| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Good Quality CD Player?
I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player
with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the professional players I've heard. Mary Sue |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
marysue wrote:
I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. Not really any more, although I will say that the playback converters on the HHB CDB-800 CD recorder are remarkably good. I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the professional players I've heard. If it has a digital output, consider buying one of the Benchmark outboard D/A units and plugging it in. The problem is that most of the higher grade CD players have dropped out of the market in the past few years. There are very few really solid units made today, and everybody seems to want to buy CD changers. For the most part the changers are just terrible from a mechanical reliability standpoint. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Jun 2005 13:17:01 -0700, "marysue"
wrote: I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the professional players I've heard. You might want to look at the interface between CD player and amplifier. CD players typically output a very robust signal level. I suspect some cases of reported "harshness" are merely overload at the amplifier in put. I'm not suggesting there may not be ANY audible differences between utility and esoteric CD players today, but I think the differences are subtle. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
marysue wrote:
I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. You really aren't going to hear all that much difference among different players. Maybe if you buy some expensive external converters and hook them to a player with digital outputs. Even then the difference will be subtle with *most* people not even to distinguish between the two. I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, I have noticed that my current CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the professional players I've heard. And you had to throw that in why? Superior in what way? Vinyl may not be superior in many ways. It is certainly not more convenient. Some people just think records sound better. Is that nonsense? Some people think 35 mm snapshots and moving pictures look better than digital pictures and digital video. Is that nonsense, too? |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
marysue wrote: I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. You really aren't going to hear all that much difference among different players. Maybe if you buy some expensive external converters and hook them to a player with digital outputs. Even then the difference will be subtle with *most* people not even to distinguish between the two. I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. But try it and see, and if you don't like the sound, take it back. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. The OP was asking about better sounding CD players. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. The OP was asking about better sounding CD players. Yup. And I will be interested in an update to see if she finds one. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. THOSE are the people who most need to be making some sonic comparisons, because until they do, they'll continue to be satisfied with MP3s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not audibly different from the digital master used to make that CD, then there are quite a few modestly-priced players that sound as good as the best-sounding ones. I suspect that some $50 DVD players can hit this mark. Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far larger than the differences among good digital players, including CD players. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far larger than the differences among good digital players, including CD players. Of course, yet currently it still seems to be the most popular way to listen to music. So I guess people just don't give a ****. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
there are clocking problems and poor quality DA's with cheap product. then the analogue cuircuts can be done by accounts and not audio people. Nad, Rotel Linn |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. I have an old Sony D-35 portable CD player from the mid 80s that sounds so much better than my living room new CD/DVD player. I just compared them the other day because I noticed that the home unit sounded brittle. I suspect that some $50 DVD players can hit this mark. If you find one please let me know. With most consumer products, quality is heading south. I'm having trouble finding a decent quality coffee maker too. J_West Sure, to you. But most people seem to be more than satisfied with MP3s. Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far larger than the differences among good digital players, including CD players. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Generally,
CD/DVD players don't sound as good as a regular CD players. There are some good ones out there such as an Arcam, Meridian and a few other hi end players. But now your talking around $1500 plus for a DVD/CD player. Stan |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Joe Sensor wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not audibly different from the digital master used to make that CD, The digital master as played back through what? If it goes through an external converter, and the CD does too, and the converter's any good, then they should sound identical. But if the digital master's played back through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD player uses its own audio circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll sound the same. Peace, Paul |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"J_West" wrote in message
ups.com... I suspect that some $50 DVD players can hit this mark. If you find one please let me know. With most consumer products, quality is heading south. I'm having trouble finding a decent quality coffee maker too. Get a Melitta funnel, the 4-cup size. (The one-cup size makes equally good coffee, but it's more likely to splash on the countertop.) Peace, Paul |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:53:12 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not audibly different from the digital master used to make that CD, The digital master as played back through what? If it goes through an external converter, and the CD does too, and the converter's any good, then they should sound identical. But if the digital master's played back through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD player uses its own audio circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll sound the same. I have to agree with you there Paul. I'd also like to mention an experience I had about 10 years ago. I went to a HiFi store and asked the quality of various CD players he sold. He compared a certain CD (don't remember what) that had a lot of openness to the sound and subtle ambience. he auditioned an Onkyo player that was maybe $400 or $500 with the a "standard" model for $150 or $200 played back on his best amp speaker combination. The was a VERY noticeable difference in the detail, the Onkyo being much much more detailed, it was quite amazing. So I suspect the differences between a $200 and a $400 CD player are probably neglible these days, but it sure was noticeable back then. Julian |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: Hmmm. In my tests, the audble differences among MP3s and between MP3s and the origional .wav files are generally far larger than the differences among good digital players, including CD players. Of course, yet currently it still seems to be the most popular way to listen to music. So I guess people just don't give a ****. I suspect its just a matter of costs and benefits. In the days of vinyl, most music lovers hated the nasty artifacts of vinyl. For a price one could avoid the nasty artifacts of vinyl quite nicely with high speed, wide-format analog tape. Yet, not many people paid the price. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
dale wrote:
there are clocking problems and poor quality DA's with cheap product. Here's someone who has obviously never done any serious technical or listening tests of the current run of cheap good players. The last $40 DVD player I took apart was based on a Crystal Semiconductor DA rated for operation at 24/192 and with 90 dB dynamic range. There was no problem with clock stability at all. The player also sounded good - its most objectionable problems for me was that it was mechanically fragile and eventually one channel stopped working while it was in storage. then the analogue cuircuts can be done by accounts and not audio people. You don't need a lot of expensive parts to drive 2 vrms into a 10K load. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Joe Sensor wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: I disagree completely. I think the differences between the better players and some of the cheaper stuff out there is anything but subtle. Digital players have become quite a bit better as time has marched on. If we agree that the best-sounding CD player is one that plays a CD in such a way that the playback is not audibly different from the digital master used to make that CD, The digital master as played back through what? Whatever you'd like, as long as its demonstrably accurate. If it goes through an external converter, and the CD does too, and the converter's any good, then they should sound identical. That's true but I would consider that to be begging the question. But if the digital master's played back through, say, a Lynx card and the cheap CD player uses its own audio circuits, it's very unlikely that they'll sound the same. I've done the comparison with my own LynxTWO. I did it with my own Card Deluxe. They are great interfaces and I love working with them. However, good sound can be had far more inexpensively. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"marysue" I know this is a bit off topic, but can anyone recommend a CD player with good sounding converters for listening to mixes at home. ** This looks like a clever troll. I've been reading some of this CD vinyl debate, and while I think it's nonsense to say vinyl is superior to CD, ** ****ing in the pockets of the vinylphobes ....... I have noticed that my current CD/DVD player really sounds quite bad compared to some of the professional players I've heard. ** No attempt made to justify an utterly meaningless claim. Mary Sue ** Really ? Then my name is Phil Lament - just a tad brighter that you think. ........... Phil |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So I suspect the differences between a $200 and a $400 CD player are probably neglible these days, but it sure was noticeable back then. Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days? http://www.fullcompass.com/products/...s.aspx?cat=694 |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article writes: Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days? http://www.fullcompass.com/products/...s.aspx?cat=694 That's no fair. You had to look. All I see at that link is a list of CD players, no prices. I guess you have to click on each one to see how much it costs - and being Full Compass, the price is probalby "call." But from the looks of the names and models, some of which are familiar to me, they all seem to be commercial/industrial types and I don't think that's really what we're talking about here. They cost $200 more than a consumer player not because they sound better, but because they're rack-mountable and perhaps have some play features that are important to certain kinds of installations and applications. -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1119007974k@trad... Can you even find $200 and $400 CD players these days? It seems that they're either well under $200 (even the hundred-slot changers) or well over $500 for a serious audiophile player (which may sound a bit better than a $19.95 player) Yes, you can indeed find quite a number of CD players if you look for them in the "Professional" listings. For instance I have what I believe to be quite a good CD player by Marantz, the PMD325, which features balanced XLR outputs, Index Search, digital output, etc., i.e. a number of features which even many of the so-called high-end CD players do not offer. I also think that this player sounds quite good. I only paid $369 for it brand new including shipping. "Professional" equipment does not feature fancy machined front panels or other visual niceties, but it is usually built quite well because if it would fail during a broadcast, or similar activity, all hell would break loose. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article "Peter" writes: Yes, you can indeed find quite a number of CD players if you look for them in the "Professional" listings. For instance I have what I believe to be quite a good CD player by Marantz, the PMD325, which features balanced XLR outputs, Index Search, digital output, etc., i.e. a number of features which even many of the so-called high-end CD players do not offer. I also think that this player sounds quite good. I only paid $369 for it brand new including shipping. Features, features, features - that's what you get when you look at "professonal" CD players - things that DJs and broadcast production rooms need (including rack mounting and operating levels that interface with other professional gear) that people buying for their living rooms don't need. Arny says that a number of sub-$100 players he's used recently also "sound quite good." "Professional" equipment does not feature fancy machined front panels or other visual niceties, but it is usually built quite well because if it would fail during a broadcast, or similar activity, all hell would break loose. Still, there are only a few manufacturers of disk transport mechanisms, and they've gotta use one of those. That's the most vulnerable part. Switches rarely fail because so many people, even in industrial and broadcast applications, use remote control. So the question is - how do you make them sound bettter? Good sounding D/A converter chips are cheap so there's no reason not to use a good one. But what makes a difference is a good power supply, good analog design, and good engineering to keep the digital and analog parts from interfering with each other. Usually you find those design considerations first in an audiophile product because the industrial users don't need or demand audiophile performance. As you suggest, they want ruggedness and reliability, they want something that installs easily, and they want something that's cheap enough so that they can replace it quickly when it fails. So, I guess I didn't really ask the right question (prompted, admittedly, but another posting) when I asked about price alone. I'll try again: Are there CD players in the $200-$400 range that are better designed, engineered, and constructed for better sound than the $50 ones? -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loren Amelang wrote:
I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. Is that digital output earlier or later in the signal chain than the digital jack on the back of a pro or high-end CD player? In my experience PC drive digital outputs sound better than the few fancy CD player digital outs I've tried. I guess it's in the same place in the signal chain. To the best of my knowledge the chain goes something like this: 1. reading and decoding the data signal off the CD 2. Correcting correctable errors (where redundancy of data enables the exact data patterm to be recovered) 3. For audio, correction of uncorrectable errors by interpolation or similar (3a) S/PDIF output at this stage 4. D-A conversion (this is also the stage where all the oversampling etc. happens) Assuming all players do stage 2 correctly, the only way I can account for differences between one player and another at the digital output level is: * stage 3 is done differently * stage 1 is done with different levels of accuracy, resulting in different amounts of errors that have to be corrected at stage 3 -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1119136044k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: When you say "disk transport mechanism" do you mean the just the spindle motor and controller, laser head and its movement controller, and whatever electromechanical devices are needed to get the disc in and out of playing position? Or is the electronics to collect and process laser bits into S/PDIF or whatever is the first "audio" signal format included in the "transport"? I don't know. I've never built a CD player so I don't know were the hard parts stop. I was thinking of the mechanical parts which would include the laser and servo. But I know that there are people who will argue that the mechanical stability doesn't matter as long as you have a buffer big enough so that you can always clock the data out at a constant rate. But if it was all that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It doesn't matter as long as you can always clock the data out at a constant rate and the _error rate is zero_. That last bit is a surprisingly big issue. Also, of course, most of the CD players today with crappy mechanics break down. I don't like it when things break down. I want something built like a tank so it won't break. My question corresponds to back in the day, when some reel-to-reel tape fanatics would wire outboard preamp-equalizers directly to their playback heads to bypass the built-in low-level electronics. What is the "lowest" level at which a designer of exotic CD players can take control of the audio? I suppose it depends on the economics. If you can buy a good-enough transport so that you can make a really good CD player by attaching a really good D/A converter then it's cheaper not to make your own transport. Putting outboard electronics on a tape deck is exactly analogous to using an outboard preamp rather than a console's (or recorder's) mic preamp. You can make a better one than the manufacturer built in, so if you want better audio quality, this is one way you can improve it. Right, and the CD player/seperate DAC thing has been SOP in the high end world for twenty years now. The question is, can you make the best CD player you can imagine by taking a $50 CD player and connecting its digital output to a $6,000 D/A converter? Or can you make it even better if you built a $6,000 transport too? I don't know. If you build a $6,000 transport, you'll find that it lasts longer than the $50 transport, and discs that skip on the $50 transport play fine on the $6,000 one. You -might- also find that disks which sound fuzzy and without detail due to high error rates on the $50 transport might sound fine on the $6,000 one, since the error rate is lower. I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency there? My questions: - what is that external DAC? Does it clock properly? - have you tried measuring the error rate on the drive? Is that digital output earlier or later in the signal chain than the digital jack on the back of a pro or high-end CD player? Probably earlier, but maybe not much earlier - if it's even the same. It probably is about the same thing. Be aware, though, that the computer CD drives are much crappier and tend to have much higher error rates than the audio drives, because they can get away with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
the computer CD drives are much crappier and tend to have much higher error rates than the audio drives, because they can get away with it. I'm not too sure about that. When they are used for computer data they have to be error free in the data seen by the computer. I do appreciate that in CD-ROM mode the error correction mechanism is stronger and the re-reading the data is an option, but you have somehow to get a good enough copy of the data to be able to correct the errors. Because they are produced in large numbers they are cheap, but that doesn't necessarily mean thay are crappy. A much more likely difference is that computer CD drives will have the cheapest possible 1-chip solution for analog audio output. -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
anahata wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: the computer CD drives are much crappier and tend to have much higher error rates than the audio drives, because they can get away with it. I'm not too sure about that. When they are used for computer data they have to be error free in the data seen by the computer. I do appreciate that in CD-ROM mode the error correction mechanism is stronger and the re-reading the data is an option, but you have somehow to get a good enough copy of the data to be able to correct the errors. Because they are produced in large numbers they are cheap, but that doesn't necessarily mean thay are crappy. If you don't believe me, put a scope on the error line and watch it. Play a good CD-R, then play the error test tracks on the Denon Audio Test CD. What you see on a generic CD-ROM drive is a lot of bouncing around. That said, I bet you don't see the same thing on a Kodak or Plextor drive. A much more likely difference is that computer CD drives will have the cheapest possible 1-chip solution for analog audio output. We're not talking about using the analogue output, we're talking about using the digital outputs only. The original poster asked how, using the same outboard converter, all these transports sounded different. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jun 2005 20:34:18 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article writes: I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency there? No, I haven't had that opportunity. (In the computer hardware world, unless you buy them all at one time, you'll never see the exact same model again. Probably not even the same brand, but they all seem to come from the same plant in Taiwan.) Is that digital output earlier or later in the signal chain than the digital jack on the back of a pro or high-end CD player? Probably earlier, but maybe not much earlier - if it's even the same. I don't know how much, electronics-wise, a computer drive and audio drive have have in common. I guess that you're suggesting that you could build a better than average CD player out of a computer CD drive and a decent D/A converter. How good is, say, an M-Audio Flying Cow or Super DAC? Good enough? I haven't heard either of those. The one I'm using is the ART DI/O, which got rave reviews on the high-end groups a few years ago. It is still my favorite for a DAC priced in hundreds of dollars. Sounds cleaner than the "24/192" DAC in my latest top-end Sony living room player. Loren |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jun 2005 21:34:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article znr1119136044k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency there? My questions: - what is that external DAC? Does it clock properly? I'm using the ART DI/O. It auto-synchs to the incoming signal, so I guess that puts the clock stability of the CD drive at the heart of this. - have you tried measuring the error rate on the drive? No, I haven't dug that deeply. Can it be done relatively simply and non-destructively? If I pop the lid off the drive, is there going to be a test point marked "error" or something? What do I look for there? Loren |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loren Amelang wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 21:34:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: In article znr1119136044k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. Well, I guess that answers one question. Have you tried several samples of the same brand of drive to see if there's consistency there? My questions: - what is that external DAC? Does it clock properly? I'm using the ART DI/O. It auto-synchs to the incoming signal, so I guess that puts the clock stability of the CD drive at the heart of this. I'd run out immediately and see about getting a better DAC. I would not be feeling very secure about the clock stability in the ART box. - have you tried measuring the error rate on the drive? No, I haven't dug that deeply. Can it be done relatively simply and non-destructively? If I pop the lid off the drive, is there going to be a test point marked "error" or something? What do I look for there? You might need the manual, or at least the data sheet for one of the chips. Look at the chip that the audio output comes off of... you will probably see two error pins on it that you can look at. But I would first _strongly_ suggest using a better DAC and retesting before doing anything else. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 Jun 2005 17:58:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Loren Amelang wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 21:34:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: In article znr1119136044k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: I suspect the lowest level I've had access to is the 5 Volt version of S/PDIF that comes out the back of computer CD drives. I've been comparing all the drives I get my hands on into the same external DAC, and there are dramatic differences, with absolutely no correlation to brand name or price. My questions: - what is that external DAC? Does it clock properly? I'm using the ART DI/O. It auto-synchs to the incoming signal, so I guess that puts the clock stability of the CD drive at the heart of this. I'd run out immediately and see about getting a better DAC. I would not be feeling very secure about the clock stability in the ART box. Maybe I'm beyond my knowledge level here, but I'm under the impression there are basically two kinds of external DACs - those that synch to the incoming signal and reproduce its jitter, and those that buffer and re-clock the signal using their own hopefully more stable internal clock. Unless I switch to a re-clocking DAC, could there be any clock stability improvement? I guess there could be a situation where the flaws in a DAC happen to interact with the flaws in the signal sources to bias the comparative results, but it would be unlikely any particular combination would end up sounding _better_ than it would using a re-clocking DAC. Actually, doesn't it depend on what you are listening for? If you want to compare jitter from different drives, you can't re-clock. If you want to compare error correction, then re-clocking will hide clock variables and leave error handling as the obvious difference. Loren |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loren Amelang wrote:
Maybe I'm beyond my knowledge level here, but I'm under the impression there are basically two kinds of external DACs - those that synch to the incoming signal and reproduce its jitter, and those that buffer and re-clock the signal using their own hopefully more stable internal clock. Unless I switch to a re-clocking DAC, could there be any clock stability improvement? Pretty much all of the decent DACs today buffer the clock. They usually have a PLL which locks to the external clock, and provides an internal reference. SOME of them have really lousy PLLs that don't produce a very good output. I guess there could be a situation where the flaws in a DAC happen to interact with the flaws in the signal sources to bias the comparative results, but it would be unlikely any particular combination would end up sounding _better_ than it would using a re-clocking DAC. It depends on how lousy the reclocking DAC is. There are some that have huge amounts of phase noise on them because their PLL circuits were designed by people who had no idea what they were doing. Actually, doesn't it depend on what you are listening for? If you want to compare jitter from different drives, you can't re-clock. If you want to compare error correction, then re-clocking will hide clock variables and leave error handling as the obvious difference. The question is whether there are audible differences between drives that _aren't_ caused by jitter. If your converters are abnormally sensitive to input clock jitter, that will swamp the other differences that you want to be looking at. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
| Powerful Argument in Favor of Agnosticism and Athetism | Audio Opinions | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
