Puerile questions on CDP quality

[jaudere]

Thanks for the explanation Venkat. You have made the technicality very easy to understand. However whether all this difference in technology really makes a 'big'/significant difference to sound quality or no is a different question.
While there will be no debate about the technology,there is bound to be debate whether this translates into better subjective experience or no.

 

[vraned]

Exactly my thoughts. While this is great education in how both the systems work (many thanks to venkat), it doesn't say (atleast to me) how a dedicated CDP "sounds" better than say playing CDs on a BDP connected bia HDMI to a AVR.

Only if I could get a good CDP home and compare it myself......

Thanks for the explanation Venkat. You have made the technicality very easy to understand. However whether all this difference in technology really makes a 'big'/significant difference to sound quality or no is a different question.
While there will be no debate about the technology,there is bound to be debate whether this translates into better subjective experience or no.

 

[jaudere]

Well i have compared.
It was marantz cd6003 vs sony bdp.
There was a difference but but but.
1)the speakers were Paradigm studio 10 costing 40k.

2)the difference was there definitely not 'huge'. But this is subjective.

3) it was comparison between analogue out of both the disc players. So the difference was bound to be there. I did not compare how the Bdp would sound with the player feeding a good Avr via HDMI.

 

[vraned]

Thanks Jaudere. That throws some light on the question.

My current setup is through HDMI, so before I spend 17K and buy say the Marantz CD5004, I would still be interested in comparing the sound quality difference between a BDP - HDMI - AVR, and a CDP - Coax/Opt - AVR.

Well i have compared.
It was marantz cd6003 vs sony bdp.
There was a difference but but but.
1)the speakers were Paradigm studio 10 costing 40k.

2)the difference was there definitely not 'huge'. But this is subjective.

3) it was comparison between analogue out of both the disc players. So the difference was bound to be there. I did not compare how the Bdp would sound with the player feeding a good Avr via HDMI.

 

[jaudere]

If you are going to use coax out of CDP,You will hardly find any difference. In this connection the digital to analogue conversion is still going to be done by Avr.
If you want to compare, use analogue out of cdp & analogue in of AVR. Please let me know your opinion when you do the comparison.

 

[venkatcr]

Exactly my thoughts. While this is great education in how both the systems work (many thanks to venkat), it doesn't say (atleast to me) how a dedicated CDP "sounds" better than say playing CDs on a BDP connected bia HDMI to a AVR.

Just goes to show that you have either not read properly what I had written or not understood it properly.

Let me sum up the advantages:

1. A CDP has circuitry dedicated to audio playback.
2. Good CDPs have decent to excellent DAC that will beat any external DAC hands down.
3. A CDP has lesser circuit and does not have to have internal paths for HDMI and such. A circuit board dedicated to 2 channel will perform better.
4. A CDP has a larger width laser beam, and has lesser number of reflections to read and decipher. So lesser number of read errors.
5. CDPs are built with internal isolators that protect each channel from cross talk.

Cheers

 

[moktan]

2. Good CDPs have decent to excellent DAC that will beat any external DAC hands down.


Cheers

could that be many or is it an emphatic any?

 

[jaudere]

I Think that statement needs a further usual addition:'in the similar price bracket'

 

[venkatcr]

could that be many or is it an emphatic any?

Many.

Obviously if you buy a CDP for 2K, you are nor going to get anything. Look for CDPs such as Marantz, CA and other that have good reputation and reviews.

Cheers

 

[milestoneseeker]

Venkat,

Thanks for the technical insights. And I do not doubt the ability of a dedicated CDP to blow away a DVD/BDP with analog out from the player(s). However, would be great if you can help me with my query too which I had put forward:

• 
  Which CDP will be better than the DAC of 1911?

I understand it may not be a black and white answer but something like ... the impact of a dedicated CDP like a Marantz CD5004 will be at best marginal over 1911 when compared to the investment of ~15-17K. Or vice-versa

I am sure nobody wants to short change themselves by investing in "relatively" inferior sources after investing reasonably in speakers so such an insight will be helpful.

Cheers

 

[jaudere]

Let me tell you something interesting.
I have a Standalone Purepiper Dac which uses the same chip as that of marantz CD 6003 (CS 4398).
I compared it with marantz dvd player analogue out (marantz as source for digital as well as analogue out. Analogue signal fed directly to amp and digital to the DAC And then to amp. So the amp speakers remain same).
The Purepiper Dac was definitely better but only marginally. It spent 5.5k for it(got it second hand from a forum member. New one retails for about 250$). So given the money I spent,thats ok.

The same forum member also owns cd 6003 and says the purepiper is as good as the cd 6003. After interaction with him and knowing his nature a bit, I dont think he was lying.

Now the surprise. I compared it with Analogue out of my 8 year old sony dvdp(it has Aiwa logo. Sony had taken over Aiwa that time and the remote that came with it was of Sony). The comparison was done the same was as above. So the comparison was between the built in DAC of the dvd player vs a standalone DAC Using excellent chip and very clean circuits(yes. I have opened the DAC To confirm that it actually has that Cirrus logic chip. All the circuits are really clean and well made in appearance).

THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SOUND QUALITY.
This is when I realized that I have a gem of a dvd player as far as music reproduction goes. Marantz dvdp is better for picture quality but not for music.
This dvdp player has excellent multiline display like stand alone CDPs . Never needed any servicing. The only time it was opened was after this comparison. I opened it myself to see the innards as I was suprised after the comparison. I didnt understand much but that is a different issue.
So I am still sticking to this old dvdp for stereo music. I have used it carelessly in past but now I use it with care. I hope it forgives me for carelessness and keeps on working well for long. The marantz with Purepiper dac is used once a week for movies.

Of course the experts will tell you it is not only the chip that is important. It is very important how it is implemented and thats true. Probably the chip is my good old player is very well implemented. . I am yet to find out what chip it uses.

 

[milestoneseeker]

Thanks bud. Appreciate your response. I know I have no golden ears but I still enjoy my music. Nevertheless, I am careful about not trying to get into the heady rush of spending on my component system. Hence my line my query and I think I have sufficient view to gauge I don't need a dedicated CDP as of today. Hell, maybe when I have a stereo amp set up and speaker pair worth a couple of Ls in the front, I would go down the path of a good CDP. For now, my BDP -> HDMI -> AVR zindabad!

 

[ruenigma]

Have been watching this thread for a while, though what I have is a very basic set of equipment so my comparisons might be totally worthless to the uber gizmo holders. Take it with a spoonful of NaCL.

I have lived with a Denon 1611 and Paradigm Titan monitor (v.6) for an year. The source was a PS3 for CDs as well as PS3 Media server fed flacs. Occasionally the source was the Maverick Audio Tubemagic DAC fed via a laptop.

The Titans paired well with the Denon for movies and games but lacked mid-freq details and virtually no highs to talk about. I was not using any DSPs at all. The musicality just wasn't there. Then I tried things with the cheapest NAD C315 and the Titans started singing still something was amiss.

Then at the Pune meet I had a chance to listen to the Titans with some decent amplification and finally the match made in heaven of the NAD C320 with the Titans. The difference was day and night. The Titans' mids were more detailed full bodied and the highs were very controlled and subdued albeit still slightly punching over their weight. This opened my eyes and in next 48 hours I was a proud owner of a NAD C326 BEE.

I know I've been speaking about amplification and not sources here. Even the sources we listened to at the meet most CDPs marginally out performed our PC + DAC setups.

So specifically in your case, I believe the combination of both the Amplification as well as source might be "slightly" inferior than a dedicated stereo setup, still, let your ears choose for you.

 

[jaudere]

Does the ps3 have digital out?if yes,which connection did you use digital out or analogue out?

When you use analogue out of PS3 Or when you use Tubemagic DAC,The built in DAC Of the 1611 is not coming into picture. The denon is working as a simple amp. In that situation cdp will outperform ps3. You cant blame denon amp when the not so good DAC In the source could be the culprit.


In case of milestoneseeker,the 1911's Dac is working so this is a different situation.
We are considering Denon as DAC+amp rather than plain amp.
I have personally heard how Jamo towers perform when chain was dvd>>HDMI>>Denon17 series Avr>>Jamo. The performance was amazing. To my surprise, stereo audio over HDMI Sounded much more complete than over optical. Dont know how to explain got technically. It was a day-night difference.

By the way what is your opinion about sound when you feed the Nad326(indeed a very good amp) with ps3 or tubemagic? Is the sound complete? Or lows are much more prominent?

 

[ruenigma]

Does the ps3 have digital out?if yes,which connection did you use digital out or analogue out?

Tried three ways, best was PS3->HDMI->1611->Speaker
worst was PS3->Analog->1611->Speaker

When you use analogue out of PS3 Or when you use Tubemagic DAC,The built in DAC Of the 1611 is not coming into picture. The denon is working as a simple amp. In that situation cdp will outperform ps3. You cant blame denon amp when the not so good DAC In the source could be the culprit.

Perfectly agreeable sire!

In case of milestoneseeker,the 1911's Dac is working so this is a different situation.
We are considering Denon as DAC+amp rather than plain amp.
I have personally heard how Jamo towers perform when chain was dvd>>HDMI>>Denon17 series Avr>>Jamo. The performance was amazing. To my surprise, stereo audio over HDMI Sounded much more complete than over optical. Dont know how to explain got technically. It was a day-night difference.

Can't contest, this really. Very possible, and plus YMMV.

By the way what is your opinion about sound when you feed the Nad326(indeed a very good amp) with ps3 or tubemagic? Is the sound complete? Or lows are much more prominent?

The TubeMagic wipes the floor clean with the PS3, the difference is audible, the details are amiss in the PS3 and the overall presentation is very "flat", whereas the Tubemagic sounds more detailed and alive. Even miles ahead was the Beresford Cayman of Santy we heard at the Pune meet. It was in another league altogether. Way better than the 4K price difference between the Maverick and Beresford suggests.

 

[jaudere]

I see the point in your previous post. According to you, with Nad working as CDP and Denon working as amp was not as enjoyable as NAd CDP-NAD amp combo. This is very much possible. The NAD compoonents will have better synegry than NAD-Denon.

 

[ruenigma]

I see the point in your previous post. According to you, with Nad working as CDP and Denon working as amp was not as enjoyable as NAd CDP-NAD amp combo. This is very much possible. The NAD compoonents will have better synegry than NAD-Denon.

O oh, I think something is misread here. I did not mention any CDP in my setup. a) The Paradigms performed better with a stereo amp than the receiver
b) The Speakers + NAD sounded better with a CDP than a DAC+PC
c) PS3 as a source is piece of $hite

 

[jaudere]

oh. You have mentioned Nad C315. I thought that it is Cd player.

 

[milestoneseeker]

O oh, I think something is misread here. I did not mention any CDP in my setup. a) The Paradigms performed better with a stereo amp than the receiver
b) The Speakers + NAD sounded better with a CDP than a DAC+PC
c) PS3 as a source is piece of $hite

and that was my exact query ... it is not what sounds better but rather from what price point on does one source becomes better than other? In my case, the "other" is my Denon 1911. Clearly, if 1911 was not good at music (which touchwood is not the case) then an investment of 15k sorts for a decent CDP would have given me listening experience commensurate to the additional investment over my AVR. However, that is not the case.

Net-net, the way I look at it, if one spends wisely on an AVR which does justice to music then the case of a CDP over BDP/DVDP follows the law of diminishing marginal utility. This is assuming it is the DAC of AVR which is being used.

I think I can consider my query to be resolved with the inputs I have received. And I won't be fretting about buying a CDP as my next "must have" electronic.

Cheers!

 

[Toeknee]

He who must sift the desert to gain his sandbox will have no time or toys to play.