Jitter now the thing about this is that in pre jitter days, digital audio
sounded decidedly odd.
The absolute levels were erroneous quite often.
The blurring with jitter has actually made CDs sound better but of course
if you had infinite bits then you would not need it would you.


I think in a way this is all a bit of a pink herring, as I don't think
anything like a perfect recording and playback system has yet been designed
as the world is not perfect. Our ears are designed so that intermodulation
of a natural kind is considered pleasant, after all you would design ears
linear if you wanted distortion free sound.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:39:34 +0000,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

Daniele

Yup, the power of marketing to the rich and gullible. This works
particularly well on those with just a little technical knowledge -
enough, for example to understand that jitter is a bad thing, but not
enough to know that it has nothing to do with the CD's drive
mechanism.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I have a cd100 bought in 1983. It sounds pretty good on modern cds, but is
horribly slow to find any tracks and skips if a fly lands on the case.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Woody" wrote in message
news

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
On 13/11/2017 12:39 AM, D.M. Procida wrote:
Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in other
cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an expensive CD
player offer that a cheap transport and a decent digital-to-analog
converter cannot?

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data, and
can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz precision, there
doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD players.

Am I missing something?

**A CD player, unlike a computer transport, interpolates errors. It does
not re-request information be re-read. An argument can be made that a
higher quality transport (more expensive) may read disks without issuing
as many errors. Are those errors audible? Unlikely, except under extreme
circumstances. Nonetheless, high quality transports add very
significantly to the cost of a CD player.

More expensive CD players tend to use the (now old fashioned) multi-bit
DACs (parallel), rather than the more common (and FAR less expensive)
single bit DACs (serial). Parallel DACs are MUCH more expensive to
implement, due to the large number of precision resistors and capacitors
required (one for each bit).

Some expensive players use multiple DACs, whose outputs are summed,
allegedly in order to reduce errors.

Some expensive players use very high performance OP amps. Some use
discrete component output stages (my own Harman Kardon HD-970 does),
which inevitably cost more than integrated OP amps.

Some expensive players use valves in the output stages, for some
unknowable reason. This requires a bunch of expensive support circuitry.


Best sounding player I've had in my system?

A Marantz CD80 (ca. 190-ish). Fabulous sounding player. Not stupidly
expensive. Not cheap either.




Interesting observation.

For some reason I always thought my first 14-bit Philips (CD104?) sounded
better than anything I had later, and that the one that I bought to
replace it some years later (16-bit parallel) also sounded better. That
machine now sits with a very elderly lady we know and I will reclaim it
when she passes. Comparison with my present Marantz CD5400SE will be
interesting.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article , Mike Fleming
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes:

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in
other cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an
expensive CD player offer that a cheap transport and a decent
digital-to-analog converter cannot?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or
don't, want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to
decide which one they prefer, I assume.

Isn't that what the "cheap transport" is for?

Depends on what you mean by "for". :-)

If someone simply wants a box that plays Audio CDs and outputs analogue
stereo, then a CD Player is what they'd probably prefer.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Now that the contents of a CD can be held in RAM, never mind in
other cheaper and still very fast digital storage, what does an
expensive CD player offer that a cheap transport and a decent
digital-to-analog converter cannot?

It plays a CD. Useful for people that have them and either can't, or
don't, want to have to rip them all, etc. Given this, up to them to
decide which one they prefer, I assume.

If DAC products can buffer seconds' or even minutes' worth of data,
and can stream it out to the actual DAC circuitry with GHz
precision, there doesn't seem to be much need any more for costly CD
players.

Am I missing something?

That 'DAC' and 'CD Player' aren't synonyms? :-)

I don't think you understand my question.

Well, I answered the question you actually asked. But perhaps not one the
wanted answered. :-)

You can play a CD perfectly well in a very cheap transport;

Can you? Is this "perfectly" so for *all* such "cheap" transports playing
*every* Audio CD. If so, odd, that I've found some CDs that don't play
correctly in some players whilst doing so in others.

all you need to do is stream the data to a DAC, and as long as you have
a buffer (cheap) that can ensure the bits arrive without timing
irregularities (also cheap), you have something that's limited only by
the quality of the DAC.

You missed out a few points.

Firstly, that means you need a DAC. If someone chooses a CD Player that
comes in the box already, so saves the user from needing another box, with
yet more PSU, metalwork, etc.

I'm not comparing DACs and CD players. I'm asking what *expensive* CD
players are supposed to offer.

You'd have to investigate that example by example. Some may just look nice,
others may do something interesting or useful. I'm not sure there is any
global answer that applies in every case.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**A CD player, unlike a computer transport, interpolates errors. It does
not re-request information be re-read.

You assumes a 'standard' example, so I'll do the same:

It will also read at x1 speed. This can help reduce the chance of
individual read errors, so meaning less need for the strategies used by
'computer' drives which may re-read to combat such errors.


An argument can be made that a higher quality transport (more expensive)
may read disks without issuing as many errors. Are those errors audible?
Unlikely, except under extreme circumstances.

However if someone has hundreds of CDs some may be 'extreme' cases. I
certainly have some that won't play well in some machines, but work better
in others. So if someone only has one player it may be useful to buy a good
one.

I note, though, that "expensive" isn't a synonym for "good" in this regard.
:-)



Some expensive players use multiple DACs, whose outputs are summed,
allegedly in order to reduce errors.

Can also be used to help reduce the effects of intersample peaks requring
an output above 0dBFS. Given how many popular discs have this problem, that
may be useful.


Best sounding player I've had in my system?

A Marantz CD80 (ca. 190-ish). Fabulous sounding player. Not stupidly
expensive. Not cheap either.

The machines which I've found most likely to play a CD without problems are
actually the old Pioneer CDR-509 recorders. These have 'legato link' DACs
which dodge the above oversample problems. But since I'm happy to use an
external DAC I've preferred them feeding either an old Meridian 500 series
DAC or, more recently, a nice Benchmark DAC. (Mainly bought for USB use.)

The above said, I've found some discs that the Pioneers refuse to play
which some other Player then plays OK. So my general impression is that
seems a matter of which area a given player copes with best/worst.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Woody
wrote:


Interesting observation.

For some reason I always thought my first 14-bit Philips (CD104?)
sounded better than anything I had later, and that the one that I
bought to replace it some years later (16-bit parallel) also sounded
better. That machine now sits with a very elderly lady we know and I
will reclaim it when she passes. Comparison with my present Marantz
CD5400SE will be interesting.

The first player I had was the first gen Marantz using the 14-bit x4
Philips chipset. Happy with it for about a decade. Although I did add some
'Toko' analogue low pass filters that rolled off at about 19 kHz as that
seemed to make the results sound nicer to my ears. Possibly because it cut
down the signal levels slightly going into the amp.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

all you need to do is stream the data to a DAC, and as long as you have
a buffer (cheap) that can ensure the bits arrive without timing
irregularities (also cheap), you have something that's limited only by
the quality of the DAC.

You missed out a few points.

Firstly, that means you need a DAC. If someone chooses a CD Player that
comes in the box already, so saves the user from needing another box, with
yet more PSU, metalwork, etc.

I was asking about it from the point of view of the manufacturers, or at
least, as a viable technical solution, rather than from the point of
view of the consumer. Sorry, that wasn't very clear.

Clearly, the discerning hi-fi consumer will buy whatever seems to work
for them at the right price.

But, why do the manufacturers design and build CD players the way they
do?

From the point of view of creating a device from available componentry,
and then perhaps putting it on the market to compete against other
high-quality CD-playing devices, it's:

* very cheap to get all the data off a CD into RAM or another buffer
* very cheap to feed that data into a DAC with exquisite timing

The cheapest CDROM drive has to scrape every bit off a disc in order to
function as a reliable device for digital storage of software and data.
Presumably it can do just the same job for a music CD.

It might be cool to design a CD player with a solid, weighty chassis and
aerospace-grade bearings - but if the job of getting data off it can be
done as effectively by a transport + reader + data interface that costs
peanuts, why spend money doing that when it could be spent where it
would make more difference (a better DAC, a better control interface, a
better PSU)?

It's still not clear to me whether I'm missing something about how CD
audio actually works, or whether the CD player as we've known it for the
last 30+ years is an anachronism.

Daniele

In article
,
D.M. Procida wrote:
The cheapest CDROM drive has to scrape every bit off a disc in order to
function as a reliable device for digital storage of software and data.
Presumably it can do just the same job for a music CD.

You wouldn't want the average CDROM drive in a CD player. Too noisy.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Once upon a time on usenet Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-11-12, Woody wrote:

At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form,

[FX] Waves ...

Okay, in for a penny...

In my experience of building and buying hi-fi (50years+) I have never
ever felt that I needed anything other than the two (or more) items
of kit and a good listen. The idea of needing a live reference is
utter Bunkum, you don't. I've been to many classical concerts and a
few rock ones but it doesn't help in the slightest. For a start off
your acoustic memory is way too poor. *If* two pieces of kit sound
different it is never a problem to work out which you prefer then
hope you can afford it. :-)

In the early 1980s swmbo and I didn't like the sound of CD players,
that is not to say that they had anything wrong, I don't know if they
did or not but we didn't like them. It wasn't until Meridian came
along with their 207 that for us CD became pleasurable. We pushed the
boat out and got the 207. A couple of years later the 208 was quite a
bit better still and we somehow found the folding to upgrade. We
tried green pens/rings and weights but never heard any difference and
so did not purchase.

We were more than happy with the 208 for decades until we decided to
start ripping our discs and streaming. At that point I learnt through
ripping thousands of CDs that discs have very, very few problems that
a £10 PC cd rom drive can't cope with. In my mind this confirms I was
right to not be talked into buying the green pens etc and an
expensive transport is not required.

IMHO, the dac, analogue electronics and the power supply are where any
audible differences are to be found.

Bob.

I remember when Perreaux* made their first CD player - they said about the
same as you just did and actually used a PC CDROM transport but of course in
their own box with their own PS, DAC and analogue stage.

* I live in NZ and, as an ex-live soundmixer who used to use their gear at
gigs and lover of fidelity Perreaux is almost a reference for me.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

On 12/11/2017 15:21, Woody wrote:

snip

At least with a good quality CD it does sound a bit like the real
thing - but how many people go to live concerts (I'm thinking
classical in any form, jazz, big band or MoR here) these days to know
what real instruments actually sound like?


'A bit'? In my experience of mainly rock/pop, nothing like a live
performance. Even if a domestic hifi could achieve the volume levels,
it'd take a heck of system (and room) to reproduce the bass etc and
'venue' acoustics of live music.

As for jazz etc it's always been amplified IME - even some (apparently)
world class performers who for reasons uncertain take in Sheffield as
part of their circuit. So to know what a 'real' instrument sounds like
becomes complicated for a lot of us. Classical music can sound
impressive, and close I'd imagine to a live performance - but I'd only
go to maybe one classical concert a year. It's certainly not 'being there'.

I have a few notable exceptions in my collection, mainly acoustic
instruments. My favourite is a Louis Armstrong one-take set, from the
60s IIRC. The woodwind instruments in particular sound absolutely
uncanny - real 'in the room' stuff. On vinyl, of course :-)

On the OP's query - the point of expensive CD players - I'd list
aesthetics and badge-value as significant variables. Huge diminishing
returns in terms of audio quality - if that.

Speakers and room are the most important variables, given that the
source and amplification are now pretty much sorted for not obscene
amounts of money. The ATC speaker based system I have at the moment is
the best yet in terms of dynamics and presence. I feel the only
improvement I could make now would be to move house.

I had a Quad electrostatic based system for a while. Very impressive -
if you sit still :-)



--
Cheers, Rob