Which is more important to sound?

Which is more important to sounc

Being this is a site dedicated to fine sounding CD's I beg the question... which is more important to the overall sound coming out of your speakers, the CD player or the source disc. Does Steve's mastering make a CD sound better on a $150 Sony player then a less stellar recording on a $3000 one? Would a wise man buy a cheap player and use the savings to buy all of the best recorded CD's available?

 

Hi Flatso - welcome to the forum

No black and white answer on this one I think - lots of dependencies but... it depends on where the players are on the "law of diminishing returns" curve and what you find important in getting the most out of your listening experience. I have two transport/dac combinations in my setup and I don't think either of them has any major faults but there was a reasonable difference in price.

Scene setting over - example time DCC Band on the Run vs Anniversary edition - for me the DCC version blew away the anniversary irrespective of replay system and not by a small margin - same goes for Rick Wakeman Journey to the Centre ... MFSL Aluminium versus Gold (thanks Dave). So my personal experience is that a better mastered disc can outweigh several kilobucks extra expenditure on the replay side.

I don't know how we apply metrics to discs or equipment but it may be the case that spending 2 to 5 times as much on hardware gets you 10% improvement whereas finding the right disc can be 100% better (p.s. they aren't real numbers just my attempt at painting a picture to aid description )

All the best - Andrew

 

Hi Flatso and welcome

I would agree with Andrew 100% on this issue as it's all in the mastering. There is no way that any CD player, be it a $100.00 Sony or a $6,000.00 Moon, will make a badly mastered CD album sound good.

You're very welcome Andrew.

 

Very true Dave. However a $6000 Moon will certainly make Steve's work sound better than a $100.00 Sony.

 

That does go without saying my friend, but I could most surely do as well for less $ IMHO

 

Bottom line with me? THE MUSIC!

 

Thanks for the welcome!

And great responses guys. Am seriously thinking of getting a SONY SACD player for $199 at 6th Ave today to get a feel for SACD sound quality and of course to play Steve's new Zombie's disc.

I am one of the ones who thinks the source is more important then the playback when it come to CD's. I think you pay a lot for only small differences when it comes to high end players vs a more rational CD player purchase. Of course this can be debated forever especially if you bought one of those "fancyboy" CD players and need to justify the expense to yourself.

 

AGREED!

 

Re: Thanks for the welcome!

It's a little more complex than that. I think you might actually benefit from a "fancyboy" cdp if all the rest of your system is made up of "fancyboy" grade components.

FancyBoymode

 

Re: Thanks for the welcome!

If you have to pick one part of the chain which is the most important, it is the source. This applies to LP's, tapes, CD's etc. If the source is lousy and the system is fantastic, you will have a fantastic reproduction of lousy sound. Therefore the source comes first.

That being said, I agree with Andrew re: the ""law of diminishing returns" curve". A good lower-mid price system will always benefit from an upgrade in the CD itself and you will have to pay more in practice to upgrade the system. A fantastic tube system wcould add a "breath of life" to a good flat CD transfer at a cost of thousands. But a "breath of life" added in the mastering of the CD will do a lot for a few dollars more in the audiophile store.

 

On the plus side of the argument for upgrading the hardware is that it may result in all your CDs sounding that little bit better - could be a major factor to anything over a deciJimbo size collection

All the best - Andrew

 

I'm certainly no expert on this, but I understand that if a CD player is connected from the digital output, that the player itself only picks up the digital information from the disk and sends it to the digital receiver or D/A converter, where it is then processed. If that is the case, would it not be better to buy a Sony or Technics CD player and spend the big bucks on a high(er) end digital receiver? That's what I did.

I know it's a bit like putting cheap tires on a Mercedes, but I found that my Technics player does a much better job of tracking than any of my previous players.

 

Tallcoolone,

According to previous conversations on this subject I believe that it was stated that the CDP sounds the most musical when connected through the non-variable RCA's. I know Steve himself had advised me of this.

Steve, am I remembering correctly?

 

Welcome, Flatso, to our little asylum. Hope you enjoy the accomodations. We are all friends here, just a little obsessed about a few things, that's all...

Between the two, the CD mastering is the major factor, providing you have a decent sound system and a good, moderately priced player. Problem is, everyone hears a little differently from everybody else, so what might sound, say, hissy or shrill to some may sound great to another...no real definitive answer(unless our peerless leader has one) but as Dave points out, Steve is the man to ask on something like this. I know HIS CDs sound awful good on my system. But of course you can't expect that sort of performance from a boom box or even one of those systems you buy in a big box. And the WalMart buying crowd doesn't frequent this forum, anyway. Flats, you are surrounded by gearheads and dedicated collectors of all that is fine and sublime.

You've been warned, pal.

Have fun,

ED

 

Dave,

Thanks for the information. I'm just a new member and was not aware of that. I stand corrected.

I should have mentioned that I have my CD player connected to a D/A converter, which is connected to my receiver through the RCAs. I noticed a much richer sound than when I connected the CDP directly to the receiver using the digital output. I attributed the improved sound to my D/A converter, but perhaps the type of connection played a role as well.

I haven't heard much about D/A converters, since Digital Receivers came out. I'm not sure whether they still make them.

Anyway, if the CDP sounds better connected through the RCAs, getting a better CDP can make a difference. However, it is important to note that more money doesn't necessarily mean better sound. A few years ago, I read an article in Home Theatre magazine, where a panel of experts rated a cheap Sony CDP higher than much more expensive players.

 

Based on your description, your outboard DAC is providing better digital to analog conversion than the DAC in your CD player.

Yes, outboard DAC's are still available. A great way to improve the sound without buying a new CDP.

 

I am wondering whether a DAC will process iinformation from a SACD player. After reading all the great things about SACD, I'm thinking of investing in an entry level Sony. I know I wouldn't be able to get surround sound out of it, but I don't care about that. I like classic rock with it's original mixes.

 

Re: Thanks for the welcome!

I admit it...I am a fancyboy and I love my Rega Planet. When I got it, it absolutely blew me away (non-sexual fancyboy reference) and to this day, it still does...it kicked a** on my mass-consumer CD player (Sony) from day one and onward.


Regards,

El Fancyboyo

(Ben)

P.S. My Creek 5350 SE also has fancyboy tendencies....shhhhhh.

 

Yes, BUT ONLY the CD layer. Many SACD players have a digital out for the redbook 16 bit CD layer only. The SACD outputs are analog only.

 

Unless you get a fancyboy one

All the best - Andrew

 

Should we change your name here to "The Latent One"

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

Is that a brand name, or a product line?

 

Hey Tallcoolone! Any relation to fancyboy one?

 

Well the fancyboy two is a DVD-A player

All the best - Andrew