CD Player

Lizzybif · 02-12-2009, 23:26

Can anyone recommend a CD Player which has excellent sound quality without costing an arm and a leg?

Thanks!

jra · 03-12-2009, 01:48

What's your maximum spend, as an arm and a leg will mean different things to different people?

For instance £300 will buy the following.

http://whathifi.com/Review/Marantz-CD6003

http://www.marantz.com/new/index.cfm...s=comp&type=cd

frasera · 03-12-2009, 07:16

its not that important. more important are the quality of your speakers/amp

if you spent that extra 300pounds on speakers instead and slapped in a decent brand portable cd player, it would sound pretty good.

Lizzybif · 03-12-2009, 11:34

Thanks both for the great advice.

Much appreciated.

jra · 06-12-2009, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzybif

Thanks both for the great advice.

Much appreciated.

No problem.

I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source.

In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound.

There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM.

Lizzybif · 06-12-2009, 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jra

No problem.

I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source.

In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound.

There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM.

Yes makes sense.

Nigel Goodwin · 06-12-2009, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzybif

Yes makes sense.

Not really, a system is only as good as it's poorest part, and that is usually the speakers (by a LONG, LONG way).

Even cheap nasty CD players are far higher quality than most speakers (if not ALL speakers?).

Lizzybif · 06-12-2009, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

Not really, a system is only as good as it's poorest part, and that is usually the speakers (by a LONG, LONG way).

Even cheap nasty CD players are far higher quality than most speakers (if not ALL speakers?).

Oh okay Nigel. That is interesting.

Do you think that speakers for attaching to tv's are poor as well then?

Nigel Goodwin · 06-12-2009, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzybif

Oh okay Nigel. That is interesting.

Do you think that speakers for attaching to tv's are poor as well then?

Depends what kind of speakers you attach, certainly the internal ones in TV's are usually extremely poor.

If you've got a cheap stereo system, you can make the biggest improvement by upgrading the speakers.

scottie55 · 06-12-2009, 23:48

But you still haven't got much positive advice about the player have you?

I use a Pioneer DV 696. It's an old model now. I paid about £100 new around 3 years back, IIRC. It's a good all rounder, for CDs, DVDs, SACDs and DVD-As. Other stuff too. There're are similar options now or ebay for used.

Hope that helps.

jra · 06-12-2009, 23:52

Nigel. I was talking about financial constraints being an issue. If you've got the money, spend it on good quality components.

If money is on a budget I would spend more on the front end than on speakers, the simple reason being is that high quality speakers will only show up the deficiencies in your amp and source components.

An extreme example is attaching a pair of Martin Logans to a budget CD player. It'll sound shyte.

hardylane · 07-12-2009, 02:44

Most separate CD players are good. Fact. CD players in all-in-one hifis usually suck.

Try and get a digital path... ie: optical from the player to the amp.

AMP and speakers very important

Of course, the audiophile snobs will tell you CDs are "cold clinical and awful"

RobAnt · 07-12-2009, 09:13

Yes, that's right. Forget all this compact discus thingiy business. Get yourself a decent phonograph. One like these [click].

They're great on the environment. Stored manually produced energy is used.

Nigel Goodwin · 07-12-2009, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by jra

Nigel. I was talking about financial constraints being an issue. If you've got the money, spend it on good quality components.

If money is on a budget I would spend more on the front end than on speakers, the simple reason being is that high quality speakers will only show up the deficiencies in your amp and source components.

An extreme example is attaching a pair of Martin Logans to a budget CD player. It'll sound shyte.

Even a budget CD player is of extremely high quality, you can't really make them sound bad.

RobAnt · 07-12-2009, 09:28

It's more a matter of tonal style. CD players do differ dramatically in the way they present sound. Some will sound, say, light and airy. Others may sound powerful and bass heavy.

Plus isolation from vibration can make a big difference. The less work they have to do in terms of garnering information from the disk, the better they will sound.

gemma-the-husky · 07-12-2009, 11:34

I think maybe the argument about source quality is a bit out of date - it was certainly relevant when we listened to LPs/Discs, - but with digital recording virtually everything is now of a uniformly adequate quality. The humblest mobile phone or MP3 player produces acceptable sound through headphones.

So although you can get some improvement at source level, I probably do think that the choice of headphones, or amp/speakers probably is more important nowadays, and its far less expensive to improve the sound at that end, than to try and improve the source.

RobAnt · 07-12-2009, 13:23

For everyday listening, maybe - background stuff.

But if you really want to sit down and LISTEN to something, there are still distiinctions to be made. Source quality does matter in this instance.

And there's the big matter of compatibility when it comes to speakers. These days speakers come with a wider range of ohm ratings, but most quality amplifiers still rate their output at 8 ohms. So you have to be certain you're buying like for like. Replacing an all-in-one but keeping the speakers isn't a good option and could end up damaging either the amp, or the speakers, or both.

hardylane · 07-12-2009, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

It's more a matter of tonal style. CD players do differ dramatically in the way they present sound. Some will sound, say, light and airy. Others may sound powerful and bass heavy.

Plus isolation from vibration can make a big difference. The less work they have to do in terms of garnering information from the disk, the better they will sound.

Perhaps the analogue electronics do this, but that's more to do with failings of the cheap circuitry than the actual playback.

If you hve a digital connection between your CD player and your amp (always recommended), then It'll be fine.

No separate CD player should sound anything but good.

Gordie1 · 07-12-2009, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by jra

No problem.

I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source.

In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound.

There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM.

I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing.

A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority.

Feel free to correct me if im wrong.

hardylane · 07-12-2009, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordie1

I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing.

A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority.

Feel free to correct me if im wrong.

Nope, you're correct...

If you feed your amp with a Matsui portable CD play you get what you deserve, but a separate CD player will supply perfectly adequate sound...

I have problems with "audiophile" people who claim to know things which are either urban myths or placebo-related snobbery.

I've been an AV tech and sound producer for years and most audiophile nonsense can be chucked out.

RobAnt · 07-12-2009, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardylane

Perhaps the analogue electronics do this, but that's more to do with failings of the cheap circuitry than the actual playback.

If you hve a digital connection between your CD player and your amp (always recommended), then It'll be fine.

No separate CD player should sound anything but good.

Not necessarily, it could be a design feature. I agree that on the whole a separate CD should sound good, but the cheaper end of the market doesn't do the marque any favours

jra · 07-12-2009, 19:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by hardylane

Nope, you're correct...

If you feed your amp with a Matsui portable CD play you get what you deserve, but a separate CD player will supply perfectly adequate sound...

I have problems with "audiophile" people who claim to know things which are either urban myths or placebo-related snobbery.

I've been an AV tech and sound producer for years and most audiophile nonsense can be chucked out.

The thing is, some people are looking for more than just an adequate sound. If I want adequate sound, I can listen to a 192 kbps .mp3 file via my computer.

However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordie1

I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing.

A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority.

Feel free to correct me if im wrong.

You can only try to correct what is fed in. If you have a better source signal there is less correction to perform via amp and speakers.

Like I said. Garbage in, garbage out.

Deacon1972 · 07-12-2009, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by jra

However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers.

I partially agree with what you are saying here - I would go that little bit further and say all components should be identical in quality.

A system comprising of a high end amp and CD player would be let down by having inadequate performing speakers - in the same respect hooking a mid range CD player to high end amp and speakers.

In reference to garbage in garbage out.

A few years ago I had a pre/pro setup with some high end speakers, so long as the source was good quality it was a dream to listen to, but as soon as you popped in something below par the system picked up all the errors and it sounded awful.

Gordie1 · 07-12-2009, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jra

The thing is, some people are looking for more than just an adequate sound. If I want adequate sound, I can listen to a 192 kbps .mp3 file via my computer.

However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers.

You can only try to correct what is fed in. If you have a better source signal there is less correction to perform via amp and speakers.

Like I said. Garbage in, garbage out.

So a £3000 machine outputs more information/clarity/definition over a digital connection?

I was under the impression that any cd player with an optical connection simply relays the raw data from the disk directly down the optical cable to the amp.

If thats true, then why is a £3000 machine any better than a £30 one?

Chris Frost · 07-12-2009, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lizzybif

Can anyone recommend a CD Player which has excellent sound quality without costing an arm and a leg?

Thanks!

I'd start with something like the Cambridge Audio Azur CD players from Richersounds. For around £170 (still very much budget-end priced for HiFi) they're good quality, well made and sound pretty decent.

Personally I'd ignore advice to only use a digital connection; it's worth giving the red & white plugs a go first unless the amp is really really cheap or very very expensive.

02-12-2009, 23:26	#1
Lizzybif Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 235	CD Player Can anyone recommend a CD Player which has excellent sound quality without costing an arm and a leg? Thanks!

03-12-2009, 01:48	#2
jra Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 40,658	What's your maximum spend, as an arm and a leg will mean different things to different people? For instance £300 will buy the following. http://whathifi.com/Review/Marantz-CD6003 http://www.marantz.com/new/index.cfm...s=comp&type=cd

03-12-2009, 07:16	#3
frasera Inactive Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,063	its not that important. more important are the quality of your speakers/amp if you spent that extra 300pounds on speakers instead and slapped in a decent brand portable cd player, it would sound pretty good.

03-12-2009, 11:34	#4
Lizzybif Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 235	Thanks both for the great advice. Much appreciated.

06-12-2009, 22:37	#5
jra Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 40,658	Quote: Originally Posted by Lizzybif Thanks both for the great advice. Much appreciated. No problem. I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source. In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound. There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM.

06-12-2009, 23:23	#6
Lizzybif Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 235	Quote: Originally Posted by jra No problem. I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source. In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound. There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM. Yes makes sense.

06-12-2009, 23:27	#7
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Lizzybif Yes makes sense. Not really, a system is only as good as it's poorest part, and that is usually the speakers (by a LONG, LONG way). Even cheap nasty CD players are far higher quality than most speakers (if not ALL speakers?).

06-12-2009, 23:31	#8
Lizzybif Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 235	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin Not really, a system is only as good as it's poorest part, and that is usually the speakers (by a LONG, LONG way). Even cheap nasty CD players are far higher quality than most speakers (if not ALL speakers?). Oh okay Nigel. That is interesting. Do you think that speakers for attaching to tv's are poor as well then?

06-12-2009, 23:37	#9
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by Lizzybif Oh okay Nigel. That is interesting. Do you think that speakers for attaching to tv's are poor as well then? Depends what kind of speakers you attach, certainly the internal ones in TV's are usually extremely poor. If you've got a cheap stereo system, you can make the biggest improvement by upgrading the speakers.

06-12-2009, 23:48	#10
scottie55 Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 127	But you still haven't got much positive advice about the player have you? I use a Pioneer DV 696. It's an old model now. I paid about £100 new around 3 years back, IIRC. It's a good all rounder, for CDs, DVDs, SACDs and DVD-As. Other stuff too. There're are similar options now or ebay for used. Hope that helps.

06-12-2009, 23:52	#11
jra Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 40,658	Nigel. I was talking about financial constraints being an issue. If you've got the money, spend it on good quality components. If money is on a budget I would spend more on the front end than on speakers, the simple reason being is that high quality speakers will only show up the deficiencies in your amp and source components. An extreme example is attaching a pair of Martin Logans to a budget CD player. It'll sound shyte.

07-12-2009, 02:44	#12
hardylane Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,945	Most separate CD players are good. Fact. CD players in all-in-one hifis usually suck. Try and get a digital path... ie: optical from the player to the amp. AMP and speakers very important Of course, the audiophile snobs will tell you CDs are "cold clinical and awful"

07-12-2009, 09:13	#13
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Yes, that's right. Forget all this compact discus thingiy business. Get yourself a decent phonograph. One like these [click]. They're great on the environment. Stored manually produced energy is used.

07-12-2009, 09:20	#14
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by jra Nigel. I was talking about financial constraints being an issue. If you've got the money, spend it on good quality components. If money is on a budget I would spend more on the front end than on speakers, the simple reason being is that high quality speakers will only show up the deficiencies in your amp and source components. An extreme example is attaching a pair of Martin Logans to a budget CD player. It'll sound shyte. Even a budget CD player is of extremely high quality, you can't really make them sound bad.

07-12-2009, 09:28	#15
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	It's more a matter of tonal style. CD players do differ dramatically in the way they present sound. Some will sound, say, light and airy. Others may sound powerful and bass heavy. Plus isolation from vibration can make a big difference. The less work they have to do in terms of garnering information from the disk, the better they will sound.

07-12-2009, 11:34	#16
gemma-the-husky Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: UK Posts: 17,858	I think maybe the argument about source quality is a bit out of date - it was certainly relevant when we listened to LPs/Discs, - but with digital recording virtually everything is now of a uniformly adequate quality. The humblest mobile phone or MP3 player produces acceptable sound through headphones. So although you can get some improvement at source level, I probably do think that the choice of headphones, or amp/speakers probably is more important nowadays, and its far less expensive to improve the sound at that end, than to try and improve the source.

07-12-2009, 13:23	#17
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	For everyday listening, maybe - background stuff. But if you really want to sit down and LISTEN to something, there are still distiinctions to be made. Source quality does matter in this instance. And there's the big matter of compatibility when it comes to speakers. These days speakers come with a wider range of ohm ratings, but most quality amplifiers still rate their output at 8 ohms. So you have to be certain you're buying like for like. Replacing an all-in-one but keeping the speakers isn't a good option and could end up damaging either the amp, or the speakers, or both.

07-12-2009, 14:03	#18
hardylane Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,945	Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt It's more a matter of tonal style. CD players do differ dramatically in the way they present sound. Some will sound, say, light and airy. Others may sound powerful and bass heavy. Plus isolation from vibration can make a big difference. The less work they have to do in terms of garnering information from the disk, the better they will sound. Perhaps the analogue electronics do this, but that's more to do with failings of the cheap circuitry than the actual playback. If you hve a digital connection between your CD player and your amp (always recommended), then It'll be fine. No separate CD player should sound anything but good.

07-12-2009, 14:14	#19
Gordie1 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: England Posts: 6,317	Quote: Originally Posted by jra No problem. I'm from the garbage in, garbage out school. In other words, the output from your amplifier and speakers is only as good as the source. In other words, it is better to spend more on source components, rather than end-line components, such as speakers, in order to get a good sound. There is a DS user called b3aten, who is pretty clued up on this sort of stuff. Maybe, drop him a PM. I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing. A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority. Feel free to correct me if im wrong.

07-12-2009, 14:18	#20
hardylane Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,945	Quote: Originally Posted by Gordie1 I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing. A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority. Feel free to correct me if im wrong. Nope, you're correct... If you feed your amp with a Matsui portable CD play you get what you deserve, but a separate CD player will supply perfectly adequate sound... I have problems with "audiophile" people who claim to know things which are either urban myths or placebo-related snobbery. I've been an AV tech and sound producer for years and most audiophile nonsense can be chucked out.

07-12-2009, 16:31	#21
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Quote: Originally Posted by hardylane Perhaps the analogue electronics do this, but that's more to do with failings of the cheap circuitry than the actual playback. If you hve a digital connection between your CD player and your amp (always recommended), then It'll be fine. No separate CD player should sound anything but good. Not necessarily, it could be a design feature. I agree that on the whole a separate CD should sound good, but the cheaper end of the market doesn't do the marque any favours

DS Forums

CD Player

07-12-2009, 19:39	#22
jra Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 40,658	Quote: Originally Posted by hardylane Nope, you're correct... If you feed your amp with a Matsui portable CD play you get what you deserve, but a separate CD player will supply perfectly adequate sound... I have problems with "audiophile" people who claim to know things which are either urban myths or placebo-related snobbery. I've been an AV tech and sound producer for years and most audiophile nonsense can be chucked out. The thing is, some people are looking for more than just an adequate sound. If I want adequate sound, I can listen to a 192 kbps .mp3 file via my computer. However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers. Quote: Originally Posted by Gordie1 I'm not an expert, but i always considered my CD player the least important part of my set-up, it was my understanding that so long as it is connected to the amp using optical connection, that you could wire up any old piece of crap CD player, as the Amp does all the decoding and processing. A good amp and speakers has always been my top priority. Feel free to correct me if im wrong. You can only try to correct what is fed in. If you have a better source signal there is less correction to perform via amp and speakers. Like I said. Garbage in, garbage out.

07-12-2009, 20:18	#23
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by jra However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers. I partially agree with what you are saying here - I would go that little bit further and say all components should be identical in quality. A system comprising of a high end amp and CD player would be let down by having inadequate performing speakers - in the same respect hooking a mid range CD player to high end amp and speakers. In reference to garbage in garbage out. A few years ago I had a pre/pro setup with some high end speakers, so long as the source was good quality it was a dream to listen to, but as soon as you popped in something below par the system picked up all the errors and it sounded awful.

07-12-2009, 21:21	#24
Gordie1 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: England Posts: 6,317	Quote: Originally Posted by jra The thing is, some people are looking for more than just an adequate sound. If I want adequate sound, I can listen to a 192 kbps .mp3 file via my computer. However, until you have listened to Krell source components, that could be a CD player example, then you would agree that spending more on this is more important than spending most of your dosh on the speakers. You can only try to correct what is fed in. If you have a better source signal there is less correction to perform via amp and speakers. Like I said. Garbage in, garbage out. So a £3000 machine outputs more information/clarity/definition over a digital connection? I was under the impression that any cd player with an optical connection simply relays the raw data from the disk directly down the optical cable to the amp. If thats true, then why is a £3000 machine any better than a £30 one?

07-12-2009, 21:41	#25
Chris Frost Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cheshire Posts: 6,462	Quote: Originally Posted by Lizzybif Can anyone recommend a CD Player which has excellent sound quality without costing an arm and a leg? Thanks! I'd start with something like the Cambridge Audio Azur CD players from Richersounds. For around £170 (still very much budget-end priced for HiFi) they're good quality, well made and sound pretty decent. Personally I'd ignore advice to only use a digital connection; it's worth giving the red & white plugs a go first unless the amp is really really cheap or very very expensive.