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

Showing 2 responses by makersmark

makersmark
44 posts
 
The real problem is that digital is just plain bad to start with and you can't make it sound good,that is compared to analog,no matter what you do.
I'm not one of those guys who never wanted digital and have resisted it from the start. I bought a CD player when they first came out and have bought many since and I've tried everything in the book to try to make them listenable.
I noticed from the very beginning that something was wrong.I kept switching from one song to the other never listening to any song all the way through because I couldn't. They all sounded awful. Believe me when I tell you that I have tried everything. My bank account is many thousands of dollars short from my efforts.
I also wasn't reading any audiophile magazines at the time either. So don't tell me that they were putting the idea that digital was bad into my head as some engineers have suggested to me when I've told them about my experience with digital. I would get the '"Oh you must be getting that from those lunatic audiophile magazines." After I'd tell them that I didn't even know what magazines they were referring to they would always say that I wasn't use to distortion free sound. Or that recording techniques hadn't yet caught up to the digital technology. Those seemed like reasonable arguements so I waited and tried different players and cables and amps and external DAC's and more players, better recording and isolation . I tried everything that people suggested and no matter what, it still sounded bad. I've come to the conclusion that the real day that the music died was the day that digital took over audio.
So my suggestion is to save all the money that you would spend on digital and start buying records at swap meets and used record stores.
makersmark
44 posts
 
In response to Detlof; I absolutely do believe our reasoning not only solves Gun's problem but saves him alot of money&aggravation. Most importantly it allows him to start enjoying music again and quit wasting time trying to solve an insoluble problem.
I've listened to many very expensive supposedly high-end systems based around digital and the most I've ever been able to listen was about three minutes.
If you don't have a turntable go out and get yourself a good used turntable for a couple of hundred dollars or I've heard the new $200 Technics player sound better than any digital player. Oh and remember just because digital can play loud doesn't mean it sounds good.
More to discover