Dedicated CD player VS. internal computer CD player

[tartalatruffe]

Hi all! I'm questioning myself but I don't have sufficient knowledges about CD players, I'm sure some of you can help me to understand that deeper

What are the differences between playing CD into a standalone CD player VS into a 5,25" internal CD player put into a computer?

-Signal is supposed to be transported the same way to the DAC?
-Maybe with the internal CD player, the signal have a longer path, so it have more chances to add interferences to the digital signal (which will then need a stronger checksum); or even have to pass through the internal OS mixer?
-Maybe the power supply of a computer act differently than a power supply on a CD Player?
-Maybe a computer during CD playing is more noisy?

I'm planning on building a HTPC that can read everything and be cheaper than a Universal Disc Player (minus the ability to play Dolby Vision and SACD). But I want to be sure I'll get the same performance while playing CDs (which is a thing I still do often).

P.S. : I'm just talking about the CD player because in any case, it'll be connected to a high quality DAC (Toslink for the dedicated CD player, USB for the computer CD player), and to high quality speakers.

 

[10PSPMemSticksForMiku2007]

CDs will sound just as good as anything else that comes out of your computer. If you're satisfied with your PC audio setup, I see no reason to get a separate CD player.

 

[restorer-john]

Internal CD/DVD/etc drives (5.25") are often noisy (physically). They often default to a high speed and vibrate even if you are playing in real time.

If you use a laptop style DVD/CDR/BR drive in an HTPC, they can be a mixed bag IME. Some good, others not so much.

 

[voodooless]

Internal CD/DVD/etc drives (5.25") are often noisy (physically). They often default to a high speed and vibrate even if you are playing in real time.

If you use a laptop style DVD/CDR/BR drive in an HTPC, they can be a mixed bag IME. Some good, others not so much.

Sure, all true. Some more observations:

- A stand-alone CD-player is often much faster to load and start. It's much simpler because it already assumes to load an audio CD, so it simply loads the TOC and is ready to go. A PC drive is way more complex and is primarily created to read data. Priorities are just different. Now a universal player might be different here. They are much more akin to a PC than a dedicated CD-player. So also here, load speeds may be lower.
- Since a PC drive reads at a speed multiple, it has the chance to reread bad sectors, that a stand-alone player would simply have to "fix" by making up the data. Now, given that the faster read speed also increases the chance of read errors, this is a bit of a double-edged sword. There are plenty of stories of stand-alone players reading discs just fine, while the PC drives just fail... But it can also go the other way around. Your mileage may vary as @restorer-john rightfully mentions. Generally, though, a good stand-alone drive should be a quite solid performer. Also here, a universal player may be able to reread bad data.
- Jitter for a PC driver it totally irrelevant and is solely dependent on the DAC you connect to your PC. The DAC dictates the speed of the data flow, and the drive will accommodate to it (in the case of a USB connection at least). In a stand-alone drive, the drive is the clock source, and the DAC will follow it. In modern drives (and modern here is very generous, because it's been like this for decades), the data is clocked out of a buffer, and the drive will speed up or down slightly to make sure the buffer doesn't run out. So also here, jitter doesn't really come from imperfections of the disc spinning. Don't worry about in in either way.
- Both ways ideally should give you identical data to the DAC. Sound-quality-wise, there is no difference. In the end, it's mostly down to convenience. Do you want to spin up a PC every time you want to listen to a CD? Is it always-on anyway? Is the drive silent enough? Can you live with the slower startup times?

As for an HTPC.. You may be a decade late Those things are badly out of fashion and mostly pointless given how cheap streaming media players are, or even already integrated in your TV. Given that, I would probably just go for a Universal Disc Player if you want to spin some discs. I can't imagine that you can build an HTPC for much less, given that those things cost around $€ 250. Alternatively, rip everything and store the discs for backup.

 

[restorer-john]

As for an HTPC.. You may be a decade late Those things are badly out of fashion and mostly pointless given how cheap streaming media players are, or even already integrated in your TV.

I gotta agree. And I have several HTPCs sitting around. Cute little Dell Zinos from back in the day. Put a few SSDs in them, but the optical drives just don't get used anymore and since we bought a new 4k 77" TV, it has taken over all the functions of the trusty HTPC.

I used to run some normal windows software on the various HTPCs, but the keyboards/touchpads were optimized for HT use, not for actual work, so they got retired. And I reckon I held onto HTPCs about 7 or 8 years past their use-by dates due to them basically being a small multipurpose box that took up no room.

 

[SSS]

Hi all! I'm questioning myself but I don't have sufficient knowledges about CD players, I'm sure some of you can help me to understand that deeper

What are the differences between playing CD into a standalone CD player VS into a 5,25" internal CD player put into a computer?

-Signal is supposed to be transported the same way to the DAC?
-Maybe with the internal CD player, the signal have a longer path, so it have more chances to add interferences to the digital signal (which will then need a stronger checksum); or even have to pass through the internal OS mixer?
-Maybe the power supply of a computer act differently than a power supply on a CD Player?
-Maybe a computer during CD playing is more noisy?

I'm planning on building a HTPC that can read everything and be cheaper than a Universal Disc Player (minus the ability to play Dolby Vision and SACD). But I want to be sure I'll get the same performance while playing CDs (which is a thing I still do often).

P.S. : I'm just talking about the CD player because in any case, it'll be connected to a high quality DAC (Toslink for the dedicated CD player, USB for the computer CD player), and to high quality speakers.

If you will use a PC then anyway you may digitize the CD and play from the music file then. Saves the CD and no mechanical in/out action anymore. This is what I did and do.

 

[somebodyelse]

Internal CD/DVD/etc drives (5.25") are often noisy (physically). They often default to a high speed and vibrate even if you are playing in real time.

That's configurable, at least on linux, and some player software applies this automatically. In my experience they're comparable to other CD players when pinned to single speed. I'd be more worried by error correction capabilities, and whether they can play the not-quite-CDs from the era when record companies were violating standards to try to stop ripping. Although at the time there were complaints that they wouldn't play in many in-car players that used computer mechanisms too, so they might be problematic in other multi-format players.

I went for ripping all CDs too. They're still available if I need to re-rip, but I just play from LMS now.

 

[tartalatruffe]

CDs will sound just as good as anything else that comes out of your computer. If you're satisfied with your PC audio setup, I see no reason to get a separate CD player.

Thank you, in fact it's the opposite, I use a Denon DCD 520ae, but I also need a UHD bluray player, so I was looking for an all in one product that can read all physical disc (including SACD & Dolby Vision), all digital files with native bitdepth/samplerate/framerate/colorspace.

Internal CD/DVD/etc drives (5.25") are often noisy (physically). They often default to a high speed and vibrate even if you are playing in real time.

If you use a laptop style DVD/CDR/BR drive in an HTPC, they can be a mixed bag IME. Some good, others not so much.

Do you mean that slim BR drive are quieter than the 5,25" one ?

Sure, all true. Some more observations:

- A stand-alone CD-player is often much faster to load and start. It's much simpler because it already assumes to load an audio CD, so it simply loads the TOC and is ready to go. A PC drive is way more complex and is primarily created to read data. Priorities are just different. Now a universal player might be different here. They are much more akin to a PC than a dedicated CD-player. So also here, load speeds may be lower.
- Since a PC drive reads at a speed multiple, it has the chance to reread bad sectors, that a stand-alone player would simply have to "fix" by making up the data. Now, given that the faster read speed also increases the chance of read errors, this is a bit of a double-edged sword. There are plenty of stories of stand-alone players reading discs just fine, while the PC drives just fail... But it can also go the other way around. Your mileage may vary as @restorer-john rightfully mentions. Generally, though, a good stand-alone drive should be a quite solid performer. Also here, a universal player may be able to reread bad data.
- Jitter for a PC driver it totally irrelevant and is solely dependent on the DAC you connect to your PC. The DAC dictates the speed of the data flow, and the drive will accommodate to it (in the case of a USB connection at least). In a stand-alone drive, the drive is the clock source, and the DAC will follow it. In modern drives (and modern here is very generous, because it's been like this for decades), the data is clocked out of a buffer, and the drive will speed up or down slightly to make sure the buffer doesn't run out. So also here, jitter doesn't really come from imperfections of the disc spinning. Don't worry about in in either way.
- Both ways ideally should give you identical data to the DAC. Sound-quality-wise, there is no difference. In the end, it's mostly down to convenience. Do you want to spin up a PC every time you want to listen to a CD? Is it always-on anyway? Is the drive silent enough? Can you live with the slower startup times?

As for an HTPC.. You may be a decade late Those things are badly out of fashion and mostly pointless given how cheap streaming media players are, or even already integrated in your TV. Given that, I would probably just go for a Universal Disc Player if you want to spin some discs. I can't imagine that you can build an HTPC for much less, given that those things cost around $€ 250. Alternatively, rip everything and store the discs for backup.

I think I wanna get rid of my Denonce DCD 520ae, because I need to read or rip bluray, and I want to reduce the number of machine I use.
So it's either a Universal Disc Player (that can read SACD and Dolby Vision, but not a complete file player solution, as it won't read .iso etc), or an HTPC (that I can build from my actual computer because I'll replace it in not so long, that won't let me play Dolby Vision and SACD, and maybe not plays UHD bluray disc, but allows me to play casually to some game on my TV). Or Universal Disc Player + Network streamer but that add to the price tag and complexity as I wish I can connect everything in USB to my DAC.

I didn't talk about Jitter + as I say, my stand-alone CD player is connected via Toslink to the DAC, so the clock should be the DAC rather than the drive, isn't it?

If you will use a PC then anyway you may digitize the CD and play from the music file then. Saves the CD and no mechanical in/out action anymore. This is what I did and do.

It's still important for me to spin CD physically rather than having accesse to a huge music library (which is good, but I like the freedom of having the choice)


And I didn't want to multiply the boxes, I already have an Nvidia shield that is not bit perfect, that struggle some times to read at native framerate videofiles.

It drives me nut that there is not an all-in-one box product that can does everything.

 

[voodooless]

I think I wanna get rid of my Denonce DCD 520ae, because I need to read or rip bluray, and I want to reduce the number of machine I use.
So it's either a Universal Disc Player (that can read SACD and Dolby Vision, but not a complete file player solution, as it won't read .iso etc), or an HTPC (that I can build from my actual computer because I'll replace it in not so long, that won't let me play Dolby Vision and SACD, and maybe not plays UHD bluray disc, but allows me to play casually to some game on my TV). Or Universal Disc Player + Network streamer but that add to the price tag and complexity as I wish I can connect everything in USB to my DAC.

Something like a Sony UBP-X700 supports basically everything you need. It has DLNA to stream audio and video and supports various streaming apps, like Netflix. Why connect via USB? SPDIF works fine.

I didn't talk about Jitter + as I say, my stand-alone CD player is connected via Toslink to the DAC, so the clock should be the DAC rather than the drive, isn't it?

Well, strictly speaking, no! With SPDIF connections, the clock travels over the connection along with the data, so the drive is the master clock. Now the DAC has its own clock, and it will filter and sync up with the SPDIF clock via a PLL in the SPDIF receiver.

 

[somebodyelse]

Do you mean that slim BR drive are quieter than the 5,25" one ?

No. Most of the noise is from spinning the disc much faster than is needed for CD playback to get higher data transfer rates. Any sensible player software will tell the drive to slow down to single speed for audio playback, at which point the sound is similar to most other CD/DVD players. Another approach I've seen is to quickly rip the disc content to memory then play from there with the drive stopped - a noisy setup phase followed by no drive noise at all during playback.

 

[restorer-john]

Now the DAC has its own clock, and it will filter and sync up with the SPDIF clock via a PLL in the SPDIF receiver.

Up to a point and then it doesn't. That is the biggest issue with transport/D/A converters across SPDIF. Doesn't pose a problem inside a CD player...

 

[tartalatruffe]

Thanks a lot everyone!

Why connect via USB? SPDIF works fine.

I want to get the most of my DAC. RME ADI 2 pro can goes up to 192kHz via optical, while it can reach 768 kHz via USB.

Well, strictly speaking, no! With SPDIF connections, the clock travels over the connection along with the data, so the drive is the master clock. Now the DAC has its own clock, and it will filter and sync up with the SPDIF clock via a PLL in the SPDIF receiver.

I didn't know about that! And when connected via USB, I guess it's the same sync method with PLL ?

Something like a Sony UBP-X700 supports basically everything you need.

There is no spdif out on this model, just coax digital out.

No. Most of the noise is from spinning the disc much faster than is needed for CD playback to get higher data transfer rates. Any sensible player software will tell the drive to slow down to single speed for audio playback, at which point the sound is similar to most other CD/DVD players. Another approach I've seen is to quickly rip the disc content to memory then play from there with the drive stopped - a noisy setup phase followed by no drive noise at all during playback.

It's largely enough for me if noise while turning is similar to my Denon DCD 520ae

Up to a point and then it doesn't. That is the biggest issue with transport/D/A converters across SPDIF. Doesn't pose a problem inside a CD player...

Would be happy to learn what information you wanna share here! Do you mean that there is less issues with a built in DAC CD Player?

 

[voodooless]

I want to get the most of my DAC. RME ADI 2 pro can goes up to 192kHz via optical, while it can reach 768 kHz via USB.

But you're not a bat... You won't get any better performance with sample rates above 48 kHz. Nothing other than a PC will offer USB.

I didn't know about that! And when connected via USB, I guess it's the same sync method with PLL ?

Modern USB audio uses the clock of the DAC to basically request audio from the PC. Either way though, it will work perfectly fine.

There is no spdif out on this model, just coax digital out.

That's a bit unfortunate, but fixable with a simple converter. There might also be other player options… this was just the first one I could find with the rough specs needed. Maybe Panasonic UB424? No SACD though..

 

[Roland68]

Thanks a lot everyone!

I want to get the most of my DAC. RME ADI 2 pro can goes up to 192kHz via optical, while it can reach 768 kHz via USB.

I didn't know about that! And when connected via USB, I guess it's the same sync method with PLL ?

There is no spdif out on this model, just coax digital out.

It's largely enough for me if noise while turning is similar to my Denon DCD 520ae

Would be happy to learn what information you wanna share here! Do you mean that there is less issues with a built in DAC CD Player?

The UBP-X700 has a completely normal SPDIF coaxial output via RCA with up to 192 kHz. Since the RME also generates the optical SPDIF from the coaxial with an additional component and vice versa, the coaxial would always be my first choice. The coaxial SPDIF input and output (dto AES) is connected to the Sub D9 connection on the RME ADI 2 Pro using the included breakout cable.

But more than 192 kHz is of no use to you, actually not more than 96 kHz either. Apart from that, there is almost no source material above 192 kHz.
We were once provided with real HR material from 44 - 768 kHz for comparison from 3 high-res labels. Even on really high-resolution hi-fi systems in the 5-6-digit range and in one of the best studios with the highest resolution monitors, no one could hear a difference blindly from 96 kHz. And before that it was more of a guess than a reliable hearing.
Philips and Sony did a damn good job at the end of the 80s.

Upsampling doesn't help either, often it even makes things worse. I've only heard one DAC so far where upsampling made a minimal difference, but only minimally, and that was one of well over 150 DACs of all price ranges that I've heard so far.
And 1536 kHz via USB didn't help any more than 96 kHz.
But you can also chase a white rabbit.

Last but not least, you can also output the SACD signal in full resolution via HDMI and output it to the RME as SPDIF coax or optically with an HDMI audio extractor.
It can hardly be more versatile and simple than with the UBP-X700.

 

[voodooless]

The coaxial SPDIF input and output (dto AES) is connected to the Sub D9 connection on the RME ADI 2 Pro using the included breakout cable

Ah yes, I didn’t see that. So only a passive adapter is needed to make it work

 

[tartalatruffe]

The UBP-X700 has a completely normal SPDIF coaxial output via RCA with up to 192 kHz. Since the RME also generates the optical SPDIF from the coaxial with an additional component and vice versa, the coaxial would always be my first choice. The coaxial SPDIF input and output (dto AES) is connected to the Sub D9 connection on the RME ADI 2 Pro using the included breakout cable.

But more than 192 kHz is of no use to you, actually not more than 96 kHz either. Apart from that, there is almost no source material above 192 kHz.
We were once provided with real HR material from 44 - 768 kHz for comparison from 3 high-res labels. Even on really high-resolution hi-fi systems in the 5-6-digit range and in one of the best studios with the highest resolution monitors, no one could hear a difference blindly from 96 kHz. And before that it was more of a guess than a reliable hearing.
Philips and Sony did a damn good job at the end of the 80s.

Upsampling doesn't help either, often it even makes things worse. I've only heard one DAC so far where upsampling made a minimal difference, but only minimally, and that was one of well over 150 DACs of all price ranges that I've heard so far.
And 1536 kHz via USB didn't help any more than 96 kHz.
But you can also chase a white rabbit.

Last but not least, you can also output the SACD signal in full resolution via HDMI and output it to the RME as SPDIF coax or optically with an HDMI audio extractor.
It can hardly be more versatile and simple than with the UBP-X700.

Thank you for your answer! I just want less conversion/extractor/connector as possible. The DP-UB820 have an optical out for exemple (still no SACD). I don't think it's simplier to have a Univer Disc Player for disc, a Network Player for file, an android box for streaming app. If I can reach all of this this with one computer, why not try it

This is what I found frustrating, computer should be the answer for merging all of this in one machine, and component/OS/Licence limitation make it impossible to play Dolby Vision BluRay Disc and SACD. And it makes it hard to play a UHD BluRay Disc. Otherwise, it has everything I would need

 

[voodooless]

Thank you for your answer! I just want less conversion/extractor/connector as possible.

You need one simple adapter, really simple..

The DP-UB820 have an optical out for exemple (still no SACD). I don't think it's simplier to have a Univer Disc Player for disc, a Network Player for file, an android box for streaming app.

The Sony box can give you all this and SACD.

 

[Roland68]

Ah yes, I didn’t see that. So only a passive adapter is needed to make it work

The word adapter is misleading in this case.
In the pro audio sector, it is absolutely normal for such connections to be made via a cable breakout. Nothing is adapted or converted, this is the normal SPDIF input on the RME ADI 2 Pro:

Thank you for your answer! I just want less conversion/extractor/connector as possible. The DP-UB820 have an optical out for exemple (still no SACD). I don't think it's simplier to have a Univer Disc Player for disc, a Network Player for file, an android box for streaming app. If I can reach all of this this with one computer, why not try it

This is what I found frustrating, computer should be the answer for merging all of this in one machine, and component/OS/Licence limitation make it impossible to play Dolby Vision BluRay Disc and SACD. And it makes it hard to play a UHD BluRay Disc. Otherwise, it has everything I would need

Nobody is stopping you from trying. SACD doesn't work and I've seen several top IT people fail with the other things over the last 20 years. The devices worked, but handling them was a pain and extremely choppy. Only CDs were OK, but after that...
I also tested these installations and decided for myself that there was no point in wasting so much time. I'd rather work and buy something that works.

You can connect the UBP-X700 directly to your RME ADI 2 Pro without an adapter and you won't get much closer to a nearly perfect solution including Dolby Vision. I don't know of a better solution for the original SACD stream than using the HDMI extractor, except for special hacked players, but that's not better, just more expensive. At €50-100 it's also quite cheap.

You have now received opinions and solutions from several technically experienced users, each with at least 20-30 years of experience. You don't have to listen to it and the fun lies in having your own experiences.

 

[voodooless]

Nothing is adapted

Call it whatever you like, but it adapts DB-9 to RCA…

 

[tartalatruffe]

The word adapter is misleading in this case.
In the pro audio sector, it is absolutely normal for such connections to be made via a cable breakout. Nothing is adapted or converted, this is the normal SPDIF input on the RME ADI 2 Pro:

View attachment 386484

Nobody is stopping you from trying. SACD doesn't work and I've seen several top IT people fail with the other things over the last 20 years. The devices worked, but handling them was a pain and extremely choppy. Only CDs were OK, but after that...
I also tested these installations and decided for myself that there was no point in wasting so much time. I'd rather work and buy something that works.

You can connect the UBP-X700 directly to your RME ADI 2 Pro without an adapter and you won't get much closer to a nearly perfect solution including Dolby Vision. I don't know of a better solution for the original SACD stream than using the HDMI extractor, except for special hacked players, but that's not better, just more expensive. At €50-100 it's also quite cheap.

You have now received opinions and solutions from several technically experienced users, each with at least 20-30 years of experience. You don't have to listen to it and the fun lies in having your own experiences.

That was what I asked for, again, thank you for your enlighting posts