Cd player or dvd player that plays cd's as well?


I'm currently looking for a CD player but was wondering if i should just buy a dvd player that plays everything? What are the differences between a cd player and a dvd player that can play cd's?

You may as well buy a DVD player. The DACs in DVD players are such an overkill for CDs that the test numbers are boring. I recently saw a cheap progressive scan dvd player at Radio Shack for $50. It looked like a piece of junk but that's an indication of things to come.

Have a look at Panasonic, Toshiba and Philips. You should be able to get what you want including changers for as little as $100 on sale.

Hope this helps.

Yeah ,I wasn't too excited about getting a cheap DVD player,but it plays great(Apex).CDs are no problem or even CDs I burn myself.Unless you want to get the SACD feature,I'd go with a cheap DVD player.

RULE: cd sound from common DVD players is much, much worse than that of dedicated cd players.

EXCEPTIONS: many. reasons:
One, cd sound from DVD players is improving ech year.
Two,there are some hi-fi firms wich design DVDs with hifi performance in mind.

harman kardon and sony are known for acceptable cd sound in budget DVDs

i would suggest to hear first NAD 521i CD player, as a reference of very high quality and affordable CD sound. you can then compare with other options you may consider.

The NAD T532 does both, really well.

If the specs for playback of CD's on the DVD player is equivalent to a separate CD player it will for all human hearing purposes sound the same.

At this stage of digital development jitter is only occassionally important on the cheesiest designs.

As far as whether you should buy a CD only or a DVD player it depends on what your system does. If it isn't ever going to be connected to a video monitor or a surround system buy a cd player. If it is-0-buy a good dvd player. If it is going to be hooked up to a tv monitor that is HDTV ready and a surround system get a DVD player with progressive scan. If you will listen to SACD or DVD-Audio get a universal DVD player, such as a Denon 2900, Yamaha 2300, Pioneer Elite 47ti, or the least expensive by far-- the Pioneer 565.

I need the space saving feature the mega storage players give me.
What about the Sony DVP-CX875P? I will be playing mostly store bought and homemade cds but adding the ability for dvds seems to be a good idea. All the reviews mention the picture. What about the sound?
Also, if anyone can recommend a receiver and speakers for this I'm all ears. Unfortunately, my max. cost for all, player, receiver and speakers is $800. So that limits me.
As you can probably guess, I'm new to this. Any help I'm getting in the electronic stores is limited to what's closest to the salesperson at the time. I appreciate any advice offered.


I've paired my Pioneer 565 with a pair of Wharefdale 8.3's and a Marantz SR5400 which I've been told is great for music. I think it should be within your budget. The Marantz is currently on order so I will follow up with comments once I have everything setup.


RULE: cd sound from common DVD players is much, much worse than that of dedicated cd players.

Does this only apply if you're using the DACs from the DVD player? If the DVD player is just sending the receiver a D-PCM feed from the CD why would that feed be any different that with a dedicated CD player?

I have a DVD/CD combo (some 2-3 year old Sony model) that sounds fine to me with CDs, certainly better than an older Pioneer CD-only player I had.

I would prefer any universal DVD player to any cd player. The cd playback of the universal player will be at least the equal sonically, plus it will play DVD-Audio and SACD discs which the cd player can't. Nevermind being able to play DVD's.

It is a no-brainer. It is marketting and tweako reviewers that perpetuate the myth of separate cd players. I guess the publications still want to sell ads for cd players.

The measurements and sound of cd performance on dvd players say otherwise.

Black Math
When I had that decision to make I knew I wanted HDCD, DVD Video, and SACD capabilities. Music was the most important factor. I bought a CD player with HDCD (top priority) and a DVD/SACD player (secondary concern). I compared CD, HDCD, and Dual Layer SACD on both CD player sounds better with CD and HDCD discs and my DVD player sound better with SACD discs (I only will buy dual layer SACD's). I am very happy with my setup.

My point is that one might want to look at what their goals you want CD, SACD, DVD, DVD Audio, MP3, multi disc capabilities, gaming, etc...? Once you can answer some of those questions you can determine which path to head down. Don't pay for something that you don't want (like SACD, for example).

Another thing to keep in mind is software and multiple audio formats. I believe CD's will be here to stay...too many people have them. They will have to make machines capable of playing them in the future. DVD Audio and SACD probably won't have long lives (at least one won't). One may live on, but you may have software ten years from now without hardware to play it on.

Black Math
If you want a mega changer for dvd's and cd's, you may want to check into the random play capabilities of a unit. If you mix cd's and DVD's in one unit, random play of music may be slow, with several seconds between songs. What kind of programming features and ease of use may be critical (do you need a keyboard, can you link several units, can you create music lists for random playback, can you program disc titles, etc)

I believe that the more moving parts something has, the chance of mechanical malfunctions can increase. You may want to look at Sony ES units (not regular Sony). They will have a 5-year warranty (unless they changed this).

America seems to have a fascination with the "wonder" box. Recievers, suv's, and yes dvd's that do everything. Personally, I don't believe that there are many do everything machines that are worthwhile and hold their value as companies ugrade and twaek products that the masses will accept. The reason for so many dvd/sacd/dvd-a players is because most people are not willing to accept these formats by buying them seperately.I will conclude my two cents as such: Most of us have huge cd collections.Get youself a cd player for just that.Then get a dvd player for video.One machine means that possibly your dvd/cd tray will go through a multitude of wear if you have a "wonderbox". If you are interested in a player's analog outs then take heed to what I stated.I have 3 dvd players in my house(not including playstation 2) a Sony 7700(solid video and audio),a Toshiba s2000(portable),and an Arcam dv88(all region,great audio for music and movies, and solid video as well)Good luck

"Another thing to keep in mind is software and multiple audio formats. I believe CD's will be here to stay...too many people have them. They will have to make machines capable of playing them in the future."

Of course they will make machines capable of playing them--they are called DVD players.

The same was said of LP's. But the amount of LP's sold to cd's has been miniscule for a while, even though there are still a small quantity of turntables made. A very small amount compared to how many were made 25 years ago.

The same will happen with cd's. As any recording engineer, consumer electronics firm, and loudspeaker company will tell you --the future of sound is not stereo--it is in surround formats, as humans hear in surround and reflected sound.

As a dvd costs pennies more to make than a cd, the cd will soon be overtaken by DVD audio formats. Even Sony had to change their original SACD format from stereo cd to DVD surround.

And DVD's are starting to be engineered to be backward compatible to play stereo, like a cd. But they will also have the benefit of playing in one or more surround formats--all on the same disc. DVD's can do this because it has 10 times the "bandwidth" or recording availability. And the new blue laser DVD's will have at least twice the current "bandwidth" capability, so it is possible to have various sound formats and also lyrics, artwork, etc that can be simultaneously displayed while listening to the music--if so desired, as the extra cost will be nominal, if any.

Most people already realize the truths that the audio and electrical engineers that design this equipment already know--that it is easy to manufacture DVD players that meet and/or exceed the playback specifications of the best cd players ever made, because mediocre DAC's made now are better than the best ones made 4 years ago, the laser readers are superior now, etc. Digital and optical electronics make advances all the time, even though many of them are inaudible.

It is inevitable that most major engineering talent will be moved (if it hasn't already) from cd player design into DVD player design. And it is all because most of the people that will play back their cd's will do so on dvd players and will play them through surround sound systems using Dolby Prologic II, or the next matrixed format for changing stereo to an even better surround sound.

People want a better and more realistic listening experience, just as they want HDTV to have a better viewing and cinematic experience.

There will be a small amount of people who believe in the superiority of stereo sound playback from cd's on cd players, just as there were (and still are) a small amount of people that believe in the superiority of stereo on LP's over cd's, just as they believe tube amps are better than solid state, just as they believe green magic marker makes cd's sound better, and that some wires and interconnects "resolve" the sound better than others, and that some speakers sound better for movies and others sound better for music, etc.

To quote from Floyd Toole (the brilliant loudspeaker engineer hired by Harman Int'l from heading the National Research Council of Canada, that led design teams for Paradigm, Energy, PSB, etc.):

"In music recording, it is assumed that all monitoring will be done with conventional forward firing systems in all five locations. But what of the persistent assertion that some speakers are better for movies than they are for music? The implication often is that we can get away with less 'refined' sound in movies than we can in music. But . . . there is music in movies -- sometimes a lot of it. Sometimes, as in a concert video, the music is the entire point of the production. The assertion is beyond silly. Good sound is good sound, whether it is in a movie-only performance or a music-only performance.

Black Math
There was a huge convenience factor with the introduction of CD's: low maintenance, long life, the ability to easily skip tracks, portability... That was the downfall of CD's. DVD Audio and SACD's do not have that advantage over the CD. In fact DVD and SACD layers are very fragile, unlike CD. The format that does have the advantage over all of the above is MP3. That may be the future.

"Most people already realize the truths that the audio and electrical engineers that design this equipment already know--that it is easy to manufacture DVD players that meet and/or exceed the playback specifications of the best cd players ever made, because mediocre DAC's made now are better than the best ones made 4 years ago" This is an innacurate statement

Anybody who understands digital playback knows that the most important factor is the analog output stage, not the DAC. That is where many DVD players are lacking.

A lot of engineers know that some of the best DAC chips ever made were ones like the Philips TDA-1541A Double Crown. Which is a 16 bit chip and no longer made. Now there are DAC chips like the DCS Ring which operate different than the traditional DAC and can give your player an advantage. But, if your analog output stage stinks, it won't matter

I don't believe in reingeneering mixes (which is different than remastering). You are messing with an artists original vision which often leads to terrible results. Pet Sounds is supposed to be heard in mono. If you want to hear 5.1 music, compose some of your own.

Black Math
oops, typo! I meant to say that convenience wad the downfall of LP's, not CD's

Is the analog stage what's refered to as the "op-amp"?

Black Math
You can use op-amps in your output stage, a lot of manufacturers do. You can also use tubes or other exotic circuit designs. Marantz named their analog stage circuitry "HDAM" and you will see it printed on a lot of their components.

As far as op-amps are concerned, sure there are varying qualities. The best op-amps are called "video op-amps", because they have the very high bandwidth capabilities needed to handle video signals. "Audio op-amps" are often quite inferior. Hence, most of the well received universal DVD players employ the video op-amps. I imagine the best cd players also use them.

Nobody can foresee what will actually happen between CD's, DVD-Audio, and SACD. The one thing that is for sure is that both of the new formats are superior in audio quality to CDs in terms of resolution, sampling, and kHz. Properly engineered DVD-Audio and SACD discs both offer truly spectacular sound and more features than a cd. In a couple of years when all DVD players have either DVI, HDMI, and/or firewire connections--as will the pre-amps and receivers (and the HDTV's)-all the inferior connections will fall by the wayside--except maybe on the least expensive items.

A sure thing is that DVD will supplant cd's in audio. Of course, DVD players and the discs will likely be backward compatible--as they have plenty of bandwidth to do that at basically little to no added expense.

Eventually all players of DVD-Audio and SACD will pass a pure digital signal like most cd players can. Actually, my Pioneer Elite 47AVi now passes the DVD-Audio signal straight to my Pioneer Elite 49TXi receiver through i-link (firewire)--a strictly digital carrier. More will eventually come from all manufacturers.

The soon to come out Pioneer Elite 59TXi receiver and the 59AVi universal DVD player will both have fire wire connections and HDMI connections. If you own these everything will be transmitted digitally from the DVD player. And with an HDTV with DVI (for digiatl video) or HDMI (DVI with the added bonus of audio in digital) you will only need one cable to get sound and video as good or better than component.

"I don't believe in reingeneering mixes (which is different than remastering). You are messing with an artists original vision which often leads to terrible results. Pet Sounds is supposed to be heard in mono. If you want to hear 5.1 music, compose some of your own. "

I don't disagree. But what does this have to do with cd's or DVD-Audio? You can put monophonic on either format. And you can play monophonic through 1, 2, or 20 speakers.

Just as many cd's slapped horrible recording from poorly stored LP master tapes it has and will happen to DVD's.

But that isn't a comment on the format--just the abuse of the format.

To complain about these two new formats as maybe having poor content, is like complaining that a great HDTV television makes watching poorly recorded material much less enjoyable than watching the same poorly recorded material on a standard television.

Just as watching the best filmed programs and movies on HDTV beats the hell out of the same experience on a standard TV, the same is almost as dramatically true on the difference of a great DVD-Audio or SACD experience compared to CD. And I can notice the difference dramatically even if playing the SACD in 2-channel--which of course was SONY's and Philip's original SACD format.

Black Math
My multi channel comment was to convey that you do not need 5.1 to listen to SACD. All of the SACD's that I have have SACD stereo mixes on them. I forsee that happening indefinately as long as albums are being recorded, mixed and mastered in stereo. For these titles, 5.1 systems will not give you an advantage over 2-channel.

I do agree that SACD and DVD-A all are better than red book CD. I was just cautioning potential buyers that it is highly unlikely that both formats will be around in the future. One may win out, both may win out. If you do not want to get stuck with unusable software, you may want to buy SACD and DVD-A titles that have CD layers. That will ensure playability in the future.

Just because a format is better, does not mean it will be the future...look at Beta, SVHS, and Laserdisc. They were never able to unseed VHS. DVD finally did it.

I do agree that eventually you may not see dedicated CD players. My hope is that, with continuous universal player development, companies will not forget about all of the 16 bit discs that we have. I do not feel that they have perfected playback of red book CD's with universal players (unless you spend mega-bucks). Hell, they are still working on it with CD-only machines.

Black Math
I do agree that in the future we will be able to connect our componnents with a better medium than the anolog cables that have been around since Moses. Fire wire is one option, (didn't that come from Apple?) I know that Meridian and Krell have also developed advanced signal transmission methods. Hopefully everybody gets on the same page. It could lead to astronomical advances in music and video reproduction.

Well I have a portable Pansonic DVD-L50. Sometimes I write music and it plays and sometimes it doesnt ....why is that so? What are various formats available...what burner should I be using?

Unregistered guest
cd players are very cool and they have the best sound system.

Unregistered guest
just my two cents gear is:
cd-arcam cd73t
sacd-sony xe-670
dvd-audio-video--cambridge audio 540d
while the 540d is a top notch unit,with above average cd playback,it still cannot keep up with the arcam,which has a more robust bottom end and sweeter mids and highs.the sony is for multi and 2 channel sacd is awful on redbook.the arcam is so good that a comparison of 2 channel sacd and the cd layer of the same disk on the arcam yeilds little is a great unit.people spend to much time looking for fancy spec sheets when they should be listening for good sound.its all about the music.

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1299
Registered: Dec-03
Thread: Twilight of the Compact Disc. bill, you can compare CD with DVD-A and SACD - do you not think CD performance is overshadowed by high-resolution formats?

Unregistered guest
all i ment was that higher quality players will,in most cases,sound better.the arcam cost more than 5 times what the sony get to that price sony must have cut corners somewhere.i am sure that a similar level sacd player would have a better sound,and would outdo my arcam.i have always been a 2 channel guy but some of the multichannel sacds are pretty good.

New member
Username: Mark_of_cenla

Plaucheville, Louisiana USA

Post Number: 6
Registered: Jun-04
All of this boils down to how much a person wants to spend. I recently bought a Sony DVP-NS725 at Best Buy for $116. It plays DVD's and CD's. The CD performance is better (better depth and clarity) than my older Sony DVD player and my old Denon CD player.

I also recently bought a Sherwood CD-7080R single CD player. It lists for $340, but I got it at for $176. When compared to the Sony DVP-NS725, it sounded a little bit better, mostly in detail/resolution. But it was very close.

The newest DVD players are very good CD players. Peace.

Unregistered guest
all this talk about better midrange, tighter bass, spec sheets, if you spend that kind of money for a cd player it should make you breakfast and pat you on the butt when your heading out for work, you all know that if in next months stereophile magizine a reviewer wrote he heard a cd player that cost $99 dollars and can only be bought at sears and sounded better than most $2000 dollar cd players we`d all be standing there in line, if you say no, your a liar,,,lol. i remember a few years back when they said a small portable cd player made by radioshack with a fiber optic output costing $79 dollars performed as well as a theta transport i ran to the nearest radioshack, think about this there are people out there that have the best money can buy and there still trying to unload it on ebay, ever ask yourself why, another thing, do you think you can pick out your arcam when mixed in with 5 or 6 other cd players, and being blindfolded im thinking you can`t.

Unregistered guest
can u play a dvd movie on a car cd player and just receive the sound?

Bronze Member
Username: Drumsuck

St. johns, Newfoundland Canada

Post Number: 40
Registered: May-04
carole: no.

dvd is an entirely different format altogether. just because the discs look the same, they aren't.

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1760
Registered: Dec-03
Just to confirm what Brad says, Carole. A few expensive cars now have DVD-Audio players that also play CDs. But it is certainly a completely different format, and, in most cases, will not work. Try it and see...

Bronze Member
Username: Knightshade

Taunton, Somerset England

Post Number: 21
Registered: May-04
Try the LINN UNIDISK 1.1. Expensive but the first real all rounder Plays CD/DVD/MP3/SACD. Using it's built in DAC gives excellent results for audio however add an even better DAC and the soundstage and clarity will rival the best CD Players. It blows away most CD players and transports in the sub £5000 range and as an extra plus it's one of the best DVD players i've ever seen.
Perhaps this is the future....?
I have to say I've always prefered dedicated systems but this is better...

New member
Username: James0226

Post Number: 7
Registered: Oct-04
I think all digitals are not made equal, and that's where the price difference comes in. For some people who are not as concern with what they're hearing (especially when what they're listening to doesn't require much attention to detail, nuance, dynamic contrasts and quality of sound.... ), then of course don't bother to spend extra.

I think it's always a good idea to listen and compare, then get what is the best in your opinion.

Caution: I listened to two of my DVD players playing CD both through digital out to my receiver, and they sound different! I am still trying to understand the logic behind it, but there's a clear difference.


New member
Username: James0226

Post Number: 8
Registered: Oct-04
As to why each DAC in different CD/DVD players can sound different (in our case, better or worse), here's the answer I just got.



Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2314
Registered: Dec-03

If you are using the digital out then the two players are both using a single DAC; the one in the receiver.

So I don't understand, either, how you get the difference. I also find that giving the digital stream to the receiver DAC over a network gives the same sound as from a player. Which is what I would expect.

Official Airport Express Thread
IPod & component systems - sound issues?

New member
Username: Release

Post Number: 5
Registered: Oct-04
John A.... and James...
Differences may result form electronic systems that are responsible for changing electrical representation of 0's and 1's (already read by laser) back into optical in order to send it through optical cable. Probably that's the point. That's why IMHO I would use rather digital coaxial cable instead of optical one. Am I wrong?

Bronze Member
Username: James0226

Post Number: 12
Registered: Oct-04
I think it's possible, release.... I am getting a coxial cable soon, and I will do the same test again with the two DVD players. Here's someone else's explanation and I thought it makes sense:

I am doing these tests because I wanna decide if I should buy a DVD player with good video and let the receiver do all the audio part, or I should try to get a DVD player that plays audio better than my receiver.


Bronze Member
Username: Walt_h


Post Number: 37
Registered: Jun-04
This is a long-running thread! Lots of interest in this subject - - good discussion.

Almost a year ago, G-man stated:

"The same will happen with cd's. As any recording engineer, consumer electronics firm, and loudspeaker company will tell you --the future of sound is not stereo--it is in surround formats, as humans hear in surround and reflected sound."

I disagree with his premise.

Several years ago, I worked as a human guinea pig in a sound laboratory in which lengthy experiments were performed that measured how humans hear - both in echoic and anechoic enviroments (I was making college pin money!). One empirical observation from the months of testing is that people don't hear well from the side or behind their head. We hear reflected sound from the front of our ears as it bounces off of surfaces. Hence, stereo has survived as the natural medium for nearly 50 years. Surround-sound can and does provide entertainment while watching and listening to movies but has little relevance when it comes to listening to music. The source of the music is in front of you and you hear it directly and - yes - some reflected sound. But you don't hear those reflected sounds from the back. You hear reflections from the frontal perspective of your ears. That's why in stereo recordings that are made in large venues such as a church, you hear lots of reflected sound. Recordings "made in a booth" don't normally contain reflections unless reverb is engineered into the recording artificially.

I too enjoy movies on DVD. I have a separate $130 Samsung DVD/VHS player. I watch only about 5-6 movies a year- so it would be a waste to spend more. The quality is acceptable. I play it through my stereo speakers. I also have a sub for the low low stuff. The resulting sound of the VHS tapes and DVD's is good. When the actors in the movie move left to right on the screen, that movement is readily apparent to my ears.

For music listening - which is 99+% of the time - I have a CD only player - Arcam CD82T with the dual Wolfson DAC's. This is nearly the same configuration as the Arcam FMJ CD33.

Well recorded and engineered redbook CD's sound almost the same as SACD. Better actually than poorly recorded SACD's. If I felt that SACD was going to make it in the long run {Sony has announced recently a cutback in new SACD releases due to losing money on them, I would have invested in a high-quality SACD player). There simply are not enough ongoing releases of SACD or DVD-Audio disks. This situation will continue to persist, in my opinion, as long as public demand for those formats remains weak.

My last [...and admittedly weak!] argument against the combination players is that if you are listening/watching DVD only a small portion of the time, why spend lavishly to get a top quality player knowing that you are paying for additional software and hardware that you'll seldom use. Also, that additional firmware and hardware to support the multiformats takes some cost content out of the music-only portion of the effort to design and construct.

Bottom line - I'd rather have the best CD-only player I can possibly afford than accept compromised music playback quality. That compromise occurs when the maker strives to achieve a certain pricee-point in a combination player. A $1200 CD-only player will sound better than a $1200 do-it-all DVD-music, etc. player. I listened to a ton of them. Many of the do-it-all players are quite good I might add-just compromised to a degree I am unwilling to accept.

One man's opinion.

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 931
Registered: Aug-04

Interesting info but if you are going to state facts please do some research to verify first:

"Sony has announced recently a cutback in new SACD releases due to losing money on them, I would have invested in a high-quality SACD player). There simply are not enough ongoing releases of SACD or DVD-Audio disks."

The exerpt below is from:

Super Audio CD Release Rate Continues to Move Upward

While at Surround 2004, I had a chance to meet with David Kawakami, Sony's Super Audio CD Project Director here in the U.S. According to Kawakami, the number of Super Audio CD releases on a worldwide basis continues to steadily increase with a release rate now averaging 80 to 90 SACD discs per month. (A check of the web site that tracks all Super Audio CD releases worldwide confirms that release rate).


Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2321
Registered: Dec-03

Good points, and well made.

However, there is some music that was intended to be performed all around this listener.

Another consideration is whether it is enough for a listener to hear the reverberations from the original location, but only from the front. This would be rather like listening from an opera box; you can hear the sound of the hall, but only as reflected from the front. If your listening room adds it own reverberations, they will usually be quite different from those of the original location, and the two can be in conflict.

Only surround sound, with minimal playback room reverberations, can give you the whole experience of being at the performance.

Many people don't care so much about this. It is also clear that many recording engineers are not using surround sound for this reason, either, and it is not clear, to me at least, what they are really trying to do with the format.

The other issue, separate from the question of surround sound vs. stereo, is the resolution. Stereo LPCM or high-resolution DVD-A stereo give much more detail than CD, in my experience. Quite probably you need comparable players to make a fair comparison of the two formats. And Arcam CD player may well beat a cheaper Toshiba DVD player, especially if you stick to Dolby AC-3 on DVD. With DTS (which is 5.1 or nothing, so it is difficult to compare the resolution with that of stereo) the resolution would probably be more comparable. In my experience DVD-A can be a whole step forward in resolution from CD, and I do not think you would need a comparable, say Arcam, DVD-A player to hear that. The other qualification there is that not all DVD discs utilize the space to give high resolution, say 96 kHz or 192 kHz. Many are presented at 44 or 48 kHz.

Silver Member
Username: Arnold_layne


Post Number: 194
Registered: Jun-04
Walt, I'm afraid I have to diverge on the analysis of surround formats.

The reflected sound tells us something about where recording was made. A big place has more echo. Here I agree with you, a sense of space can be added by two front speakers. I'd even say I can do it with the reverb on my guitar amp, and that's mono.

But the echoes are also flavoured by surfaces around the musicians: wood, concrete, damping material or whatever. Here I'd say it's not about the number of speakers, but digital resolution. IMO CD is not capable of representing this but high-rez should be.

Thirdly, there is spatial experience. Multichannel should theoretically be superior to stereo image, but it seems difficult to achieve for engineers.

Lastly, there is detail. The more complex the music and the acoustics, the more difficult for two speakers to represent it all. This is, yet again IMO, where multi-channel really can enrich the listening experience.


Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2328
Registered: Dec-03

Just to say I agree with all of that. Except the "difficult to achieve for engineers". The problem is not technical, I believe, it is that they have not decided what they are trying to achieve. It is the same problem as with stereo, and it is basically spot-miking, I think. Then, they mix in some reverb to put back what they should not have taken out in the first place. And get it wrong.

I can vouch personally for some excellently-recorded DVD-A discs. They go way beyond what CD can hope to do. Perhaps we should have a thread on which multi-channel recordings are any good from that point of view.

BTW bigger place has a longer reverberation time. It can sound like "more echo" because of the delay, and because big places usually have reflective walls.

New member
Username: Ojon

Post Number: 3
Registered: Oct-04
i need help. can anybody tell about the wire colors for the snoy xplod black panel i don't remember the year but i heard that the sony wire are made the same for all the models i just need if the wire with the black line is + or - o wich one is wath can you guys help me?

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2335
Registered: Dec-03

There is an convention in electricity that red means "+" and black means "-". Even snoy will have to follow it.

Unregistered guest
Greetings to all,
My proverbial 2 cents...
My Pioneer DV515 plays CD/VCD/DVD and so as my JVC DVD that came discounted with my TV, their cd playback using thier own DACS are not that different from my Denon DCD-670. But My NAD 505 multi cd player is a lot more open and detailed just like My Vintage Technis SL-P999 (4 dacs/20Bit) but this SL-P999 is by far the best sounding disc player I ever had, my children's Sony PS1 and PSII also play cd and my old CLD-S250 Laser Disc player, all of these gears I have A/B'd with the help of my children who I believe have better hearing than I. ANd it boils down to the Technics as the clearest sounding gear on 2-channel playback mode. When in multi chnnnel format it is a different story...But 2 channel is my cup of tea. Of course all associated gears will greatly influence the final product, the sound quality we all dream of the Holy grail...

Bronze Member
Username: Blazer

Post Number: 30
Registered: Feb-04
So in conclusion, we are agreeing that a very good dvd player like the NAD 533 will play cds as well (if not better) than a decent cd player like the NAD 542?

Unregistered guest
It's like any all rounder. Pretty good at everything but individually it's not going to be brilliant.
External DACs on DVD players seem to be a good way to go.

Bronze Member
Username: Onimushalord

Post Number: 18
Registered: Nov-04
Not really, if magazine reviews are anything to you, both What HIFI and HiFi Choice had a recent review of the NAD T533 with an AV receiver compared to several similar AV setup(of course CD playback-music stereo was included too) and both mags find the NAD T533 to perform below par in the musicality department. There's a reason that NAD sells the NADT533 for a lower price cf the NAD C542 CDP.
Perhaps in the near future, all-in-one universal players will sound equally as good if not better than pure CDP for not much moolah more. For now, the cost to pay for an amazing one-in all machine is simply drop dead high - Linn Unidisk eg.


Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2735
Registered: Dec-03

Thanks. I would be interested to read those reviews - do you know the month, and whether they are on-line?

New member
Username: Chrisr

Post Number: 1
Registered: Dec-04
I just bought a new system.
B&K 200.7 Series 2
B&K Ref 50 Series 2
Von Schweikert Speakers:
1 pair VR4jr's
1 LCR-15 Full-range Center
1 pair TS-150 Surround Speakers
1 VR-S/1 Powered Subwoofer

I have been reading about various universal players, and almost made the decission to but the Denon 3910. After reading comments here, I need some advise on quality equipment for my system. One issue I am dealing with is that I currently do not have a HDTV. But I plan to upgrade that in the near future. SHould I go with Seperate units, and if so WHAT?

Bronze Member
Username: Onimushalord

Post Number: 20
Registered: Nov-04
John A,

Try the Nov/Dec issues of both, I believe the reviews should be there ;)
« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us