CD playback from Blu-Ray player

[mikealdren]

I play from a dedicated computer through and external DAC and my experience suggests that the DAC is the key component and there is probably little difference between CD/DVD/BluRay players with an external DAC. They provide a digital feed and bits are bits.

[richardfinegold]

I play from a dedicated computer through and external DAC and my experience suggests that the DAC is the key component and there is probably little difference between CD/DVD/BluRay players with an external DAC. They provide a digital feed and bits are bits.

I used to think that the DAC was totally the determinant of the sound and that the transport was irrelevant, but after listening to various streamers with the same DAC I’ve decided that transports do matter. There was a clear difference, for example between a Bluesound Node and much more expensive Bryston player, and it isn’t Expectation Bias. And I’ve also noticed differences with disc spinners.

[jayne lee wilson]

I used to think that the DAC was totally the determinant of the sound and that the transport was irrelevant, but after listening to various streamers with the same DAC I’ve decided that transports do matter. There was a clear difference, for example between a Bluesound Node and much more expensive Bryston player, and it isn’t Expectation Bias. And I’ve also noticed differences with disc spinners.

Yes, transports (whether physical-disc, or file-based ie streamers/computers) absolutely make a difference, often a clearly audible one. The timing of the data stream and errors within it (jitter) affect the music reproduced. Internal power supplies/isolation can often affect the quality of playback. I have the same experience with a classic, customised mid-90s Marantz (worthy Philips CDM-12 disc-spinner) and an Esoteric with the more specialised Teac mechanism... which just gets more off the disc, more clearly. I enjoy both but the Teac is more explicit & informative, the Marantz warmer and a little rounded off.

[mikealdren]

I used to think that the DAC was totally the determinant of the sound and that the transport was irrelevant, but after listening to various streamers with the same DAC I’ve decided that transports do matter. There was a clear difference, for example between a Bluesound Node and much more expensive Bryston player, and it isn’t Expectation Bias. And I’ve also noticed differences with disc spinners.

Interesting, do they also differ from CDs of the same recording?

[mikealdren]

Yes, transports (whether physical-disc, or file-based ie streamers/computers) absolutely make a difference, often a clearly audible one. The timing of the data stream and errors within it (jitter) affect the music reproduced. Internal power supplies/isolation can often affect the quality of playback. I have the same experience with a classic, customised mid-90s Marantz (worthy Philips CDM-12 disc-spinner) and an Esoteric with the more specialised Teac mechanism... which just gets more off the disc, more clearly. I enjoy both but the Teac is more explicit & informative, the Marantz warmer and a little rounded off.

Do you find the same sound differences between the TEAC and Marantz transports with different DACs?

Few modern DACs have any issues at all in dealing with jitter and I'd assumed it was a thing of the past. I've seen tests where jitter has been introduced and no noticeable change was found. Are you familiar with the many articles on https://archimago.blogspot.com/ for example?

As to power supplies, the DAC should be isolated from the transport with only a digital feed so this should not affect the sound from an external DAC. Any effects from the power supply in the digital output suggest a significant issue with the transport.

[jayne lee wilson]

Do you find the same sound differences between the TEAC and Marantz transports with different DACs?

Few modern DACs have any issues at all in dealing with jitter and I'd assumed it was a thing of the past. I've seen tests where jitter has been introduced and no noticeable change was found. Are you familiar with the many articles on https://archimago.blogspot.com/ for example?



As to power supplies, the DAC should be isolated from the transport with only a digital feed so this should not affect the sound from an external DAC. Any effects from the power supply in the digital output suggest a significant issue with the transport.

I only have the one DAC on hand right now, but it is a highly adjustable, very low jitter highend design with four 32x384 dacs per channel - the T&A DAC8. The audible differences seem to be introduced at the transport stage. With a vintage Krell 300 as transport, with a similar Teac VRDS mechanism to the Esoteric (but 20 years older...) I observed similar contrasts to the Marantz-as-transport, the Krell much closer (but not identical to) the Esoteric.
I heard the same effect with a Cambridge DacMagic a few years back and the Krell/Marantz comparison. The DAC has to be good enough to reveal such things of course.

A HIFI News subscriber for many years, I've read many analyses there, in other magazines and endless sceptical online articles about these issues, but always trust my ears. I trial everything at home before any purchase; only keep what works (I sent more back than I kept). I got so fed up with onliners telling us that "we cannot possibly hear" the benefits of hi-res (24/96, SACD etc) that I stopped looking at them some years ago.
Another example: the Uptone Audio USB Regen USB regenerator which takes the signal from the dedicated MacBook I use as a streamer and then supplies a new USB signal at the DAC input.... audible benefits, again.

"Not everything you hear can be measured; not everything you measure can be heard"....
A mastering engineer, not sure who, I think it might have been Bob Katz....

[mikealdren]

I've read HiFi news too (since the '60s) and upgraded countless times. I'm increasingly sceptical of magazine reviews and, like you, rely on my own (and my wife's) ears.

The key questions are:
1. Can I hear a difference.
2. Which do I prefer.
3. Can I afford it.

I used to think that all amps sound the same, CD player are similar and speakers are the biggest variable. As my equipment improved, more subtle differences emerged. In the early days, I firmly believed that interconnects were irrelevant. I'm still very sceptical of their effects but with decent equipment, I can tell bell wire interconnects form decent quality phono leads but I don't believe there is a significant difference between different 'quality' components. Paradoxically, although speakers do still sound different, quality speakers have tended to converge in sound over recent years as their quality has improved.

I'll definitely try my various old CD players against my computer into my DAC to compare the results. The computer was initially built at some cost with audiophile components and carefully adjusted accordingly but I know that this made no audible difference whereas I can easily tell DACs apart.

I have no doubt that there is a lot of Emperor's new clothes in the HiFi industry and it's interesting that expensive equipment never gets bad reviews!

[Pianoman]

...I can easily tell DACs apart'...
I hear this a lot from 'audiophiles', but these 'differences' magically disappear when blind tested and level matched....

[jayne lee wilson]

I've read HiFi news too (since the '60s) and upgraded countless times. I'm increasingly sceptical of magazine reviews and, like you, rely on my own (and my wife's) ears.

The key questions are:
1. Can I hear a difference.
2. Which do I prefer.
3. Can I afford it.

I used to think that all amps sound the same, CD player are similar and speakers are the biggest variable. As my equipment improved, more subtle differences emerged. In the early days, I firmly believed that interconnects were irrelevant. I'm still very sceptical of their effects but with decent equipment, I can tell bell wire interconnects form decent quality phono leads but I don't believe there is a significant difference between different 'quality' components. Paradoxically, although speakers do still sound different, quality speakers have tended to converge in sound over recent years as their quality has improved.

I'll definitely try my various old CD players against my computer into my DAC to compare the results. The computer was initially built at some cost with audiophile components and carefully adjusted accordingly but I know that this made no audible difference whereas I can easily tell DACs apart.

I have no doubt that there is a lot of Emperor's new clothes in the HiFi industry and it's interesting that expensive equipment never gets bad reviews!

Implying what exactly?

[mikealdren]

Not implying, merely stating a fact. Actually the days of any bad reviews are long over and there's a lot of what Americans call Snake Oil which magazines don't take on.
Obviously magazines get a lot of revenue from advertising and bad reviews don't help there. From experience (I have known reviewers), there are reviewers who are real Hifi enthusiasts and some with technical and/or musical backgrounds but others are simply jobbing journalists. I'm also not sure about the editorial independence either. Always read between the lines in the same way as with anything posted online.

[jayne lee wilson]

Not implying, merely stating a fact. Actually the days of any bad reviews are long over and there's a lot of what Americans call Snake Oil which magazines don't take on.
Obviously magazines get a lot of revenue from advertising and bad reviews don't help there. From experience (I have known reviewers), there are reviewers who are real Hifi enthusiasts and some with technical and/or musical backgrounds but others are simply jobbing journalists. I'm also not sure about the editorial independence either. Always read between the lines in the same way as with anything posted online.

What is this snake oil? If its not "taken on" or reported in the magazines where is it promoted?

In fact the HFN reviews sometimes do voice reservations about equipment, in the context of highly detailed technical accounts of the said component, with lid-off photos and analyses. So its a case of how you define bad. Why bother to print an insulting or dismissive review? Best to just ignore the bad designs, send them back to the designers, etc....

Defining "expensive" is a problem in itself, like "value for money". Totally subjective. But a design with a bigger budget will tend to use better componentry, spend more time on development, have more sophisticated circuitry, higher component count, better build and longevity etc. Often much better service backup too (My old Krell is still serviceable over 20 years since manufacture). They sell in relatively small numbers and have to make their money in market terms, just as Cars, Watches or Optics do. £1000 binoculars usually have obviously higher optical quality than £100 pairs. I don't see HiFi as exceptional in this respect.

Best HiFi values for a dedicated listener lie somewhere between the 100s and the higher 1000s, where the budget is focussed on the sound and integrity of the design; but even better is to buy 2ndhand or ex-dem hi-end from specialist dealers - my usual approach...

[richardfinegold]

What is this snake oil? If its not "taken on" or reported in the magazines where is it promoted?

In fact the HFN reviews sometimes do voice reservations about equipment, in the context of highly detailed technical accounts of the said component, with lid-off photos and analyses. So its a case of how you define bad. Why bother to print an insulting or dismissive review? Best to just ignore the bad designs, send them back to the designers, etc....

Defining "expensive" is a problem in itself, like "value for money". Totally subjective. But a design with a bigger budget will tend to use better componentry, spend more time on development, have more sophisticated circuitry, higher component count, better build and longevity etc. Often much better service backup too (My old Krell is still serviceable over 20 years since manufacture). They sell in relatively small numbers and have to make their money in market terms, just as Cars, Watches or Optics do. £1000 binoculars usually have obviously higher optical quality than £100 pairs. I don't see HiFi as exceptional in this respect.

Best HiFi values for a dedicated listener lie somewhere between the 100s and the higher 1000s, where the budget is focussed on the sound and integrity of the design; but even better is to buy 2ndhand or ex-dem hi-end from specialist dealers - my usual approach...

Stereophile has a policy of only reviewing equipment that they like. Their attitude is if we review it, it meets a minimum bar of excellence. They regard their job as describing the particular flavor of the component. Do you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Let us tell you which flavor component X best resembles. I imagine HiFi News does the same. They both do a lot of measurement testing. Personally, I never find measurements to be that helpful, as the soul of a component can’t be measured. It helps mainly with speakers for sensitivity and impedance, but usually the reviews touch on that anyway.
A Sony Blu Ray won’t make the pages of either magazine, particularly if being used as a transport. Probably best to find user forums frequented by real people with real life budgets to assess the value of mid Fi equipment. And as always, if you can audition the component in your own system, that’s the standard

[Braunschlag]

Yep, always….

[Braunschlag]

...I can easily tell DACs apart'...
I hear this a lot from 'audiophiles', but these 'differences' magically disappear when blind tested and level matched....

Yep

[Dave2002]

I've read HiFi news too (since the '60s) and upgraded countless times. I'm increasingly sceptical of magazine reviews and, like you, rely on my own (and my wife's) ears.

The key questions are:
1. Can I hear a difference.
2. Which do I prefer.
3. Can I afford it.

I used to think that all amps sound the same, CD player are similar and speakers are the biggest variable. As my equipment improved, more subtle differences emerged. In the early days, I firmly believed that interconnects were irrelevant. I'm still very sceptical of their effects but with decent equipment, I can tell bell wire interconnects form decent quality phono leads but I don't believe there is a significant difference between different 'quality' components. Paradoxically, although speakers do still sound different, quality speakers have tended to converge in sound over recent years as their quality has improved.

I'll definitely try my various old CD players against my computer into my DAC to compare the results. The computer was initially built at some cost with audiophile components and carefully adjusted accordingly but I know that this made no audible difference whereas I can easily tell DACs apart.

I agree about Emperor's clothes - or lack of them. However, I have noticed an enormous difference between very cheap interconnect cables and somewhat more expensive ones. However I do doubt that it's worth spending more than £100 on interconnects, and good ones can be had for less. I have been much more sceptical about speaker cables. Regarding CD players - broadly speaking they tend to sound similar - but with the proviso that sometimes there are passages of music which just sound better on some than on others.

I bought one many years ago as a present for my father - it wasn't too expensive - but it coped with the sound of a full orchestra in some CDs of Bruckner symphonies better than my own CD player at the time. At any one time there wasn't much to choose between them, but when "everything kicked off", the one I was giving away was better. Also there are passages on some CDs which just sound completely different on high quality set ups than on cheaper ones. You can take the same CD and listen carefully to those passages, and the differences just leap out.

One example is Ashkenazy's Decca CD of Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony - there are very specific passages which just don't work on some players, but do on others - though they don't last very long. That's also why those tests which use groups of people and average out the results turn out to be just about meaningless. In an average sort of way the various systems will sound very similar, but it's not an average experience that one wants to have.

Earlier today I mentioned a recording which wasn't even digital, and not on CD - Keilberth's Flying Dutchman - yet many won't hear the chorus moving around on the Bayreuth stage, but some who have speakers with good bass response will certainly be aware of that.

I had the LPs for a few years before I noticed that, when I played the LPs back on my dad's kit.