The DVD/Dac thing

I have read HIFI fora for a few years,but soomething seems to have passed me by.
Thats the latest thing about DVD players,costing peanuts,sounding 'better' than very expensive CDPs.This is creepinbg in across several forums and its always in the guise of little digs,or cryptic clues.

Can someone explain this? Michael maybe? What exactly is the current thinking by some regarding DVDs,is it the addition if a DAC that makes the difference and while we are on the subject,how many of you have heard a dedicated SACD player (no visual playback) through a 2 channel system (not multi-surround)?

For those that don't read PFM, a member has been to audition some expensive speakers,and the manufacturer used a £250 DVD player.They say the front end is unimportant.Very interesting read it was too.

 

I think oedipus is probably the best person to address this question. Saab, your question looks like an honest one and not an attempt to stir things up so I hope that people will reply with that in mind, because this topic has the potential to go completely pear-shaped in very short order

It's basically another objectivist vs. subjectivist debate - and I was really starting to miss those .

The original PFM thread is here

Michael.

PS: Must try using my DVD player as a transport for my DAC, and also as a CD player in its own right (analog outputs to my pre)....

 

Me... that's my standard system. I find well-recorded SACDs beat redbook cd in naturalness and suspension-of-disbelief. As a classical fan I find no shortage of software.

 

I'll second that.

 

I'll third it.
I've got a Marantz SA-14 - great with Red book too
Shangri-La, the new Mark Knopfler album, is amazing in SACD.

 

Michael

it is a genuine question,nothing to do with anything apart from a genuine interest as to the credibility of a DVD front end,or decicated SACD

 

I bought a meridien 998 with an mf a324 dac and I'm now back on my lowly nain 3.5 . The sound just didnt work but its damn good for the cinema!

 

Dave, yes, I thought it was a genuine question, it just has the potential to start another war about measurement, accuracy etc.

Seems like a reasonable few people are happy with 2ch SACD.

About DVD players, well a £250 DVD player will probably have a measured peformance with CD replay as good as any CD player (frequency response, THD+N etc) so should in theory be just as good as any CDP. ATC are a pro-audio company. As a pro-audio company they don't have much time for all the audiophile "nonsense" of cables and "magic" that says that a Naim CDS3 (or other megabucks CDP) will sound miles better than a £250 DVD player, especially as they are likely to essentially measure the same.

Michael.

 

Clearly the best way to find out would be double blind testing. Can we (or just someone) reliably tell apart a £2,000 CD player from a £250 DVD player using just their ears? If only magazines were to try to attempt something like that. Wouldn't that be useful? Otherwise, this will be another never-ending debate.

Also note that £250 DVD players tend to be made in large numbers by massive companies. A small hi-fi company could not afford to make such a thing so the apparent large price difference isn't quite so straightforward.

 

I've had an active interest in matters hi-fi for over 30 years now and this seems to be an update of the old debate about whether digital is just about a series of 1s & 0s. Clearly this is true at a theoretical level, but practice often varies from theory. Can you just use any old transport (DVD, budget CD player, whatever), connect a decent DAC and thus achieve a significant step forward on the path to audio Nirvana?

It's certainly true that a decent DAC will improve matters, but my experience clearly shows that the transport does have a major impact, particularly the 'higher' up the chain you go. I proved this to myself many years ago by adding a Meridian 263 DAC to a Marantz budget player. A definite improvement. But replacing the Maratz with the dedicated Meridian 500 transport improved matters at least as much as the 263 did on the 'bare' Marantz.

Of course having a separate DAC does inolve yet another interconnect (which does need to be a proper BNC 75ohm lead for best results) and introduces possible increases in jitter (but I believe that many newer DACs have addressed this problem, with varying degrees of effectiveness).

My experience over the (many!) years has led me to the conclusion that an integrated CD player is the 'best' option for optimal CD replay. [The onslaught of other digital sources does present a very good case for a separate DAC, as you can potentially route all you digital sources through the one DAC.] My current set up allows the best of both world for me, as I can route my MD player throught the superb DAC/output satge in my TT Fusion.

I've not heard SACD through my system, so I can't comment on that aspect.

Now, who wants to talk about 'source first'?!!!!

 

hmmm,I am going to blag a DVD off Ebay and see for myself I think,out of morbid curiousity.

the ATC revelation is nothing short of amazing imo.Highly trained engineers,selling 10k speakers,demo them with a DVD player! Its perplexing,if not downright strange.I wonder how many of those guys have DVDs in their own system?

AFAIC,this shatters the "high end-source-first myth",but my own experiences tell me differently.My own DVD,a £350 Teac,sounds awful with 2 channel,truly dreadfull,therefore you can only conclude the ATC preamp and active 100s negate the differences coming from the source.This is just too much for my brain to cope with!

 

hmm, I tried my folks cheapo toshiba dvd, it wasn't as hifi as my marantz ki, but drums seemed better, and it was less fatiguing. no idea why but its a cliche, I found myself just listening to the music, rather than getting focused on the hardware. something I am very guilty of doing.

I had the atc's, 50s, and am now in permenant downshift mode. I have just spent to much time cash hassle effort worrying about the system.

 

LCD - please do something about that sig of yours, it's longer than most people's posts!

Right, just tried this (a right PITA since the back of my DVD player is quite hard to reach). My DVD player is actually a DVD recorder (Sony RDR-GX300).

So, first up was the DVD as transport for my DAC (instead of my hot-rodded Teac T1): the difference was small but I'm reasonably confident that there was a loss of body making the sound seem a little "thin". Seemed a little brighter too. Incidentally, the digi cable used was the same in each case (Eichmann Bullet Plug terminated Apogee Wyde-Eye coax).

OK, next was using the DVD alone straight into my pre. The soundstage seemed narrower and everything seemed to be a bit more two dimensional and less defined, also got the same loss of body as above. This was subjectively the worst sound of all allthough I have to say none of the differences were night and day, but they are noticable enough that I won't be selling my Teac

Well you're right, IMO myth is the right word. Always was a load of bollox. It may have a bit more validity with a vinyl front end but even then I can't see how anyone can't understand that speakers and the room they're in have by far the biggest impact on the sound of any given system.

Michael.

 

My DVD the toshiba sounds ok, but it has no perceivable depth at all, mind you that's through my Naim Pre/Power, the Rotel does much better though. There's no doubt that the room and speaker interaction has the most to do with the sound, but I was staggered a couple of weeks ago when I had someone coming round to pick up the Intek he'd bought. When I set it up all the depth and nice bottom my system has at the moment went, and it was subjectively much more nasal. Still good, but not as easy a listen.
I do believe in source first, but that's not intended to start an argument. When I broke the Ort, and had to use a K9 it was awful, all semblence of quality went from my vinyl reproduction. I'm not sure there is such a difference between digital reproducers though, I think the steps are much smaller, and harder to discern. I'd like to hear a good SACD system in 2 channel and see what it does with classical music.

 

Connected to my DAC64 there was never a massive difference in the sound when using either my Rega Planet CD or cheapo Toshiba DVD as a transport. Sound was a little thinner with the Tosh, but not night and day transformation.

Haven't compared the Denon DVD2900/DAC64 combination I use now to my other "transports" [they're in the loft awaiting new owners] but I doubt there'd be a huge difference. I'm glad I invested in the Denon [multi-format] - it's ready for anything - looking forward to listening to more SACDs in the New Year.

Paul

 

I tried it too,in two different systems,one in a mullet system using B&W P6 floorstanders,can the speakers make up for a poor signal? I found the answer here to be,no,through the DVD player,the sound was flat,compressed,lose in the bass,a large difference to my Cal DAC,for me,the speakers couldn't make up for the poor sound that was coming before them.Switching to the others system,dedicated transport/DAC,again B&W 804,the sound difference is very noticeable,more life,power,cleaner,though I agree CD players can sound similar,I feel a DVD player (5 years old)it is no comparison against the CD player.

 

Hi,

There are a few things going on there.

First, most cheap DVD Players run incredibly hot. Now no joke, hot solidn state stuff sound better than cold stuff, DE suggests a link to the C37 principles in that the higher temperature changes mechanical resonances.

Second, most cheap DVD Players use sample rate conversion as a standard feature, all the time, on CD. THis means 44.1KHz/16bit is "upsampled" usually to 48KHz/20..24Bit. This is a topic that is highly controversial, I know some audiophiles who very much LIKE the result of asyncronous sample rate conversion. I am not one of them. I strongly dislike it in most cases.

Third, most cheap DVD Players use fairly recent DAC's (often quite well engineered Wolfson Micro and/or Burr-Brown/Ti ones) which are of the "single chip solution" making sure the designer cannot balls up too badly. These are usually followed by minimal analogue stages, all in the name of cost saving, but the sonic results of this simple circuitry can be quite good, es evidenced by Rega, who have been using earlier generations of the same sort of DAC in their (quite expensive) Players.

Fourth is that many of these new DAC Chip's have "slow rolloff" digital filters, often they can be enganged from software and/or are set as standard. The "low rolloff" Filter is not much different to the Algorythms used by Wadia and Pioneers "legato link".

So all in all, subjectively the sound from such a player may be actually quite appealing to some and it WOULD be notably different from "standard" CD players. The result is that some will absolutely love them and swear there is nothing better and other will note that these are just "plain junk"

Well, believe it or not, my secondary CD player is still a Pioneer DV-505 DVD Player. However, this, despite being fairly lowly is unusual in some aspects (though some bring it again close to some of the cheap dvd players) and it is heavily modified. However the result is convincing. It would still be the main player where it not for it's inability to play recorded CD's.

What is different about the 505?

1) It reads CD's asyncronously as far as I can tell and reads the CD Data into the on board 12MB RAM. This was due to the use of a chipset that had no dedicated laser/processor for the CD operation. Again, this "feature" is often now found in cheap players. The result is that if the clock implementation ius reasonably decent, you get a likely very jitter free data and I suspect also that the data has better error correction (multiple reads) as again it uses in effect the DVD replay subsystem to play CD's.

2) It had Pioneers last and best "Legato Link" Digital/Analog converter chip. While limited to 48KHz (so 96KHz DVD Audio is downsampled) sample rate, the same converter chip does duty in the Tom Evans Eikos CD Player, which is still quite outstanding. Again, the "slow roloff" filter found in many cheap CD Players mimicks the bahaviour of that DAC to a degree

3) Switched mode supply, this requires more care in keeping noise out of the supply lines, this incidentally also helps reduce crosstalk of noise between transport and logic via the supply lines.

What is different about MY 505?

1) Tweaked up SMPS, added filtering and screening, capacitor upgrades.
2) Audiocom Superclock
3) LC Audio Zap-Filter
4) Chassis reinforced with solid pinewood ("sound wood" - see also C37 and google "Mother of Tone" - except I did most of that in the late 1990's)
5) C37 based tweaks and extensive laquering of PCB's with C37 plus some crazy tweaks of my own (I'll keep mum, it's way too much "voodoo" for some)

As formexternal DAC's with DVD Players, unless the DAC by design is largely immune to source jitter (eg. Chord DAC64 with buffer engaged) the digital outputs on most DVD Players are pretty bad.

I have. Quite often. I fail to see (or rather hear) what all the hoopla is about.

Well, it seems that those who where auditioning the Speakers where non too taken. I'd lay the blame straigt at the cheap plastic feet of the DVD Player, as in the right context their speakers are rather good actually.

Ciao T

 

My experience is as follows, using TAG PA20R + 2x 60P + B&WCDM9NT - best down. All with identical cabling &c.
1. Philips DVD963SA in SACD (stereo only) mode
2. Audiolab 8000CD + TAG DAC20
3. Philips DVD963SA + TAG DAC20
4. Philips DVD963SA with upsampling = the same without upsampling (different, but neither really better than the other)
5. Audiolab 8000 on its own.

The Audiolab+DAC20 is, on longer listening, significantly better than the Philips (CD), either through the DAC or on its own. It has more body, slam and presence. The presentation is "bigger boned". However, when not doing a direct comparison, the Philips is very good, and I have been tempted to get rid of the Audiolab to clear some space on the rack - there's not that much in it.
I find CD very good, but SACD is clearly better. More air and ambiance, smoother sound, though not lacking in slam.
My Rega Planar 3 (oh dear, with K9!) presents a good but different sound. To be honest, with vinyl, there's so much going on (TT? cartridge? arm? Phono stage? set up? arm cables? other cables?) it's difficult to know really what's what. The overall effect (at signficantly less cost) is similar to the digital set ups, though.

My current favourite SACD disc is Olivier Latry's oragan transcriptions played on the organ at Notre Dame de Paris (Deutsche Gramphon) - brilliant, with trouser-flapping bass lines, and that's without a sub.

 

I've posted over there too (page 6), so I won't repeat what I said.

I suspect that what is "really going on" is that people who bought expensive CD players have also bought inexpensive DVD players (for DVD video). The DVD player get's hooked up to the 2 channel gear for audio. Then our curious owner thinks "I wonder what CD's sound like in the DVD player?" and inadvertantly "takes the pepsi challenge", probably discovering that the CD player and DVD player sound the same; or possibly discovering that they sound different, but on what basis will the owner express a preference as to which is "better"? Familiarity and price seem likely factors in this decision. Familairity with a particular sound can mean that it is mistaken for being the right way to sound. Price: if the CD player cost substantially more, then our owner will conclude that the CD must be better, largely based on the logic that "if it cost more, it must be better", or other contributory factors like: favourable magazine reviews or peer-pressure (eg web forum's)

The major source of perceptual difference between two CD/DVD sources hooked up to the same system is minor level differences between the outputs (which is why the sources must be level matched using a test instrument, not by ear to within 0.1dB for proper DBT's). The next notable difference is a non flat frequency response, usually a high frequency droop, which smoothes the top end (I hate picking on Wadia, but they are the most high profile example of this behaviour). This second phenomena is nothing more than an elaborte (and fixed) tone control and is not worth a large sum of money. After that differences are literally and figuratively "in the noise", any competant CD player will have 3 orders of magnitude less distortion than any speaker (in an anechoic environment) and speaker/room interaction makes a mockery of the whole of the high end tweakery.

The measured differences between any two competantly designed CD players (any brand, any model) is smaller than the difference between a the same pair of matched speakers (same brand, same model).

As for SACD playback. Just remember that these are new releases (or at least remastered). Chances are, they've been carefully produced to sound good, but that goodness should not be attributted to DSD (the analog/digtial/analog conversion process). If you have a copy of something old your comparing against a new SACD, remember it's been remastered too. Sometimes "bad sound" is an artistic choice - I draw your attention to the (phenomenal) Thickfreakness by The Black Keys, which in the liner notes says all songs recorded and mixed december 2002 by patrick carey in akron ohio at studio45 using his patented recording technique called "medium fidelity". It's a great album that would not have benefitted from crystal clear sound.

As for ATC using a £250 DVD player, well it comes as no surprise, as I said over on pfm, for that kind of money you can get measured performance that is "theoretical perfection" for redbook CD. Players that (do really) sound different have a subtle tone control - and that is all it is - yet people are prepared to pay oodles for it. If you want a different sound, just buy a parametric equalizer

Don't buy just any DVD player on ebay, buy a known good one: Denon DVD2200 (might be available cheap as it's just been discontinued) and Sony DVP-NC685V (new it's likely to be less than 200 quid..)

[Note, for the record, I've never claimed that all DVD players sound good.]

I have a pair of ATC Active 50's (not cheap) to which I have hooked up to all sorts of cheap stuff including a Phillips 962SA DVD/SACD player ($400) which sounded great!

I've also got a pair of Quad 989's - which have outstanding midrange clarity and if anything are more revealing than the ATC's - and they can clearly show up shortcomings in the recordings I have using even the cheapest DVD players..

If you've heard Quads with solid state amps and CD players they have an amazing clarity. It therefore AMAZES me that quad owners then use tube amps - it's not that all tube amps have massive amounts of 2nd harmonic - but some do and it would come as no surprise that these folks like the euphonic quality of tubes and the speakers are letting them clearly hear it!! [Hey, it's their choice, so long as they don't start telling me their amps are more accurate than my Brystons ]

Someone's got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they'd cut it out but when they will I can only guess.

Ivor Tiefenbrun, who has planted the "source first" in customers heads, (Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts.) has a lot to answer for. As they say "Advertising works" (even on Dylan fans)

There's no ATC magic to make bad things sound good. The speakers only do what they are told, they cannot create <insert poetic audiophile description> that has been "lost" by the source.

 

"Idiot Wind". Subtle, at least.