• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

New AKG Q701.....is it worth buying a dedicated headphone amp?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

wbarr

New member
Aug 17, 2007
8
0
0
fatman said:
another vote for the Q701 & firestone audio combo -

i run the Q701 with the Fubar 4+ as I wanted a DAC too.

i haven't added the supplier yet, but is my intention to do this in the not too distant.

wbarr - how long did you listen for before adding the supplier? was there a huge improvement with the supplier? can you describe the difference at all? i also see you use an upgraded headphone cable - was this a previous upgrade, have you tested against the cable the Q701's are shipped with? questions questions. upgrades, upgrades. best regards.
Supplier. Listened for about two weeks before adding. Hard to describe the difference. Just sounded better. Sound seems fuller and more finely etched. Notable loss when swapped for supplied wall wart.

H'phone cable. Added later. Have done comparisson to stock cable, many times. Again, soundstage is a bit fuller and things sound a shade more natural. Not much difference to be honest. It's better, but not much. Bit like differences with interconnect cables. Note, though, the RA cable is a bit of a pig. It's very rigid and microphonic.

Supplier made a bigger difference and audible almost immediately.
 

fatman

New member
Nov 11, 2007
27
0
0
thanks wbarr, much appreciated. nice set up there. i have ATV and SBT in amongst my gadgets too - rate them both highly.
 

datay

New member
Nov 19, 2008
28
0
0
eggontoast said:
datay said:
Sizzers said:
The AKGs need 300 hours - during that time I wondered whether they would ever become listenable./quote]

Scroll down this post here where I copied the reply from AKG regarding my "concerns" (the reason why it appears ragged is because it was posted through my mobile).
Thanks for that Sizzers. While I agree with AKG that the fit of the earpads will affect bass as a more user-friendly fit is acheived (more likely with on-ear, given the 701s are very large circumaural I think it matters less), I found there were very, very noticeable changes over 100, 150, 300 hours that could only be down to mechanics. This was not psychoacoustic either.
What would AKG know about headphones :?
I wasn't suggesting that. I was giving my experience; my technical knowledge is limited and I learn a lot from what you and Sizzers are discussing here (so there's no need to be facetious, thanks).

I think they'd really come on song when used every day, for at least a couple of hours.
 

Sizzers

New member
Jun 20, 2008
188
0
0
datay said:
eggontoast said:
datay said:
Sizzers said:
The AKGs need 300 hours - during that time I wondered whether they would ever become listenable./quote]

Scroll down this post here where I copied the reply from AKG regarding my "concerns" (the reason why it appears ragged is because it was posted through my mobile).
Thanks for that Sizzers. While I agree with AKG that the fit of the earpads will affect bass as a more user-friendly fit is acheived (more likely with on-ear, given the 701s are very large circumaural I think it matters less), I found there were very, very noticeable changes over 100, 150, 300 hours that could only be down to mechanics. This was not psychoacoustic either.
What would AKG know about headphones :?
I wasn't suggesting that. I was giving my experience; my technical knowledge is limited and I learn a lot from what you and Sizzers are discussing here (so there's no need to be facetious, thanks).

I think they'd really come on song when used every day, for at least a couple of hours.
Hey! Apologies if anything came over the wrong way.

I can totally assure you that in no way was I trying to be facetious or having any kind of dig at your opinions. Every one's opinion is valid in any walk of life whether or not you agree with what they have to say. After years of posting wherever and whatever via mobile I'm used to being short and to the point at times, and it's taking me a bit of a while to get used to expanding my thoughts posting by PC (I'm 53 and almost wish I'd never bought it!)
 

datay

New member
Nov 19, 2008
28
0
0
Sizzers said:
datay said:
eggontoast said:
datay said:
Sizzers said:
The AKGs need 300 hours - during that time I wondered whether they would ever become listenable./quote]

Scroll down this post here where I copied the reply from AKG regarding my "concerns" (the reason why it appears ragged is because it was posted through my mobile).
Thanks for that Sizzers. While I agree with AKG that the fit of the earpads will affect bass as a more user-friendly fit is acheived (more likely with on-ear, given the 701s are very large circumaural I think it matters less), I found there were very, very noticeable changes over 100, 150, 300 hours that could only be down to mechanics. This was not psychoacoustic either.
What would AKG know about headphones :?
I wasn't suggesting that. I was giving my experience; my technical knowledge is limited and I learn a lot from what you and Sizzers are discussing here (so there's no need to be facetious, thanks).

I think they'd really come on song when used every day, for at least a couple of hours.
Hey! Apologies if anything came over the wrong way.

I can totally assure you that in no way was I trying to be facetious or having any kind of dig at your opinions. Every one's opinion is valid in any walk of life whether or not you agree with what they have to say. After years of posting wherever and whatever via mobile I'm used to being short and to the point at times, and it's taking me a bit of a while to get used to expanding my thoughts posting by PC (I'm 53 and almost wish I'd never bought it!)
I didn't think you were, I thought eggontoast was!

:cheers:
 

Womaz

New member
Dec 27, 2011
88
0
0
Ordered the cute beyond as Russ Andrews offer a 14 day return promise if I dont think its worth it.

I will keep you posted as to what I find.
 

wbarr

New member
Aug 17, 2007
8
0
0
Good o. Looking forward to reading how you get on. Like it or not, it'll be a result for you. :grin:
 

Sizzers

New member
Jun 20, 2008
188
0
0
Sizzers said:
I bought the Novo for £150 used and at that price I thought yes it was most definitely worth it over the headphone jack on my Marantz PM6003. Would I say the same if I'd paid full retail? (around £240 at the time IIRC). Possibly not, but as I've not had it plugged in to the amp - again, for as long as I can remember! - I wouldn't like to say. Unfortunately that amp is sitting in the spare room so I can't do a comparison at the moment. Is there something in particular your not happy with your Q's? I love them with Adele, for example, and electro really hits the spot between my ears. what's your source by the way?

I bought the Novo for £150 used and at that price I thought yes it was most definitely worth it over the headphone jack on my Marantz PM6003.

Would I say the same if I'd paid full retail? (around £240 at the time IIRC). Possibly not, but as I've not had it plugged in to the amp - again, for as long as I can remember! - I wouldn't like to say. Unfortunately that amp is sitting in the spare room so I can't do a comparison at the moment. Is there something in particular your not happy with your Q's? And what's your source.
Hope they honour the refund! lol

It's been a very long time since I've done an A/B between my main amp and the Novo, and memory seemed to recall that the Novo did make an improvement over my CD6003 (can't re-compare it now as I've boxed it).

New CDP arrived today and after a couple of hours through the speakers I moved on to the cans and for no good reason the thought crossed my mind to compare it with the main amp and sad (embarrassed?) to say I discovered the Novo had stripped the music of it's warmth and musicality. Now I know the K's aren't exactly noted for their "warmth" but they're not as sterile as people imagine, but I did have something of a shock at the difference so the Novo is now boxed as well! Good luck.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
Womaz said:
I have just bought some AKG Q701 headphones after deciding not to splash out for more expensive cans.

At first listen they are superior in my opinion to my Grado SR80s, but maybe not as much as I expected for the extra cost.

I understand the Q701 need a good run in to sound their best so I am not too disillusioned just yet.

Would it be worth adding a headphone amp to the set up? I have thought about the Graham Slee Novo but only after reading reviews. I am currently using my Arcam A85 amplifier.

I am a little reluctant to part with any more cash unless this will make a big difference. The problem of course is we cant listen before we buy.

Any suggestions please.
Shouldn't really be running a Q701 without an amp, they are really power hungry....expect the performance to really shine. I've gotten good results with a Graham Slee Solo and Graham Slee Novo. Also you need to invest in a dac if you want to take advantage of the Q's. These headphones scale up with upgrades and do deserve quality partnering equipment. I have my K702's essentially the same headphones without the green :p and have put over 300 hours on them. While the treble does decrease over time, don't expect the sound signature to change....they will never produce booming bass.
 

eggontoast

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2011
451
9
18,895
shafesk said:
Shouldn't really be running a Q701 without an amp, they are really power hungry....expect the performance to really shine.
These sort of replies really baffle me. Surely if they are really power hungry then his A85 is going to provide more voltage swing and is capable of driving more current than any headphone amplifier.

So where is the sense in recommending a less powerful amplifier to drive his headphones with ?
 

eggontoast

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2011
451
9
18,895
Sizzers said:
eggontoast said:
Sizzers said:
A headphone amp is a miniaturised version of your main amp - your main amp drives big speakers, a headphone amp drives very little ones.
Speaker size has nothing to do with it, they can just both drive different loads.
True, but you're not going to pump a 100W amp through your cans are you?
But it wouldn't be a 100 Watt amp with a pair of 300ohm headphones on. 100 Watts across 300 ohms would need 173Vrms. Lets work on 100watts into 8 ohms which would be 28.2Vrms, off load the rails would be slightly higher but for this example we'll use this figure. Through 300 Ohms that would give 2.7 Watts. Granted you still wouldn't want 2.7 Watts through you headphones but most headphone amps can output over 1 Watt.

Sizzers said:
eggontoast said:
Sizzers said:
Most amps - except perhaps at the very high-end - use a series of step-down resistors to reduce the amps output
It's usually just one resistor and the headphone coil then completes the potential divider circuit, the resistor just drops a proportion of the output voltage.
I wouldn't personally know whether it is one or several but that is what I recall reading somewhere.
You should only quote facts which you know to be true.

Sizzers said:
eggontoast said:
Sizzers said:
to provide your cans with a manageable load.
? the cans are the load.
Misphrase perhaps, but again you're not going to wire your cans in to your apeaker terminals are you?
There is absolutely no reason why you couldn't run headphones from your speaker terminals. The problem comes with getting a usable range on the volume control. This is where older amps with switchable -20dB attenuators built into the preamps come in useful.

Sizzers said:
eggontoast said:
Sizzers said:
So the obvious theory is that a dedicated headphone amp will give a more "pure" sound than one from where the output has been steadily reduced through a series of resisitors.
I must be missing the obvious theory, are you saying the dropper resistor somehow colours or distorts the sound?
Not my "obvious" theory, but others express it elsewhere.
So again it's not factual information.

Sizzers said:
eggontoast said:
Sizzers said:
However, even running your cans through your main amp is not going to have the same sound signature as the one you have through your main speakers in any case so I don't see the argument.
So you don't agree that amplifiers have a sound signature ?
Of course they do, but whatever cans you use you're not going to have the same sound signature of your main speakers are they?
No, but I don't really see how that is relevant.
 

Womaz

New member
Dec 27, 2011
88
0
0
Helmut 80 wrote

Read through this thread and

Read through this thread and still none the wise re: headphone amps.

I know what you mean, thats why I have went for what effectively is a free trial from Russ Andrews.

I am running them through an Amp right now, my Arcam A85, so I will report my findings.

To be honest I am not expecting a massive uplift, as to be honest the AKGs are only marginally better than my Grado SR80s in my opinion......however I know they need running in.

As for the lack of bass on the AKG, I do like the sound, and the lack of bass is not really an issue. Indeed I dont hear much differencre in the bass from them as oppsed to my Grados.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
eggontoast said:
shafesk said:
Shouldn't really be running a Q701 without an amp, they are really power hungry....expect the performance to really shine.
These sort of replies really baffle me. Surely if they are really power hungry then his A85 is going to provide more voltage swing and is capable of driving more current than any headphone amplifier.

So where is the sense in recommending a less powerful amplifier to drive his headphones with ?
Very valid question, I thought the same myself. I plugged my Akgs to my CA 340's headphone out and compared it to the Xcans. While the 340 has no problem driving the akgs to ear splitting levels but the subtlety of the Xcans went missing, details went missing, bass was boomy and loud. Do the comparison yourself and you'll see. Its kinda like saying why use an external dac when my laptop has a dac.....well only because its purposely made for hi-fi, likewise a headphone amp is dedicated for hifi headphone listening. Imagine buying a 250 pound speaker amp and using its headphone amp. Surely a tiny proportion of the budget was allocated to the headphone amp. If you spend 250 pounds on a headphone amp, all the money was spent on the headphone out.
 

eggontoast

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2011
451
9
18,895
shafesk said:
Very valid question, I thought the same myself. I plugged my Akgs to my CA 340's headphone out and compared it to the Xcans.
Don't take this the wrong way but, the OP has an Arcam A85, i'm not sure where the comparison is.

shafesk said:
Do the comparison yourself and you'll see.
I have and I didn't see.

shafesk said:
Imagine buying a 250 pound speaker amp and using its headphone amp. Surely a tiny proportion of the budget was allocated to the headphone amp. If you spend 250 pounds on a headphone amp, all the money was spent on the headphone out.
This is completely wrong, the 250 is spent on making an amplifier sound the best it can for the money and amplifying a signal, that's all all amplifiers do be it a headphone amp or power amplifier. The X-Can for example doesn't use any fancy expensive components, jamicon caps, carbon resistors, it even uses a cheap FR2 PCB. When adding things up it actually uses a lot less components than a conventional integrated amplifier. The power supply is a much smaller transformer, its not even a toroidal (which it doesn't need to be because its external thus cheaper) most budget integrated amplifiers have toroidal. The only place a little bit of money was spent was on the extruded aluminium chassis, so where was all this extra money spent ????. My point is you are not getting any better components for your money.

There is no difference between a headphone amplifier and integrated amplifier apart from the loads they can drive. If you read the rest of the thread it has already been mentioned that headphone outs on integrated amplifiers are taken directly off of the main power stage via a couple of dropper resistors, there is no separate amplifying circuit for the headphone output.
 

Womaz

New member
Dec 27, 2011
88
0
0
I now await my new headphone amp with even more curiousity than before...:)

I have a 14 day trial..........so have nothing to lose.

The big question is will my £109 headphone amp be better for my headphones than my £800 Arcam amp.......starting to feel a bit cynical now :)
 

wbarr

New member
Aug 17, 2007
8
0
0
Trust your own ears and listen without prejudice. :) Either you'll hear a difference, or you won't. In my case, I do, and I don't find it strange that a £109 headphone amp is better than the headphone out on my £950 amp. Annoying, in that I had to pay for it, but not strange. :grin: There seems to be an inordinate amount of cynicism around about dedicated headphone amps and I'm not sure why - perhaps it's just another of the 'snake oil conspiracies' that bedevil this hobby? Whatever, just listen to your setup with your music and decide. Hope it goes well, and, to save you the expenditure, I hope you either don't hear a difference or prefer your Arcam's headphone out.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
eggontoast said:
shafesk said:
Very valid question, I thought the same myself. I plugged my Akgs to my CA 340's headphone out and compared it to the Xcans.
Don't take this the wrong way but, the OP has an Arcam A85, i'm not sure where the comparison is.

shafesk said:
Do the comparison yourself and you'll see.
I have and I didn't see.

shafesk said:
Imagine buying a 250 pound speaker amp and using its headphone amp. Surely a tiny proportion of the budget was allocated to the headphone amp. If you spend 250 pounds on a headphone amp, all the money was spent on the headphone out.
This is completely wrong, the 250 is spent on making an amplifier sound the best it can for the money and amplifying a signal, that's all all amplifiers do be it a headphone amp or power amplifier. The X-Can for example doesn't use any fancy expensive components, jamicon caps, carbon resistors, it even uses a cheap FR2 PCB. When adding things up it actually uses a lot less components than a conventional integrated amplifier. The power supply is a much smaller transformer, its not even a toroidal (which it doesn't need to be because its external thus cheaper) most budget integrated amplifiers have toroidal. The only place a little bit of money was spent was on the extruded aluminium chassis, so where was all this extra money spent ????. My point is you are not getting any better components for your money.

There is no difference between a headphone amplifier and integrated amplifier apart from the loads they can drive. If you read the rest of the thread it has already been mentioned that headphone outs on integrated amplifiers are taken directly off of the main power stage via a couple of dropper resistors, there is no separate amplifying circuit for the headphone output.
Well I cannot argue with you about the engineering bit, as I have a limited knowledge of it. However, I will argue that a dedicated headphone amp costing the same as an integrated amp will always sound better than its headphone output. This is not a cable debate where it may or may not make a difference, it is just true. Otherwise there would be no point in me buying a separate one, living on my limited budget. Like wbarr said his 109 pound headphone amp sounds better than his 900 pound integrated's headphone out, I have found my xcans (a 15 year old headphone amp) sound better than my much newer 340a's headphone output. It is annoying, especially when you are on a budget but purpose made components always sound better than a 'jack of all trades' component. I listen with my ears and not with maths so I'm sorry your argument hasn't changed my hearing. Just trying to help out the Op with my honest opinion. Yours may differ, based on your experience but to me everytime I have compared a headphone amp to a headphone out the results seem obvious. Whether the Op chooses to follow my advice or not is another matter.
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
wbarr said:
Trust your own ears and listen without prejudice. :) Either you'll hear a difference, or you won't. In my case, I do, and I don't find it strange that a £109 headphone amp is better than the headphone out on my £950 amp. Annoying, in that I had to pay for it, but not strange. :grin: There seems to be an inordinate amount of cynicism around about dedicated headphone amps and I'm not sure why - perhaps it's just another of the 'snake oil conspiracies' that bedevil this hobby? Whatever, just listen to your setup with your music and decide. Hope it goes well, and, to save you the expenditure, I hope you either don't hear a difference or prefer your Arcam's headphone out.
well said :cheers: I hope you get to save your money too, maybe take us to a pub afterwards 8)
 

Womaz

New member
Dec 27, 2011
88
0
0
I actually hope that the sound improves. I have just spent £275 on the AKGs for exactly that reason, so the extra £109 will be money well spent if it brings about more improvement.

As for buyng you all drinks......well I am up In Newcastle......so maybe a bit far to travel :)
 

eggontoast

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2011
451
9
18,895
shafesk said:
Well I cannot argue with you about the engineering bit, as I have a limited knowledge of it.
Then why make sweeping statements like this.

shafesk said:
Imagine buying a 250 pound speaker amp and using its headphone amp. Surely a tiny proportion of the budget was allocated to the headphone amp. If you spend 250 pounds on a headphone amp, all the money was spent on the headphone out.
shafesk said:
However, I will argue that a dedicated headphone amp costing the same as an integrated amp will always sound better than its headphone output.
This is another sweeping statement. Besides the OP has an £800 pound amp and is considering a sub £200 headphone amplifier. You were the only one comparing £250 headphone amplifiers with £250 integrated amplifiers with your x-can and CA. My response was aimed at your response above about what is spent where in amplifiers.

shafesk said:
This is not a cable debate where it may or may not make a difference, it is just true. Otherwise there would be no point in me buying a separate one, living on my limited budget. Like wbarr said his 109 pound headphone amp sounds better than his 900 pound integrated's headphone out, I have found my xcans (a 15 year old headphone amp) sound better than my much newer 340a's headphone output. It is annoying, especially when you are on a budget but purpose made components always sound better than a 'jack of all trades' component. I listen with my ears and not with maths so I'm sorry your argument hasn't changed my hearing. Just trying to help out the Op with my honest opinion. Yours may differ, based on your experience but to me everytime I have compared a headphone amp to a headphone out the results seem obvious. Whether the Op chooses to follow my advice or not is another matter.
Don't get me wrong headphone amps have there place, I even have a few. But you were making sweeping statements I was simply challenging your statements with facts. I am not trying to change yours or anyone else's personal findings, if you had just said my x-can is better than my CA then fair enough. But to think that your one finding translates over to all amplifiers, especially ones which cost three times as much as yours borders on naive to say the least.

wbarr said:
There seems to be an inordinate amount of cynicism around about dedicated headphone amps and I'm not sure why -
Probably because as soon as someone buys a pair of cans there is a mad rush of ill informed people who say "you must buy a headphone amp to get the best from them power hungry cans" because they have read it in the internet somewhere. Granted everyone needs to listen and make up there own minds to what sounds best and good luck to them. I just like to challenge some of these dubious statements about poor headphone outputs etc.
 

eggontoast

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2011
451
9
18,895
Womaz said:
I actually hope that the sound improves. I have just spent £275 on the AKGs for exactly that reason, so the extra £109 will be money well spent if it brings about more improvement.
TBH I'm sure they will both sound great, if the solid state amp doesn't float your boat it might be worth trying something with valves in to completely change your listening experience, good luck in your quest......it maybe expensive lol
 

Helmut80

New member
Jan 8, 2011
27
0
0
turns out a friend of mine has a pair of AKG Q 701s. He first ran them straight into his MBP, and has recently added a Fiio E10 amp/DAC. Obviously not the same as going from integrated to dedicated amp, but he says it's a huge improvement (and I guess it should be, presumably the internal soundcard is having a fairly hard time driving the Q701s).
 

shafesk

New member
Sep 18, 2010
136
0
0
eggontoast said:
shafesk said:
Well I cannot argue with you about the engineering bit, as I have a limited knowledge of it.
Then why make sweeping statements like this.

Because I still have ears and I just am not driven by specifications.

shafesk said:
Imagine buying a 250 pound speaker amp and using its headphone amp. Surely a tiny proportion of the budget was allocated to the headphone amp. If you spend 250 pounds on a headphone amp, all the money was spent on the headphone out.
shafesk said:
However, I will argue that a dedicated headphone amp costing the same as an integrated amp will always sound better than its headphone output.
This is another sweeping statement. Besides the OP has an £800 pound amp and is considering a sub £200 headphone amplifier. You were the only one comparing £250 headphone amplifiers with £250 integrated amplifiers with your x-can and CA. My response was aimed at your response above about what is spent where in amplifiers.

Indeed I was, but this is not a generalisation. I often listen to my brother's setup, his headphone amp (Graham Novo) sounds better than his Marantz PM 6003, my Marantz CD 5004 (known to have a good headphone amp, not just my opinion) sounds much worse than my x-cans. My sister in law has a marantz pearl lite amp (again known for having a good quality headphone out) sounds worse than her ibasso d10. Just like the Op's case the Marantz is roughly an 800 pound amp and the ibasso was bought for around 200 quid and it still sounds better. These are 4 different combinations I have compared countless number of times and systems I often listen to.

shafesk said:
This is not a cable debate where it may or may not make a difference, it is just true. Otherwise there would be no point in me buying a separate one, living on my limited budget. Like wbarr said his 109 pound headphone amp sounds better than his 900 pound integrated's headphone out, I have found my xcans (a 15 year old headphone amp) sound better than my much newer 340a's headphone output. It is annoying, especially when you are on a budget but purpose made components always sound better than a 'jack of all trades' component. I listen with my ears and not with maths so I'm sorry your argument hasn't changed my hearing. Just trying to help out the Op with my honest opinion. Yours may differ, based on your experience but to me everytime I have compared a headphone amp to a headphone out the results seem obvious. Whether the Op chooses to follow my advice or not is another matter.
Don't get me wrong headphone amps have there place, I even have a few. But you were making sweeping statements I was simply challenging your statements with facts. I am not trying to change yours or anyone else's personal findings, if you had just said my x-can is better than my CA then fair enough. But to think that your one finding translates over to all amplifiers, especially ones which cost three times as much as yours borders on naive to say the least.

My points I fear you have not read thoroughly enough my friend. I agreed with you that an integrated's headphone out can adequately drive the AKG's. But you still went on about it....I just said while it drives them perfectly well it doesn't sound as good as a dedicated headphone amp. Don't think any facts or figures can explain why it sounds worse. I'm pretty sure almost everyone would agree that no integrated in the same price class sounds as good through its headphone out as a dedicated headphone amp of the same price. The only reason I talked about my setup despite auditioning others countless times is because I feel thats the most unbiased opinion I can give. I will stand by what I said-I have yet to hear an integrated that costs the same as a headphone amp but sounds as good through its headphone out, I will also state that my system is one of the many around the house that I listen to through out the day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It makes strange reading this thread, why would a cheap headphone jack on an integrated amp sound anywhere near as good as an amplifier designed for headphones :?

I've owned three different headphone amps, even my £40 cheap chinese ebay headphone tube amp sounded much better than the headphone jack on my Cyrus 8VS2.

Headphone jacks on integrated amps are generally included for convenience and they serve a purpose. But to get the best sound from headphones generally a dedicated amp is needed. Common opinion, of which I fully agree with based on my own experience, is that the Q701s need a good amp to sound their best.

My DVD player also plays CDs, but that doesn't mean it sounds as good as my dedicated CD player...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS