Are all CD players really equal?

[ianshreeve27@]

Just wondering if we've reached an agreed view on the above? Does any transport do the job, it's just 1's and 0's, or are there improvements to be had? I ask because I find myself preferring Spotify to my Marantz CD 63 Se, both playing through the same Wiim Pro Plus..... Thoughts?

 

[davidf]

The transport is also mechanical, so yes, it can make a difference.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

There were differences between the sound produced by my present and previous CDPs. Biggest being a tautness to the bass.

 

[abacus]

CD players have error correction built in to fill in gaps in the music (Fault on the disc/dodgy transport), and this can cause the data stream to be corrupted (IE: The error correction does not fill in the gap correctly), and a DAC can only produce what it is fed, so yes, there can be difference's on bad discs or worn drives, but the difference is small.
If you want to hear a CD at its best, rip it to external storage via a computer and save it in Flac format, as a good ripping program will not use the error correction in the CD drive, but will instead read the disc multiple times until it gets the data 100% correct. (And yes, the rip will be equal too or better than the best transport out there, no matter the price)
Spotify is a compressed format that removes musical information from the original recording, whereas a CD does not, however compressed formats can sound slightly softer and more pleasant than the original recording, but it is not as the producer intended.
This is why there are 2 types of Hi-Fi enthusiasts, those that want as much accuracy as possible (If its a bad recording it sounds like a bad recording), and those that what something that sounds nice, there is no right or wrong, just personal preference.

Bill

 

[davidf]

There were differences between the sound produced by my present and previous CDPs. Biggest being a tautness to the bass.

I had a similar experience when I swapped out a Pioneer DV-737 DVD player for a Teac VRDS 10 (both being used as a CD digital transport). The difference in bass performance was considerable!

 

[JDl]

Just wondering if we've reached an agreed view on the above? Does any transport do the job, it's just 1's and 0's, or are there improvements to be had? I ask because I find myself preferring Spotify to my Marantz CD 63 Se, both playing through the same Wiim Pro Plus..... Thoughts?

It's not just ones and zeros at all. There's a hell of a lot involved before the pits and bumps on a CD can be read, and converted into the numerical binary codes.
Not only that, but the DAC inside CD players differ in architecture and quality, therefore all CD players certainly do not all sound the same, and anyone who says they do, is mistaken.

 

[daytona600]

Ones are Ones & Zeros are Zero
£300 or £30,000 All CD players & DACs will all sound the same !!

 

[JDl]

Ones are Ones & Zeros are Zero
£300 or £30,000 All CD players & DACs will all sound the same !!

Yeah....if you say so.

 

[manicm]

CD players have error correction built in to fill in gaps in the music (Fault on the disc/dodgy transport), and this can cause the data stream to be corrupted (IE: The error correction does not fill in the gap correctly), and a DAC can only produce what it is fed, so yes, there can be difference's on bad discs or worn drives, but the difference is small.
If you want to hear a CD at its best, rip it to external storage via a computer and save it in Flac format, as a good ripping program will not use the error correction in the CD drive, but will instead read the disc multiple times until it gets the data 100% correct. (And yes, the rip will be equal too or better than the best transport out there, no matter the price)
Spotify is a compressed format that removes musical information from the original recording, whereas a CD does not, however compressed formats can sound slightly softer and more pleasant than the original recording, but it is not as the producer intended.
This is why there are 2 types of Hi-Fi enthusiasts, those that want as much accuracy as possible (If its a bad recording it sounds like a bad recording), and those that what something that sounds nice, there is no right or wrong, just personal preference.

Bill

On my several laptops, with the caveat Windows only, I found Windows Media Audio Lossless to be superior to FLAC somehow. Windows Media Player was always seen as a mediocre player and ripper, but somehow WMAL rips sounded cleaner than FLAC. And it ripped faster.

Of note, in 1989 I had a Linn magazine, from a hifi show, which had an interview with Ivor Tiefenbrum, and I think that year they launched their first CD player - but he also predicted music stored and played as solid state data. Two years later Microsoft developed WAV.

 

[abacus]

Ones are Ones & Zeros are Zero
£300 or £30,000 All CD players & DACs will all sound the same !!

AS I said in my post the error correction system can give an incorrect data stream, also a DAC is not just a DAC, it has associated components to allow it to operate correctly and give a suitable analogue output, so there will be differences between players. (Differences which can also be measured)

Bill

 

[DCarmi]

Ones are Ones & Zeros are Zero
£300 or £30,000 All CD players & DACs will all sound the same !!

It is what the DAC does with the bits, surely. In NOS DACs your argument may hold true but pretty every DAC has some form of over-sampling to tidy up the frequencies, artefacts etc.

However, I'm no expert so feel free to ignore me. All I know is that my new-ish CD player sounds a bit different to my old CD5005 and I found that somewhat surprising.

 

[abacus]

On my several laptops, with the caveat Windows only, I found Windows Media Audio Lossless to be superior to FLAC somehow. Windows Media Player was always seen as a mediocre player and ripper, but somehow WMAL rips sounded cleaner than FLAC. And it ripped faster.

Of note, in 1989 I had a Linn magazine, from a hifi show, which had an interview with Ivor Tiefenbrum, and I think that year they launched their first CD player - but he also predicted music stored and played as solid state data. Two years later Microsoft developed WAV.

IF it is a lossless format then there will be no difference between them (Except placebo).
Originally WMP only allowed to WMA & MP3, however later versions added FLAC to the mix (Which is what people used for lossless), Apple had there own version called ALAC but the sound quality was the same.
The disadvantage with WMP compared to a lot of others (EAC for example) is that it did not do multiple passes of the data, so there could be errors (In most cases it was fine) hence the reason it ripped quicker.

Bill

 

[abacus]

It is what the DAC does with the bits, surely. In NOS DACs your argument may hold true but pretty every DAC has some form of over-sampling to tidy up the frequencies, artefacts etc.

However, I'm no expert so feel free to ignore me. All I know is that my new-ish CD player sounds a bit different to my old CD5005 and I found that somewhat surprising.

See my post above your post.

Bill

 

[abacus]

I had a similar experience when I swapped out a Pioneer DV-737 DVD player for a Teac VRDS 10 (both being used as a CD digital transport). The difference in bass performance was considerable!

Different yes, considerable No, any large difference (Unless the player is faulty) is purely in your mind. (A common trait in biological life forms)

Bill

 

[Friesiansam]

Different yes, considerable No, any large difference (Unless the player is faulty) is purely in your mind. (A common trait in biological life forms)

Bill

When I was looking to buy my first CD player, in the mid 80s, I went to the HiFi department of a local furniture shop, there was nowhere else local and. they stocked mainly Technics.

I took my headphones and my first CD. Firstly listened to one at £150, sounded good to me but, dealer suggested I listened to the next one up at £250 (SL-PS50 if I remember correctly), the difference was immediately obvious, no retesting needed, unambiguous, much better in every way. The SL-PS50 were in budget, so I bought them and, never regretted switching from vinyl to CD.

 

[Gray]

Different yes, considerable No, any large difference (Unless the player is faulty) is purely in your mind. (A common trait in biological life forms)

Bill

If he wasn't dead, that could've been written by Mr Spock 😆

 

[Entrigo]

Just wondering if we've reached an agreed view on the above? Does any transport do the job, it's just 1's and 0's, or are there improvements to be had? I ask because I find myself preferring Spotify to my Marantz CD 63 Se, both playing through the same Wiim Pro Plus..... Thoughts?

I was in pretty much the same position. Really liked the sound of Spotify/Apple Music and occasionally Tidal through my Wiiim Pro Plus, and while I did enjoy playing CDs on my Marantz CD6005, the Wiim had the edge.

Then fairly recently I upgraded to a SA8005 and the difference is substantial. Same sweet sound signature but much more detail, dynamics and punch.

Mind - I still stream more than I play CDs but it might be convenience. If I want to get up and change disc physically, I play a record (for comparison, I spin a lot more vinyl than I stream).

 

[Entrigo]

CD players have error correction built in to fill in gaps in the music (Fault on the disc/dodgy transport), and this can cause the data stream to be corrupted (IE: The error correction does not fill in the gap correctly), and a DAC can only produce what it is fed, so yes, there can be difference's on bad discs or worn drives, but the difference is small.
If you want to hear a CD at its best, rip it to external storage via a computer and save it in Flac format, as a good ripping program will not use the error correction in the CD drive, but will instead read the disc multiple times until it gets the data 100% correct. (And yes, the rip will be equal too or better than the best transport out there, no matter the price)
Spotify is a compressed format that removes musical information from the original recording, whereas a CD does not, however compressed formats can sound slightly softer and more pleasant than the original recording, but it is not as the producer intended.
This is why there are 2 types of Hi-Fi enthusiasts, those that want as much accuracy as possible (If its a bad recording it sounds like a bad recording), and those that what something that sounds nice, there is no right or wrong, just personal preference.

Bill

Or there's people who like both depending on album, mood etc 😉 !

 

[Entrigo]

Different yes, considerable No, any large difference (Unless the player is faulty) is purely in your mind. (A common trait in biological life forms)

Bill

I don't know. I had asked many people - a lot of whom on this forum - whether I could expect an audible improvement going from a Marantz CD6005 to a SA8005. It was a very mixed consensus, with more than one person saying - from their own experience having gone the same upgrade path - there wouldn't be much if any. So it is fair to say went in not expecting much. Well the difference was really quite substantial. Especially in the bass - for the first few weeks I actually felt the player unnaturally highlighted the lower frequencies, as they were much "fatter" but also detailed than both on the previous CD but even on LPs.

 

[davidf]

Different yes, considerable No, any large difference (Unless the player is faulty) is purely in your mind. (A common trait in biological life forms)

Bill

Well, I heard it - did you? Nothing was faulty, and thanks for telling me what I'm supposed to think.

 

[Winter]

Ones are Ones & Zeros are Zero
£300 or £30,000 All CD players & DACs will all sound the same !!

And black is white !

 

[Jasonovich]

Then fairly recently I upgraded to a SA8005 and the difference is substantial. Same sweet sound signature but much more detail, dynamics and punch.

Oh absolutely, I have one of those too!
Have you listened to SACD's on the SA8005?
It fills in the 1s and 0s the CD's can't reach, hitting the spot like a silk cold draught of creamy Guinness.

I think they've been discontinued, I don't mean the Guinness(!) but you can still find 2nd hand on eBay.

There was a noticeable improvement in sound quality over the old Denon DVD/SACD 2900. Though, I'm sure someone from the echelon of HiFi correctness, will tell me my brain is malfunctioning or I've succumbed to placebo, but I've had the SA8005 a long time now, so you can cross off the placebo as with the other, my brain interprets what my ears receive and if it is doing right each time I play the CD, then I can't ask for more. Hmmm maybe some cream on top, no syrup.
I mean, enjoy your poison!🙂

Anyone looking for CDP but also an excellent SACD player, the Marantz SA8005 is a gem of a player and you can play DSD via the USB rear connection.

 

[ToppingSMSL]

The transport is also mechanical, so yes, it can make a difference.

No explanation of why there. Mechanical? So what?

 

[davidf]

No explanation of why there. Mechanical? So what?

You wouldn't be interested.

 

[manicm]

IF it is a lossless format then there will be no difference between them (Except placebo).
Originally WMP only allowed to WMA & MP3, however later versions added FLAC to the mix (Which is what people used for lossless), Apple had there own version called ALAC but the sound quality was the same.
The disadvantage with WMP compared to a lot of others (EAC for example) is that it did not do multiple passes of the data, so there could be errors (In most cases it was fine) hence the reason it ripped quicker.

Bill

That's not quite true. It also depends on the decoding. Over 10 years ago, for whatever reason, ALAC sounded worst of the losslessly compressed formats. And I stick to that, although I haven't heard the hires files that some sell.

WMAL sounded most natural to me. But uncompressed WAV still sounded the best, along with AIFF - Apple's version of WAV but with tagging ability.