In this video (Pt.2 of 3), I explore two main questions: Can a 30 year old vintage CD player sound as good as a top of the range modern one? And, if we use our CD players as ‘transports’ (by connecting them to a DAC via their coax digital outputs), will they sound the same as each other, and as good as a modern high-quality transport?
CD Players featured: Vintage – QUAD 67 (from 1993), Philips CD 880 (from 1989), Sony CD ‘Walkman’ (From 1999)
Modern: Cyrus CDi-XR with PSU XR, Rega Saturn MK3, Pro-ject cd-box-RS2-t with Pre Box RS2 Digital DAC, Philips TAEP 200 (DVD/CD player).
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
08:09 The listening tests
As always, if you would like to find out more about Pearl Acoustics and our Sibelius loudspeakers, please visit our website at:
http://www.pearlacoustics.com
or email us with your questions:
[email protected]
Social media links:
https://www.facebook.com/PearlAcoustics
https://www.instagram.com/pearl.acoustics
The play list used for the comparison tests and elimination:
1. Beethoven Symphony No. 4 in B flat – 1st. Movement: Simon Rattle & Vienna Phil.
2. Little House on the Hill: Willie Nelson
3. Mountain O’ Things: Tracey Chapman
4. Linda Paloma: Jackson Browne
5. St. James Infirmary: Count Basie and Dizzy Gillespie
6. You Look Good To Me: Oscar Peterson Trio
7. Goin’ Ahead: Pat Metheny
8. Prachtig in het Blauw: Bart Peeters
9. Comfort ye my people: Handel’s Messiah : Academy of Saint Martins in the Fields
10. Who’s Blues: Chris Barber
11. One for My Baby: Dianne Reeves
12. Six Blade Knife: Dire Straits
13. God’s Problem Child: Willie Nelson
14. Bitty Boppy Betty: Pink Martini
15. Gee Baby, Aint I Good To You: Diana Krall
16. Lay Down: Indigo Spirit
Link to Maarten’s video shorts, Fjall Music: @fjallmusic
source
As a great CD enthusiast with a very large collection, I am loving this! Very well done, informative and entertaining. I have six CD player (Naim, Rega, Musical Fidelity, Rotel, Sony, Parasound) and a Denafrips Pontus II dac, that has been a really wonderful surprise on soind quality. I am really curious on what would be the outcome if could add one of this recent R2R dacs to that comparison. My Parasound bcd2000 transport and dac1000hd dac combo mentioned above, is more than 20 years old and still is a reference. In my opinion, CD reproduction has been totally satisfying since the late 90’s… at a cost of course. I can’t wait for part 3…and 4 🙂
Excellent video, I have just 3 weeks ago bought a Rega Elex 4 and wanted a CD player also, we tried a few players and they were quite good but then decided to try the Audiolab CDT 9000 transport through the Elex 4 internal DAC, it was a huge improvement that I wasn't expecting, so much so I had to take one home and am extremely happy with the sound of the combination.
My system is complete for now with my P6 turntable also.
Looking forwards to part 3.
Interesting video series. The short answer to your question is yes, a CD system made 30 years ago can kick the ass off a top of the range modern dac. Case in point is the Wadia 7/9 digital system which I still use till today, its made in the 90s..do give it a listen and you will be amazed. The reason is digital as a format hasn't really progressed much in that majority of recordings are still 16bit/44Khz, hardly any stuff are on SACD 24bit 96/128/256Khz and so modern DACs with super upsampling technology isnt that much better. Quite simply if a recording was poorly done then no matter how much upsampling is done in the DAC, its still going to sound bad. And on the flipside if a recording was done well then 16bit.44K is more than sufficient and a great CD system made 30 years ago will sound just as good if not better than a modern one.
Thanks for this video; it was a fun comparison. If there’s no discernible difference through coax, I suppose its simply what dac wins! I really would have thought that maybe the CD laser/lens components may have caused some differences. (Jitter or whatever else.)
Best transport: DITCH the CD for live-playing. Instead copy the CD files onto a computer's solid-state-drive (ssd), or a plain old magnetic hard-drive. Performance is MUCH better and far more stable, and you do not get problems with erratic laser corrections during live-play. No blips, no chirps, no little choppy breaks My el-cheapo refurb computers run circles around 1000 dollar CD players for a fraction of the cost and no hassle whatsoever, plus no worries about degradation of the CD collection just from daily handling WITH soft-gloves. Well, CD longevity and sensitivity to dirt/dust is another subject, that a lot of people simply do not believe even exists, despite their own CDs falling victim all the time…
Very interesting, thanks so much for taklng the time and effort to make this video. Much appreciated
Thank you very much for your time and efforts. Very informative and interesting series of videos.
Currently using Audiolab 6000 cdt , M Dac plus. Throughly enjoying it 👍
The DAC, the low pass filter and the preamplification are the three main individual analog components that will define the sound quality of the output.
On the digital side would only have data corruption or data loss. You need very high noise, or laser misalignment, or disc damage to affect the sound.
Having come to the conclusion that all machines used as transport give a similar or identical result and that the sound signature depends mostly on the DAC, a comparison that I would love to see in this test is how a pure CD transport of the type would behave. Cambridge CXC or Audiolab 9000, I use modern DACs like ADI 2 from RME or DAVE from Chord, and I always feed them with my old Sony 337 CD, because I think a dedicated transport won't give me more bits or maybe I'm wrong, and they extract something more information than these old CDs from 30 years ago used as transports. All the best
Where's part 3 ???? it doesn't matter it's all about the DAC I'm using a Sony portable DVD player and it makes an outstanding transport as good as my more expensive CD players which I sold because they're basically worthless✌️
One thing to remember about cds is that they dont take advantage of the dynamic range. The loudness war has made most unlistenable.
Thanks for doing this for us. Truly exemplary thoughtful process
Power supply and DAC are the most important things in cd players.
Doesn't surprise me that the Philips came out on top by one of the panel members. Would be nice to have some "bitstream" equipped philips player from the mid 90's. These are the ones that are largely overlooked. Buy these are actually better than the 880! A humble cd940 from Philips with a healthy power supply is nice!
Interesting. It just confirms what I suspected. The DAC is the key for CD players. When I first bought my CD player in 2017, I shortlisted those using the ESS Sabre32 9018 chip as it was one of the best DACs available. I am still very happy with the CD player (Audiolab 8300CD, which includes a built-in digital preamp that I connect using an analogue coaxial to active speakers). Added a wifi network streamer to said CD player to use the DAC to process the music stream and output it. I'm good for the medium to long term until some new tech pops up (like digital music streaming did).
It might not be surprising that they all have a similar sound once sent into a DAC. My guess is many of them may be using the same CD drive.
Than you very much Harley for doing that nice tests. I enjoyed it very much. A side note: I haven’t realized that the word “minute” has different pronunciations depending on if it is a noun or and adjective.
i figured the transport would be a non-issue as most transports are either sony or philips anyway. i have a gen 1 onkyo DVD player and arcam alpha 9 cd which uses a 5bit ring dac. i have a switch box and night and day difference, arcam very detailed and warm, onkyo still has detail but sounds artificial. i also have in the middle of the mix a 1976 rotel rx102 mk2 integrated. ironically i have some matching cd's and vinyl that i can A/B. vinyl wins 99% of the time. want to know the turntable ? ancient garrard 5-300 i paid 80 dollars for.
Very clear explanation. thanks for that. a year ago after many many years of service I sold my Sony 30ES (built like a tank) that served as a transport connected to a R2R DAC. Because I don't play many CDs anymore I bought a cheap Audiolab 6000cdt transport and connected it to the same R2R DAC. The shock was unexpected , the Audiolab really sounds much better .
Great video. I remember in the late 80s I had a modified very cheap Philips that sounded so good. It was modified by some people with connections to Chalmers University, but when Mats Andersen (QLN) build an external DAC (early 90s) that made the cheapest Philips CD really sound great. Problem was rather that many CD was so bad produced during that time to hide the sound of too much feedback loops in the pre-amps and the bright sounding loudspeakers that was popular during that time.
At the moment I use the QUAD Play+ but after some hours when it get warm it starts to have problem to track the first tracks. Probably have to buy a cheap driver in the future and use the digital input for the QUAD. Looking forward for part 3.
Many thanks ! Very useful and interresting study ! Can't wait for the next one !
How about testing 3 transports from the same company into one DAC to identify any performance? The differences? The Audiolab 6000CDT, 7000CDT and 9000CDT come to mind.
You might be getting similar results on the coax because they’re almost all using linear power supplies. I’m finding differences with streamers but some of those use switch mode.
Where is part 3?
It will take a lot to beat the Quad 67 for musicality,some people mistake more detail to be better at the expense of musicality
My question is, how big are the differences. Or with other words, is any of the players „garbage“ compared to the others?
My guess, as an IT guy, is, that the real differences are between the analog stages and not between the DACs itself.
I would go so far Tomas you to connect a digital out from a computer to your DAC because it should not matter, where the digital signals come from. Your conclusion, that the transport does not matter, is one indicator for me.
Well they all have on board DACs and that often limits your options. So a lot of them will sound the same. Now the ones you connect to a DAC will display the result of the usual set of problems. Is the output signal any good? Is the cable/interface set up any good? Is the DAC a POS? 😉
If the DAC is useful, then the input signal determines a lot of what the DAC can do. Is it mostly Noise free? Is there an appreciable level of Jitter in the signal the player puts out?
I have not used a CD player in Decades. A Blu-ray/DVD burner is the most capable disc machine that exists. It operates at a far finer level than any CD player. So I rip my CDs with one. Now Redbook Audio, a PCM file with a header, is a very good way to store what comes off a CD. Then we have the Transports available. I have found, with extensive testing on my set up, that a RAM Disk is the best transport there is. It's just completely unstressed, as its so easy for it to stream a Redbook Audio file. An NVMe drive is slightly worse, but it took a long time to decide that if what I was really hearing, so its real close. Both of these stream straight to the PCIe bus, no actual controllers. A SATA drive is not as good and HDDs trail obviously. Both are using the SATA controller these days.
So my digital crap comes out through a network bridge, using Ethernet, an inherently quiet method to my Pi2AES a DDC that feeds a very low Noise and Jitter signal to my Ares II through a bit of Cardas Clear Digital Cable.
Works great, but my analog is so much better I don't listen to it. Luckily I have a new Subaru Solterra and it has a good sound system, so I listen to my digital crap there. 😉
For a cheap transport you can’t go wrong with a Pioneer stable platter from the mid 90s.
They read the TOC impressively fast and are exceptional with scratched discs.
If I have understood your test results correctly, the quality of the output mainly relies on the quality of the DAC. This seems reasonable because using the CD players as transports they just read out and provide the data stored in the CD, and in the end a CD is nothing more than an outdated data storage device. I have gotten rid of my CDs by copying them onto a NAS drive which is connected to my amplifier via a Sonos Connect with COAX output. This should provide the same data to the ampilfier's DAC like any CD player and therefore sound just the same. Is that a correct conclusion? I do prefer digital downloads in lossless formats over CDs, because as said CDs for me are just an outdated form of data storage using lots of plastic and other materials which cannot be recycled appropiately. But maybe I am just wrong?
Me looking at the Sony dvd/cd player on Amazon for $14 thinking it might be okay for my 2 channel setup….
I probably don't belong here
Or maybe I do
iv been saying for last 15 years its the dac in the cd players that make the biggest difference i always heard a difference between my denon 2900 player with burr brown dac and arcam cd73 with wolfson dac
Wonderful exploration of audio reproduction history. Thank you Harley. I love all your test music and know why this music is chosen. I would personally like to see something that might demonstrate the elusive 'Boogie Factor', or music that makes one immediately get up and dance around with joy (eg well recorded 'Electric Guitar Rock', something more substantial than Dire Straits anyway). I have had top flight systems, but sometimes they have not always been totally 100% musically satisfying, across all 'genres'. Quite a trick to get something that does it all? Looking forward to part 3 :0) ps Apologies if you have covered this elsewhere (new subscriber)
Great topic and discussion.
Only one question,
Is he saying "Sony" funny?
Or is he saying "sunny" phony?🤔
😅 I'm just kidding of course.
love the video.
as long as everything in the input and transport is identical the same endstage makes no difference. that is the summary. LOL. No better way to present a salesman.
Wonderful. I am striving for high quality on a budget and aiming to add a CD to my system. The conclusion of this test gives the evidence and justification to chose the Philips TAEC 200, attach via HDMI to the Topping D10s DAC, and via self-build Gainclone amp. Anyone else taking a similar approach?
No measurements with instruments= scam
I bought one of the first Universal players , the Phillips SACD 1000 to this day, I feel it is one of the best sounding players ever built! Unfortunately it had issues and I could not get it repaired!
Thank You for really amazing story! It's simply fantastic, but if we talk about sounding the same, then I have one simple answer. There is no "sounding the same" audio devices. You can take two CD players, two amps or, does not matter, the same model the same production batch etc, and they can sound different. Well, they can sound identical, but when put side by side, you can be able to notice differences. Reason is very simple – the schematics. For CD player we have to split audio tract in two parts, before and after DAC. In very big theory we can assume that digital part is identical for all, but in fact it is not. Due to laser characteristics, disc condition etc, you can get a discrepancy in data that is fed to DAC. Yes, there is CRC to correct reading errors and buffering to avoid gaps in playback but in fact data that flow to DAC can be different each time the section of disc is read. Good thing is that such sort of errors does not impact the sound much. What impact the sound is DAC. In general that is a very simple device, but contain variable parameter components. When electronic components are produced in factory, they are "the same" within certain limits. If you take, for example, a resistor with label 1 Ohm and 5% accuracy, in one selection it will be 0,99 in next it can be 1,01. So from manufacturing perspective, it is the same, but when integrated in schematics, this changes the sound. Since we have many of components in the chain, we can more or less group devices by similar schematics and assume that they will sound somehow similar. This also applies to power chains and that's why portable device can have lower signal levels than tower. One is fed from a battery, second from transformer. Due to all this mess with kind'a imperfection of components, we have differencies in phase-frequency characteristics of audio chain. Next thing is compatibility of those characteristics with our ear characteristics. As listeners we are also very individual. Yes, we are similar, but not the same. So in brief, all this give a clear answer – there is no the same sounding audio device or setup. Everyone is welcome to assemble their own.
IMO, the difference noticed between players has less to do even with the DAC as there is no real reason for a DAC to sound much different from each other except for absolute S/N Ratio and low level linearity, even if those are almost imperceptible.
But the post DAC handling of the signal is really the only area where perceptible audio differences may be heard as it's easier to engineer better or cheaper post DAC sections that are used to handle the post DAC audio signal as it leaves the CD player and into your preamp.
Great video thank you. Really like your presentation style and knowledgeable delivery 💯
Brilliant. Really enjoyed this. Thank you
You should rephrase this as "do all DACs sound the same ?". No one has ever been able to prove with the scientific method, that an ordinary transport component with conventional error correction, has any bearing on the digital signal fed to the DAC. Your little experiment has the hallmarks of amateur science. A proper test separates all the variables, randomizes the tests and are done in double-blind fashion on enough trials to get a p-factor that is statistically significant. When engineers at the AES have conducted such properly organized tests, they found unsurprisingly that no one, from a naïve listener to a professional, could consistently tell such things apart. What DOES make a difference, is the DAC ; but the heard differences are correlated with the recorded source material and the reproduction equipment (i.e. loudspeakers and their amplification).