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

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

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?

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?

More to a CD player than just how it produces sound. And making one which
looks good and has pleasant to use controls and display etc, is likely to
cost the big part of it.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

"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.



What is more, how many people that use memory storage of any sort do
it in a high quality format such as Flac or Ogg? For that matter even
mp3 or m4a (=AAC) at a high rate rather than the 128K mp3 which most
seem to use.

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?



--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

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.

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? :-)

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 , 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?

--
Mike Fleming

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.

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

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

Daniele

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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

Well one thing I do notice is that all cd and dvd players sound slightly
different. Maybe its noise that cannot be coped with by the error checking
or poor reading of the disk, I have no idea, but I will say that some
players sound different, but some that sound good are not always the
expensive ones. also as you say modern av stuff often has the choice of
processing in the player or via d/a in the amp, and then you also hear
differences.
I don't think everyone has it all figured out yet.
I'm not sure how long it will be before lossless audio is a common thing
supplied on solid state media or streamed or via download either. Again I
hear differences so maybe somewhere along the line things are not as error
free as one might expect.

Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
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