CD playback: When are analog interconnects better than digital?

I'm running 4 megachangers that have super crudball DACs, so I'm obviously benefitting from using the available optical digital connections to my receiver's Burr-Brown PCM-1791 24 bit, 192 kHz DACs. In Pure Direct mode, the receiver is ganging 4 of these converters per channel.

My question is: at what point would I realize an improvement in sound if I were to buy an audiophile-grade CDP? I know audiophiles usually use some high-dollar analog cables with their expensive players to achieve sonic nirvana, but I don't know if that's the route to take with my system.

Are audiophiles using analog because they're not dealing with processors, like myself, or is there more to it than that?

If I'm going to continue to use this receiver, am I always going to be better off using digital connections to the CDP or would good good analog cables be the way to go with a nice player?

 

I don't have audiophile-grade stuff, whatever that may be, but I find my MITs give me either comparable or better sound than my optical connects.

 

I don't have any audiophile grade equipment except the DJ equipment but I don't have a digital optical receiver at all and the only piece of equipment that allows digital optical hookup I have is the CD/MD combo deck. I exclusively use analog interconnects and they suit me just fine and are great.

 

Well, one school of thought is that the jitter introduced by the digital cable connections has a negative impact on the sound. So, at some point as your player got better the analog output to your receiver would be best. Current "audiophile" thinking these days is leaning toward one-box players without any outboard DAC or digital cable. My thinking is that these days you wouldn't have to buy a very expensive CD player to better the digital cable connection/receiver DAC.

John K.

 

Analog connections will give you a much more musical sound than a digital connection on any system. Personally, I'd try the Grovers that Steve's recommending. Just MHO.

 

Thank you all -- very interesting responses.

Dave,
I believe you'd agree with me that under no circumstances should I let the DACs in my current players be doing the decoding when given the option of having the Denon's superior DACs handle it. The difference is like night and day in my situation.

I do have my eye on those Grovers, BTW

John,
I hadn't considered the jitter factor. I guess I'm wondering now just exactly what level of player I would want for the analog cables to clearly be the better choice.

 

You believed right. Just analog as opposed to digitally.

 

That's not (ana)logical, Captain.

Unless I slept through school that day, wouldn't analog interconnects dictate that the crappy (in my player's) DACs are being used, rather than the receiver's?

 

Jason, depending on the receiver, both sets of DAC's may be used. If the receiver is capable of bypassing the digital circuitry completely (and only some are) then just the players converters are being used. However, I think most surround receivers these days take every single analog input they have and convert it to digital then back to analog once it's done processing it. That's a whole extra step. Some do however provide an analog bypass that leaves that extra step out. As a further thought, the plastic optical cables and in/outs are generally thought to be inferior to an RCA digital in/out (with a good digital cable, of course). Me, on my fairly good system, don't know if I could tell the difference, though I haven't tried.

 

Thanks, Pinknik (nice avatar, BTW. I used to use a spinning one).

I'll have to check into that analog bypass thing. I have to admit I haven't switched between toslink and analog with my current receiver, but on the Yamaha I used to have, I had made up my mind that these CD players shouldn't be used analogically. I will give it another shot, although I don't have any great interconnects yet.

This thread is quite the eye-opener for me. I hope it continues.

 

I don't understand. Are you asking about using the player's digital outputs vs. the analog ones, or using analog cables for the digital signal? If the latter, then I would expect the digital cables to work better because of impedence issues. (This is a theoretical understanding, not an empirical one - I haven't made the comparison myself - but I can't think of any logical reason for using an analog cable to transfer the digital signal.)

 

I hadn't even thought of the possibility of using analog cables for the digital signal.

I was just under the impression that using analog cables meant I would have to have quite the upscale CD player in order to compete with the sound I currently get from passing the signal digitally to my receiver.

I'm still trying to feel out at what price point would I be able to annihilate my current CD performance, and by abandoning the digital connection entirely. I'm interested in that Music Hall player mentioned in another thread, but I'm trying to iron out any misconceptions I have first.

 

I see. It is worth asking this question before going any further: does your receiver digitize all the analog inputs, or does it have a "direct" or "bypass" mode? If it digitizes everything then I don't think you'll gain anything at all by using the analog inputs with the best of CD players.

 

I'm going to have to consult my manual (tomorrow).

I do appreciate your help

 

Thanks for asking this question, Jason. I just picked up the Music Hall CD player and was going to ask the same thing.

The way I've had it set up to date, the CD player was digitally connected to my burner--a Fostex clone of the HHB 850 Steve uses--which connected to my receiver's digital CD in. Now, with the Music Hall, I still have the CD digitally connected to the burner, but now I'm using the analog outs to the receiver via my entry-level Audioquest interconnects (until the Grovers arrive). I'll need to check if my Sunfire has an analog bypass. So far, I've noticed no difference in sound between hookups, but then the Music Hall is still burning in. (It does sound sweet both ways.)

Pardon my ignorance, but what's "digital cable"? I thought these were the same as RCAs. Would I get better sound with something else?

JE

 

Digital cable is run optically.

 

Or "coaxically" via 75ohm RCAs.

 

The Music Hall player has both a toslink optical and a coaxial connection. The coaxials look like an RCA, but it is different. Coaxial is arguably better than optical, but I don't know which is better out of the 3 in your case, jeendicott.

 

Jason, are you saying that there are more than one of these different looking RCA's? If so, I can't think of what else they would be other than RCA connections. If however there is only one I'd be willing to bet that it's an S/PDIF digital transmission connection which is better than a toslink.

Ok, just got back from checking it out. It says, and I quote, that it has 1 optical, 1 coaxial, and 1 analog connection on the Music Hall CD-25. I would think that it might be an average RCA for analog, but only 1? Also just noticed that I haven't heard of any good high-end equipment being made in China before. Hopefully someone else knows more about this I.

 

There are two RCA outlets.

 

I've always used coaxial, since the optical kept falling out of the outlet.

I remember using coaxial cables when setting the system up; I guess I'd forgotten how closely they resembled RCAs.

 

A picture of the player

Exhibit 'A' m'lud



All the best - Andrew

 

that's the back of the player.