OK, I know this is a Receivers' area, but I posted this elsewhere on this forum nobody even looked at it. Plus, it's an easy one for the experts who hang around here...
Does a DVD player do justice to audio (Redbook) CD's for pure audio playback ? I have a Pioneer DV-565A hooked up to my TV (don't have a complete HT set-up yet), so can't really judge at the moment.
If a digital connection is used from the DVD player to the receiver, is there any real need for a dedicated CD player ?
Further, does anyone have any experience with ex-demo CD players ? I realise there is no standard, but does buying ex-demo stuff make good sense ? Thanks.
Pierre
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Hi Seamus,
I'm by no means an expert, but I've always been told that pure CD players are better than a DVD player for audio. That said, most of us neophites will never be able to tell the difference... I will say that DVD changers are notoriously bad at redbook reproduction since they usually go cheap on the DACs (digital-audio converters) and put money into the mechanics instead, so stay away from those if you're picky about your sound. The best advice I can offer is to take one home and TRY IT and see if you like it. I bought one from Yamaha and like it enough to keep it, but your mileage may/will vary. Incidentally, I use the toslink (optical) out for DVD and coax for CD (out of the same player), to be able to manipulate the sound differently with different receiver presets.
The Pioneer CD playing is fine. You should worry more about getting good quality speakers. The best cd player in the world will sound bad through mediocre speakers.
I cannot speak for your Pioneer, but there can be a noticeable difference, even to neophytes. I have a 10 year old Rotel CD player and a new Sony DVD player. The Rotel blows the Sony away for CD playback. This difference is not subtle: even my non-audiophile wife immediately noticed it. The Sony has very thin bass and very harsh treble in comparison to the Rotel.
If your receiver has better DACs than your DVD player, then using the digital connection should result in better CD reproduction. Or you could look for audiophile brands that focus on audio quality (e.g., NAD and their ilk).
Seamus, thanks for asking that, I was wondering the same thing. Thanks also to all the others for their answers. Goose, your last response leads me to ask this, (please forgive me if its a stupid question though). If a digital coax cable is used between a dvd player and the a/v receiver for DTS and DD, does that mean the 2 RCA R/L audio out cables (from dvd to a/v) are not necessary for non-dts and dd? Will one cable actually take the place of two and handle all types of encoding?
To jump in too I think there are a lot of variables at play to state whether a CD player is superior to a DVD player for audio.
In a pure sense I agree somewhat with Pierre however, I think a high end DVD player could certainly be superior with CD audio playback to a cheap CD player.
Some of the newer DVD players also offer DVD-A/SACD for audio playback which would generally blow standard CD audio out of the water.
To answer the second question, if you have digital coax or optical connections for audio from your DVD to your receiver, that is all you need for your audio and far superior to the analog RCA r/l (red and white) connections.
The RCA L/R connections are the analog output of the player's DACs, and go to the analog input of the receiver. If you want to bypass the DACs in the player, then a direct digital connection is all that you need.
Oops! JDG beat me to the punch. Yes, if the DACs in your receiver are better than the DACs in your player then you should never use the analogue connections. Even if the DACs are of equal quality then there is still no reason to use the player's DACs. Indeed, for any DSP mode (which can include straight stereo on some receivers) you are better off with a digital connection. That way the signal stays digital until the DSP is finished with it. If you use the player's DACs then the signal is converted to analogue, then back to digital by the receiver, then back to analogue again!
Sem, If your player is capable of DVD-Audio and SACD playback, you will generally need 6 analogue outputs from the player to the analogue inputs of the receiver. This is because output from DVD-Audio and SACD is not carried on the digital connections. Atleast I think the above is correct....
Seamus--you are correct. The reason for this is that currently the record and film companies are too paranoid about having digital audio output copied. They know that with each analogue copy there is degradation of the signal.
There are those in the industry working on DVD-A and SACD with digital audio, which would also help the subwoofer steering problems. Much depends on whether the encryption to prevent copying (always an issue with the music industry and film industry)is adequate to prevent copying, or to prevent more than 1 or 2 copies. They are still hammering this out in the industry.
You think the above is bad, we are entering the mother of all battles with the new blue lasers and the two different formats and types of discs. As always, it seems Sony is one one side with Matsushita (Panasonic) on the same side (for a change) against the group started by Toshiba's scientists on their discs and formats. And so far it seems Toshiba is winning by a hair (8-6 vote).
All this will do is make customers put off buying any blue laser dvd players and discs until they get on the same page---and as there is a boatload of licensing fees to be made I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this situation to resolve itself soon. Sony is still smarting over Betamax.
Microsoft has been cozying up to the Toshiba crowd, but the say the would be happy who ever wins as long as they include the Microsoft WMA-9 Media code and software in the codec spec. They have an audio and video spec (both very good actually)and plan to use their time honored tradition of getting a license fee ultimately.
I've got a 5 CD player and a Panasonic DMR-E80H DVD player/recorder. I'm occassionaly lazy and just use the DVD for CD playing. I have not been able to tell the difference. I'm using optical digital for both into a MArantz 7400.
I should clarify that the Rotel/Sony comparison I referred to was strictly based on the analogue output of the players' DACs. If you use digital outputs then you are always using the receiver's DACs, in which case the differences are going to be a lot more subtle.
JW
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Since we are on the subject, Why and How are the DAC's in a CA, NAD or Rotel CD player superior to the DAC's in, say, a NAD T753 or T763 receiver?
Additionally, if one is running a T763 and purchases a NAD CD player which DAC's are better. Are we led to believe the manufacturer is using better DAC's in the CD player vs receiver?
From the little I've read, these DAC's or chips are dirt cheap so what's the big deal between those in the CD player vs. the receiver other than, of course, the capitalistic goal of selling an additional CD player unit with increased margins?
Or, taking this a step further, are there other electronic qualities involved beyond DAC specific in "audiophile" CD players? If there are, we are now addressing issues beyond just the DAC's and analog vs optical connections.