AVS Forum banner

Stand alone CD player Vs using a lower end blu ray player?

15K views 32 replies 11 participants last post by  Selden Ball 
#1 ·
Hi, I have a question Regarding Stand alone CD players for Music listening such as ( NAD C 516BEE, Yamaha CD-S300) ect. Versus Using other electronics such as say a Low end LG blu ray player or Game console (xbox One) for CD music listening.. Would there be a huge difference in sound Quality/Playback? Noticeable enough to make a stand alone cd player purchase? Thanks.
 
#3 ·
Really? In the descriptions for the cd players I listed as examples they talk about Hi end components being used inside the chassis Wolfson digital to analog converters and short circuitry signal paths to optimize sound Quality I Just thought maybe it would have made a difference in musical playback.
 
#4 ·
I have a couple of cheap DVD players and an audiophile brand dedicated CD player. I doubt I could tell the difference among them in terms of audio quality.

I do prefer the dedicated CD player for other reasons, though - it's nicer looking, has a more solid build quality, a better remote, and it responds quicker and quieter. Those are legitimate reasons to want a dedicated CD player, but understand that you are paying for those things, not better sound quality, if you decide that's what you want.
 
#5 ·
Though I might be missing out on a bit better sound when listening to cd's because I do either use the blu ray or xboxOne for playback... I have not owned a standalone cd player since the early 90's so I wouldn't know how much better they have gotten over the years.
 
#7 ·
They haven't gotten much better at all, but they have gotten way, way cheaper. That's where the engineering effort has been - cheaper IC's that are smaller and use less power, which leads to less power requirements from the power supply, which leads to smaller power supplies, which leads to cheaper power supplies...etc, etc.

Expensive players are overbuilt just to impress people with their look and feel, in the hopes that people will assume they sound better because they look better.
 
#11 ·
I would concentrate your efforts to speakers and the room acoustics for better sound, period. ;)
I also thought about buying a turntable because there still seems to be the argument of vinyl vs cd.
Yes, there are lots of arguments out there about evolution, global warming, etc. ;)
So, just because some argue doesn't mean there is a case to argue.
 
#9 ·
I know its not close to being the best But my Setup is Harman/Kardon AVR1565 5.1 receiver, Infinity primus 362 fronts, Infinity SAT 1100 rears, Infinity primus PC350 center, Infinity PS212 sub and I also use AKG k550 headphones for personal listening. ( I know I could use a little more wattage to my speakers than the AVR1565 offers)... What could I do for around $400 to get a little more out of this setup?
 
#28 ·
You are going about this backward. You are saying "I have $400 burning a hole in my pocket, how should I spend it?"


What you should be saying is "The part of the system that doesn't work for me is XX. How much should I budget to replace it?"


The sound quality of your system comes from speakers and room acoustics. That is the place to improve sound for every audio system, not just yours.


Vinyl? Read what I said above. "I've heard some people like vinyl. Perhaps I should blow a few bucks on a turntable even though I don't have any records."


Common sense should prevail.
 
#13 ·
Really? The LP is represents only a tiny fraction of all music that is sold - no more from 1 to 2 % depending on how much of a fad it is that year. There is a reason for that and sound quality is a big part of that. I had vinyl stuffed down my throat from 1958 to 1983 as I was an audiophile then and there was really no viable alternative. It was such a relief to be finally released from that sonic bondage by digital.
 
#23 ·
Dedicated CD players are faster at loading and playing CDs than multi-format players can be. They don't need to try to find out what kind of disc has been inserted.

Most dedicated CD players also have an informational front panel display, which is no longer available on inexpensive Blu-ray players.

Nonetheless, if you're going to spend ~$400 on a CD player, I'd suggest saving up a little more and spending $600 on an Oppo BDP103 universal player. That way you would be able to play high resolution SACD, DVD-A and discs recorded in other less-well-known audio formats (E.g. HDCD and DAD). In addition to DVD and BD video discs, of course ;)
 
#24 ·
Dedicated CD players are faster at loading and playing CDs than multi-format players can be. They don't need to try to find out what kind of disc has been inserted.

That is a fair comment. Back when I played CD's, the HD video players were so slow that I kept a CD player in the system just for CD's. Nowadays, the blu ray players are pretty quick. My Samsung will boot and start playing a disc in a handful of seconds.

Most dedicated CD players also have an informational front panel display, which is no longer available on inexpensive Blu-ray players.

My blu ray players shows the track number and elapsed time. Does one need more than that?

Nonetheless, if you're going to spend ~$400 on a CD player, I'd suggest saving up a little more and spending $600 on an Oppo BDP103 universal player. That way you would be able to play high resolution SACD, DVD-A and discs recorded in other less-well-known audio formats (E.g. HDCD and DAD). In addition to DVD and BD video discs, of course ;)

Only if you have SACD or DVD-A discs to play. I don't. Folks who do certainly need such a player.
 
#27 ·
Dear All,
I need a new bluray player as my old one was always freezing ,so sent it back
I have a MF M1 DAC and it was used with the bluray player with digit coax, I liked the sound of it, but I might get a more expensive bluray player like marantz ud7007 (as I have the ki pearl lite amp, so they match nicely) but I am worried about the sound. I used to have a Marantz cd6004 but it had a cirrus logic DAC and the MF DAC was a huge improvement on that.

the MF M1 has 4x PCM 1795 DAC but the Marantz has new newer PCM1796 DAC ( same specs but 32 bit version, apparently just for marketing reasons). So my question, which one would sound better?
I could sell the MF dac for £250 ish and the coax for £50ish and the ud7007 costs 429 now ( instead of 1000.) or keep the dac and get a pioneer bdp-450 player as a transport.


thanks,

Richard
 
#29 ·
I have not posted on here for a while but this thread interested me. I own a 1995 Rotel 965BX CDplayer and and OPPO BDP83 and I have to say to my ears the Rotel does sound a warmer listen. The Rotel seems to lend itself to extended listening, however, this may just be me wanting the Rotel to sound better! If the Rotel died, I think I would be happy with the OPPO. The main differences to sound I have noticed is amps and speakers.
 
#31 ·
Thanks for the interesting observation. I try to just enjoy the music, however, it is a bit of fun to see if there are any real world differences. I mention the amps because my main amp is in for repair and I swapped it with another and there seems to be a difference, to my ear. Point taken though about bias testing.
 
#32 ·
Just bought a new TV (the Sony XBR65X900B, the one with the good speakers built in) and no longer have a receiver/speakers that are any good. Wanting to take full advantage of the TV's speakers to listen to music, and I can (1) play them in my Sony blu ray player which will have HDMI running to TV, OR (2) use an older Onkyo CD changer and run red and white RCA cables to the input on the back of the TV.

I asked this in the TV thread but I haven't gotten any good answers yet. Thought I'd try it here since this is exactly my question. Some audiophile sites have suggested the sound is better letting the CD player decode and sending the analog RCA signal to the speakers. But there was also worry about it being useless if the speaker source re-digitizes it, or something along those lines. Has anyone tried this or have any advice about which way is better for the way the TV processes audio?

So this is really more a question of RCA to TV vs. HDMI to TV, and which one will give me better sound out of the TV's speakers.

And I realize if I care this much I should probably have a home theater system, but unfortunately that isn't in the budget just yet.

Thanks much.
 
#33 ·
You should listen for yourself. Personally, I suspect you won't be able to hear the difference.

The fear of re-digitizing usually is outmoded. Modern DAC and ADCs are very good. providing "transparent" results. The DAC circuits in the first couple of generations of CD players were relatively rudimentary since many companies were still learning the basics of proper anti-aliasing, but that problem was solved long ago.

Don't forget that multichannel CDs and concert Blu-rays are readily available. Your TV's audio system might be able to do a reasonably good job of virtualizing their soundtracks if you use the HDMI connection. If you use a stereo RCA connection, though, the surround-sound information is going to be lost: it won't get to the TV.

Edited to add:

However, your older CD changer has some features that your Blu-ray player doesn't. Being able to "stack" several CDs for continuous playback without interaction, for example.

I'd suggest connecting them both. Listen to whichever is convenient.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top