CD playback from Blu-Ray player

[jayne lee wilson]

Thanks, JLW. Cables with braided silver such as Kimber's are intertwined with copper, which gives a marginal improvement in conductivity over 100% copper speaker wires, but which I estimate would provide an imperceptible improvement in sound to my ageing lugholes. If I were to contemplate replacing any of the interconnections in my hi-fi ( old-terminology -- not high-end or audiophile by current standards) it would be from turntable to amp, which currently has vintage 1990s nickel RCA to the phono stage. All other connectivity in my system is digital of one kind or another.

Kimber Interconnects are not all copper-intertwined, there are all-silver models in the range, such as this one -

https://www.russandrews.com/kcag-interconnect-with-xlr-20809991200/

...and others as you move up in price, e.g. Hero AG, Select......

[richardfinegold]

I’m not much of a cable believer. I do think there is a difference between entry level RCA stuff and anything else, but truth be told, I’ve had a few instances of where I had to use to the free stuff in a pinch to replace a problematic cable, with the intention of replacing the RCA as soon as possible, and then forgot to upgrade. I discover this after some time, having enjoyed the music in the interim, and when I did make the change noticed the slightest of improvements. I use Nordost Blue Heaven for everything except speaker cable, where I use the thickest copper gage that I can accommodate

[Petrushka]

I've had a blu ray player for some time now but find quite a difference in volume and bass response between the blu ray disc, playing the same recording on CD on the Blu ray and playing the CD on my usual CD player.

To my bafflement, by far the best sound is from the CD in my CD player. When heard via blu ray I need to hike the volume a couple of notches and the bass response is rather weak. The blu ray disc is the most disappointing, lacking power and heft.

The blu ray/CD set is the Beethoven Symphony cycle with Bernstein and the VPO but I've noticed that ordinary CDs also sound comparatively weak on the blu ray.

I've tried looking at the settings on the blu ray player but all seems OK. Am I missing something obvious?

[Dave2002]

I’m not much of a cable believer. I do think there is a difference between entry level RCA stuff and anything else, but truth be told, I’ve had a few instances of where I had to use to the free stuff in a pinch to replace a problematic cable, with the intention of replacing the RCA as soon as possible, and then forgot to upgrade. I discover this after some time, having enjoyed the music in the interim, and when I did make the change noticed the slightest of improvements. I use Nordost Blue Heaven for everything except speaker cable, where I use the thickest copper gage that I can accommodate

I’ve written several times about my experiences. Inter connects can make a big difference - but maybe not all are good. It’s not usually necessary to pay more than [say] £20/20USD. I didn’t think there was any significant difference at all until one day I was listening to the Colin Davis version of Marriage of Figaro - which I hadn’t appreciated as much as some of the rave reviews suggested I should - and at the point where Cherubini jumps out of the window smashing the flower pots - the difference between the modestly improved connection cable and the previous one was very noticeable and an improvement.

People claim they can hear the difference if a cable costs £100 or more, but I can’t argue, other than to say I’m not going to try.

Speaker cables may make a difference, particularly for people who want lots of bass, but for most of us I think modest cables - without going down as low as lighting cable - are good enough.

Lastly, re interconnects again - if the interconnects are digital - then some people claim that coax is better than optical, and glass fibre is better than plastic.
I’m happy to be shot at here, but mostly I think it makes no difference. Those who claim it does look at problems in the digital domain, but the circuitry in most good equipment will cope with digital signals even with some distortion in the digital waveforms - that’s the whole point of using digital.

[richardfinegold]

I’ve written several times about my experiences. Inter connects can make a big difference - but maybe not all are good. It’s not usually necessary to pay more than [say] £20/20USD. I didn’t think there was any significant difference at all until one day I was listening to the Colin Davis version of Marriage of Figaro - which I hadn’t appreciated as much as some of the rave reviews suggested I should - and at the point where Cherubini jumps out of the window smashing the flower pots - the difference between the modestly improved connection cable and the previous one was very noticeable and an improvement.

People claim they can hear the difference if a cable costs £100 or more, but I can’t argue, other than to say I’m not going to try.

Speaker cables may make a difference, particularly for people who want lots of bass, but for most of us I think modest cables - without going down as low as lighting cable - are good enough.

Lastly, re interconnects again - if the interconnects are digital - then some people claim that coax is better than optical, and glass fibre is better than plastic.
I’m happy to be shot at here, but mostly I think it makes no difference. Those who claim it does look at problems in the digital domain, but the circuitry in most good equipment will cope with digital signals even with some distortion in the digital waveforms - that’s the whole point of using digital.

with respect to digital cables, imo there is a lot of subjectivity involved. The one constant regarding digital inputs/outputs is that if not implemented properly, USB can sound inferior to other digital connections. This is probably due to the basic nature of USB, where information is sent in packets and not as a continuous stream. You however are referring to cables, and I haven’t noticed any difference between the bog standard USB cable supplied in the box vs a more expensive USB cable that I tried.
Regarding SPDIF vs Toslink, my opinion is again that the cable doesn’t matter but rather the component implementation of the connection. I’ve never detected a difference between them in four decades of listening to digital components. I did have an optical cable fail once after a visiting cat chewed on it.
I had my home Ethernet wired many years ago with CAT 5. Audiophiles of course rave about the newer generation of CAT but I’ll be damned if I am going through that again.
Analog cables are a different story in that they can make a difference, perhaps more so with speaker wire. I think once you get off entry level the asymptote quickly appears, in that massive financial outlay results in infinitesimal improvements. The most important thing for me is freedom from RFI

[Sir Velo]

I recently demod the KEF LS50II wireless, the great advantage of which is that it is source, amp; streamer and speakers in one unit, bypassing the need for any cables whatsoever! The sound was impressive, and never at any stage did one feel the lack of separates on the sound quality. This I believe is definitely the way forward for HiFi.

[Maclintick]

I've had a blu ray player for some time now but find quite a difference in volume and bass response between the blu ray disc, playing the same recording on CD on the Blu ray and playing the CD on my usual CD player.

To my bafflement, by far the best sound is from the CD in my CD player. When heard via blu ray I need to hike the volume a couple of notches and the bass response is rather weak. The blu ray disc is the most disappointing, lacking power and heft.

The blu ray/CD set is the Beethoven Symphony cycle with Bernstein and the VPO but I've noticed that ordinary CDs also sound comparatively weak on the blu ray.

I've tried looking at the settings on the blu ray player but all seems OK. Am I missing something obvious?

As regards your last point, Petrushka, it's hard to comment without knowing the configuration of devices in your replay chain in both cases. Are you connecting the Blu-Ray player to your amp digitally ? If not, then depending on the spec of the machine, it's likely that the implementation of analogue outputs on such a device could result in lower quality than that of a dedicated stand-alone CD player, as the Blu-Ray design would be optimised for hi-res video o/p via HDMI, with analogue audio very much an afterthought, as it were. On the other hand, if you're using a digital output via coax or optical to the amp, I'd expect much less of a difference in SQ compared to your CD player.

[HighlandDougie]

I've had a blu ray player for some time now but find quite a difference in volume and bass response between the blu ray disc, playing the same recording on CD on the Blu ray and playing the CD on my usual CD player.

To my bafflement, by far the best sound is from the CD in my CD player. When heard via blu ray I need to hike the volume a couple of notches and the bass response is rather weak. The blu ray disc is the most disappointing, lacking power and heft.

The blu ray/CD set is the Beethoven Symphony cycle with Bernstein and the VPO but I've noticed that ordinary CDs also sound comparatively weak on the blu ray.

I've tried looking at the settings on the blu ray player but all seems OK. Am I missing something obvious?

An interesting issue so I've replicated it with the same discs (CD/Blu-Ray of the LvB/VPO/Bernstein cycle) in the context that much, of course, depends on the different players being used. Anyway, I played the CD first then the Blu-Ray through the Pioneer UDP (LX-500 Universal Disc Player), leaving the amplifier at the same volume output. Blu-Ray definitely superior reproduction-wise but oomph-wise very much the same between the two. I then played the CD through my main SACD/CD player (an Esoteric) . That served to reveal that it is distinctly superior as a player than the Pioneer (as it should be) but it also rather supported Pet's point about producing a bit more power/heft. Not, in truth, that there was much wrong with the Pioneer's reproduction in the first place. So hiking the volume, rather than there being anything intrinsically inferior with Blu-Ray would be my totally unscientific conclusion. It was a good excuse to dust off the big DG/Decca Lenny box!

[Petrushka]

An interesting issue so I've replicated it with the same discs (CD/Blu-Ray of the LvB/VPO/Bernstein cycle) in the context that much, of course, depends on the different players being used. Anyway, I played the CD first then the Blu-Ray through the Pioneer UDP (LX-500 Universal Disc Player), leaving the amplifier at the same volume output. Blu-Ray definitely superior reproduction-wise but oomph-wise very much the same between the two. I then played the CD through my main SACD/CD player (an Esoteric) . That served to reveal that it is distinctly superior as a player than the Pioneer (as it should be) but it also rather supported Pet's point about producing a bit more power/heft. Not, in truth, that there was much wrong with the Pioneer's reproduction in the first place. So hiking the volume, rather than there being anything intrinsically inferior with Blu-Ray would be my totally unscientific conclusion. It was a good excuse to dust off the big DG/Decca Lenny box!

Thanks for the reply. My Blu-ray player is a Sony UBP-X700 and my amp a Cambridge AXR1000. My CD player an elderly Technics SL-PG5.

There is no question that at my normal volume setting the CD player is superior. However, a couple of notches up on my Cambridge, which may not seem much but on this amp is a significant lift, brings it closer to the CD player when played on the Sony but still lacking in power. Much the same applies to other CDs and Blu-rays. The unsatisfactory solution would appear to be a strong uplift in volume when using the Sony which is what made me wonder if something was wrong as it was definitely not what I would have expected.

[richardfinegold]

I've had a blu ray player for some time now but find quite a difference in volume and bass response between the blu ray disc, playing the same recording on CD on the Blu ray and playing the CD on my usual CD player.

To my bafflement, by far the best sound is from the CD in my CD player. When heard via blu ray I need to hike the volume a couple of notches and the bass response is rather weak. The blu ray disc is the most disappointing, lacking power and heft.

The blu ray/CD set is the Beethoven Symphony cycle with Bernstein and the VPO but I've noticed that ordinary CDs also sound comparatively weak on the blu ray.

I've tried looking at the settings on the blu ray player but all seems OK. Am I missing something obvious?

What is your DAC?

[richardfinegold]

An interesting issue so I've replicated it with the same discs (CD/Blu-Ray of the LvB/VPO/Bernstein cycle) in the context that much, of course, depends on the different players being used. Anyway, I played the CD first then the Blu-Ray through the Pioneer UDP (LX-500 Universal Disc Player), leaving the amplifier at the same volume output. Blu-Ray definitely superior reproduction-wise but oomph-wise very much the same between the two. I then played the CD through my main SACD/CD player (an Esoteric) . That served to reveal that it is distinctly superior as a player than the Pioneer (as it should be) but it also rather supported Pet's point about producing a bit more power/heft. Not, in truth, that there was much wrong with the Pioneer's reproduction in the first place. So hiking the volume, rather than there being anything intrinsically inferior with Blu-Ray would be my totally unscientific conclusion. It was a good excuse to dust off the big DG/Decca Lenny box!

I have that same Pioneer Universal player in a HT system. As good as it is, compared to an Esoteric it’s like comparing a Trabant to a Porsche 911, particularly if you are using the DAC in the Pioneer
Blu Ray Audio is frequently cut at a lower level than CDs, and many SACDs are as well

[HighlandDougie]

I have that same Pioneer Universal player in a HT system. As good as it is, compared to an Esoteric it’s like comparing a Trabant to a Porsche 911, particularly if you are using the DAC in the Pioneer
Blu Ray Audio is frequently cut at a lower level than CDs, and many SACDs are as well

Yes, that (cut at a lower level) is definitely the case. I got the Pioneer player wrong - it’s an LX800 here in France - but it doesn’t really come very close to the Esoteric. I now have a Magnetar UDP player (in Scotland) which is rather better sound-wise than its predecessor, the Pioneer 500 (unreliable). Madness, really, spending all that dosh on boxes of electronics.

[Petrushka]

Blu Ray Audio is frequently cut at a lower level than CDs, and many SACDs are as well

This might be the simplest explanation for what I've found. Low level, weak bass, it's not really what was advertised is it?

[richardfinegold]

This might be the simplest explanation for what I've found. Low level, weak bass, it's not really what was advertised is it?

Can you be specific? What Blu Ray Player do you have? And are you using an external DAC?
I use an Oppo 105 player. It has a decent internal DAC but the DAC in my Bryston DAC3 is much better. I output the DSD layer of SACD or the equivalent of Blu Ray over HDMI into the DAC , which has HDMI inputs. The bass is fine.
Some Blu Ray players, particularly in the lower range, have built in DACs that aren’t up to snuff

[richardfinegold]

Yes, that (cut at a lower level) is definitely the case. I got the Pioneer player wrong - it’s an LX800 here in France - but it doesn’t really come very close to the Esoteric. I now have a Magnetar UDP player (in Scotland) which is rather better sound-wise than its predecessor, the Pioneer 500 (unreliable). Madness, really, spending all that dosh on boxes of electronics.

I am interested in replacing the Pioneer in my HT with Magnetar( which was designed by the team that made the Oppo players) so I would be grateful if you could expound more on model, impressions, etc.
it is madness, but I figure I have about a decade and a half before I shove off this rock, and I’d like to enjoy it.