CD Player v Computer

[Flax]

Greeting Hi Fi enthusiasts

Not sure if this is a new topic or not but am thinking about the differences in sound quality between a mac book pro and the new audiolab 8200cd player - or perhaps more to the point - why is there a difference? Assuming that both will be utilising an audiolab Mdac and that speakers / headphones / cables are not part of the equation - then what are the remaining factors to be considered. Is information on a cd lost when ripped to a hard drive in the highest quality format? Is a cd transport better than hard drive mechanism? What about a hi res audio file stored on flash drive? So what exacty is the difference in the data stream before it hits the dac and why?

Certainly from a convenience point of view I would rather deal with files rather than hard copies and obviously the usual "listen to both and make your choice" rule applies in the end - but at this moment in time I'm more interested in the cold hard data stream and what the two machines do to it. I am also minded to ask if we need cd players at all - or compact discs for that matter.

Looking forward to your replies. I know this subject could get a bit technical and I'm no genius but I'll try to keep up.

 

[ID.]

Some manufacturers like Linn claim that streaming ( files on a computer, effectively) is superior.

I have personally abandoned CD players for a computer into a DAC. With my previous all in one I couldn't hear a significant difference between the CD player or the onboard DAC converting files from a computer or iPod.

There are also things you can do with th MacBook to get a bit perfect stream and even DSP to compensate for room acoustics if you can be bothered delving that far into matters.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I made the change to a Mac Mini from a Roksan Caspian M2 CD player a couple of years ago. I have to say that the SQ is about the same, although I thought the Roksan did sound slightly more warm. However that could be to do with the difference in DACs. ( I run two systems, Mac Mini -> Devialet and Powerbook Pro -> Chord Qute)

I can stream from the Mac Mini, where all my ripped CD's are stored, to the Powerbook system and I also use Qobuz on both.

There is no loss of data when ripping CD's and ripped files, to my ears, actually sound better than the CD but this could be due to other factors. In any case, I didn't find that the SQ was worse from ripped files.

The convenience of having access to all your music almost instantly via iPhone/iPad is a real boon and frees up so much more space. (All my ripped CD's are stored away in boxes in the loft).

OTOH I have found though, that I miss the 'ceremony' of inserting a disc into the player. A bit like some people find with Vinyl.

Slightly off-topic but I am in the process of acquiring a Turntable and am auditioning a few at the moment. I think music can be viewed much more as a commodity when everything is available all the time and going back to a Vinyl system restores the reverence some music deserves.

 

[drummerman]

Slightly off-topic but I am in the process of acquiring a Turntable and am auditioning a few at the moment. I think music can be viewed much more as a commodity when everything is available all the time and going back to a Vinyl system restores the reverence some music deserves.

+1

 

[bigfish786]

I'm sure at some point in the future I will have either a dedicated music streamer, or something connecting my laptop to my amp permanently, or some other device that allows streaming. As a product of convenience, I can see it has its advantages.

but personally, I prefer my CDs and vinyl albums. Not only playing them, but also finding them, and collecting them too.

theres nothing quite like finding a hidden gem in a record shop. Or even finding a rare old release on the Internet. And buying it.

 

[jjbomber]

why is there a difference?

Timing and jitter in a nutshell. Many people think that digital signals are all noughts and ones, so cannot make mistakes. Anyone who has had a computer or hard drive crash knows different. Why do we have to unplug the Sky box for 10 seconds to clear the cache when it's all digital signals? Exactly. Digital signals can and do go wrong.

 

[davedotco]

why is there a difference?

Timing and jitter in a nutshell. Many people think that digital signals are all noughts and ones, so cannot make mistakes. Anyone who has had a computer or hard drive crash knows different. Why do we have to unplug the Sky box for 10 seconds to clear the cache when it's all digital signals? Exactly. Digital signals can and do go wrong.

You are right, but also wrong.

Your examples are poor too, hard drve crashes and system malfunctions have nothing to do with streaming (audio) files.

Transfer protocols require a digital file to be transfered 'bit perfect' or will report an error, the 'noughts and ones' will be correct, simple as.

Jitter may in severe cases affect the timing of the data, but with modern equipment, particularly dacs that are designed to correct for jitter, the errors would have to be large, so large in fact that the equipment is, in effect, faulty.

Similarly (computer) noise, transmitted via the connection cables could case an issue, though unlikely with any decent components. RF noise in particular used to be a real problem, much rarer these days.

Bear in mind that faults, errors of this type will not affect the sound in the usual 'hi-fi ways', it will not be brighter or faster or smoother, that is really not possible but noise and drop-outs are possible, though only as a result of 'faulty' equipment.

 

[Al ears]

why is there a difference?

Timing and jitter in a nutshell. Many people think that digital signals are all noughts and ones, so cannot make mistakes. Anyone who has had a computer or hard drive crash knows different. Why do we have to unplug the Sky box for 10 seconds to clear the cache when it's all digital signals? Exactly. Digital signals can and do go wrong.

You are right, but also wrong.

Your examples are poor too, hard drve crashes and system malfunctions have nothing to do with streaming (audio) files.

Transfer protocols require a digital file to be transfered 'bit perfect' or will report an error, the 'noughts and ones' will be correct, simple as.

Jitter may in severe cases affect the timing of the data, but with modern equipment, particularly dacs that are designed to correct for jitter, the errors would have to be large, so large in fact that the equipment is, in effect, faulty.

Similarly (computer) noise, transmitted via the connection cables could case an issue, though unlikely with any decent components. RF noise in particular used to be a real problem, much rarer these days.

Bear in mind that faults, errors of this type will not affect the sound in the usual 'hi-fi ways', it will not be brighter or faster or smoother, that is really not possible but noise and drop-outs are possible, though only as a result of 'faulty' equipment.

+1, nicely put.

 

[MajorFubar]

If you will permit me to tackle a part of your question that so far hasn't been touched upon:

I am also minded to ask if we need cd players at all - or compact discs for that matter.

Certainly for the time being we do need CDs, though whether you need a CD player is down to your personal preference of how you like to consume your music. There is no mass-market replacement for CDs that delivers lossless audio at 16bit 44.1kHz (CD quality) or higher (though you don't need higher). Some may argue the best MP3s and AACs sound no worse than CDs of the same albums and therefore the fact they are lossy formats is of no real consequence. But the subjective audio quality of those formats is irrelevant, they're still lossy formats and are inferior to the CDs that predated them.

 

[Andrewjvt]

You may find some of the answers a little confussing.
But they are mostly correct except the hard drive crash theory.

In simple terms if you use a physical cd disc connected to a dac or ripped music files in flac format there will be No difference in the sound quality.

Different cd players or different dacs will have a say in the presentation but no difference between disc or music files through the same system.

Hope that helps

 

[Al ears]

If you will permit me to tackle a part of your question that so far hasn't been touched upon:

I am also minded to ask if we need cd players at all - or compact discs for that matter.

Certainly for the time being we do need CDs, though whether you need a CD player is down to your personal preference of how you like to consume your music. There is no mass-market replacement for CDs that delivers lossless audio at 16bit 44.1kHz (CD quality) or higher (though you don't need higher). Some may argue the best MP3s and AACs sound no worse than CDs of the same albums and therefore the fact they are lossy formats is of no real consequence. But the subjective audio quality of those formats is irrelevant, they're still lossy formats and are inferior to the CDs that predated them.

Agreed. The silver disc will be around for a lot longer yet. It is still thecheapest way of acquiring good quality music whether you RIP them using computer CD drive or actually playing them on a CD player.

Hi res files are still overpriced especially considering downloads need no packaging. You'll find it difficult to sell on a download file.

 

[ID.]

why is there a difference?

Timing and jitter in a nutshell. Many people think that digital signals are all noughts and ones, so cannot make mistakes. Anyone who has had a computer or hard drive crash knows different. Why do we have to unplug the Sky box for 10 seconds to clear the cache when it's all digital signals? Exactly. Digital signals can and do go wrong.

You are right, but also wrong.

Your examples are poor too, hard drve crashes and system malfunctions have nothing to do with streaming (audio) files.

Transfer protocols require a digital file to be transfered 'bit perfect' or will report an error, the 'noughts and ones' will be correct, simple as.

Jitter may in severe cases affect the timing of the data, but with modern equipment, particularly dacs that are designed to correct for jitter, the errors would have to be large, so large in fact that the equipment is, in effect, faulty.

Similarly (computer) noise, transmitted via the connection cables could case an issue, though unlikely with any decent components. RF noise in particular used to be a real problem, much rarer these days.

Bear in mind that faults, errors of this type will not affect the sound in the usual 'hi-fi ways', it will not be brighter or faster or smoother, that is really not possible but noise and drop-outs are possible, though only as a result of 'faulty' equipment.

One interesting function of my current DAC is the ability to adjust the lock range. This does have a subtle effect on the sound.

I think that people do sometimes oversimplify digital as just 0s and 1s and completely ignore the subtle effects of jitter and the reality of how the signal is transmitted through the cable. Then again, to cover my arse I'll say that the effects are very subtle. Maybe not even as big as changing the DAC filters.

If if I had the time and money I guess I'd like to test whether different transports and cables had an impact on how narrow I can set the lock range without experiencing dropouts. The Mac Mini seems to be pretty good and I can set the lock range close to the minimum without getting dropouts.

 

[andyjm]

I think that people do sometimes oversimplify digital as just 0s and 1s and completely ignore the subtle effects of jitter and the reality of how the signal is transmitted through the cable. Then again, to cover my arse I'll say that the effects are very subtle. Maybe not even as big as changing the DAC filters.

Well, of course digital data is just 1s and 0s, thats the point of digital. What is not just 1s and 0s is the transfer of the clock signal along an S/PDIF link.

Turning digital samples back into analogue needs a clock to step through the samples in a regular manner. If the clock is unsteady (jittered), the samples don't get used at the right time, and the output analogue signal is impaired.

The problem is that the clock is most often located in the streamer or CD player, when it is really needed in the DAC. To solve this, the clock signal gets mashed into the sample data using a technique called 'manchester bi-phase mark encoding' and sent off down an S/PDIF link. The DAC then has to recover the clock from the sample data.

For its time, S/PDIF was pretty good, but it wasn't long before it became clear that the link itself introduced jitter. In reality, the clock belongs on the circuit board right next to the DAC chip, where it can provide a nice stable clock stream. Where it does not belong is in a separate box, connected to the DAC by a imperfect link. Many of the jitter problems that used to plague separate DACs come from the damn S/PDIF link - Sony and Philips have a lot to answer for.

Most modern DAC designs solve this by using jitter mitigation techniques that try to divorce the clock used to drive the DAC itself from the S/PDIF recovered clock. In this case, the resulting output of the DAC is completely independent of the source of the data, the quality of the source clock, or the quality of the S/PDIF link. You can use the cheapest disc spinner or most expensive CD player and the results will be the same. If however your DAC is sensitive to jitter (an old or just plain bad design) then the quality of the source clock and S/PDIF link COULD matter and impact the sound quality from the DAC.

So, just remember, digital really is just 1s and 0s and very robust, but clocks are senstive and fragile and need treating with respect.

 

[cheeseboy]

Timing and jitter in a nutshell.

jitter is often bunged around far too much in the hifi world. It's not really much of an issue at all, especially not where playback is concerned.

Many people think that digital signals are all noughts and ones,

pretty much by definition it is.

so cannot make mistakes.

yes there can be mistakes, hence things like error correction were invented. Anybody who has had a blue screen can see what happens when digital data is incorrect, inconsistant or something doesn't work properly. The crux here is some people in the realm of hifi like to believe that digtial isn't 1's and 0's and somehow those 1's can be become 1.2's or 0.7's or random things like that. It's not how it works. It's either on or off. Even if a signal is degraded heavily, the exact same information can be obtained. Otherwise old computers (spectrums, c64's etc) and dial up modems would have never worked. If the information is not received correctly, it's just discarded.

Anyone who has had a computer or hard drive crash knows different.

most hard drive crashes are caused by mechanical errors. Heads sticking, motors failing etc. It's got nothing to do with data.

Why do we have to unplug the Sky box for 10 seconds to clear the cache when it's all digital signals? Exactly. Digital signals can and do go wrong.

It's not that they go wrong per se, but these are very complex systems and it's how the software handles it that's usually the case of why things go wrong. Bad programming, memory leaks, software that doesn't have error correction, or doesn't know how to handle what happens when something goes wrong are just some examples of why you have to reset the sky box.

For example if I ask you to send me a string of numbers 1, 2 and 3 so that I can display them - great. Now if for exmaple when you are sending me number 2 something happens and I don't recieve it I suddenly don't know what to do. I can't display those numbers because all I know is that I receive 1,2 and 3 and then display them. However, I only have 1 and 3. What do I do. (blue screen). Or if I have been programmed correctly, I can either request that you re-send those numbers, or I could have been programmed to just display what I recieve. It's a basic example and the tip of the iceberg, but starts to give exmaples on why things can wrong, and how complex the whole system is.

 

[ID.]

I think that people do sometimes oversimplify digital as just 0s and 1s and completely ignore the subtle effects of jitter and the reality of how the signal is transmitted through the cable. Then again, to cover my arse I'll say that the effects are very subtle. Maybe not even as big as changing the DAC filters.

Well, of course digital data is just 1s and 0s, thats the point of digital. What is not just 1s and 0s is the transfer of the clock signal along an S/PDIF link.

Turning digital samples back into analogue needs a clock to step through the samples in a regular manner. If the clock is unsteady (jittered), the samples don't get used at the right time, and the output analogue signal is impaired.

The problem is that the clock is most often located in the streamer or CD player, when it is really needed in the DAC. To solve this, the clock signal gets mashed into the sample data using a technique called 'manchester bi-phase mark encoding' and sent off down an S/PDIF link. The DAC then has to recover the clock from the sample data.

For its time, S/PDIF was pretty good, but it wasn't long before it became clear that the link itself introduced jitter. In reality, the clock belongs on the circuit board right next to the DAC chip, where it can provide a nice stable clock stream. Where it does not belong is in a separate box, connected to the DAC by a imperfect link. Many of the jitter problems that used to plague separate DACs come from the damn S/PDIF link - Sony and Philips have a lot to answer for.

Most modern DAC designs solve this by using jitter mitigation techniques that try to divorce the clock used to drive the DAC itself from the S/PDIF recovered clock. In this case, the resulting output of the DAC is completely independent of the source of the data, the quality of the source clock, or the quality of the S/PDIF link. You can use the cheapest disc spinner or most expensive CD player and the results will be the same. If however your DAC is sensitive to jitter (an old or just plain bad design) then the quality of the source clock and S/PDIF link COULD matter and impact the sound quality from the DAC.

So, just remember, digital really is just 1s and 0s and very robust, but clocks are senstive and fragile and need treating with respect.

Thanks for the informative post. Interesting.

 

[Flax]

Well now - what a can of worms. Thanks a lot people, some interesting anwers there. If we were to assume then that the difference in the data stream is negligable then is there any argument for opting for one of the dedicated music servers now offered by several of the higher end hifi manufacturers in preference to a mac. I understand that said manufacturers utilise dedicated components in their hifi units to produce a far superior sound to a machine that merely "plays" cds - so does this philosopy still hold for their music servers or do they just slap some computer gear in a box and re brand it.

 

[andyjm]

Well now - what a can of worms. Thanks a lot people, some interesting anwers there. If we were to assume then that the difference in the data stream is negligable then is there any argument for opting for one of the dedicated music servers now offered by several of the higher end hifi manufacturers in preference to a mac. I understand that said manufacturers utilise dedicated components in their hifi units to produce a far superior sound to a machine that merely "plays" cds - so does this philosopy still hold for their music servers or do they just slap some computer gear in a box and re brand it.

If you are using a separate DAC that has decent jitter rejection, then nothing upstream of the DAC is going to impact the quality of the sound.

A dedicated streamer is just a digital format converter with some basic file handling capability and a user interface, and a high end CD player which then is connected to a DAC is no more than a disc spinner.

The innards of a streamer or music server use exactly the same components as the innards of your PC, router or network switch. If you are in for a bit of DIY, a very capable streamer can be made using a Raspberry Pi (£30) and XMBC software (£free).

Why then do fancy streamers and music servers cost so much? A very good question.

 

[ifor]

My choice is a Raspberry Pi c/w HiFiBerry Digi c/w RuneAudio software plus DAC of my/your liking.

 

[davedotco]

Having looked into this in some detail, it is all about the interface.

A decent app to select and play your music is everything, and some, towards the budget end of the market are truly awful, so bad you really do not want to use them, this makes a huge difference.

Simple funtionality means a lot to me, I was prepared to cut out pretty much everything and use only Spotify Connect, which cuts out the need for a separate app, as everything works through the Spotify client.

A simple Fire TV > dac > active speaker setup comes very close to matching my minimalist needs, though I would not like to lose Airplay. The new Apple tv may well give me 'Connect' style access to Apple Music and will have Airplay, rumoured to be released on sept 9th this could be ideal, all in the detail.

 

[ifor]

With RuneAudio the interface is a webpage (IP address of Pi), which I think is very good, but an alternative is MPoD for iPhone or MPaD for iPad (there are Droid versions for those on the dark side). Rune also supports AirPlay and if it doesn't already it soon will support Spotify.

 

[tino]

I still purchase CDs but sold my CD player (quite a nice one) and don't fret about which one sounded better because the differences, if indeed there were any, were probably very marginal. The main reason for changing was one of convenience and storage. Having a digital hub through which you can play CD ripped music, internet radio stations, streaming services is a major plus. The storage problem hasn't completely gone away - CDs have disappeared into plastic storage boxes, but still take up space, and the digital files still need a physical storage device which can also be an incovenience in terms of price, power consumption, setting up, connectivity/operation, and backing up.

Although I like my Squeezebox Touch a lot, the ultimate convergence device for me would have to be a laptop/miniature PC, fitted with a big SSD. Wake up on LAN, boot up in seconds; run almost any music player, music service and remote software you want; always kept up to date unlike some streamers with firmware that can't/won't be upgraded; and cheap to back-up or replace.

 

[MajorFubar]

Dave's once again hit the nail on the head, which is not particularly unusual. A lot of it comes down to what kind of 'experience' you want. And yeah I know that's a cr-p wooly word beloved of Apple fanbois to justify why they like their computers so much, but to an extent they have a point. Myself, I use a 2010 Mac Mini rigged up to my TV, though often I use it using just the Apple Remote app on my iPhone or iPad, which first was great, then was utter sh-t after iOS 7, now we're back to it working properly again. This set-up provides the experience I enjoy, using iTunes as a player. But for others, their ideal experience is using a dedicated streamer, or shoving discs in a CD tray for people screaming-out for the physical interactivity and tactility. But what doesn't change much is the potential sound quality (though technically speaking there are reasons why ripped CDs played by a computer or dedicated streamer can sound better than 'live' CDs played by a CD player...but that's another can of worms for another day).

 

[chebby]

Greeting Hi Fi enthusiasts

Not sure if this is a new topic or not but am thinking about the differences in sound quality between a mac book pro and the new audiolab 8200cd player - or perhaps more to the point - why is there a difference? Assuming that both will be utilising an audiolab Mdac and that speakers / headphones / cables are not part of the equation - then what are the remaining factors to be considered. Is information on a cd lost when ripped to a hard drive in the highest quality format? Is a cd transport better than hard drive mechanism? What about a hi res audio file stored on flash drive? So what exacty is the difference in the data stream before it hits the dac and why?

Certainly from a convenience point of view I would rather deal with files rather than hard copies and obviously the usual "listen to both and make your choice" rule applies in the end - but at this moment in time I'm more interested in the cold hard data stream and what the two machines do to it. I am also minded to ask if we need cd players at all - or compact discs for that matter.

Looking forward to your replies. I know this subject could get a bit technical and I'm no genius but I'll try to keep up.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/audiolab-cd8200-software-update-now-dead-box

 

[daveh75]

With RuneAudio the interface is a webpage (IP address of Pi), which I think is very good, but an alternative is MPoD for iPhone or MPaD for iPad (there are Droid versions for those on the dark side).

There are MPD clients for just about every platform going, not just iOS and Android.

Rune also supports AirPlay and if it doesn't already it soon will support Spotify.

It's supported Spotify (via the SPOP Daemon) since the release of 0.3 Beta some time last year

 

[record_spot]

Greeting Hi Fi enthusiasts

Not sure if this is a new topic or not but am thinking about the differences in sound quality between a mac book pro and the new audiolab 8200cd player - or perhaps more to the point  - why is there a difference?  Assuming that both will be utilising an audiolab Mdac and that speakers / headphones / cables are not part of the equation - then what are the remaining factors to be considered.  Is information on a cd lost when ripped to a hard drive in the highest quality format? Is a cd transport better than hard drive mechanism?  What  about a hi res audio file stored on flash drive?  So what exacty is the difference in the data stream before it hits the dac and why?

Certainly from a convenience point of view I would rather deal with files rather than hard copies and obviously the usual "listen to both and make your choice" rule applies in the end - but at this moment in time I'm more interested in the cold hard data stream and what the two machines do to it.  I am also minded to ask if we need cd players at all  - or compact discs for that matter.

Looking forward to your replies.  I know this subject could get a bit technical and I'm no genius but I'll try to keep up.

 

Fully networked at home. Music on HDD and all that.

Daily playback via Redbook AVI CD player however and no plans to change anytime soon.