Need a top notch CD player

[ematthews]

Need to get a new CD Player. Budget is up to 1500. What is the best sounding CD player out there for my budget. I am reading that one of the best is the Cambridge Audio 651c.
For reference, I own a Marantz CD6004 and when I swapped it out to the Emotiva ERC-2 the sound quality was improved. Too bad the Emotiva was not a good unit after some time.
Any suggestions?
Music only 2.1 system.

[FirstReflect]

If you're using digital output to an external DAC, Integrated Amp, Receiver, or Processor, then the Oppo BDP-103 for $500 will play pretty much any disc format brilliantly.

http://oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-103/

If you want the disc player to handle the D-to-A conversion itself and output an analogue signal, then the Oppo BDP-105 for $1200 is as good as it gets. It even has balanced XLR stereo outputs in addition to its 7.1 analogue outs for surround formats.

http://oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-105/

[ematthews]

Problem is with Oppo. I need a tv to set it up. This is a music only system.

[FirstReflect]

Not if it's only CDs and you're using the dedicated stereo analogue outputs (which must be the case since you mentioned hearing a difference between two CD players, which would be impossible if you were using a digital optical connection ;) )

Hook up the stereo analogue outputs straight out of the box and you're good to go if it's only CDs.

For anything else, you'd only have to adjust settings once. I'm sure you could take the Oppo to a TV in your house temporarily just to do that setup :)

[ematthews]

Not if it's only CDs and you're using the dedicated stereo analogue outputs (which must be the case since you mentioned hearing a difference between two CD players, which would be impossible if you were using a digital optical connection ;) )

Hook up the stereo analogue outputs straight out of the box and you're good to go if it's only CDs.

For anything else, you'd only have to adjust settings once. I'm sure you could take the Oppo to a TV in your house temporarily just to do that setup :)

That is true. I hear however if you want to play any DVD/BD audio that on screen menu's are required at all times. I might as well get a small monitor and get the Oppo.

[curtis]

That is true. I hear however if you want to play any DVD/BD audio that on screen menu's are required at all times. I might as well get a small monitor and get the Oppo.
If you plan on playing DVD/BD, those are primarily multichannel.

[ematthews]

If you plan on playing DVD/BD, those are primarily multichannel.

Right. Is there any improvement to the sound quality on BD/DVD over CD?

[markie]

Need to get a new CD Player. Budget is up to 1500. What is the best sounding CD player out there for my budget. I am reading that one of the best is the Cambridge Audio 651c.
For reference, I own a Marantz CD6004 and when I swapped it out to the Emotiva ERC-2 the sound quality was improved. Too bad the Emotiva was not a good unit after some time.
Any suggestions?
Music only 2.1 system.

Hi e,

Knowing you have a room and ears sensitive to brightness or digital glare, and seeing that you don't have any tubes in the chain so far, and given that you would be playing only redbook CDs, I would recommend the Jolida JD-100A CD player for less than $1000. It has (two) vacuum tubes, yet it is quiet (high S-N ratio). It's built well, has great tone, emotionality and warmth. Tubes can be swapped out to musical taste if desired. Check out
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/digital-sources/cd-players/jolida/jd-100a/prd_321714_1586crx.aspx#reviews

for ways to get the most out of it. The Cambridge Audio player is good but the Jolida bests it.

The bad part is that Jolida doesn't make the unit anymore and it may be hard to find ...

A very good alternative to the Jolida would be the $900 Eastern Electric MiniMax CD player which also has tubes.

An excellent analog - sounding but all digital alternative is the $1200 Opera Consonace CD-120 Linear CD player.

Good luck!

Mark

[Kisakuku]

Knowing you have a room and ears sensitive to brightness or digital glare...

Could you elaborate on this "digital glare" concept?

[petmotel]

There was a time in the past when there were very audible differences in sound quality between the mundane average consumer quality gear and the expensive high end gear found in specialty shops.

Today, however, consumer grade electronics are very good. In fact DACs, for instance, have been optimized to the point where the differences are inaudible for everything from the super cheap, through the most expensive examples. Implementation may well vary, but the actual job of converting an analogue signal to digital can be done extremely well even by very inexpensive chips.

Point being that if you're looking for sound quality differences between decent commercial CD players, there is likely little variance to be found. Features, build quality, and customer service would be, IMHO, more important attributes to concern yourself with. In all of those areas, the OPPOs shine brightly.

Jay

[petmotel]

Hi e,

Knowing you have a room and ears sensitive to brightness or digital glare, and seeing that you don't have any tubes in the chain so far, and given that you would be playing only redbook CDs, I would recommend the Jolida JD-100A CD player for less than $1000. It has (two) vacuum tubes, yet it is quiet (high S-N ratio). It's built well, has great tone, emotionality and warmth. Tubes can be swapped out to musical taste if desired. Check out
http://www.audioreview.com/cat/digital-sources/cd-players/jolida/jd-100a/prd_321714_1586crx.aspx#reviews

for ways to get the most out of it. The Cambridge Audio player is good but the Jolida bests it.

The bad part is that Jolida doesn't make the unit anymore and it may be hard to find ...

A very good alternative to the Jolida would be the $900 Eastern Electric MiniMax CD player which also has tubes.

An excellent analog - sounding but all digital alternative is the $1200 Opera Consonace CD-120 Linear CD player.

Good luck!

Mark

Have you actually owned, or have you had any of these components installed in your personal system? You continue to offer opinions that would certainly not be supported in honest ABX comparisons, or by measurements. Please be willing to provide some type of objective proof supporting these impressions if you expect anyone to take them seriously.

Subjective listening has been proven time and again to be useless for analyzing sound quality due to bias. It is inevitable, and unavoidable.

Jay

[ematthews]

I will honestly tell you that when I changed out my Marantz CD6004 for an Emotiva ERC-2 the sound improved. The sound stage was wide and more clear sounding. A bit more dynamic. I am a critic of all these so called sound improvements too... I was impressed. To bad the ERC had too many issues with it.
The Marantz is nice and clear, well made, but sound is just a little flat if you will... So yes, I am looking for an improvement for my main system so I can put the Marantz back in the bedroom.

[curtis]

Right. Is there any improvement to the sound quality on BD/DVD over CD?
IMO..yes. BD and DVD typically do offer higher resolution than CDs.

[markie]

Could you elaborate on this "digital glare" concept?

For those who have experienced it is an unpleasant hardness or harshness of sound in the lower treble area, a problem that seems much more common in all digital systems than analog systems. Why? Not sure. I'm doubtful that it has been correlated to a particular frequency response. That may be more the case with 'brightness' but 'glare' seems a little different. All I know is that many people who have been bothered by glare - especially from CD players - have found relief in different ways - from ripping their CD's to a solid state drive, to putting tubes somewhere along the line.

Mark

[ematthews]

For those who have experienced it is an unpleasant hardness or harshness of sound in the lower treble area, a problem that seems much more common in all digital systems than analog systems. Why? Not sure. I'm doubtful that it has been correlated to a particular frequency response. That may be more the case with 'brightness' but 'glare' seems a little different. All I know is that many people who have been bothered by glare - especially from CD players - have found relief in different ways - from ripping their CD's to a solid state drive, to putting tubes somewhere along the line.

Mark

The Sierra 2's fixed all my sound issues.:D

[markie]

The Sierra 2's fixed all my sound issues.:D

That's what I want to hear hehe!

I can't recall in what order you got your new components - the Sierra 2s, the Parasound Halo preamp and your ATI amps - but it wouldn't surprise me that that smoothness of the RAAL did much to take away from the unpleasant harshness or brightness issues you were having earlier.

Or were you kidding? I want details! :)

Mark

[petmotel]

I will honestly tell you that when I changed out my Marantz CD6004 for an Emotiva ERC-2 the sound improved. The sound stage was wide and more clear sounding. A bit more dynamic. I am a critic of all these so called sound improvements too... I was impressed. To bad the ERC had too many issues with it.
The Marantz is nice and clear, well made, but sound is just a little flat if you will... So yes, I am looking for an improvement for my main system so I can put the Marantz back in the bedroom.

I do not wish to refute what you've heard, I can only relate the number of times I've heard anecdotal reference to superior sound quality claims. I've read so many times that when these claims were put to the acid test of ABX testing, almost unanimously the sound quality deltas vanished.

The very fact that a person spends more money on gear expecting to increase the sound quality is basically a guarantee that in a subjective audition, the more expensive gear will surpass that of it's predecessor.

If you ever have the opportunity to become involved with a bias controlled listening test, please avail yourself to it. It might change your perspective (or maybe not) but you will be a far more informed individual for the experience.

Jay

[ematthews]

I do not wish to refute what you've heard, I can only relate the number of times I've heard anecdotal reference to superior sound quality claims. I've read so many times that when these claims were put to the acid test of ABX testing, almost unanimously the sound quality deltas vanished.

The very fact that a person spends more money on gear expecting to increase the sound quality is basically a guarantee that in a subjective audition, the more expensive gear will surpass that of it's predecessor.

If you ever have the opportunity to become involved with a bias controlled listening test, please avail yourself to it. It might change your perspective (or maybe not) but you will be a far more informed individual for the experience.

Jay

Like I said. I never really was a believer in a CD player sounding different until the switch. I also had a chance to change preamps and the brightness went away. On the other end... I have never had any change in sound from interconnects. High dollar or Walmart cords sound the same to me. I just like the better build quality of something like Blue Jeans cable's.

[ematthews]

That's what I want to hear hehe!

I can't recall in what order you got your new components - the Sierra 2s, the Parasound Halo preamp and your ATI amps - but it wouldn't surprise me that that smoothness of the RAAL did much to take away from the unpleasant harshness or brightness issues you were having earlier.

Or were you kidding? I want details! :)

Mark

A switch in preamps made a small difference. The switch to the Sierra 2's was huge.. I just got some RBH Sound sx6300/r Reference towers for a really good price. While these sound a lot more full than the Sierra with sub, I think the sound quality of the Sierra's are better.
I think if I could have gotten the Sierra towers with RAAL ribbon for a hair under 2 grand, I would be in heaven... I will own some one day.

[Beave]

Like I said. I never really was a believer in a CD player sounding different until the switch. I also had a chance to change preamps and the brightness went away. On the other end... I have never had any change in sound from interconnects. High dollar or Walmart cords sound the same to me. I just like the better build quality of something like Blue Jeans cable's.

You may have heard differences (improvements, if you will) when you switched CD players for a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with the performance of the players:

1) Unconscious biases: You might have preferred the looks of one over the other, or thought one had a nicer feel or a smoother tray. You may have read reviews or forum posts in the past that, even if you didn't consciously remember them, affected your perceptions. So any such comparison needs to be done blinded.

2) Your auditory memory is fleeting. How long did it take you to swap out players? Just that couple of minutes is too long. That is why quick-switching is needed in such a comparison.

3) The Emotiva's output levels may have been a bit higher than the Marantz's output levels. There is an unwritten, unofficial "standard" of 2V rms out for 0dBFS at 1kHz, but units deviate from this by some amount. A product line I worked on was spec'd for +/-10% variability in output level. I could pick one unit that was -8% and one that was, say, +4%, and in a non-level-matched comparison, people would hear differences - and these were the same product. That is why level-matching is necessary.

4) The Marantz was defective, or built with a wrong-value component installed. This is pretty rare with CD players, but I've seen it happen with other consumer electronics products on rare occasions, so I know it's possible.


Note that all the above comments apply to your experience with swapping preamps as well.

[markie]

Like I said. I never really was a believer in a CD player sounding different until the switch. I also had a chance to change preamps and the brightness went away. On the other end... I have never had any change in sound from interconnects. High dollar or Walmart cords sound the same to me. I just like the better build quality of something like Blue Jeans cable's.

Well I believe you. The fact that you hear differences with some things and not others shows you are not a slave to expectation bias, nor are you so inexperienced and naive to not take things like volume differences into consideration.

Here's an extract from the link I provided, which shows a great example of how an experienced, critical listener responded to CD players he bought and tried out. He is critical of new components and not afraid to get rid of them if they don't bring him the satisfaction he wants. But he had an advantage: he had a very good player to begin with, and it spoils the ear, making the listener more critical than he would be otherwise.


Submitted by Tune Man a AudioPhile

Date Reviewed: July 5, 2009

Bottom Line:
My California Audio Labs Icon II Powerboss had stopped working and was going to be expensive to repair so i set out to find a replacement. I first tried the Cambridge Audio Azur 640C V1. A decent player for the money but not even close to the CAL. I sold the Cambridge and decided I would have to spend more to get the sound I wanted. I bought a Arcam Diva 82T and really liked the ergonomics, but found the sound very dissopointing. Very sterile with a small soundstage. I decided to try the Jolida JD-100A. I liked it better than the previous 2 players right away. Warm sounding with a big soundstage. I had the stock Chinese tubes in it and decided to try upgrading to new production Mullard Cryo-treated tubes which sounded different but not really better. Then I decided to try some NOS tubes and got a good deal on some GE 5751 from the 60's. Wow!
What an improvement! Soundstage was no bigger, but detail and bass improved dramatically. The great thing about this player is by changing Tubes you can change the sound (drastically in some cases) and fine tune it to the components it's matched to. I highly recommend this player! Much better than anything else I've heard in it's price class.

Strengths:
Big smooth open soundstage. Fantastic on female vocals. Very balanced sound that can be fine-tuned by changing Tubes.

Weaknesses:
NOS Tubes sound better than the new production Tubes and allthough they are a great upgrade to this player can be quie expensive. But look around and you can get a great deal. I only paid $ 25 for a pair of GE 5751 NOS Tubes and the improvement was unbelivable. In my IMHO a much better buy than $ 350 NOS Mullards, which are very nice.


There a lots of things that can make CD players sound better than others: Power supply, dac, and (often especially) the output stage. It's all cumulative.

Mark

[Beave]

Well I believe you. The fact that you hear differences with some things and not others shows you are not a slave to expectation bias, nor are you so inexperienced and naive to not take things like volume differences into consideration.

EVERYBODY is a "slave to expectation bias." Nobody is immune. We're all human and subject to similar human limitations. Hearing differences in some things but not in others in no way makes a person somehow beyond human behavior.

As for the volume level differences, just how would he "take them into consideration?" If one unit is 0.8dB louder than the other, he would need some specialized gear to match the levels. Just being aware that the levels are different is not enough.



Here's an extract from the link I provided, which shows a great example of how an experienced, critical listener responded to CD players he bought and tried out. He is critical of new components and not afraid to get rid of them if they don't bring him the satisfaction he wants. But he had an advantage: he had a very good player to begin with, and it spoils the ear, making the listener more critical than he would be otherwise.
...
There a lots of things that can make CD players sound better than others: Power supply, dac, and (often especially) the output stage. It's all cumulative.

Mark

All of those things you mention, if they're defective, can make a CD player sound bad. But power supplies, DACs, and output stages - for a good 20 years or more now - are easy to come by that perform far better than what we're capable of hearing. So yeah, the effects of them are cumulative and can be measured, but every single CD player I've measured or seen measured has been so good that it will be audibly transparent. An engineer would have to select/design a really poor power supply or DAC to make a CD player that sounds bad. And the output stages are generally just copies of the circuit recommended by the DAC manufacturer. It takes a really incompetent engineering staff to screw it up. There may be boutique "audiophile" companies that fit that bill, however.

[markie]

No. If the reviewer I quoted was a slave to expectation bias he would *invariably* prefer the item he expected to sound better, because of price or company reputation, etc. Such is not the case.

Let's talk about real world listening. You're in your comfy chair, the lights are dim, and you have listened to your favourite CD almost a hundred times. You can't even see the volume level on the receiver, you just adjust it up or down with your remote to the level you like. Not too loud, not too soft, just right.

But earlier today you replaced the CD player that dies with a new one. You settle into your chair, que up your favourite CD, settle in find the volume level you are used to. But things sound different. The soundstage is bigger. The bass is more defined. The familiar guitar suddenly has a texture and tone that is palpable. What? That CD player cost half the amount of the old one and it sounds better?

People who experience these things know what they hear, despite some engineers telling them they shouldn't hear a difference, as if they somehow know everything that contributes to sound quality.

Mark

[FirstReflect]

The "digital glare" that markie mentioned is most often an example of inter-sample clipping.

When higher resolution tracks are converted down to CD resolution, or CDs are converted down to data compressed mp3 or AAC, it's very easy for inter-sample clipping to take place - particularly since the vast majority of music is now produced with everything at maximum dBFS in the master with some masters even having intentional clipping in the signal!

Basically, any digital audio is just drawing the waveform with a series of dots. If you start with a smooth, continuous wave, then you are drawing a dot on the wave as many times a second as the sampling frequency, and with as much precision as the bit-depth will allow.

So when you down sample the master, you're attempting to play connect-the-dots with fewer dots than were present in the original master. As a result, when you're trying to place dots on the peaks of high frequencies, you can end up placing dots just slightly to either side of the actual peak itself. With a lower sampling rate, the exact spot where you're drawing the dot on the line doesn't always line up perfectly with where the peak of the waveform should be.

So the DAC has to take a guess as to how it should best re-draw that waveform. What should the wave look like in between the two dots that it has to work with? Well, if the waveform was moving upward continuously prior to the left dot, and then it's moving downward continuously after the right dot, then in between those two dots, it must reach a peak that is halfway between those two dots, right?

That's the guess that the DAC will make. And if the two dots were already at full dBFS, then the peak that it ends up drawing will be into clipping territory.

So that's inter-sample clipping. It can be easily avoided by creating original masters and CDs that are not maxed out with everything as loud as it can possibly be. But, sadly, that's not what most modern recordings look like. Most are completely maxed out with virtually no dynamics and absolutely no headroom in the signal. So when all of the lower resolution formats are made from those original maxed out masters, inter-sample clipping is really common.

Some people call that "digital glare".

- Rob H.

[Kisakuku]

The "digital glare" that markie mentioned is most often an example of inter-sample clipping.

When higher resolution tracks are converted down to CD resolution, or CDs are converted down to data compressed mp3 or AAC, it's very easy for inter-sample clipping to take place - particularly since the vast majority of music is now produced with everything at maximum dBFS in the master with some masters even having intentional clipping in the signal!

Basically, any digital audio is just drawing the waveform with a series of dots. If you start with a smooth, continuous wave, then you are drawing a dot on the wave as many times a second as the sampling frequency, and with as much precision as the bit-depth will allow.

So when you down sample the master, you're attempting to play connect-the-dots with fewer dots than were present in the original master. As a result, when you're trying to place dots on the peaks of high frequencies, you can end up placing dots just slightly to either side of the actual peak itself. With a lower sampling rate, the exact spot where you're drawing the dot on the line doesn't always line up perfectly with where the peak of the waveform should be.

So the DAC has to take a guess as to how it should best re-draw that waveform. What should the wave look like in between the two dots that it has to work with? Well, if the waveform was moving upward continuously prior to the left dot, and then it's moving downward continuously after the right dot, then in between those two dots, it must reach a peak that is halfway between those two dots, right?

That's the guess that the DAC will make. And if the two dots were already at full dBFS, then the peak that it ends up drawing will be into clipping territory.

So that's inter-sample clipping. It can be easily avoided by creating original masters and CDs that are not maxed out with everything as loud as it can possibly be. But, sadly, that's not what most modern recordings look like. Most are completely maxed out with virtually no dynamics and absolutely no headroom in the signal. So when all of the lower resolution formats are made from those original maxed out masters, inter-sample clipping is really common.

Some people call that "digital glare".

- Rob H.

Not sure I'm following your explanation. Nyquist frequency for CD audio is 22.05 kHz. Are you saying that only teenagers can hear this "digital glare"?

[Beave]

No. If the reviewer I quoted was a slave to expectation bias he would *invariably* prefer the item he expected to sound better, because of price or company reputation, etc. Such is not the case.

Let's talk about real world listening. You're in your comfy chair, the lights are dim, and you have listened to your favourite CD almost a hundred times. You can't even see the volume level on the receiver, you just adjust it up or down with your remote to the level you like. Not too loud, not too soft, just right.

But earlier today you replaced the CD player that dies with a new one. You settle into your chair, que up your favourite CD, settle in find the volume level you are used to. But things sound different. The soundstage is bigger. The bass is more defined. The familiar guitar suddenly has a texture and tone that is palpable. What? That CD player cost half the amount of the old one and it sounds better?

People who experience these things know what they hear, despite some engineers telling them they shouldn't hear a difference, as if they somehow know everything that contributes to sound quality.

Mark

Expectation bias is but one of countless psychological issues at play when comparing things.

See this link for a bigger list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Next, explain how a CD player can affect "soundstage," but first, tell me how good a human's auditory memory of soundstage is.

Then do some blind, level-matched testing of your own, so you can see just how completely you've been suckered by the common myths propagated in audio magazines.

[Beave]

The "digital glare" that markie mentioned is most often an example of inter-sample clipping.

When higher resolution tracks are converted down to CD resolution, or CDs are converted down to data compressed mp3 or AAC, it's very easy for inter-sample clipping to take place - particularly since the vast majority of music is now produced with everything at maximum dBFS in the master with some masters even having intentional clipping in the signal!

Basically, any digital audio is just drawing the waveform with a series of dots. If you start with a smooth, continuous wave, then you are drawing a dot on the wave as many times a second as the sampling frequency, and with as much precision as the bit-depth will allow.

So when you down sample the master, you're attempting to play connect-the-dots with fewer dots than were present in the original master. As a result, when you're trying to place dots on the peaks of high frequencies, you can end up placing dots just slightly to either side of the actual peak itself. With a lower sampling rate, the exact spot where you're drawing the dot on the line doesn't always line up perfectly with where the peak of the waveform should be.

So the DAC has to take a guess as to how it should best re-draw that waveform. What should the wave look like in between the two dots that it has to work with? Well, if the waveform was moving upward continuously prior to the left dot, and then it's moving downward continuously after the right dot, then in between those two dots, it must reach a peak that is halfway between those two dots, right?

That's the guess that the DAC will make. And if the two dots were already at full dBFS, then the peak that it ends up drawing will be into clipping territory.

So that's inter-sample clipping. It can be easily avoided by creating original masters and CDs that are not maxed out with everything as loud as it can possibly be. But, sadly, that's not what most modern recordings look like. Most are completely maxed out with virtually no dynamics and absolutely no headroom in the signal. So when all of the lower resolution formats are made from those original maxed out masters, inter-sample clipping is really common.

Some people call that "digital glare".

- Rob H.

As someone with an MSEE specializing in digital signal processing, my response is: huh? I've never heard of "inter-sample clipping."

[FirstReflect]

This video is specifically about the "Mastered for iTunes" program, but it contains a good explanation and visualization of inter-sample clipping. Easier to see what's happening with some images and video than just my text :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8HTmf--Wgs