Does the quality of a digital signal matter?


I recently heard a demonstration where a CD player was played with and without being supported with three Nordost Sort Kones. The difference was audible to me, but did not blow me away.

I was discussing the Sort Kones with a friend of mine that is an electrical engineer and also a musical audio guy. It was his opinion that these items could certain make an improvement in an analogue signal, but shouldn't do anything for a digital signal. He said that as long as the component receiving the digital signal can recognize a 1 or 0 then the signal is successful. It's a pass/fail situation and doesn't rely on levels of quality.

An example that he gave me was that we think nothing of using a cheap CDRW drive to duplicate a CD with no worry about the quality being reduced. If the signal isn't read in full an error is reported so we know that the entire signal has been sent.

I believe he said that it's possible to show that a more expensive digital cable is better than another, but the end product doesn't change.

There was a test done with HDMI cables that tested cables of different prices. The only difference in picture quality was noted when a cable was defective and there was an obvious problem on the display.

I realize that the most use analogue signals, but for those of us that use a receiver for our D/A, does the CD players quality matter? Any thoughts?
mceljo
"Apples and oranges......

I suggest you compare the two players just using the CDs you have now. You should be able to hear a difference between the two players."

Why would the SACD player make standard CDs sound different? The SACD has a much higher sampling rate that should be responsible for the vast majority of any difference. I have burned some standard CDs from the hybrid SACDs and I'll probably be getting an SACD player fairly soon. Everything is more crisp and detailed.
Why would the SACD player make standard CDs sound different?
Did you listen and compare the sound from the two players using "standard CDs"?
I have not as I've only had it for about a day, but I'll give it a shot. I wouldn't purchase another CD player for the single purpose of making regular CDs sound slightly better, but if I determine that SACDs are a significant improvement it would be worth the upgrade that may do both.

Are you suggesting that a large portion of the SACD improvement is the player iteself and not the additional data?
Mceljo,

Before you run out and buy an SACD player you might want to start another thread. Like which do you prefer to listen to more, multi channel SACD or Red book 2 channel CDs? Which gets played more often? Which do you have more of? CDs or SACDs?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An example that he gave me was that we think nothing of using a cheap CDRW drive to duplicate a CD with no worry about the quality being reduced. If the signal isn't read in full an error is reported so we know that the entire signal has been sent.
Mceljo

Mceljo,

Not to open up another can worms, but there is differences in sound heard from a blank CDR burned on a home computer and one burned on a stand alone CDR recorder. And yes even when using "Exact Copy".
Not to open up another can worms, but there is differences in sound heard from a blank CDR burned on a home computer and one burned on a stand alone CDR recorder. And yes even when using "Exact Copy".

Since the CD copy should normally be a bit perfect copy (you can confirm this easily using a computer), you may want to invest in a better CD player or DAC. What you are experiencing are differences in sound quality due to small differences in the media disc such as weight, color, coating, central hole alignment, balance of the disc etc. - normally a good player will be immune to such differences - it should read the bits correctly without affecting the built in DAC and low jitter clock:it should result in identical sound.