2. digital
  3. 1010421736

I can't believe there is no difference

I just took home a Cambridge D500SE player to audition in my system. My favortite dealer recommends this player for anything below is $1500.

To give you some background, I had heard it before with a $4000 McCormick amp and Soliloquy 5.3 speakers. That day I compared it to a very expensive YMB player with the same setup. I could tell a difference but not that much really.

But what I can't believe is that the difference between the Cambridge and my $250 Panasonic DVD player is almost nil! The panasonic is known too be one of the best for video, but I'm sure is just average for audio. What is the deal?
Can someone tell me what I'm overlooking?

The Cambridge is using Tara Labs RSC Prime cables and a Tara Labs Special AC cord. The panasonic is connected via a Toslink cable to a Yamaha RXV-995 receiver. I know, I know... but that's supposed to be the next upgrade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the player use it's own DAC with analog output and the the receiver's with when connected digitaly? The only thing I can figure is the DAC in the Yammie is as good as the the new 24/192 Crystal DAC in the Cambridge.

The slight differences I noticed, and these were only on maybe 1/3 of my CD's are:

1. the panasonic was slightly, very slightly brighter, but just as full. I hate to say bright, but it's just that the highs were a little more emphasized.

2. The Cambridge seemed to the slightest bit slower paced, maybe I'm confusing this with smoothness, I don't know.

I know the Cambridge is not an ultra-high end piece, but from what I've been told it should be significantly better than a cheap DVD player.

Then I hooked up the Cambridge optical (toslink) to the yamaha's DVD optical DVD input, leaving the analog hooked up also. I did a A/B with the remote between "CD" and "DVD" and noticed the subtle difference in brightness. So the only thing I can figure is that the panasonic DVD player/Yamaha combo gives me 99% what the cambridge does without having to spend another $400 plus cables.

Could it be that with a better amp, I may notice more differnce? Right now, I'm thinking allocating my funds elsewhere. I'm starting to lose confidence in the arguement for the source being so important.

oh yea, forgot to mention that I don't think it's the speakers because they're the strongest link in my chain right now. Soliloquy 5.3
gunbunny
hdm
1,063 posts
 
Gunbunny: Check out my 12/04/01 post in your "Is my dealer lying to me?" thread! If your Panasonic sounds ok now, it will get quite a bit better with a better power cord (which you can use with a Harmonic Tech adapter, available for about $40) and some decent line conditioning. I'll say it again: the right DVD player (and that's the key-you've got to listen to them in your system-which you've now done) will probably sound better than many of the up to $1000 audiophile CD players. But it's got to be the right one and I think it's probably hit and miss. My RCA player has performed better in my system than my Arcam Alpha 8SE did, but I was recently surprised when a friend of mine and I experimented in his system and discovered that his more recent model Panasonic DVD player did not sound as good as an older version Arcam player. You've really got to try the stuff out and listen to it, but I can tell you unequivocally that my DVD player got quite a bit better with a decent cord and line conditioning, probably due to a less than stellar power supply.
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
I think that the amp is masking any differences in the sources. That said it has been my experience that differences between CD players are very much smaller than those between TTs.
I think you'd be right to upgrade the amp first, and then the source later. Otherwise you'd spend money on a source, only to be unable to hear differences. With a better amp you'll be able to hear improvements right from the start.
If I had a budget of $5k for a CD only 2channel system there is no way I'd spend more than about $800 on a CD player as I'm not convinced it's worth it.
detlof
1,899 posts
 
Gunbunny, I think your hunch is a pretty good one. Why don't you borrow a good amp from your dealer and give it a try?
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
I have no personal experience with any of the components you mention, so my remarks will only be general in nature. The first sentence of your post, "I just took home . . ." is what leaps out at me. Possibilities:

1) The player needs to be broken in with some more hours of use before judging the sound.

2) Your suspicion about the amplifier not being revealing enough of source components could certainly be correct, based on what I know about previous Yamaha receivers (I used to sell them).

3) You may be listening for differences in frequency response, which can be quite similar in digital reproduction - excepting the frequency extremes, which your setup may not reveal to the fullest extent.

4) Continue to listen longer, without making judgement or trying to consciously deconstruct the sound. Digital source improvements often have more to do with things like resolution of fine detail, dynamic and transient expression at different frequency ranges and intensity levels, spatial separation and imaging solidity, and treble smoothness and naturalness. These are qualities in which subtle improvements may not leap out at the listener upon first blush, or which a comparatively inexperienced listener may need to first educate the ear in detecting. However, they will show up over more extended listening time as an increased sense of "ease" and suspension of disbelief without fatigue when playing music just for enjoyment. Instead of going back and forth (matching levels when you switch, of course), just put in the new player and listen to lots of familiar music you like (not necessarily "audiophile test" music) for a few days straight, then go back to your old setup and see if you feel the same.

5) The player isn't actually as good as your dealer thinks, or your setup is actually better than you thought. Both these scenarios are unsatisfactory, I'm sure, since you're clearly searching for improvement. But you would have to bring in both an unimpeachably superior digital source and amplification to make certain of this. Isn't trying to upgrade in little, affordable steps fun?

Good luck and happy listening.
sugarbrie
3,854 posts
 
I agree that you may need a more revealing system to notice the difference. I am sure there is a difference good or bad. I recently compared in my home a stock MSB link DAC and one tweeked by Stan Warren. I could tell the difference, small but worth it for getting Stan's upgrade. They basically sound the same (they are the same), but Stan's modded machine sounds more analog-like, the stock unit had a slight electronic glare to the sound (in comparison) that I did not notice until I switched to the Stan MSB. I doubt you would hear that difference doing the same test with your Yamaha.

A while back I tested a D500 against my cheapo Toshiba 24 bit DVD and could tell a difference.

More to discover