why still buy a cd player?


I'm relatively new to the audiophile world, and I'm trying to understand why anone who has a sonos system (or alike) and has stored his files on a server in a lossless format would still want to buy a CD player for best audiophile music quality.

here's my thinking:

if a lossless rip format is used, the data stored after ripping on a digital hard-disk is as good as cd quality - by definition-,...

with sonos i can get that data anywhere in the house without errors

so the only thing that matters is the conversion from digital to analog and the follow-up amplification.

Now,

i can go from sonos to a pre-amp using a digital port, then the pre-amp determines the DAC quality.

or I go from sonos to an amp after using the DAC in the sonos (and use the analog connection to the amp)

If I were to have a CDP connected digitally to a pre-amp, the pre-amp DAC would determine the quality of the sound. In that case I might as well skip the CDP and fall back on my sonos and connect it digitally to my pre-amp.

So the only benefit from a CDP player would come from using the DAC and thus the analog out of the CDP. Is my logic correct?

If this is correct, than I would only have better sound quality with a CDP if the DAC of the CD player exceeds the quality of the DAC of my sonos and of my pre-amp. Is my logic correct?

If it is, and since I can imagine that most $500k CD would have better DAC than a sonos, the real comparison is to figure out of the DAC of my pre-amp is better than the DAC of my CDP. If it does, than no need for a cdp, just use sonos. If it doesn't then a cdp would still provide better quality. Is that correct?

So, the decision to by a
I can imagine that a good cdp would exceed the
mizuno

Showing 1 response by blackstonejd

In my experience, the DAC is where the magic happens. I used to have a Goldmund Mimesis which was a big heavy "mechanically grounded" CD transport and the Squeezebox's digital output easily unseated it with the dCS Delius/Elgar combo.

I think there are a couple of reasons for this. First, most high-end CD transports are designed to mitigate internal and external vibration--hence the heavy chasis and clamps, ect. With a Squeezebox type device, there are no moving parts to cause problems.

Further, when you rip a CD on computer, especially if you use error correction like in EAC, it is possible that the computer will make as many as 8 passes over the same section to error correct and account for imperfections, dust, scratches, ect. So what you end up with is a lossless file that is about perfect as it can get.

The main reason why the very best CD transports probably sound better than a Squeezebox type device, however has to do with build quality. High-end CD players are built with audiophile grade outputs, connectors and material and often include audiophile grade power supplies. There is meticulous attention to detail with respect to parts and components, ect. One mod actually separates the digital circuitry from the analog and interface circuity. This is the type of thing that isn't going to be built into a $300 Logitech device but would make it into a $4000 audiophile branded device.

This is why many people modify the Squeezebox with internal power supply and component upgrades and external third party power supplies. I have not tested this yet myself, however.

So really the problem is that we don't have a music server device that is up to the specs of some of the better end-game transports. Linn has one but I haven't heard it.

But the idea that streaming directly from the disc to the DAC is inherently superior has pretty much been debunked. The Boulder 1021 CD Player ($24,000?) for example brags about a ram buffer that buffers about 60 seconds of music in advance--it seems they have discovered not reading and processing in real time has some advantages.

The ideal device would be based on the Squeezebox but have the same build quality of an audiophile transport.