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
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.

dwpc
27 posts
 
You're correct in assuming that the TOSlink from your DVD player is a direct digital signal to the internal DAC in the Yamaha reciever. It's also not surprising that you don't hear much difference between the Yamaha DAC and the Cambridge CDP.

Have you tried a comparison using the analog outputs from the DVD player against the Cambridge? There's where you're more likely to hear the difference.

There simply isn't THAT much room for DAC improvement in a $400 CDP from a low volume mfr like Cambridge. By the time you subtract dealer markup, shipping, mfr. markup, advertising, the cost of the CD transport, controls, remote, etc., how much do you think Cambridge spends on their DAC section compared to Yamaha? And don't underestimate Yamaha's DAC; their experience in digital audio design is extensive and their buying power is vast.

While I'm not familiar with your Yamaha, its quite possible that its simply not capable of revealing much difference between two reasonably good DACs. Home theater A/V receivers are full of compromises; with the critical power supply and amp capacitors usually taking the back seat.

I'd say you should rearrange you're spending priorities. Forget about expensive cables until you've got electronics that warrant them. Until then, it's like putting racing tires on a Camry.
bomarc
501 posts
 
Well, Gunbunny, people here are always telling us to trust our ears, so my advice is to trust your ears. If you don't hear a difference between two components, the most likely explanation is that there is no difference. And given the state of the art these days, that shouldn't come as any great surprise, although it certainly is unsettling to some.
gunbunny OP
43 posts
 
Since my dealer has the same model speakers at his place, I think I'll take my DVD player, along with the Cambridge and compare them with his amps. I know he has some Rogue Audio, and McCormick amps that are better than my receiver. These amps are out of my price range right now, but if I can't tell a reasonable difference with these amps, I know I won't be able to with any amp I plan to upgrade to.

I'll also try that good power cord with DVD player like Hdm recommended. I haven't listened to the cambridge with the stock cord. It makes me wonder two things.... 1. Is the DVD player better? 2. Do expensive power cords make an improvement?
More to discover