cd source

bernard&* · 04-26-2004, 09:28 AM

why not using optical input for cd source.

Allen Longcor · 04-26-2004, 11:44 AM

I'm sure most people want to use the DAC's in their CD player as opposed to the DAC's in their receiver. I used an optical connection for my cd player because I used my receiver's Dolby Pro Logic II settings for music. It's really a personal preference choice.

John Garcia · 04-26-2004, 12:19 PM

Allen hits on the right point, whichever component has the better DACs will tend to sound better, so you will have to try it both ways. My 222ES has had better DACs than all of my receivers up until my current one (Marantz 8300), so I now use coaxial digital for redbook. It really depends on what level of gear we are talking about. When you get into nicer CD players such as Arcam, Cambridge Audio, Rotel etc... or even something like Creek, I don't think you will find too many receivers with better DACs.

Quote:

I used an optical connection for my cd player because I used my receiver's Dolby Pro Logic II settings for music.

It doesn't matter whether you use analog or digital in this case, you can still apply DSPs to the signal.

NickGL · 04-26-2004, 01:06 PM

i've always used coax and optical for CD and DVD players, i was under the impression that the DACs in most mainstream optical sources were subpar to my pioneer elite's burr-browns

i've never thought of better DACs in the source gear- question: will my Yamaha midrange DVD player or my reciever (i'm getting a Marantz SR5400 next week to replace the dead pioneer) have better DACS?

another benefit to digital is the cable expense can drop drastically

John Garcia · 04-26-2004, 02:09 PM

Mainstream is the key word there I believe. At some point with sources, you will simply not find DACs that good in any receiver (obviously with something like Creek, where you are talking about ~$2K or more source). Just becuase your receiver has Burr-Brown DACs does not automatically mean they sound better than good DACs in a quality CD player. My Denon 2200 uses Burr-Brown DACs too, but my receiver's DACs still sound better, as do my 222's.

IMO, in your case, the 5400 may still have better DACs than the Yammie.

**HTF Ads**

Dan_Shore · 04-26-2004, 02:20 PM

This is always an ongoing debate in the audio world. Most will tell you that co-ax will sound better than fiber. But there are those that state that a glass fiber will sound as good as a co-ax and better than the plastic fiber. Personally with my audio system, my co-ax sounds much better than either glass or plastic fiber.

Later...Dan

John Garcia · 04-26-2004, 04:22 PM

I prefer a good quality coax also.

NickGL · 04-26-2004, 05:10 PM

agreed with the coax

ScottCHI · 04-26-2004, 07:17 PM

Quote:

This is always an ongoing debate in the audio world. Most will tell you that co-ax will sound better than fiber. But there are those that state that a glass fiber will sound as good as a co-ax and better than the plastic fiber. Personally with my audio system, my co-ax sounds much better than either glass or plastic fiber.

this has absolutely nothing to do with the guy's original post, though

ChrisWiggles · 04-27-2004, 01:04 AM

Nick, just to add my input, as I use a marantz 5300 with an NAD 521i CD player, I actually prefer the marantz DACs. This surprised me. Sometimes I go back and forth, because the marantz dacs seem a little more laid back, but much better spacially deep, and sounds more detailed. I use dynaudio audience 52SE as mains. Not sure what kind of innards the 5400 is using, I expect it similar or better than the 5300, but I really like the quality of the dacs in mine. enjoy!

NickGL · 04-27-2004, 01:55 AM

Thanks for the info Chris!

i'm very glad to hear that because the only cables i let myself use for high quality analog are some Straight Wire i got from my uncle, but they're only 1/2 meter and i'd rather not put a DVD player on top of the reciever

i suppose i could buy new wire, but.... well, i'm a student and would rather use my existing hand me downs if possible, heh