|
|
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
"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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
"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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
|
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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) |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Dave Plowman wrote:
You wouldn't want the average CDROM drive in a CD player. Too noisy. Only because they're doing 48x speed or whatever, there used to be ways of fixing them to 1x speed by sending a SCSI/ATAPI command. Though Windows changed from feeding the analogue audio from the drive into the sound card's CD input to reading the audio track digitally and playing it as a wav file a long time ago. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: 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. You do push that boat rather too far. :-) If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? If you don't give a damn for what the sound in the hall was, then, yes, you can just pick a system, etc, for a Hi-Fi (sic) which acts as music box and plays the noises you like. But that is a music box not a High *Fidelity* system. By repeatedly going to venues, hearing real instruments, etc, and comparing, over some years, you can get at least a fair idea of what sounds at home more like what you hear in the hall. *If* you want to feel at home that what you hear sounds like what you heard when at the venue, then that is a big help. *If* you don't give a damn for that and just want a music box, fair enough. But please don't assume that applies to *everyone* else. If your concern is *fidelity* to real acoustic music being able to get some idea of what that sounds like would matter.. IMHO, the dac, analogue electronics and the power supply are where any audible differences are to be found. This takes for granted that the disc was read with complete accuracy and reliabilty. This isn't so in *every* case. And when it isn't, you may find one player can get details which another may have misread. This should be a rare problem, but in the real world rare events do still occur. How much this matters is for the individual to decide. 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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article
, D.M. Procida wrote: 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? I'd say it was because each will have their own ideas about the 'best' way to get good results *and* to make a saelable product. Different engineers will take different approaches just as different users will have different priorities and preferences - cf Bob's comments about being able to compare with a genuine original sound. What suits him may not suit someone else. Doesn't make either view totally invalid, just personal. 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 * Is it? On *every* occasion? I fear people may have become so used to Audio CD, optical drives, etc, that they've forgotten how remarkable it is that it works at all! :-) When I first explained to another technician I knew many years ago how CD Players worked to read the data optically he promptly told me it was *impossible*. Because the raw data channel resolution seemed to be too high for the available optical spot size/wavelength. Yet it works. :-) 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. Have you read the orginal Philips papers? They are pretty good. Sorry if you know all this already, but if not, the Scots Guide does cover some of the sheer mechanical/optical precision involved. It was made to work on a mass market level by throwing a lot of money and engineering at the problems. Now, it seems, taken for granted. Which in one way is telling us just how successful those engineers were! :-) 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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article ,
RJH 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, 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. You'd hardly ever set out to record a live gig as heard from the audience. The trend is to make it as close to a studio session as possible. -- *Be more or less specific * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? It's one reason why well recorded male speech is a very good test of a speaker, etc. Especially if you can have the same person speaking live. Everyone has heard a bloke speak for real. But not that many a solo Strad close to in an average room. ;-) -- *A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: In article , Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Bob Latham wrote: 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. You do push that boat rather too far. :-) If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? It just doesn't work like that for me and never has. Some people claim you cannot decide on kit without listening to "real" music and not studio created stuff, I don't agree with that either. That's fine *FOR YOU*. But not a basis for telling *everyone* else they will be exactly the same as you. If you don't give a damn for what the sound in the hall was, then, yes, you can just pick a system, etc, for a Hi-Fi (sic) which acts as music box and plays the noises you like. But that is a music box not a High *Fidelity* system. I just totally disagree. By that token anyone who doesn't listen to jazz or classical is not likely to end up with High Fidelity. You fail to distinguish cases in the relevant way. Some recordings will be in a venue or hall or similar and the acoustic will be a part of the sound an *audience* would expect to hear. Others will be laid down in a studio and be 'created' by recording engineers, etc. [snip] I have never and will never evaluate kit on classical music, for me it does not push the system to the edges to see what disappoints or what is clean. That's fine for your individual value of "I", but not a basis of asserting it applied to *everyone* else. *If* you want to feel at home that what you hear sounds like what you heard when at the venue, then that is a big help. Whatever you buy you'll never get anywhere near a live performance in a different room and hours later you will not be able to recall anyway. Yet from experience you can get 'nearer' by taking comparisons into account. Your views and requirements are fine for you, but avoid taking for granted they all apply to *everyone* else 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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 13/11/2017 02:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
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. Yes, Trevor, you are missing something. A CD player does not normally interpolate errors. Most don't even try. What they do is use the multi-level error correction data that comes with the data to work out what they should have played. Andy |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 14/11/2017 13:46, Bob Latham wrote:
Over several years I have ripped 2400 CDs. Two I couldn't rip because they were protected and not red book standard. Just for once Linux _is_ the answer... it sees straight through the copy protection schemes. Microsoft played ball, and deliberately did NOT bypass the copy protection. Since the Sony rootkit scandal things may have changed, so it may be worth giving them another go. Andy |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 15/11/2017 7:56 AM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/11/2017 02:22, Trevor Wilson wrote: 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. Yes, Trevor, you are missing something. **No, I'm not missing anything. A CD player does not normally interpolate errors. Most don't even try. What they do is use the multi-level error correction data that comes with the data to work out what they should have played. **Yes, they do and if error correction schemes fail, they resort to interpolation. Computer drives do not use interpolation. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
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? I'd say it was because each will have their own ideas about the 'best' way to get good results *and* to make a saelable product. Different engineers will take different approaches just as different users will have different priorities and preferences - cf Bob's comments about being able to compare with a genuine original sound. What suits him may not suit someone else. Doesn't make either view totally invalid, just personal. 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 * Is it? On *every* occasion? I fear people may have become so used to Audio CD, optical drives, etc, that they've forgotten how remarkable it is that it works at all! :-) It is pretty remarkable. And it is remarkable, but also galling, that my £20 USB optical drive can reliably read anything I put in it, while the hi-fi CD players in the house that I spent considerably more on will reliably refuse to play certain discs (and not all the same ones in each case). Have you read the orginal Philips papers? They are pretty good. I haven't, no. I confess that my ambitions for technical reading rarely extend beyond software documentation these days. Daniele |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Jim Lesurf
writes: In article , Bob Latham wrote: 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. You do push that boat rather too far. :-) If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument, the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent. -- Mike Fleming |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
D.M. Procida wrote:
------------------- And it is remarkable, but also galling, that my £20 USB optical drive can reliably read anything I put in it, while the hi-fi CD players in the house that I spent considerably more on will reliably refuse to play certain discs (and not all the same ones in each case). ** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo: "Compact Disc digital audio". OTOH optical drives are built to a later and very different standard that allows different laser wavelengths, higher speeds, finer track pitches and smaller pit sizes. It should be no surprise the latter will play non standard audio CDs. Such CDs should not carry the rectangular logo but rather have a warning to be played only in machines equipped with modern optical drives. ..... Phil |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Trevor Wilson wrote:
------------------------ Vir Campestris wrote: **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. Yes, Trevor, you are missing something. **No, I'm not missing anything. A CD player does not normally interpolate errors. Most don't even try. What they do is use the multi-level error correction data that comes with the data to work out what they should have played. **Yes, they do and if error correction schemes fail, they resort to interpolation. Computer drives do not use interpolation. ** TW is correct, any CD player built to the Red Book standard *interpolates* large errors on the disc. Missing data up to about 3mm of track length ( or 3mS in time ) is corrected by using redundant data on the disc while longer errors get interpolated which is imperfect and sometimes audible. IME, large errors are caused by serious damage to the disc surface and often cause the laser to loose lock and either skip or start repeating the same sound rapidly. ...... Phil |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 15/11/2017 11:27 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote: ------------------------ Vir Campestris wrote: **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. Yes, Trevor, you are missing something. **No, I'm not missing anything. A CD player does not normally interpolate errors. Most don't even try. What they do is use the multi-level error correction data that comes with the data to work out what they should have played. **Yes, they do and if error correction schemes fail, they resort to interpolation. Computer drives do not use interpolation. ** TW is correct, any CD player built to the Red Book standard *interpolates* large errors on the disc. Missing data up to about 3mm of track length ( or 3mS in time ) is corrected by using redundant data on the disc while longer errors get interpolated which is imperfect and sometimes audible. IME, large errors are caused by serious damage to the disc surface and often cause the laser to loose lock and either skip or start repeating the same sound rapidly. **Yep. And this is what I use to test for the capability of the systems to correct large errors: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...gital-test-cdi The test disk has calibrated drop-outs from 0.05mm ~ 4mm! The Red Book standard limit is 0.2mm. I've found a number of (cheap) players can easily exceed the limit. No player has made it to the 4mm drop-out. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
In article , Mike Fleming
wrote: If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument, the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent. Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the bridge with more force. But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'. People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-) 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 |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Phil Allison wrote:
D.M. Procida wrote: ------------------- And it is remarkable, but also galling, that my £20 USB optical drive can reliably read anything I put in it, while the hi-fi CD players in the house that I spent considerably more on will reliably refuse to play certain discs (and not all the same ones in each case). ** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo: "Compact Disc digital audio". OTOH optical drives are built to a later and very different standard that allows different laser wavelengths, higher speeds, finer track pitches and smaller pit sizes. It should be no surprise the latter will play non standard audio CDs. Such CDs should not carry the rectangular logo but rather have a warning to be played only in machines equipped with modern optical drives. I'm talking about standard audio CDs. Daniele |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 15/11/2017 09:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Mike Fleming wrote: If you have no clue what a violin or any other instrument sounds like, how would you decide if what you hear from a CD is 'fidelity'? Ditto for the sound of a broadcast from a given hall? I doubt very much that the Chinese violin sitting in one of my cupboards upstairs sounds exactly like a Strad or Amati. So while hearing a violin live will help in general terms, even with absolute auditory recollection, unless you're listening to exactly the same instrument, the tone will vary to a greater or lesser extent. Yes, and changing the tuning of a piano or the strings of a violin alters the sound. Just as changing venue will, or even playing further from the bridge with more force. But if you sit at home and can't tell the difference between a concert from the RAH and one from the RFH and convincingly recognise the same sound as being there, you aren't getting anything like 'fidelity'. I'd pretty much agree that you should be able to appreciate a difference. People keep arguing as if an inability to get perfection means that nothing can be done. I know the Civil Service love this ploy, and debaters use it. But the reality is that if you want to hear a sound as similar as possible to what you'd get in a live venue, then you do need to have some idea what that actually sounds like. :-) I think you're deploying shifting sands here. I don't think anybody is asking for perfection. Just a rendition of audio that gives a decent approximation of what might be expected. That expectation can be derived from a live performance, or sleeve notes, or simply what you might imagine. -- Cheers, Rob |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
On 14/11/2017 13:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , RJH 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, 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. You'd hardly ever set out to record a live gig as heard from the audience. The trend is to make it as close to a studio session as possible. Yes of course - partly my point in fact. You wouldn't want a version of the live performance as experienced. -- Cheers, Rob |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
D.M. Procida wrote:
------------------- And it is remarkable, but also galling, that my £20 USB optical drive can reliably read anything I put in it, while the hi-fi CD players in the house that I spent considerably more on will reliably refuse to play certain discs (and not all the same ones in each case). ** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo: "Compact Disc digital audio". OTOH optical drives are built to a later and very different standard that allows different laser wavelengths, higher speeds, finer track pitches and smaller pit sizes. It should be no surprise the latter will play non standard audio CDs. Such CDs should not carry the rectangular logo but rather have a warning to be played only in machines equipped with modern optical drives. I'm talking about standard audio CDs. Daniele ** No you are not, cos like anyone you have no idea if a given CD is "standard" or not. If you bothered to read my post, you would see that it refers to CDs being sold that do not comply despite having the rectangular logo. The commonest example is CDs that exceed 74mins. ..... Phil |
What is the point of expensive CD players?
Phil Allison wrote:
** CD players are unsurprisingly designed to play audio CDs made to the original 1982 Red Book standard. Such disks carry the rectangular logo: "Compact Disc digital audio". I'm talking about standard audio CDs. ** No you are not, cos like anyone you have no idea if a given CD is "standard" or not. If you bothered to read my post, you would see that it refers to CDs being sold that do not comply despite having the rectangular logo. Perhaps you ought to read what you write more carefully in that case. And perhaps be a little less rude while you're at. Daniele |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk