Will my Dvd give me good playback of CDs or is a seperate CD player Important? (1 Viewer)

[Jason Bell]

I'm upgrading my receiver from a 10 yr old Sony surround, even before Pro-Logic, to a Denon 1802. My speakers are going from some Technics CBR77 3way towers to Axiom M22s. I cant wait till it arrives. My question is I dont have a dedicated Cd player I've just been using my 2 yr old Philips Magnavox Dvd player for Cds. Does it make that much difference to have a dedicated Cd player or not?

 

[Keith Ro]

I'm upgrading my receiver from a 10 yr old Sony surround, even before Pro-Logic, to a Denon 1802. My speakers are going from some Technics CBR77 3way towers to Axiom M22s. I cant wait till it arrives. My question is I dont have a dedicated Cd player I've just been using my 2 yr old Philips Magnavox Dvd player for Cds. Does it make that much difference to have a dedicated Cd player or not?

Sonically, it won't make a difference -- connect the dvd player to the receiver by the digital out and the receiver will be doing all the decoding. The DVD player is just a transport.

Where it might make a difference is with CD-Rs and CD-RWs -- many older DVD players have real trouble playing these.

 

[Jason Bell]

Thanks for your reply. Would you recommend optical or coax for the connection? Most people I've asked say optical because of less interference.

 

[Earl Simpson]

I use the optical, and my DVD player says it will play CD's , but locks up the unit everytime. I use a mega m333es for my 400CD collection. To me that is the most practical way to do it. Plus my DVD is on top of my RPTV so I can have very short component cables.

 

[Keith Ro]

Thanks for your reply. Would you recommend optical or coax for the connection? Most people I've asked say optical because of less interference.

Sonically there's no difference between the two -- it's a digital connection. The coax cable is cheaper and more robust -- any rca cable should. Optical cables break if they're twisted too much...On the plus side, they look a lot cooler...

 

[Bill Kane]

A dedicated CD player that contains "superior" DACs might best the DVD/CD unit for digital-to-analog decoding.

An example is the Denon DCM-370 with a Burr-Brown chip for HDCD discs.

In this instance, one uses the RCA audio interconnents to the amp's CD inputs and hopefully with some kind of Audio Direct or Analog Bypass feature.

A/B listening tests should help find which is the preferable sound.

 

[Mike Matheson]

I was surprised how much even cheapo optical cables can cost the last time I went looking. Wound up trying a Radio Shack Gold Series cord. Very poorly made, IMHO. Definitely NOT worth the money.
If trying optical, I'd recommend an Acoustic Research Pro cord (maybe try Accessories4less). Much better made (less likely to disconnect by accident) and a good bit less expensive.
I'm not sure I quite agree with Keith on the "there's no difference", at least in all cases, but with the gear you have I think that would be a pretty safe assumption (again, IMHO).
M

 

[John Garcia]

No, ANY RCA cable will NOT do. There is a post somewhere on here where a member was using a video RCA cable, and was getting "pauses" or drop outs. When he switched to a cable that was specified as a coax digital cable, the issue went away. Don't ask me why, but it apparently DOES matter.

Optical vs coax - there should be no measurable difference. I use coax also.

While I feel my DVD player does a decent job at CDs, I still prefer to use a dedicated CD player for music in my main system. In my bedroom system, I only have the DVD and I use it for 90% music. It does just fine.

 

[Arthur S]

In my experience even a modest DVD player can sound quite good with CDs. The big advantage of a dedicated CD player is that you can get a 200-400 disc CD player for not much more than a 5 disc carousel.

As far as connectors, I have to respectfully disagree with John Garcia about coaxial cable. One of the most interesting articles on the forums a few years ago was about how a guy took a coat hanger and used it as a coax cable with no problems. Try a spare RCA patch cord and if you have any problems with it you can always upgrade.

Artie

 

[John Garcia]

I didn't mean to make it sound like "you must go get a $100 dedicated coaxial digital cable", because I don't feel that is necessary at all. I was just relaying what I had read here. There could be an issue with the specific type of cable used, in particular with a DVD player (maybe a certain brand or model). I can't find the thread, but it wasn't too long ago.

I have personally used basic patch cords and the cheapo coax dig. cable that came with my CDP without issue. Since I couldn't hear a difference between coax and analog, I am using analog for my CDP though, and coax dig for my DVD.

 

[Harold Leroy]

DVD player as a transport is ok, but it sure gets a lot better with a good external DAC like Perpetual Technologies P-3A. It made a big difference with my Toshiba 9200. I hope to soon add the P-1A to complete the chain. I think the $1,700 spent on the Perpetual Tech stuff is better than spending the same amount on a dedicated CD player for the same price. I am listening to CD's much more than ever before since I bought the external DAC--I am really a believer!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[David Judah]

It depends on the quality of the respective players. In my experience some DVD players can make good CD players, but they are not cheap, because they are also optimized for audio, not just video.

DJ

 

[RichardH]

All you need is a shielded RCA cable that is 75 Ohms. Most cables designated for video will comply with this, but you should check.
As far as coax vs. optical, it will not make a difference. Digital is digital. On a related note, your DVD player will do fine as a transport. A lot of people say that transports can make a difference, but if a transport is delivering the digital data correctly, it will be decoded according to the receiver's clock and DAC's, so once you get the data to the receiver, it doesn't matter what the transport is!
EDIT: There appears to be more to the issue. I'm learning all this stuff myself. Check out this site for some really good info:
http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html

 

[Jeff D.]

I think too many people underestimate the transport in this whole equation. Quality of sound does not start and end at the D/A stage. There is an important stage before that - the transport.
Now for my subjective opinion...I've never been satisfied with any DVD player as a CD transport. This applies both sonically and ergonomically. I find DVD transports to be terribly slow when playing CDs. From the time it takes to recognize the disc as a CD and read the TOC, to the sluggish track access. I have never found a DVD transport that operates as swiftly as my own Sony CD player.
I'm not going to pretend I know more than I do, but I believe a lot of sonic differences have to do with jitter. Jitter is essentially time-based errors in a digital signal. Jitter can be caused by a whole host of things in a transport (and, in this case, an entire DVD player with often offending video circuitry). Digital is not just 1s and 0s and therefore as simple as that. It is precisely timed 1s and 0s - and if that timing is mucked up, there could be trouble.
I would recommend exploring both options. Ultimately, unless space or budget is a concern, I would recommend a good stand-alone CD player for your music.
/Jeff

 

[Saurav]

This has been beaten to death so many times on this forum, and who knows how many times on other forums. If anyone is interested in the very heated, detailed, technical, etc. discussions that have happened in the past, run a search for "optical coax jitter" or something like that. I'm sure there's enough material to keep someone busy for weeks, and I doubt there will be many questions left after reading all that. There are no clear-cut "this is how it works, period" answers here.
In my opinion, of course

 

[Gary W. Graley]

Well me personally, I prefer to use a CD player when listening to CDs and ~Save~ my DVD player for the movies, lessens the amount of playing time on the DVD player, so it should last a bit longer, and I've run into where a burned CD won't play in my DVD player but will play in my ES Sony disc changer. Since I already have the CD player, I'll run that to death and later on upgrade to one of the SACD players as well.
So I guess I don't like a DO ALL type machine, handy but I leave the movies to the movie playing devices and the music to the music playing devices...
G2

 

[chung]

Here's a site that contains some measurements on a DVD player used as CD players:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/summary/index.htm
This is one of the very few places where you can find jitter measurement results (and spectra) of some common players.
This topic has been discussed in a lot of detail, with heated exchanges, in the rec.audio.high-end newsgroup. You can do a google search for it.

 

[Blake Heinzeroth]

I first got involved in the home theater hobby about four years ago

when my friend first showed me his DVD player. Until that point, I

never owned a single movie on VHS. But, DVD technology was so slick

that I was immediately hooked. Soon, I was buying widescreen digital

TVs, progressive scan DVD players, etc.

Though the home theater bug bit only a few years ago, I've enjoyed

collecting hi-fi stereo equipment for the past 11 years. One of the

most interesting parts of becoming an HT addict is seeing how similar

(and often how different) HT is from the "musical" hi-fi world.

For instance, I've always felt that an unpowered speaker sounded much better

(or at least more pure) than a powered speaker -- in relation to music

reproduction. I've come to realize that this is very different for movie

reproduction. A sub-woofer is a must for the pounding soundtracks that a

DVD can provide.

One thing that is relatively the same in both the HT world and the audio

hi-fi world is the fact that the less a piece of equipment has to do, the

better it usually does it. For instance, true audio aficionados shy away from using a receiver

to reproduce music. A separate pre-amp and amp is a must. Home theater fans

feel the same way, but probably not as fanatically. I think this is because there

is a fundamental difference in what each hobby offers. I think many people would

agree that accurate reproduction of every nuance of sound is not quite as important

in a movie as it is in a passage of music. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a

HT setup won't benefit from a top of the line audio setup! However I believe

there is a great deal more detail present in a piece of classical music than there

is in a DD 5.1 surround movie soundtrack.

All you need to do is compare reviews of HT equipment vs. audio equipment. Reviews

of HT equipment tend to have passages describing how much the reviewer felt he

was part of the movie, how accurately the surround sound setup placed sound effects,

and how well the bass sounded. Audio equipment reviews get much, much more detailed,

sometimes to the point where reviewers are just ridiuclous. They talk about the

"liquidity" of music, the brightness, the organic shape of the sound reproduced,

the breadth of the soundwave, the warmness or coolness of an amp or CD player, etc.

Overall, I think the audio hi-fi hobby demands a bit more of a critical ear than

the HT hobby.

Anyway, the subject at hand: dedicated CD player vs. DVD player. I actually setup

my Pioneer DV-37 DVD player in my audio system and A/Bd it against my dedicated CD

player (an Adcom GCD-750). I have to say, the Adcom sounded much better than the

DVD player. No contest. And I'm not talking in an esoteric "organic sound" kind

of way -- it was obvious. I put identical CDs in both players, and asked eight of

my friends to tell me which unit sounded better (they didn't know which was playing),

and every one of them said the dedicated CD player sounded better.

Then I took it a step further. The Adcom has a nice feature which allows it to act

as a DAC for another digital source. In other words, you can connect another device

with a digital out (in this case, my Pioneer DVd player) and allow the Adcom player

to act as the digital audio converter. So, that's what I did. The sound coming

from the Pioneer DVD player (now being decoded through the Adcom unit) was much better.

Still, in my opinion, not quite as good as the Adcom by itself, but a considerable

improvement over the Pioneer's DACs.

My opinion/conclusion in all this? DVD player vs. standalone CD player... no contest.

The CD player wins hands down. I am most confident in saying that DVD player DACs

are no where near as nice as dedicated audio CD player DACs. However, if a DVD

player is being run through an external DAC, it can come closer to the sound of a

dedicated CD player... but not quite reach it. The quality of the transport itself

is important (I won't get into jitter, as it's already been discussed here). My Pioneer

DVD player weighs about 3.5 pounds. My Adcom CD player weighs nearly 30 -- that's a solid

transport. And, I think it makes a difference (IMHO).

 

[Larry B]

Jeff:

Now for my subjective opinion...I've never been satisfied with any DVD player as a transport.

I agree with you for the most part though there is at least one exception: The Ayre D1. It is a superb transport (which is how I use it) and, in recent testing, I found that I prefer it's DACS to a Mark Levinson 360S processor.

Larry

 

[Mike Veroukis]

My opinion/conclusion in all this? DVD player vs. standalone CD player... no contest.

Just some minor points...

1) The test would have been more valid if both units were Pioneer or Adcom. It's possible that Adcom's simply have better DACs in all their lines, or that all Pioneers have poorer DACs. So to say that all CD players have superior DACs can not be said with absolute sertainty with the above test. I think the brand made more of a difference in this case. Perhaps make the Amp decode from both sources and then see how it sounds.

2) Your second test is a curious one. You said that when the Adcom's DAC was used to decode the Pioneer's datastream the Adcom decoding it's own datastream still sounded better. I wonder if there's any extra processing that the Adcom might perform to help improve the "digital" sound qualty before it sends the digital data to the DAC when it's reading a CD. I say this because I find it odd that there would be any loss with a digital connection between the two units. If there is any "digital noise" it would sound like total crap on the other end. Digital signals don't degrade like analogue signals, they either get through or they do not. I don't know of any digital protocol that does not have any error detection and/or correction. Furthermore, the SPDIF standard is pretty much industrial strength, it's what's used in studios so it has to be reliable. So the data received by the Adcom must be identical to what the laser picked up in the Pioneer unit. So the question is, where does the change in sound come from?

- Mike