Which budget CD Player to topple FLAC?

[Vimeous]

I've an impending Birthday and am pondering a new CD Player.

My now dead Alpha 7 CD worked wonderfully with the Alpha 9 amp and I'd like to achieve the same balance again. At present I can use the BDP 760 but have found lossless FLAC transfers via my Logitech Duet better.

I remember the Alpha 7 being better still so I'm looking for advice on what to audition. Top budget of around £300 although I'd rather not reach it to keep my dearest happy.

Ta

 

[Anonymous]

Is not the FLAC that is in question but the DAC in the various products. All things (DAC circuitry) being equal a FLAC source should sound better than a CD source, with the added advantage of being able to play high resolution source files (streamer and DAC allowing). For £300 I believe you can get the Arcam rDAC.

 

[Andrew Everard]

putt1ck: All things (DAC circuitry) being equal a FLAC source should sound better than a CD source

How so?

 

[WinterRacer]

Andrew Everard:
putt1ck: All things (DAC circuitry) being equal a FLAC source should sound better than a CD source

How so?

Hard disk drives are more reliable than optical media like CDs. Having said that, assuming the CD is clean and scratch free there really shouldn't be any difference.

 

[Sizzers]

WinterRacer:Andrew Everard:
putt1ck: All things (DAC circuitry) being equal a FLAC source should sound better than a CD source

How so?

Hard disk drives are more reliable than optical media like CDs.

Could you explain that please?

 

[WinterRacer]

CD contain weak error correction and are pretty easy to scratch and otherwise damage. CD reading mechanisms need to be incredibly accurate to read the disk without errors and this process can and does go wrong.

Of course hard disks fail, but assuming a properly functioning hard drive, reading data from hard disks is a more reliable process.

 

[manicm]

This whole thing of perceived inadequate error correction in CD players is blown out of all proportion.

You do know you still require a CD drive to rip your discs? And so how do you know errors are prevented? Oh sorry, AccurateRip.

 

[Sizzers]

That is what I was picking up on.

Not being a nit-picker, but there is a difference between "reliability" and "accuracy". Hard drives DO fail, but never had a CD that has. Not heard Adele through a hard drive but she sounds pretty damned good through my CDP right now.

 

[BillDay66]

I wouldn't say cd error correction is inadequate, most cd players do what they are supposed to very well.

A CD drive in a computer does have the advantage of not having to read the disc in real time though and can re-read over and over if required and indeed use AccurateRip or similar to check its results.

Plus..it only needs to extract the data once, not everytime you want to play the music like a cd player does.

I dont think either system is particulary flawed but in audiophile terms where every bit of cable and millimetre perfect speaker position etc etc etc... are agonised over for percieved improvements, the FLAC / ALAC route seems to make sense?

 

[WinterRacer]

If the question is why a FLAC would sound better than a CD, then it's either because you're more likely to get an accurate read with a HDD than with a CD or because FLAC files support higher sampling rates and greater word lengths than CDs.

I agree that most of the time there should no problems reading a clean CD with a modern CD player so any differences between CD players and various streaming devices will be down to the implementation of the digital output.

Personally I can hear no difference between my CD player and my Squeezebox, so I don't bother with my CDs once ripped.

 

[Vimeous]

.... yes but which CD Players would you recommend to audition ....

At present I rip my CD's via computer to FLAC.
However my media serving PC isn't exactly 'instant-on' - it will be replaced with a NAS at some point.

As a result I find just grabbing a CD and dropping in a player perversely easier than hoofing it upstairs and waiting 2-3mins for the PC to start fully, the Duet to wake up etc.

I also happen to think my 16yr old dead player sounded better. As a result I expect to be able to find a CD Player that's up to the task of playing CD natively better than a PC-converted FLAC of the original CD via the Duet.

 

[Crocodile]

The DAC in the Duet is reckoned by many to be the worst of the Logitech bunch. So it may be worth auditioning an external DAC or the Touch.

As for "instant on", try configuring your PC for Wake on LAN (magic packet). You can then set it to sleep after a given time & the Duet will wake it when powers it on. Takes around 10s for my WHS box to wake that way.

 

[Blackdawn]

Croc, I'm guessing that uses more power in standby than when it is switched off altogether. I an see why a CD player is just easier.

To the OP - why not audition some cd players in your price category. How about Marantz 6003, CA 650C, NAD C545BEE to name a few. If you like Arcam then CD192, CD17?

 

[Vimeous]

Ok. I'm starting to get the picture methinks, I'm DAC ignorant so let me see how badly I get this wrong:

Currently:
Front-room: Duet analogue connected to Alpha 9 for audio and CAT5 connected to WLAN router.
Office: WLAN bridge connects to switch and finally the PC/Media server.

For the DAC as suggested I assume it has to be connected to the PC via USB and the amp via analogue? Alternatively I guess the Duet optical into the DAC then amp?
The distance between PC and amp rules out the first option.
With the second I am under the impression the Duet would process the signal, therefore influence the sound, before it gets near the rDAC. Does that not make the DAC pointless?

Crocodile thanks for your PC suggestions. WoL might be just the ticket.

EDIT: I see the rDAC can be wirelessly as long as you have the rWave adaptor for the PC. I guess that'd be rDAC to amp then but would cut the Duet out surely? The cost, £455 for both at SSAV, is not far off a CD17 certainly but sadly my budget can't match it.

 

[Crocodile]

Blackdawn:

Croc, I'm guessing that uses more power in standby than when it is switched off altogether.

It's going to vary by device but my HP WHS consumes next to nothing in standby.

For Squeezebox duties you don't need any connection between DAC & PC. You just connect via optical or coax direct to the Duet. In theory the Duet should output a digital signal without any processing. How well it does that you'll have to ask a Duet owner but I've never heard of anyone complaining.

I have an elderly SB2 into a Beresford Caiman.

 

[Vimeous]

Crocodile:

For Squeezebox duties you don't need any connection between DAC & PC. You just connect via optical or coax direct to the Duet. In theory the Duet should output a digital signal without any processing.

Understood.

You've given me an idea.
Presently the Alpha 9 operates as the front-channel for the 1800. The Duet is analogue to the Arcam.
If I run the Duet via optical to the 1800 and the 1800 in Pure Direct it should give a good comparison between the Wolfson in the Duet and Burr-Brown in the 1800.

Clearly a dedicated DAC should be another step-up but it's worth a shot.