no effect on sound quality - a laser either reads or it doesn't. (BTW, I can't even make The Denon DVD-1720 jump, nor the Bluray player). The CDP-397 has 10 IC's listed below. Some of these are DACs, others are Filters and maybe some are OPAMPS that I can't identify - I don't have the expertise to work out what every chip does from its layout in the schematics. 2 of the DACs are well regarded and common to other Sony models in this era, and feature in more expensive brands. Of course its the implementation not just the DAC that makes a good sounding player. These DACs are CXD-2561BM C-PULSE, and CXD2560M from the list below. There's nothing in the service manual indicating how many DACs are used in this Sony. DAC + Filtering in the same chip was less common in the early 90's and there's a fair number of separate IC's in this unit. If anyone is familiar with the component chips listed below your comments in terms of their 'sound quality' would be welcomed: LIST OF IC'S - CDP-397: uPD75216AGF-661-3BE GP1U52XB M5293L RC4556M-A LA5601 CXD2500AQ CXD2560M CXD2561BM RC4558M (x2) Any comments about the overall sound quality of this unit would be appreciated. I really want to know if this CD player should be performing as good as my DVD players and why/why not. Or maybe I need to upgrade my expectations? =============================================================== IMO sort out your signal paths first, as you are assuming way too much . A few minutes here https://www.hifiengine.com will provide enlightenment with schematics showing where your signal paths engage components that are without doubt changing the presentation of your sources, where they do not have to. When you observe the schematics know that only resistance is linear , and every other component attempts either well or not so well to be linear but invariably carries with it artifacts that deplete audio reproduction in varying degrees. IMO you cannot assess sources properly, unless you have linearity of your signal path pinned down firstly. Edited August 26, 2023 by stereo coffee
kiwilistener Posted August 28, 2023 Posted August 28, 2023 (edited) As others have said, there are good and bad models. I have three models, a 1999 Sony CDP-345 carousel player, a 2010 Yamaha CDP-697 carousel, and a Panasonic Bluray player DMP-BD45. The Sony is RCA out only, the Panny is HDMI out, in terms of musical sound, the Sony at 24 years old is the better for music. Both these players output to a 2008 Onkyo TX-SR576 165 watt amp. My Yamaha carousel player coupled to my Yamaha amp, when connected via optical out (player used as a transport) simply blows the other two players out of the water. The subtly and control & dynamics of the Yamaha especially when coupled to the Yammy amp is easy to hear. If I were buying a new CD player it would have to have optical out or some other digital output. The internal dac in the amp is simpler better as it benefits from all the latest tech. Buying decades old gear is a bit of a mine field, so far I have been lucky although I have done a truckload of info seeking before buying older gear., driven by the fact that new CD players are expensive. On a positive note I was recently gifted 300 CD's from a friend. Unfortunately 170 odd of them were thrash/death metal, something I've neverl iked. Edited August 28, 2023 by kiwilistener
NONURD Posted August 30, 2023 Author Posted August 30, 2023 kiwilistener 1999 SONY CDP-345 carousel (1999)?? I think you mean CDP-CE345 (2000)?. There's also a CDP-C345 but that's 1994. The the service&owners manuals show an OPTICAL OUT for the CE345 but you say its RCA only? The listings on ebay also show the optical out. I came close to buying a CE345 ($140 AUD) until I saw some marantz changers (circa 2000) for around $200 and that sort of got me thinking if it was worth the extra for the Marantz given the good reviews on SQ - if it really is that much better. haven't made up my mind. SQ is important bc one of my Amps is dac-less. Funny how the Dynamic Range for the 2000 CE345 (93-94db) is a step backwards from the 1994 CDP-C345 (98db) ....go figure. It also employs the KSS-213BA which can be a much dearer replacement than the earlier more common KSS-240. If yours is the CE345 - or whatever it is - I'd be keen to know more about the sound quality (RCA-OUT) with zero Amp DSP. Also you say your 2010 Yamaha CDP-697 carousel "when connected via optical out" blows away your other players. Tell me more. It sounds like you hear a BIG difference in SQ between players used as 'transport only'. I'm up for a CDP-697 if that's the case. Not a fan of multi-channel receivers for stereo quality but I know Onkyo's WRAT can produce decent stereo (your TX-SR576 165 Watt is rated 80w RMS - I think its 50W into 8ohm). Some of the Onkyo's used Wolfson Dacs. Here's an interesting question: How much audible difference does the circuitry make between a cheap player and an expensive player (acting as transports only)? Let's say they both employ the same laser pickup unit - as many of them do. And let's leave aside the issue of how isolated the player is from SPL - i.e. assume no vibration-induced resonance in the listening environment) . Any armed Opinions ? I haven't noticed ANY difference between various players acting as mere transports (external dac). Plugged into dedicated stereo amps or receivers. Some players pick up more vibration or resonance at higher volumes (jumping, skipping etc) but as transports at lower bass/volumes - no difference in performance into the same DAC. Some people say you won't notice the subtle difference unless you have very expensive gear ....some respected reviewers say TOTAL BS to that. cheers devils advocate
kiwilistener Posted September 4, 2023 Posted September 4, 2023 On 30/08/2023 at 5:07 PM, NONURD said: kiwilistener 1999 SONY CDP-345 carousel (1999)?? I think you mean CDP-CE345 (2000)?. There's also a CDP-C345 but that's 1994. The the service&owners manuals show an OPTICAL OUT for the CE345 but you say its RCA only? The listings on ebay also show the optical out. Yes the CD player should have digital out, mine however does not. Maybe they didn't think NZ purchasers would want it (seems odd but sale's and marketing do strange things at times). My unit has a small plastic square where the optical connection should be. I bought this unit with a Sony home theater amp in 2000 as a combo buy. I didn't even realize there was a missing connector until years later when the amp died and we replaced it with the Onkyo, which came with a couple of optical cables in the box of accessories. On 30/08/2023 at 5:07 PM, NONURD said: I came close to buying a CE345 ($140 AUD) until I saw some marantz changers (circa 2000) for around $200 and that sort of got me thinking if it was worth the extra for the Marantz given the good reviews on SQ - if it really is that much better. haven't made up my mind. SQ is important bc one of my Amps is dac-less Funny how the Dynamic Range for the 2000 CE345 (93-94db) is a step backwards from the 1994 CDP-C345 (98db) ....go figure. It also employs the KSS-213BA which can be a much dearer replacement than the earlier more common KSS-240. I cant speak for the Marantz but the Sony's longevity with these players appears to be excellent. We have never had to service the Sony and its had a heck of a lot of use over the past 23 years. On 30/08/2023 at 5:07 PM, NONURD said: If yours is the CE345 - or whatever it is - I'd be keen to know more about the sound quality (RCA-OUT) with zero Amp DSP. Also you say your 2010 Yamaha CDP-697 carousel "when connected via optical out" blows away your other players. Tell me more. It sounds like you hear a BIG difference in SQ between players used as 'transport only'. I'm up for a CDP-697 if that's the case. Not a fan of multi-channel receivers for stereo quality but I know Onkyo's WRAT can produce decent stereo (your TX-SR576 165 Watt is rated 80w RMS - I think its 50W into 8ohm). Some of the Onkyo's used Wolfson Dacs. Here's an interesting question: How much audible difference does the circuitry make between a cheap player and an expensive player (acting as transports only)? Let's say they both employ the same laser pickup unit - as many of them do. And let's leave aside the issue of how isolated the player is from SPL - i.e. assume no vibration-induced resonance in the listening environment) . The sound quality has always been good from the Sony player. To my ear the sound is more akin to listening to very high end reel to reel analogue recording, and being RCA out thats not too surprising. The Onkyo amp is not what I would call a particularly accurate two channel amp. It doesn't have the same imaging performance as my Yamaha and the sound stage isn't as clear or defined as the Yammie. The Onkyo is (according to my manual (85 watts two channels @ ohms and 130 watts at 4 ohms) I'm running a 4 ohm speaker which a 89dB - Max SPL 108dB, so plenty loud for my old ears. Listening to the same music on the Yamaha setup gives a much broader and deeper soundstage, better placement of instruments and singer. Dynamics and agility of fast paced tracks is a lot more refined. But most of all its the detail of instruments in recordings that standouts out. Heres an example: I bought my first copy of Dark Side of the Moon, in 1973, when I had better hearing and audio gear as good as I have now. I wore the album out and got a replacement, which was an inferior pressing. In the 1990's I had a CD player, I don't recall who made it and bought a CD copy of Dark Side. I don't recall ever listening to it on anything other than some mediocre stereo bought from a department store. Fast forward to yesterday when I decided to listen to the whole album of a 2004 remaster of dark Side of the Moon. Now bear in mind that I am very familiar with the vinyl version of the original copy I had. After yesterdays listening session the difference in recordings was massively apparent. I heard background instruments I'd never notice before, the intelligibility of the spoken parts was clear to follow, Roger Waters does some intriguing bass work I hadn't noticed on previous recordings I had listened to. What this showed was that the CD player has a very crisp and accurate output, and that the internal DAC in the amp is very good, as is the clarity of the amps output. It also highlights just how revealing the speakers I built actually are. The only downside was the sibilant and harshness in some of David Gilmours vocals. This could be attributable to compression or poor mixing or the way the mics were setup. Not that bad that it became unlistenable just annoying. I'm now on the hunt for a 1980's or early nineties copy to see if it is as a result of the Loudness wars. Sorry for the long ramble. On 30/08/2023 at 5:07 PM, NONURD said: Any armed Opinions ? I haven't noticed ANY difference between various players acting as mere transports (external dac). Plugged into dedicated stereo amps or receivers. Some players pick up more vibration or resonance at higher volumes (jumping, skipping etc) but as transports at lower bass/volumes - no difference in performance into the same DAC. Some people say you won't notice the subtle difference unless you have very expensive gear ....some respected reviewers say TOTAL BS to that. cheers devils advocate I think it all comes down to the gear you have, how sensitive your hearing may be and the difference if any in the recording from different decades.
NONURD Posted September 5, 2023 Author Posted September 5, 2023 3 hours ago, kiwilistener said: Yes the CD player should have digital out, mine however does not. GOODAY KIWI, Your right about that... i did notice this with One sony carousel I was looking at. I saw one listed without opt-in (RCA only on the back pic of the unit) and other units listed on ebay WITH optical-in (clearly visible on the photos. I messaged the guy with the RCA-only unit - said his specs indicated optical-in but not true in the pics. He obviously copied-in the specs from a website. BUT YOURS HAS A DUMMY OPTICAL PLUG. Def worth knowing since I'm looking at a ce345 or similar. Thanks for that. Drew 1
NONURD Posted September 5, 2023 Author Posted September 5, 2023 3 hours ago, kiwilistener said: The sound quality has always been good from the Sony player. To my ear the sound is more akin to listening to very high end reel to reel analogue recording, and being RCA out thats not too surprising. 1. Kiwi still waiting for you to confirm the exact model number of your Sony carousel especially now you appraised the SQ. You know I was looking at the CDP-CE345. 2. As for the SQ of the yamaha combo. You said "Listening to the same music (PFloyd CD) on the Yamaha setup gives a much broader and deeper soundstage etc...". You also said "the CD player has a very crisp and accurate output, and that the internal DAC in the amp is very good, as is the clarity of the amps output". I take it you are referring to the Yamaha CD player in the above comments? My experience is the speakers make the biggest difference and then the Amp and its DAC. If the speakers are average then you won't notice much if any difference between Amps - unless its a flat sounding or overly bright receiver compared to a dedicated amplifier. As for comparing cd players hooked up as mere transports into different amps/receivers I place very little faith on the cd player having any influence on SQ. But KIWI, your Sony cdp has RCA only - your Yamaha has digital out. And you indicated you had the Yamaha cdp hooked up via optical into your yamaha amp/receiver. Unless you hook up both players via RCA into the same Amp you can't compare their SQ (in my mind). I'm only trying to workout the SQ of your Sony carousel because I'm looking at the same vintage - and you have the perfect opportunity to compare apples with apples. But its good to know you found the changer mechanism/pickup was fairly reliable. By the way - You didn't mention which Yammie amp/receiver you have. On a side note this may sound DUMB but unless any multi-channel receiver can clearly confirm "Analogue" on its display I won't trust that the RCA output from my CD player is reaching my speakers unmolested by local DAC/DSP. On earlier receivers its not rocket science to confirm analogue mode if the display is buggered or misleading. But on modern receivers you can stuff around with defaults and reassign inputs and lose track of things - even RCA connections can be set/assigned for auto up-conversion of PCM into multichannel output. I read some receivers can detect if only 2 front speakers are attached and down-convert a signal back to stereo (not typical behavior for RCA connections). Pressing Pure-Direct or Stereo on your receiver has nothing to do with by-passing DSP.
NONURD Posted September 5, 2023 Author Posted September 5, 2023 6 hours ago, kiwilistener said: After yesterdays listening session the difference in recordings was massively apparent. I heard background instruments I'd never notice before, the intelligibility of the spoken parts was clear to follow, Roger Waters does some intriguing bass work I hadn't noticed on previous recordings I had listened to. What this showed was that the CD player has a very crisp and accurate output, and that the internal DAC in the amp is very good Kiwi, i don't know if you know this but there is a site called Dynamic Range DB here at: https://dr.loudness-war.info/ It gives you an artist/album search and lists the dynamic range ratings for the songs and the album average. It is a FANTASTIC reference and I can so far confirm its accuracy for rating the good Vinyl & CD recordings over the bad ones. I have checked my own cd's on this site and sure enough the flatter even pitiful sounding recordings in my collection have the lower ratings on this site. Your setup is more than good enough to notice better source reproductions - this is what you are noticing. The quality of the recording mastering etc has far more potential impact on SQ than your equipment. I decided to return crap commercial cd albums for refunds after listening to them on my cheap car stereo. I don't need to play them at home to confirm - they sound worse on better equipment. This is why some equipment reviewers recommend certain reference cd's to test/compare players/amps/speakers. I have some of these cd's in my collection so I tagged them for this purpose. Google "Top Audiophile Tracks For Testing Equipment" The "Best of" compilations are usually the worst. I rarely buy CD's on-line UNLESS from Discogs at https://www.discogs.com/ because their listings give you audiophile quality data on the recordings. You can't get this info from looking at the cd jacket. You don't even see ADD, AAD, DDD stamped on cd's anymore or any mastering info. So if I walk into a Virgin Music store and find what I want, I'll lookup the cd reference on the discogs site (on my phone ) and on Dynamic Range DB. Sometimes you can't tell but at least I can return a crap CD to Virgin - as I have many times (like a re-release of Counting Crows- films of ghosts - many versions of this one). So far every album I have purchased from Discogs is true to its description. Knowing what to look for with respect to re-releases and remastering of older music is the trick. Drew
kiwilistener Posted September 7, 2023 Posted September 7, 2023 On 05/09/2023 at 5:18 PM, NONURD said: 1. Kiwi still waiting for you to confirm the exact model number of your Sony carousel especially now you appraised the SQ. You know I was looking at the CDP-CE345. The CDP-CE235 is a good unit also and is the one I would opt for. My son has one and it has optical out so go for either depending upon what output are included. Specs are almost identical, and they use the same mechanics in both players from what I was able to find out thanks in part to YouTube. Short answer is if they are in good order and the right price, say $100.00 you should be good to go. Oh and yes I have the 345. On 05/09/2023 at 5:18 PM, NONURD said: 2. As for the SQ of the yamaha combo. You said "Listening to the same music (PFloyd CD) on the Yamaha setup gives a much broader and deeper soundstage etc...". You also said "the CD player has a very crisp and accurate output, and that the internal DAC in the amp is very good, as is the clarity of the amps output". I take it you are referring to the Yamaha CD player in the above comments? The Yamaha - Yes On 05/09/2023 at 5:18 PM, NONURD said: My experience is the speakers make the biggest difference and then the Amp and its DAC. If the speakers are average then you won't notice much if any difference between Amps - unless its a flat sounding or overly bright receiver compared to a dedicated amplifier. I would agree re-speakers and that's why I build my own. On 05/09/2023 at 5:18 PM, NONURD said: As for comparing cd players hooked up as mere transports into different amps/receivers I place very little faith on the cd player having any influence on SQ. But KIWI, your Sony cdp has RCA only - your Yamaha has digital out. And you indicated you had the Yamaha cdp hooked up via optical into your yamaha amp/receiver. Unless you hook up both players via RCA into the same Amp you can't compare their SQ (in my mind). I'm only trying to workout the SQ of your Sony carousel because I'm looking at the same vintage - and you have the perfect opportunity to compare apples with apples. But its good to know you found the changer mechanism/pickup was fairly reliable. By the way - You didn't mention which Yammie amp/receiver you have. In terms of SQ, my thought is that the difference heard between the two types of connections comes down to the difference made by the DAC and processing of an amp that's 20 plus years more modern than the onboard DAC used in the CD player of a two plus decades old CD Player. Like it or not technology has got a lot better in modern equipment and its audible when using a modern DAC/amp setup. I A/B tested the two outputs on my Yamaha CD player and its noticeably more detailed running the player as a transport. I recently replaced my Yamaha RX-V 371 for the Yamaha RX-V385. It's considered an entry level receiver, but that would be a mistake, especially when it comes to SQ for stereo listening. The musicality of these receivers is something Yamaha does very well and while not the most powerful amp I've never had the nerve to dial it up to max volume, my hearing wouldn't take that (although my speaker would happily do it). On 05/09/2023 at 5:18 PM, NONURD said: On a side note this may sound DUMB but unless any multi-channel receiver can clearly confirm "Analogue" on its display I won't trust that the RCA output from my CD player is reaching my speakers unmolested by local DAC/DSP. On earlier receivers its not rocket science to confirm analogue mode if the display is buggered or misleading. But on modern receivers you can stuff around with defaults and reassign inputs and lose track of things - even RCA connections can be set/assigned for auto up-conversion of PCM into multichannel output. I read some receivers can detect if only 2 front speakers are attached and down-convert a signal back to stereo (not typical behavior for RCA connections). Pressing Pure-Direct or Stereo on your receiver has nothing to do with by-passing DSP. If you are using a DAC then there is some form of DSP going on, either in the CD player before the output to RCA or optical out to an amp or dedicated DAC. As I understand it, somewhere in the process there will be some form of digital processing no matter what. This may or may not alter the SQ, I'm not sure precisely how one would know. Pressing pure direct on my amp makes a considerable difference. It drops out all other controls, including any form or balance or tonal control. It also reduces the standard gain signal in the amp by (I'm estimating here) 6-12dB. It requires approx. 25% increase of the volume control to bring the sound level up to what the "Standard" setting uses, which is the amps standard processing aka normal settings. So at least in my case it would appear a good deal of processing is removed, I can also set other DSP parameters in the amp to improve or reduce DSP processing, however that's primarily for home theater modes.
Recommended Posts