Hard drive vs cd player sound quality ..

kappclark

I have started ripping my CD's to FLAC on my vortexbox media computer ..(a garden-variety HP pentium 4 desktop). and I was amazed at how much more transparent and involving the music was compared to my (old) Sony CD Player ... nothing subtle about it ... airy, deep, accurate, dynamic, engaging ... no fatigue at all ... hearing details and vocals in a new way ...now I know I will need a bigger hard drive down the road, but still less $$ than the CDP I wld need to buy ..

Then, I found this article http://www.avguide.com/blog/do-hard-disk-drives-sound-better-cd/ by Robert Harley ...

Does anyone feel the same way or have had similar experiences ??

??? Somehow I feel that I wld need to shell out over $1,000 for the player to sound this good ...

BlueFox

Generally, an overall consensus is that using a hard drive for a transport is better sounding than a CD player transport. However, unless you are plugging the hard drive into the CD player, and using the CD player's DAC, I suspect the sound improvement is more a function of the DAC you are using with the hard drive.

EndersShadow

^What he said.

mantis

I've conducted many vs battles with computer music HD drive vs Cd and higher end players. The HD Drives always seemed to replay the music more accurately.
I'd prefer a HD based system over a Cd player any day of the week. not to mention the ease of use, the amount of music you can store and make playlists etc. I see no benefits of using a CD player in todays market.

pearsall001

EndersShadow wrote: »

^What he said.

Hey Ender...did you clean out your mail box yet?

Do they still make CD players?

EndersShadow

pearsall001 wrote: »

Hey Ender...did you clean out your mail box yet?

Yes I did

Hofy

As long as you get an accurate rip to flac, the hdd playback through a good DAC will always sound better.

F1nut

I was amazed at how much more transparent and involving the music was compared to my (old) Sony CD Player

Considering that Sony makes some of the worst sounding CDP's I've heard....well, your findings are no surprise.

As long as you get an accurate rip to flac, the hdd playback through a good DAC will always sound better.

Always? Really? Pure BS.





A little FYI for you suckers, http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-drive-reliability-to-the-test-shows-not-all-disks-are-equal/

dragon1952

kappclark wrote: »

I have started ripping my CD's to FLAC on my vortexbox media computer ..(a garden-variety HP pentium 4 desktop). and I was amazed at how much more transparent and involving the music was compared to my (old) Sony CD Player ... nothing subtle about it ... airy, deep, accurate, dynamic, engaging ... no fatigue at all ... hearing details and vocals in a new way ...now I know I will need a bigger hard drive down the road, but still less $$ than the CDP I wld need to buy ..

Then, I found this article http://www.avguide.com/blog/do-hard-disk-drives-sound-better-cd/ by Robert Harley ...

Does anyone feel the same way or have had similar experiences ??

??? Somehow I feel that I wld need to shell out over $1,000 for the player to sound this good ...

I came to the same conclusion long ago comparing my Cambridge Audio 840C CD playback vs playing the same CD ripped to hard drive as FLAC and then played back via the network through my Squeezebox Touch and using the CA 840C as standalone DAC. And being a $1500 CDP the 840C was no slouch when it came to CD playback. And it got even better when I replaced the 840C with the PS Audio NuWave and then again, eventually, the PerfectWave connected directly to the network via bridge.

FTGV

F1nut wrote: »

A little FYI for you suckers, http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-drive-reliability-to-the-test-shows-not-all-disks-are-equal/

Thats why it's prudent to back everything up.The cost of large HD's is very reasonable these days.On the other hand there are many a CD player( some very pricey) that if the transport fails you are SOL on finding a replacement.

dragon1952

F1nut wrote: »

A little FYI for you suckers, http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/putting-hard-drive-reliability-to-the-test-shows-not-all-disks-are-equal/

I don't get it bro. That looks like it's re: HDD reliability?

dragon1952

FTGV wrote: »

Thats why it's prudent to back everything up.The cost of large HD's is very reasonable these days.On the other hand there are many a CD player( some very pricey) that if the transport fails you are SOL on finding a replacement.

Hear hear...I've got my music backed up to 4 different HDD's :^ )

F1nut

On the other hand there are many a CD player( some very pricey) that if the transport fails you are SOL on finding a replacement.

Transports rarely fail, it's usually the optical pick up that goes bad and they are easily replaced . Even if the transport fails and cannot be repaired, one can buy a new player. With either you never risk losing your entire music collection. Sure you can back up, but even back ups fail sitting there doing nothing. It's not even a matter of if, but when the drive will fail.

dragon1952

F1nut wrote: »

Transports rarely fail, it's usually the optical pick up that goes bad and they are easily replaced . Even if the transport fails and cannot be repaired, one can buy a new player. With either you never risk losing your entire music collection. Sure you can back up, but even back ups fail sitting there doing nothing. It's not even a matter of if, but when the drive will fail.

Ahh....OK sorry bro, I see what you were referring to ;^ )

FTGV

F1nut wrote: »

Transports rarely fail, it's usually the optical pick up that goes bad and they are easily replaced . Even if the transport fails and cannot be repaired, one can buy a new player. With either you never risk losing your entire music collection. Sure you can back up, but even back ups fail sitting there doing nothing. It's not even a matter of if, but when the drive will fail.

Percentage wise no but there are some horror stories out there regarding some pricey CDP's that have become pretty boat anchors because the drives are unobtainium.A really good sounding replacement player is usually going to be spendy.

Again as for HD's if you have everything backed up then it's no real issue if you have a failure.
As for a clear cut winner sonically CDP vs HD based sources,there are too many variables to predict that reliably IMO.

tonyb

Zero makes some excellent points. Remember too when comparing computer music files and a cdp, you really have to compare the dac your using for that 'puter music also. The biggest difference I find is a well built analog output stage which most good cdp's will have and your low-mid level dacs don't. To me anyway, that makes more a difference in the SQ than a dac chip set. Given that some damn fine cdp's have come down in price on the used market, it's a no brainer cost wise which would win out.

That said, it doesn't mean it isn't possible to surpass a cdp SQ with a good 'puter system. May take some more coin, and some thought into the gear used, but it can be done when done right. I also think when we mention streaming, that most simply think their MP3 files played back wirelessly into a receiver by ITunes is suppose to beat the crap out of their cdp. Then they are disappointed when it doesn't and wonder why. Not sure why they think that, maybe because some misdirected marketing allows them to think that way, I dunno. Then they get upset when they realize they have to spend more coin and try and go the cheap route with still bad results. Which then plays out as "streaming sucks".

Much like the person who buys speakers and declares they suck, but never powers them correctly or positions them correctly. There exists many ways to get good sound from a computer, but the industry as a whole falls short on telling people what they need to do. Just go into any big box store and ask about streaming, you'll get a dozen different responses and I'll bet none would be correct.

EndersShadow

I find digital can be JUST as hard if not harder to do right. Mostly because like everyone keeps mentioning the DAC plays a HUGE role, as well as how the signal gets to your DAC (HDMI, Coaxial, USB, etc) and how well that DAC is implemented and how well it sends out the analog signal.

For me my DacMagic has stopped my need for that "next" DAC. Its the Bee's knee's for me, and at the pricepoint I got it at was a STEAL. Plus just like CDP's older REALLY GOOD DAC's are coming down in price as the digital market keeps exploding and coming up with newer and better things by the month.

I think the DacMagic outperforms my Denon 3910.. but even if it didnt the convenience of digital (i.e. streaming same source to multiple locations) would make it my choice anyway. To me thats what digital is. A file converted as clean as you can get off CD (ie FLAC or Apple lossless, etc), so its as close to (if not identical) to that source CD, played back through a capable DAC available to multiple locations at once.

Face

F1nut wrote: »

Transports rarely fail, it's usually the optical pick up that goes bad and they are easily replaced . Even if the transport fails and cannot be repaired, one can buy a new player. With either you never risk losing your entire music collection. Sure you can back up, but even back ups fail sitting there doing nothing. It's not even a matter of if, but when the drive will fail.

With HDD's, you can back up your data and keep it offsite. So even if you lose your home, you will still have your music collection.

falconcry72

Face wrote: »

With HDD's, you can back up your data and keep it offsite. So even if you lose your home, you will still have your music collection.

+1, I do this. Large external HDDs are so cheap now it is stupid not to have backups.

Physical CD collections can be stolen/destroyed too, so even if you prefer CD playback methods to HDD playback methods, you should still have all your CDs backed up and stored offsite.

EndersShadow

falconcry72 wrote: »

+1, I do this. Large external HDDs are so cheap now it is stupid not to have backups.

Physical CD collections can be stolen/destroyed too, so even if you prefer CD playback methods to HDD playback methods, you should still have all your CDs backed up and stored offsite.

Yup, my dad has a external HDD that is a backup of BOTH my entire computer OS drive (with doc's, pic's, etc) AND my library (which is stored on a different drive on my main computer).

Dont trust the online cloud backup with my music library.

SCompRacer

FTGV wrote: »

As for a clear cut winner sonically CDP vs HD based sources, there are too many variables to predict that reliably IMO.

I agree.

nspindel

The issues Zero has spelled are precisely the same conclusions that I came to many years ago when I started using the computer as a transport. It's just too damn confusing. However.....

I think we've oversimplified the categorization of the equipment landscape. Once upon a time, you just had a cd player. Then as the standalone DACs became prevalent, we came up with the term 'transport'. The digital audio landscape then became categorized into two parts - transport and DAC. I contend that we actually need four categories. The other two categories are 'storage' and 'control'.

In my experience, using the computer as the transport (the mechanism that feeds your 1's and 0's into your DAC in order to produce analog sound to be listened to) sucks. For me, that problem was solved by using a different transport than the computer - the Logitech Squeezebox Touch. It is such a shame that this product has been discontinued, but there are certainly other means out there to provide similar functionality. In fact, such transport functionality is returning to the traditional player. Take the Oppo players for example. You can connect the Oppo to your network, and stream your hard-drive based music to the Oppo DAC. If someone could prove any audible difference between a CD played with an Oppo 105 to a flac rip of that CD streamed to the Oppo 105, I would be shocked.

Using the Squeezebox, my digital audio is still stored on a computer hard drive. But the computer is not the transport, the Squeezebox is. The Squeezebox connects to my storage and transports it into the DAC of my choice. In the traditional world of CD's, your storage is naturally the physical discs sitting on a shelf.....

The Squeezebox also allows me to control it in a variety of ways. It has a simple remote control that works just like a cd player. Or I can control it via an app on a phone or tablet. Or I can control it via the computer through a web interface into the Squeezebox server. If I'm not mistaken, the Oppo is similar - you can use the Oppo's native controls, or you can use the JRiver platform to control it.

I think that broadening the categorization of the digital audio landscape allows us to classify the computer according to what it's really good at - storage and control, without necessarily linking it to the transport.

sucks2beme

I didn't sell off my CD's. That would also open you up to a RIAA raid. You have to have legal
copies of your music. So I have them all stacked up in a box in the closet. Pc playback can be
done pretty cheaply if you already have the DAC. There is a lot of labor involved with making
all your cd music flac. And setting up EAC correctly is painful.
Setting up a lot of modern PC's isn't as easy, either. The big issue with newer windows OS
is all the powersaving junk. What happens is the low cpu utilization (3% or lower on newer
pc's in playback mode) triggers the power saving modes. It slows down the pc and then when
windows starts up one of it's nonsense processes, you get a stutter as it try's to bump up the
processor speed. Just turn off all the power saver stuff and all is well.
Is it better than a good cdp? I don't care. It made my life easier. I did a compare using my DAC
with a better transport VS my pc with the same DAC and didn't hear a difference either way.
Only someone with a great DAC and great CDP could answer that question. But my opinion is
it's all about ease of use. Coin flip on which is better.
Too many will show up and tell us anything not vinyl is cr@p anyway.

nspindel

I don't think the RIAA concern themselves with people who sell their cd collections after ripping to their hard drive. The RIAA are interested in people who take the rips to their hard drive and make them accessible for download. They're also interested in nailing the people doing the illegal downloading, primarily to make examples of them. Not quite sure what you mean by an 'RIAA raid'. The RIAA don't have access to search warrants. They work with local authorities when they can show a digital footprint proving that someone is conducting illegal activity over the internet. Do you have any examples of cases where the RIAA has gone after someone who sold their used cd's after ripping them to a hard drive?

sucks2beme

The RIAA want's to stop NON-DRM music. Yes, I was being dramatic, they don't knock down doors.
But they do make examples out of people. And they have no problem finding small guys and running
them through the legal wringer. And when you talk about it in a public forum on the internet, they can
find you.

EndersShadow

DSkip wrote: »

I for one don't want to take a hit in my sound quality for convenience. Why? Because knowing that I'm not getting the most out of my system irritates me a hell of a lot more than getting up and putting a CD in a tray. Now that I have the HDACC, I'm going to try and set up a computer for the rig over spring break. I'm hoping I get similar results, but I'm honestly not expecting it - not really sure why though.

I can understand and respect that, to each his own. However by being able to distribute it to all the rooms in your house (see nspindles comment below) you can at least get music everywhere. You can take that further and buy better pieces of gear for the rooms you feel deserve it, while still retaining the ability to listen in ALL rooms.

I can setup my bedroom and just use a crappy stereo AVR thats all of 10 watts with some crappy JBL speakers. I can setup my office as the PROPER room with high quality DAC's, speaker cables, etc.

But I am getting a bit off topic.

To go back, it starts with the source and radiates out from there. You have to plan long term on getting the audio from CD to your computer in a proper format, then out through your computer to the system.

Everything matters

BlueFox

You do not have to use a computer for a digital transport. While it works, there are better alternatives. With its crappy power supply, spinning hard drive, crummy ribbon cables, flimsy chassis, and cheapest circuit board and parts the manufacturer can find, it is not the ideal piece of gear for playing music. A dedicated music server specifically designed to overcome these issues is a better solution. Add in the ability to upgrade the DAC as better models become available, there really is no question as to which, CDP or music server, has the most potential.

While a CD player can be made that can equal the performance of a good music server system, it will be cost prohibitive for most people. Even worse, it becomes obsolete as soon as it is released since it's DAC is permanent. If it is made with the ability to upgrade its DAC, then what is its purpose? Even worse, it cannot play high-res files unless it provides a digital input to its DAC. Then once again, what is its purpose since one needs a music server to play the high-res files.

Now that DSD downloads are catching on, even the SACD functionality is becoming less important. It appears the stand alone CD player is becoming like a VCR. Something that is occasionally used to play an old movie, but not relevant for the future. Even worse than a VCR, a CD player does not have a clock to at least tell time when it isn't being used.

brianle

I sold my CD player 10 years ago and never looked back )

sucks2beme

Yes, I've seen the music servers. It's a pc that's:
not using windows
costs more
proprietary software
you bomb a hard drive-they will torture you to get another in and running.
Yes it's easier to get set up and running, and won't have any glitches.
But just about all of them are PC's. And often have the same issues.
Build a good pc and run Linux. Thats pretty much what they are doing.

BlueFox

Use a Bryston BDP1 or BDP2. It is a Linux based computer, with upgraded circuit boards, upgraded power supply, upgraded digital output, and no internal drive, or any other moving parts. It cost a few dollars more than a klutzy PC, looks a 100% better, and performs a 1000% better.

tonyb

Be careful about proclaiming the death of the cdp. Didn't work out so well for those vinyl tombstoners. I for one don't want to see the cdp go away. I like choices. Plus a cdp can offer some great SQ for not a lot of scratch. Can't say that about computer music. You won't get good sound for 150 bucks out of a computer, but some fine cdp's sell for that on the used markets. The convenience factor however is off the charts.

I just don't think too many have time for serious listening anymore. I think that most simply use casual listening as a means of musical pleasure these days. Certainly Bose and Apple have built big businesses around that concept. Higher end audio is still a niche market for the masses. When we talk about the masses, adding in casual listening as the main mode, convenience is the next priority. Enter computer music. Trick there is, getting good quality sound for not a lot of scratch that's easy to use and configure that will appeal to the masses. Easier said than done.

Take the SB/Sonos route, toss in a good dac and your sitting at 1000 bucks roughly. Not too many would spend 1000 bucks on a cdp either. Dedicated music servers are the way to go, but the good ones are expensive still and you still may need to add a dac. Imho, a vintage system with a good cdp can still sound like a million bucks for not a lot of coinage.....so I wouldn't poo-poo that idea either.

Like everything in audio, regardless...there's many different levels in analog/digital. Which level you want to play on depends on your wallet....and that's the nice thing about having choices.