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
blkadr
739 posts
 
Good advise, good plan. Also, in my experience, sometimes you have to live with a component for a while before you can appreciate the subtle differences that make listening more enjoyable. Listen to just the Cambridge for a few days (or longer) and then switch back. Quick A/B camparisons dont tell the whole story.

aaronm's avatar
aaronm
99 posts
 
Gunbunny, Another possibility is that your Yamaha receiver does all processsing and switching in the Digital domain. If it takes all of its inputs (analog or otherwise)and puts them through its A/D converter does all processing and then through the D/A and amplifies it, it is no wonder the Cambridge sounds the same. The limiting factors would be the same. While I am not familiar with Yamaha equipment, many units do this including the Lexicon MC1 and units like it. This is why I purchased a separate Analog preamp for analog sources and SACD. Aaron
dwpc
27 posts
 
Your test will exclude the Yamaha internal DAC, which for now, seems to be the heart of the issue. If you have a full refund warranty on the Cambridge, I think it would be best to break it in for as long as you can, then compare it to the Yamaha/DVD combo at home. If there's still little difference, it would seem to me to be a $400 (plus cost of i/c's) no-brainer.

Trust only YOUR ears (or those of a trusted friend). If you can't hear a difference, chances are there IS no significant difference.
sol322
426 posts
 
Gun:
At a certain point when I started in this hobby, I had a problem because couldn´t detect effects swapping things in my system. After keeping an open mind and working on it, I learned that my setup had several curtains or "tinted glass" windows that didn´t allow me so see (hear) those changes.
The path that I followed included first the proper setup of the system, some of the layers or curtains were
-A/C related dedicated lines, power condidionter, P. C.
- Vibrationrelated rack, cones etc
- speaker setup room
To name some.
If a major change like switching a source almost give you no change, if I have this situation myself will start looking into these listed things.
To give you an example now I can detect easily differences in my system if the digital source has it´s audiopoint brass cones point up or point down under it.
So my advice is to keep an open mind, work on it.
It´s a good idea to bring the sources to the dealer for comparison, it might provide you with a good different perspective to compare.
Best of luck
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.
More to discover