Digital Vs Analog

ninerbj

Any of you guys running Mid-Fi or Hi-Fi rigs using digital connection from CDP, or is it analog only? Just curious about your feelings on sound difference...if any.

brad

thehaens@cox.net

I really can't hear any difference. Both connections are made on my player, and switching from analog to digital is same. I just like having extra cables connected.

When I do installs I hook em both up if there is an option. It saves me from getting calls from folks that forget to change their input to analog/digital, they get sound from both so it keeps em happy.

Scott

dragon1952

When you use the digital out connection from your CDP you are bypassing the CDP's DAC's and using those in your HT receiver. Many of us with 2 channel systems don't use a receiver. We use separates or an integrated so using the digital out is not an option (unless you have an outboard DAC). If you have a very high quality CDP you wouldn't want to bypass it's DAC's anyway unless you had a very expensive outboard DAC. If you're using the digital out into an HT receiver and can't tell a difference when switching to analog chances are the DACs are pretty equal so it probably doesn't really matter, or the HT receiver is limiting the performance of your CDP so it doesn't really matter or you have a fairly mediocre CDP to begin with so it doesn't really matter.

steveinaz

My C.E.C. CD-3300 is run into my Benchmark DAC1 via AES/EBU digital cable. How do I like it? I ADORE it. The Benchmark DAC1 will be in my system for a very long time.

The differences/improvements from my CDP's internal DAC's (which are Delta-Sigma PCM 1736 Burr Brown 24bit/192) include tighter, deeper, and punchier bass---most notably the punchiness factor. Treble thru the DAC1 is grainless and extended, less forward than through the CDP. Midrange is butter smooth and absolutely fatique free.

Soundstage width and depth are far better, and almost as drastic an improvement as the punchy bass. The Benchmark gave my system the kind of drive and slam that you hear in live performances, and is really one of the most attractive enhancements to me.

reeltrouble1

I only use my DAC for the Jukebox CD, everything else I use the players dac for music and like it.

RT1

janmike

I originally had my Marantz cdp connected via fibre. I switched to an analog IC and noticed a huge improvement.

zombie boy 2000

for my meager set-up, the greatest improvement came when i made the switch from a digital coax to analogs -- speaker placement, neutralizing the tone controls, replacing the stock jumpers, etc etc, none of this yielded anywhere near the level of improvement afforded by making the switch to analogs (though i am sure this could be rather specific to my set-up)
just my experience

steveinaz

Your success depends on which has the better DAC's and analog output section, your CDP or your DAC/AVR. I would imagine that most CDP's in the $500 and up range would have better sound playing off their own DAC's (via analog outputs) when compared to an AVR's DAC's, but it's not a hard/fast rule.

Experiment and determine...

zombie boy 2000

you know.. i thought this, but for some reason both a low-end toshiba DVD player and a mid-level Pioneer CDP trumped my HK avr 240's DAC (in stereo mode, of course)
i could see how this would be possible with the CDP, but the toshiba player was/is junk (it was a giveaway piece valued at approx $40 -- no joke)
i wonder how this is possible?

steveinaz

Might just be a personal preference thing. The better "on paper" equipment isn't always better to your ear....a perfect example is tube equipment. Many people swear by it's smooth sound quality.

Bottom line, use the equipment that has the tonal character that you prefer; too many are hung up on specs. Speakers are the easiest example; take 5 sets of different speakers that measure identically, you'll hear 5 different tonal characters.

aaharvel

i use the analogs as per Doros advice for my redbook player. Although it's a 15 year old piece and the much newer H/K receiver has nice quality DACS in its own right, at least from a numerical perspective, I just use the analog/ES dacs.

Never tried it the other way, have no desire to.

oh and the DACS on my DVD/SACD sony 685 changer, a recent model, sounds like utter puke. Stereophile must have been freebasing when they said it approaches "reference level". I've never heard something so awful for redbook this shy of Casio or Emerson.

zombie boy 2000

i'm telling you the switch was night and day...
some wizened vet suggested i do the same when i first came to this forum, and the improvement was drastic -- increased clarity, better imaging, much love all around
unfortunately, i keep tinkering now knowing that something so simple could yield such fantastic results
can't say for sure if any of this would hold water with another set of speaks, receiver, or even in a new room for that matter
just where i'm at and with what i have
the lesson learned here is that it never hurts to go against the grain to find out what you like

steveinaz

I've always liked the tonal characteristics of Sony CDP's, both ES and standard. They have great slam/pace.

dorokusai

Analog. Digital is for newbies.

zombie boy 2000

dorokusai wrote:

Analog. Digital is for newbies.

hey... i'm a newbie and i've already seen the light with analog

dorokusai

zombie boy 2000 wrote:

hey... i'm a newbie and i've already seen the light with analog

hehe