Denon DCD-900NE Review (CD Player)

[pinger]

I have the Denon 600. Like $100 cheaper than the 900. Not sure what the difference is from the 900. A few features?

 

[NTTY]

Looking at pictures of the inside on Denon's site, it seems the 600NE hosts a BB PCM5142 DAC chip. If that's the case, then the performance is lower on THD+N perspective, as documented to be -93dB (with a sine @-1dBFS) and is all dominated by distortion (documented THD = -93dB too), whereas the ESS9018S of the 900NE is documented at either -108dB in voltage mode or -120dB in current mode (and for a sine @0dBFS).

So they are two very different beasts. I measured a THD+N of -96dB with the 900NE, limit being the CD Audio format, without shaped dither. But THD only was at -113dB, so that's 20dB less that what Texas Instruments documented for the PCM5142, and that's a huge difference.

Now, THD+N of -93dB is the performance of several decades ago, and was limited by the noise. With noise shaping technique, it’s possible to break the CD Audio noise floor, so it’s too bad if the limit is set by THD.

 

[amper42]

Looking at pictures of the inside on Denon's site, it seems the 600NE hosts a BB PCM5142 DAC chip. If that's the case, then the performance is lower on THD+N perspective, as documented to be -93dB (with a sine @-1dBFS) and is all dominated by distortion (documented THD = -93dB too), whereas the ESS9018S of the 900NE is documented at either -108dB in voltage mode or -120dB in current mode (and for a sine @0dBFS).

So they are two very different beasts. I measured a THD+N of -96dB with the 900NE, limit being the CD Audio format, without shaped dither. But THD only was at -113dB, so that's 20dB less that what Texas Instruments documented for the PCM5142, and that's a huge difference.

Now, THD+N of -93dB is the performance of several decades ago, and was limited by the noise. With noise shaping technique, it’s possible to break the CD Audio noise floor, so it’s too bad if the limit is set by THD.

The Denon 600NE is a fine CD player. It's really hard to hear an audible difference between my Denon 600NE and 900NE. The biggest difference is the lack of a USB interface for digital files and you are limited to RCA and optical out with 600NE. No Coax out on 600NE. But, I never use the USB digital option with a CD player AND using the optical out turns the 600NE into a great CD transport that by passes it's internal DAC. It's a fine CD player and a great transport.

 

[pinger]

The Denon 600NE is a fine CD player. It's really hard to hear an audible difference between my Denon 600NE and 900NE. The biggest difference is the lack of a USB interface for digital files and you are limited to RCA and optical out with 600NE. No Coax out on 600NE. But, I never use the USB digital option with a CD player AND using the optical out turns the 600NE into a great CD transport that by passes it's internal DAC. It's a fine CD player and a great transport.

Yeah I use iti strictly to play CD's and since all CD players sound the same it's all about features. I dont need the extra features in the 900. I remember now thats why i bought it vs the 900

 

[Music Fidelity]

@NTTY / Flo,

I'm in the market for a reasonably priced CD player right now so your reviews of the Denon DCD 900NE and Marantz CD6007 were of particular interest to me.

I have a few questions (at the end of the post) regarding the Bandwidth comparison of the Denon DCD-900NE and the Marantz CD 6007 CD players:

From your Review of the Denon DCD-900NE:
Bandwidth measurement (now measured from periodic white noise) shows a significant roll-off at 20kHz (-2dB) starting very early (at 4kHz):

Of course, this is due to the oversampling filter which we will analyze soon. The two channels are perfectly matched, well done.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You noted in your Marantz CD6007 Review:

Bandwidth measurement was the point where this CD player started to give me some concerns. The two channels are matching at less than 0.05dB (very good). But have a look at the bandwidth between the two filters:

Yes, -5dB at 20kHz for Filter 1... And both have a negative effect starting at 10kHz or before... If the younger ears out here are to perceive a difference, or say smoothness into this player, this is why.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions:
1. Shouldn't the -2dB roll-off of the Denon DCD 900NE, given it is starting at as low as around 4kHz, also be a concern, and be heard as a softness or smoothness of the sound? Maybe just as much as the -5dB at 20kHz of the Marantz CD 6007 (perhaps for even "older" ears since the roll-off starts off so much lower in frequency)?

2. Also, what is up with the Denon DCD 900NE also rolling off in the low end as well compared to the Marantz CD 6007?

3a. Is it common for DAC's to not be engineered be flat to 20kHz (ie, start rolling prior to reaching 20kHz)?

3b. Do you think the high frequency roll-off on these units is done on purpose by engineers/manufacturers in an attempt to counter the perception that digital audio is not as warm or smooth as analog?

Curious to your thoughts about this.

Also, to Flo and anyone else that owns both of these models.
4. I've read some comments online previously that the Marantz CD 6007 has a very solid, quiet and silky smooth loading tray mechanism. Do you agree with this? How does the Denon DCD 900NE rate in comparison in this regard?

 

[AnalogSteph]

Questions:
1. Shouldn't the -2dB roll-off of the Denon DCD 900NE, given it is starting at as low as around 4kHz, also be a concern, and be heard as a softness or smoothness of the sound?

Look at the scale. The response is 0.2 dB down by 13ish kHz (and 20 Hz) and 0.3 dB down by 17ish kHz. 0.3 dB is about the minimum humanly detectable level difference, and it's likely to be a fair bit more at the extremes. So unless you have very young, very good hearing with substantial action above ~18.5 kHz, you might as well consider this dead flat.

 

[NTTY]

Questions:
1. Shouldn't the -2dB roll-off of the Denon DCD 900NE, given it is starting at as low as around 4kHz, also be a concern, and be heard as a softness or smoothness of the sound?

I can’t reply to that question since it will depend on every individual. From the graph, it’s roughly -0.2dB at 15kHz which I can’t detect into music.

Maybe just as much as the -5dB at 20kHz of the Marantz CD 6007 (perhaps for even "older" ears since the roll-off starts off so much lower in frequency)?

-5dB at 20kHz should not be seen, honestly. Can you hear? I don’t know, but there’s no reason to suffer such attenuation in 2024.

2. Also, what is up with the Denon DCD 900NE also rolling off in the low end as well compared to the Marantz CD 6007?

It’s -0.2dB at 20Hz, so even if your speakers and amplifier can go that low, it’s very unlikely to be perceived.

3a. Is it common for DAC's to not be engineered be flat to 20kHz (ie, start rolling prior to reaching 20kHz)?

That’s exactly the discussion of the oversampling filter which must compensate for the natural attenuation of the sin(x)/x function when converting digital words into a voltage. The hold function generates an attenuation of -3.92dB at 20kHz without compensation. Compensating more or less is therefore a conscious decision, because that also implies phase changes, out of band attenuation, computing power, heat, costs, marketing BS, ...
To be honest, there’s no reason in 2024 to see anything else but flatness. So if we see it, it’s because someone thinks it’s good or was prevented from “fixing it”.
Also, many modern DACs offer the possibility to chose filters and I think it should be left to the end user to decide which one is their preferred, rather than forcing one to the user.

3b. Do you think the high frequency roll-off on these units is done on purpose by engineers/manufacturers in an attempt to counter the perception that digital audio is not as warm or smooth as analog?

Not for that reason, no. But for many others I mentioned, yes.
One last could be to “complement” the ADC filter that was used to create the master, because filtering also happens there. So to cope with the uncertainty zone of the ADC at conversion (beyond the Nyquist frequency, and before full out of band attenuation), some say that the DAC filter can too contribute to reduce that area of uncertainty which contains unwanted aliases. Again, and since there’s no way to know what filtering was used to create the master, it’s good to have multiple choices with the DAC.

I’ve never been able to hear a difference between filters, but I believe each one should be provided with the possibility to experience when the DAC allows.

In the case of the Denon, their AL filter has been an engineering and marketing product differentiator for decades…

Curious to your thoughts about this.

Also, to Flo and anyone else that owns both of these models.
4. I've read some comments online previously that the Marantz CD 6007 has a very solid, quiet and silky smooth loading tray mechanism. Do you agree with this? How does the Denon DCD 900NE rate in comparison in this regard?

I think it’s the same. I don’t have the Marantz anymore, I kept the Denon only.
The one of the Denon is completely silent. Solid, I can’t judge, only time would tell but it’s “light” compared to others I have (but not in the same price range I must say). It’s only a feeling though.

 

[EJ3]

I can’t reply to that question since it will depend on every individual. From the graph, it’s roughly -0.2dB at 15kHz which I can’t detect into music.

-5dB at 20kHz should not be seen, honestly. Can you hear? I don’t know, but there’s no reason to suffer such attenuation in 2024.

It’s -0.2dB at 20Hz, so even if your speakers and amplifier can go that low, it’s very unlikely to be perceived.

That’s exactly the discussion of the oversampling filter which must compensate for the natural attenuation of the sin(x)/x function when converting digital words into a voltage. The hold function generates an attenuation of -3.92dB at 20kHz without compensation. Compensating more or less is therefore a conscious decision, because that also implies phase changes, out of band attenuation, computing power, heat, costs, marketing BS, ...
To be honest, there’s no reason in 2024 to see anything else but flatness. So if we see it, it’s because someone thinks it’s good or was prevented from “fixing it”.
Also, many modern DACs offer the possibility to chose filters and I think it should be left to the end user to decide which one is their preferred, rather than forcing one to the user.

Not for that reason, no. But for many others I mentioned, yes.
One last could be to “complement” the ADC filter that was used to create the master, because filtering also happens there. So to cope with the uncertainty zone of the ADC at conversion (beyond the Nyquist frequency, and before full out of band attenuation), some say that the DAC filter can too contribute to reduce that area of uncertainty which contains unwanted aliases. Again, and since there’s no way to know what filtering was used to create the master, it’s good to have multiple choices with the DAC.

I’ve never been able to hear a difference between filters, but I believe each one should be provided with the possibility to experience when the DAC allows.

In the case of the Denon, their AL filter has been an engineering and marketing product differentiation for decades…

I think it’s the same. I don’t have the Marantz anymore, I kept the Demon only.
The one of the Denon is completely silent. Solid, I can’t judge, only time would tell but it’s “light” compared to others I have (but not in the same price range I must say). It’s only a feeling though.

IF (and for most of us, I think that it is not) these things are an audible problem, a touch of EQ is a possible solution.

 

[Music Fidelity]

@NTTY

Thanks for the detailed reply.

1. If I understand you correctly, ALL CD specification (16 bit/44.1 kHz) DAC's are down 3.92dB at 20kHz intrinsically (mathematically)?
So any deviation of that from any player is done with engineering manipulation of the signal. In the case of the Denon the filter is purposely designed to start rolling off at around 4kHz, so it can "slowly" roll off to about -2dB at 20kHz. Whereas the Marantz was designed to start rolling off "later" but "faster" such that it is about -5dB at 20kHz. So the Marantz is actually purposely designed (or was poorly designed) to be down not only to -5dB, but about 1dB more (5dB-3.92dB) than what is expected naturally to happen (which makes no sense as to why they would do that- or be content with that- at least to me anyway. Is my analysis correct or am I way off in my understanding?

2. So it looks like I didn't notice (thanks for pointing that out @AnalogSteph) that the scale of the graph for the Marantz and Denon were not the same (Denon is displayed more zoomed in).

So if presented in the same scale, is the roll-off in the Low End frequencies as seen in the Marantz similar to the small amount shown with the Denon? Is the Denon frequency response mild roll off in the low end (20Hz-60Hz) pretty representative for what you would expect from most players?

3. There was one additional thing I forgot to ask in my original post. Did you measure (or if not, could you) the Error Correction capability (Pierre Verany Digital Test CD ) of the Denon DCD 900NE?

Obviously all players should pass the CD standard of up to 0.2mm in length spiral gaps. But some go significantly beyond that (e.g. 1.5mm, or two closely space gaps at 1.0mm in length) until audible glitches become present. I think it would be helpful to include the maximum measure gaps in all of you reviews if possible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suppose the fact that you got rid of the Marantz CD 6007 but kept the Denon DCD 900NE implies you preferred the Denon over it I guess. (not saying that means the Marantz is junk).

I really appreciate you taking the time to provide the reviews you are doing. We need more objective testing of audio gear. You just can't trust the marketing nonsense from manufacturers. Less audio magazines exist that measure audio products. For the ones that do still exist, people need to look out for shady subjective reviews/publishers opinions done for personal gain (and don't get me started with many YouTube audio channel reviewers for the same reason, etc). Plus, with so few Audio Retail stores available locally in anything but the largest cities/markets, it makes it difficult or impossible to personally to see, listen and touch these products to make informed purchase decisions. We are left almost totally blind. Thank you so much for your dedication and passion for doing these tests, sharing them, and answering questions. While it seems obvious you enjoy doing it, it still takes time. A tip of the cap from me


PS: Just curious if you can let forum readers know what software/equipment you use to test the equipment (my apologies if this is noted somewhere else in the forum).

 

[Music Fidelity]

Look at the scale. The response is 0.2 dB down by 13ish kHz (and 20 Hz) and 0.3 dB down by 17ish kHz. 0.3 dB is about the minimum humanly detectable level difference, and it's likely to be a fair bit more at the extremes. So unless you have very young, very good hearing with substantial action above ~18.5 kHz, you might as well consider this dead flat.

Thanks for pointing out the scale. I didn't notice the Denon and Marantz graphs were at different scales when I made a quick glance comparison of their graphs.

 

[amper42]

@NTTY

Thanks for the detailed reply.

1. If I understand you correctly, ALL CD specification (16 bit/44.1 kHz) DAC's are down 3.92dB at 20kHz intrinsically (mathematically)?
So any deviation of that from any player is done with engineering manipulation of the signal. In the case of the Denon the filter is purposely designed to start rolling off at around 4kHz, so it can "slowly" roll off to about -2dB at 20kHz. Whereas the Marantz was designed to start rolling off "later" but "faster" such that it is about -5dB at 20kHz. So the Marantz is actually purposely designed (or was poorly designed) to be down not only to -5dB, but about 1dB more (5dB-3.92dB) than what is expected naturally to happen (which makes no sense as to why they would do that- or be content with that- at least to me anyway. Is my analysis correct or am I way off in my understanding?

2. So it looks like I didn't notice (thanks for pointing that out @AnalogSteph) that the scale of the graph for the Marantz and Denon were not the same (Denon is displayed more zoomed in).

So if presented in the same scale, is the roll-off in the Low End frequencies as seen in the Marantz similar to the small amount shown with the Denon? Is the Denon frequency response mild roll off in the low end (20Hz-60Hz) pretty representative for what you would expect from most players?

3. There was one additional thing I forgot to ask in my original post. Did you measure (or if not, could you) the Error Correction capability (Pierre Verany Digital Test CD ) of the Denon DCD 900NE?

Obviously all players should pass the CD standard of up to 0.2mm in length spiral gaps. But some go significantly beyond that (e.g. 1.5mm, or two closely space gaps at 1.0mm in length) until audible glitches become present. I think it would be helpful to include the maximum measure gaps in all of you reviews if possible.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suppose the fact that you got rid of the Marantz CD 6007 but kept the Denon DCD 900NE implies you preferred the Denon over it I guess. (not saying that means the Marantz is junk).

I really appreciate you taking the time to provide the reviews you are doing. We need more objective testing of audio gear. You just can't trust the marketing nonsense from manufacturers. Less audio magazines exist that measure audio products. For the ones that do still exist, people need to look out for shady subjective reviews/publishers opinions done for personal gain (and don't get me started with many YouTube audio channel reviewers for the same reason, etc). Plus, with so few Audio Retail stores available locally in anything but the largest cities/markets, it makes it difficult or impossible to personally to see, listen and touch these products to make informed purchase decisions. We are left almost totally blind. Thank you so much for your dedication and passion for doing these tests, sharing them, and answering questions. While it seems obvious you enjoy doing it, it still takes time. A tip of the cap from me


PS: Just curious if you can let forum readers know what software/equipment you use to test the equipment (my apologies if this is noted somewhere else in the forum).

It's difficult to hear a 2dB roll off at 20kHz. Most of us with a quality DAC are using the optical out of the Denon CD player to the DAC which uses it as a CD transport - totally bypassing the CD internal DAC. If you AB the CD player using the optical versus the RCA outs (CD internal DAC) you likely will hear little difference. It's pretty easy to get excited about a chart that makes little difference in real listening.

 

[NTTY]

@NTTY

Thanks for the detailed reply.

1. If I understand you correctly, ALL CD specification (16 bit/44.1 kHz) DAC's are down 3.92dB at 20kHz intrinsically (mathematically)?

Yes, it is an effect of the conversion due to zero hold conversion (one digital word is converted to a voltage which is kept constant until next word comes in). This mechanism envelopes the output signal in a sin(x)/x function which generated a -3.92dB attenuation at 20khz.

So any deviation of that from any player is done with engineering manipulation of the signal.

Yes, in digital domain (before conversion) or in analog domain (after conversion).

In the case of the Denon the filter is purposely designed to start rolling off at around 4kHz, so it can "slowly" roll off to about -2dB at 20kHz.

Yes, that is what they wanted (I hope )

Whereas the Marantz was designed to start rolling off "later" but "faster" such that it is about -5dB at 20kHz.

Yep

So the Marantz is actually purposely designed (or was poorly designed) to be down not only to -5dB, but about 1dB more (5dB-3.92dB) than what is expected naturally to happen (which makes no sense as to why they would do that- or be content with that- at least to me anyway. Is my analysis correct or am I way off in my understanding?

Correct. It's probably laziness, one filter for all sampling rates, maybe(?). I can't be sure, but it does not suit Audio CD, too bad for a CD Player.

2. So it looks like I didn't notice (thanks for pointing that out @AnalogSteph) that the scale of the graph for the Marantz and Denon were not the same (Denon is displayed more zoomed in).

I added a zoomed view at the time for the Marantz, indeed

So if presented in the same scale, is the roll-off in the Low End frequencies as seen in the Marantz similar to the small amount shown with the Denon? Is the Denon frequency response mild roll off in the low end (20Hz-60Hz) pretty representative for what you would expect from most players?

No, it's less on the Marantz in the low end (like 10x less).
Usually, on modern players, this should be flat.

3. There was one additional thing I forgot to ask in my original post. Did you measure (or if not, could you) the Error Correction capability (Pierre Verany Digital Test CD ) of the Denon DCD 900NE?

Obviously all players should pass the CD standard of up to 0.2mm in length spiral gaps. But some go significantly beyond that (e.g. 1.5mm, or two closely space gaps at 1.0mm in length) until audible glitches become present. I think it would be helpful to include the maximum measure gaps in all of you reviews if possible.

I have the CD but I did not use it. I can do that but I won't have time before next year, I'm afraid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I suppose the fact that you got rid of the Marantz CD 6007 but kept the Denon DCD 900NE implies you preferred the Denon over it I guess. (not saying that means the Marantz is junk).

Yep, I did not like the higher THD and filter response of the Marantz. On a listening experience perspective, they were the same to me. These two players are otherwise nearly identical, on a end user experience perspective.

I really appreciate you taking the time to provide the reviews you are doing. We need more objective testing of audio gear. You just can't trust the marketing nonsense from manufacturers. Less audio magazines exist that measure audio products. For the ones that do still exist, people need to look out for shady subjective reviews/publishers opinions done for personal gain (and don't get me started with many YouTube audio channel reviewers for the same reason, etc). Plus, with so few Audio Retail stores available locally in anything but the largest cities/markets, it makes it difficult or impossible to personally to see, listen and touch these products to make informed purchase decisions. We are left almost totally blind. Thank you so much for your dedication and passion for doing these tests, sharing them, and answering questions. While it seems obvious you enjoy doing it, it still takes time. A tip of the cap from me

Thanks and my pleasure indeed

PS: Just curious if you can let forum readers know what software/equipment you use to test the equipment (my apologies if this is noted somewhere else in the forum).

Yep, have a look here. More than equipment, you need the test files correctly created
I will need to document better what test file tells us what, how and why. Currently it's only in an excel I wrote, but I'd like to document much better.

 

[Music Fidelity]

@NTTY,

Thanks for the clear and concise replies.

Your method of quoting and replying to questions on a "point-by-point basis" makes it easy to understand and follow (and as a side benefit, less likely you'll accidentally miss responding to a particular point as well). I suspect other forum readers who are following along the topic thread will find this method helpful as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if presented in the same scale, is the roll-off in the Low End frequencies as seen in the Marantz similar to the small amount shown with the Denon? Is the Denon frequency response mild roll off in the low end (20Hz-60Hz) pretty representative for what you would expect from most players?

No, it's less on the Marantz in the low end (like 10x less).
Usually, on modern players, this should be flat.

Ok, so this is an example of one area that the Marantz actually did a better job of than the Denon did (flatter response/less rolloff in the low frequency end). Although, as you have pointed out, while there is probably no reason for modern players like the Denon (or others for that matter) to not be flatter, the value is quite small, and likely not audible.

3. There was one additional thing I forgot to ask in my original post. Did you measure (or if not, could you) the Error Correction capability (Pierre Verany Digital Test CD ) of the Denon DCD 900NE?

Obviously all players should pass the CD standard of up to 0.2mm in length spiral gaps. But some go significantly beyond that (e.g. 1.5mm, or two closely space gaps at 1.0mm in length) until audible glitches become present. I think it would be helpful to include the maximum measure gaps in all of you reviews if possible.

I have the CD but I did not use it. I can do that but I won't have time before next year, I'm afraid.

That's completely understandable. Yes, if you do get a chance to test the Error Correction specs at some point that would be nice.

I think it would be a helpful to include the Error Correction test in all of your Reviews.
It just adds another data point to compare players and for many people might be a very "practical" spec to know; given aging CD's and the increased likelihood of getting scratched discs via the used markets.

PS: Just curious if you can let forum readers know what software/equipment you use to test the equipment (my apologies if this is noted somewhere else in the forum).

Yep, have a look here. More than equipment, you need the test files correctly created
I will need to document better what test file tells us what, how and why. Currently it's only in an excel I wrote, but I'd like to document much better.

Thank you! Really cool to see your passion. Great stuff to know for the more adventurous types that might want to do some of their own testing. I'd be interested in trying. I'm just not sure if I have the technical chops to understand it and to do it (I've only just glanced at your first post of the topic/thread you linked so far). Very impressed with the time you dedicated to creating your own Test CD. Will look forward to seeing you improve the Documentation (Too bad we don't have unlimited time)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just a guess, but you must have math or science background/job.

 

[NTTY]

@NTTY,

Thanks for the clear and concise replies.

Your method of quoting and replying to questions on a "point-by-point basis" makes it easy to understand and follow (and as a side benefit, less likely you'll accidentally miss responding to a particular point as well). I suspect other forum readers who are following along the topic thread will find this method helpful as well.

The ASR site makes it very easy, I love it. Once upon a time, we had to code in HTML to do the same. Now it’s just pressing “Return” button: so much time saved. And I see you went the next level of sub-quoting

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, it's less on the Marantz in the low end (like 10x less).
Usually, on modern players, this should be flat.

Ok, so this is an example of one area that the Marantz actually did a better job of than the Denon did (flatter response/less rolloff in the low frequency end). Although, as you have pointed out, while there is probably no reason for modern players like the Denon (or others for that matter) to not be flatter, the value is quite small, and likely not audible.

Exact. And why the Denon has that small inflection in low frequency is to be left to Denon engineers. Maybe that saved few cents and they know it’s of no influence for the customer.

I have the CD but I did not use it. I can do that but I won't have time before next year, I'm afraid.

That's completely understandable. Yes, if you do get a chance to test the Error Correction specs at some point that would be nice.

I have a personal interest to play with that too, so I’ll give the priority to the Denon

I think it would be a helpful to include the Error Correction test in all of your Reviews.

In the future, yep. For those I already reviewed, I doubt, although I have tried to keep the reviews updated with the latest test set. But that’s crazy time consuming, and of little reward.

It just adds another data point to compare players and for many people might be a very "practical" spec to know; given aging CD's and the increased likelihood of getting scratched discs via the used markets.

Yep, valid ask indeed. That’s why I searched and bought that CD at the cost of a crazy good DAC

Yep, have a look here. More than equipment, you need the test files correctly created
I will need to document better what test file tells us what, how and why. Currently it's only in an excel I wrote, but I'd like to document much better.

Thank you! Really cool to see your passion. Great stuff to know for the more adventurous types that might want to do some of their own testing. I'd be interested in trying. I'm just not sure if I have the technical chops to understand it and to do it (I've only just glanced at your first post of the topic/thread you linked so far). Very impressed with the time you dedicated to creating your own Test CD. Will look forward to seeing you improve the Documentation (Too bad we don't have unlimited time)

Thanks, recognition is a very good reward. And I must mention my mentors: @restorer-john and @AnalogSteph for always pushing me further.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just a guess, but you must have math or science background/job.

Good guess

 

[RM7]

Hello Everyone,

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Denon DCD-900NE stereo player and transport.

View attachment 388802

I previously reviewed the Marantz CD6007 which is in the same category. So much so that packaging is identical, as well as the remote control, as well as the user guide. All look to be sourced from the same consulting company.

I like testing CD Players, especially older ones, but I'm still in search of a modern one which I could use as kind of reference. So far the Onkyo C-733 has this role, but it's extremely difficult to source since it's 20 years old. So let's see what this Denon has to tell us.


Denon DCD-900NE - Presentation

This is the latest iteration from Denon (as of August 2024) of this player, replacing the previous DCD-800NE. As you can see on the above picture, the look has not changed and has been the same for a long time. Similar to Marantz, I like it a lot.

On the front face no phones output, which is too bad. I guess this explains the lower price when compared to the Marantz. Also, no selection of different filters but we get the now famous Denon specific filtering in an advanced version called "Advance AL32 Processing Plus". We'll deep dive into that, trust me.

As with the Marantz, there is also a USB input which will accept a USB drive and higher resolution files (up to PCM 24bits/192kHz and DSD 5.6MHz).

Back panel shows the essential:

View attachment 388808

We have RCA out and digital (Otpi + Coax).

Here is a picture of the inside:

View attachment 406765

We find two power boards, one for the digital section with servo control, decoding and the Denon AL filtering, and one for the analog section with the ESS DAC. Everything seems well organized and looks qualitative.

As opposed to the Marantz, no refined output stage (HDAM) of course, but the audio board is nice with the ESS9018S and OP1692 in the output stage (for I/V and LPF, I guess), to make us happy:

View attachment 406767

In terms of usage, first impression was rather good. But again similar to the Marantz, I was annoyed by the slowness of the drive. Indeed, if going forward is relatively fast (but no where near older players), going backwards was a little nightmare. less so than with the Marantz though.

Really, out of the box, these two players are alike.


Denon DCD-900NE - Measurements (Analog out - From CD)

From now on, I will be consistent with my measurements as I described them on the Onkyo C-733 review. So over time, this will help comparing the items I reviewed.

The Denon DC-900NE outputs 2.402Vrms, that is 1.6dB above the standard 2Vrsm. The two channels were matched at 0.01dB (very good). The single-ended outputs invert absolute polarity.

Let's start with the standard 999.91Hz sine @0dBFS (without dither) from my test CD (RCA out):

View attachment 409228

Left and right channels are shown but only one gets evaluated in that view. Both channels have the same performances, though. Plot is on H2 (-114.7dBr and -115.2dBr).

Well, it is the lowest THD I ever measured from a CD player (-114dB), a huge 18dB better than the Marantz!
THD+N is limited (and so is the SINAD) the resolution of CD Audio. It's the best we can get.

Same view but at -6dBFS now:

View attachment 409229

Other results (not shown) are:

• Crosstalk : -137dB at 1kHz, -120dB at 10kHz
• IMD AES : -97dB (18kHz+20kHz 1:1 @-5dBFS)
• Pitch Error : 19'997.01Hz (19'997Hz requested) ie +0.00005%

These are extremely good performances for a CD Player, very close to that of the Marantz.

The Denon is a very quiet CD player, doing even better than the Marantz:

View attachment 393561

We can see only one power supply–related spuria in its output, below -130dB at 50Hz (I live in Switzerland). This is nice to see.
Note the very low level side bands on the two views above, around 1kHz. They are power supply modulation at -130dBr (inaudible, negligible).

Bandwidth measurement (now measured from periodic white noise) shows a significant roll-off at 20kHz (-2dB) starting very early (at 4kHz):

View attachment 409235

Of course, this is due to the oversampling filter which we will analyze soon. The two channels are perfectly matched, well done.

Before talking filter, multitone test showed no issue:

View attachment 409230

CD Audio content is safe from distortion, no surprise considering the previous results.

Jitter is absent too, exhibiting a beautiful trace:

View attachment 397513

Red trace is what is on the test CD (digital output), it can’t be better. The Denon (blue trace) does not add any jitter.

And I forgot to add one of my favorite measurements, and that is the THD (excluding noise) vs Frequency at @-12dBFS:

View attachment 388992

The Denon had no issue except a little and unusual increase from 8kHz. The two channels showed same excellent performances anyways, best I measured, but this test is easy for 1bit DACs. I like this measurement because it shows lack of linearity already at this level with older R2R architectures that I enjoy testing.

Started with the Teac VRDS-20 review, and on your request + support to get it done (more here), I'm adding now an "intersample-overs" test which intends to identify the behavior of the digital filtering and DAC when it come to process near clipping signals. Because of the oversampling, there might be interpolated data that go above 0dBFS and would saturate (clip) the DAC and therefore the output. And this effect shows through distorsion (THD+N measurement up to 96kHz):

Intersample-overs tests Bandwidth of the THD+N measurements is 20Hz - 96kHz	5512.5 Hz sine, Peak = +0.69dBFS​	7350 Hz sine, Peak = +1.25dBFS​	11025 Hz sine, Peak = +3.0dBFS​
Teac VRDS-20	-30.7dB​	-26.6dB​	-17.6dB​
Yamaha CD-1 (Non-Oversampling CD Player)	-79.6dB​	-35.3dB​	-78.1dB​
Onkyo C-733	-79.8dB​	-29.4dB​	-21.2dB​
Denon DCD-900NE	-34.2dB​	-27.1dB​	-19.1dB​

I kept some references and will keep the same for other reviews, so you can quickly compare. The results of the Denon DCD-900NE mean the oversampling filter does not have headroom to prevent intersample-overs. The Yamaha CD-1 shines here because it's old enough not to have an oversampling filter.


Denon DCD-900NE - AL32 measurements

I think the Denon proprietary oversampling filter deserves a specific section, as it finds its roots back 3 decades ago.

As @bolserst wrote some time ago ago about Denon filtering, the first iteration of ALPHA processing by Denon featured an automatic filter selection based on LSB toggling, and which I could replicate too. Subsequent version of ALPHA processing included further intelligence in terms of filter selection.

I'll try to keep this section as simple as I can, but it's a challenge.

First, this is the filter response (from periodic white noise) overlaid with the standard AES IMD test (18kHz + 20kHz) which a lot of reviewers like to use:

View attachment 388994

For the moment, please forget about the filter response (in red) between 60k and 72kHz.

Those of you used to perform and look at these tests will see an impossibility here. It is an obviously slow filter, and so it's not logical to see total absence of aliases of 18kHz and 20kHz (which would be at 26.1kHt and 24.1kHz respectively). That is because the Denon (its AL32 filter) recognizes the typical test tones and switches to a sharp filter in that case, which would make people like me theoretically happy. Fail

To counter the test detection by the AL32 filter, it is enough to add a third test tone with this standard AES test. So adding a 80Hz test tone defeats the detection of the filter, and here below we get what we should:

View attachment 388996

And tadaa, this time we see what's logical with a slow filter response, aliases of 18kHz and 20kHz replicate around 22.05kHz. So you find them 26.1k and 24.1k respectively. I tested all standard AES, DIN, etc..., and when necessary, the AL32 filter switches to a sharper mode to exhibit what testers like to see : absence of aliases out of band.

Also, as with first iteration of ALPHA processing, it detects square signals and switches to NOS (Non Oversampling) mode in that case. This allows Denon to show perfect square waves. When looking at the same in frequency domain, we get this:


View attachment 388998

This is beautiful and could be used by a teacher at the university to talk about D/A conversion and its effect on creating aliases, enveloped into a sinc function. This garbage is on purpose, again to show perfect square waves, when requested.

The two filter modes I showed, Sharp and NOS, are not activated during music playback. Their purpose is to shine during very specific tests.

How long as it been going on? I don't know, but I can tell you that the SACD DCD-SA1 (22kg of tech from 2005) exhibits the exact same behavior. I am your father:

View attachment 389000

Proof? Yes of course, my pleasure:

View attachment 389001

Same slow filter, and same action switching to sharp filter when detection an AES IMD test, haha.

By the way, good to see that the son (DCD-900NE) improves the filter attenuation overall (see the green spikes of the SA1 going higher), even if keeping that strange bump between 62k and 72kHz. On one side it is good to see high end technology of 20 years ago, sold at a crazy price at the time, making its way to budget CD player, thanks Denon. And if you think the DCD-SA1 was a killing machine (I do), go grab a DCD-900NE and enjoy!

Oh, I almost forgot the essential, with music as well as with white or pink noise, the Denon uses the standard slow filter, there's no switching between filters when playing music. Below is an overlay of long term capture (peaks) of the song "Fast Car" from Tracy Chapman and pink noise:

View attachment 389004

This shows what happens in real life, with real music content (dark green). The remaining energy of aliases at 62k-72kHz are at -100dBr, basically not of any concerns.

I think it closes this chapter.


Denon DCD-900NE - Measurements (Optical Out - From CD)

I measured the digital output of the player, from my test CD, for those who'd like to use it as a transport. The below view shows what's on the CD:

View attachment 409239

It can't be better than that, This is what's recorded on my test CD. This is also one of the most stable digital output I encountered.

This, and other measurements I performed on its digital outputs, made me confident that the Denon is a prefect transport for those who want to use it with an external DAC.


Denon DCD-900NE - Measurements (USB In - RCA out)

And to finish, very quick feedback about using the USB input with higher resolution files. The THD does not change (of course) and the noise improves because of the bitdepth increase. Unfortunately, with "only" 2.5Vrms output from the output of Denon (RCA), my interface (Motu ultralite mk5) reaches rapidly its limits (because of no auto ranger like an AP, it would be much more at ease with 5Vrms at least and from TRS connections) and so I essentially measure its noise floor:

View attachment 389022

I think the SINAD would be better than shown here (-103dB) as again limited by the raised noise floor from my interface (I had to push the input gain by 14dB!).

On a filtering perspective, both with PCM 96kHz and 192kHz sampling rate, I can't see any issue (I can't capture at higher rate than 192kHz which limits the view to 96kHz only):

View attachment 389024

We can only see here the attenuation with 96kHz input file, and that is around 100dB, which is good.

I did not test with DSD files as I don't have any test files of that type. I think the Denon is at ease with higher resolution files.


Conclusion

Used as a CD player, in audio band, these are the best results I got so far. All measurements are very close to what's on the test CD, so it can't really get better. The Denon DCD-900NE is also flawless as a transport.

When compared to my older Denon DCD-SA1, the little DCD-900NE did better absolutely everywhere (from CDA), wow! It is really nice to see older mega expensive technology becoming available to more people.

The behavior of the AL32 filtering is funny, designed to shine under measurements. It's been ongoing for a long time, the DCD-S10 was already including some tricks.

All that said, I am happy of what I saw, and this DCD-900NE is a keeper. It becomes my new low cost reference CD Player, awaiting for the one that will beat it (and even regardless of price, good luck).

I hope you enjoyed the long review and, as usual, let me know how to improve and if you have questions. I have recorded all the 44 measurements (and much more) and if you want me to publish others or run one of your choice, feel free to ask.

--------
Flo

Hi Flo,

First of all, thank you for you exhaustive and detailed review of DCD-900NE.

Data should not lie to us, but our ears also don't.

I must disagree with the positive subjective (maybe also objective reviews) on this cdp.

I'm a owner of one of it for 2 months and honestly I don't understand why all the fuss around this equipment.

Being a long term cd advocate, with more than one cdp (from low budget equipment to 10x the price of the Dcd-900ne) on my hands, the Denon unit is, in my opinion, a below average one, maybe due to high expectations from a modern unit arguably with so much care taken to sound tuning, vibration control etc.

Maybe it makes a nice partnership with PMA range of amplifiers, and that was Denon purpose.

As a "standalone" unit, my recommendation is that you ear it before buy it, or buy it with a good return policy.

Cheers

RA

 

[Scytales]

I must disagree with the positive subjective (maybe also objective reviews) on this cdp.

Can you please provide us measurements of the same kind NTTY has performed on his unit to back up your disagreement with his objective review ?

 

[NTTY]

Hi Flo,

First of all, thank you for you exhaustive and detailed review of DCD-900NE.

Data should not lie to us, but our ears also don't.

I must disagree with the positive subjective (maybe also objective reviews) on this cdp.

I'm a owner of one of it for 2 months and honestly I don't understand why all the fuss around this equipment.

Being a long term cd advocate, with more than one cdp (from low budget equipment to 10x the price of the Dcd-900ne) on my hands, the Denon unit is, in my opinion, a below average one, maybe due to high expectations from a modern unit arguably with so much care taken to sound tuning, vibration control etc.

Without being more specific, it will be hard to correlate your perception with measurements which are all above excellent for a CD player, far beyond "average", to the exception of the roll-off generated by the AL32 filter at high frequencies.

Maybe it makes a nice partnership with PMA range of amplifiers, and that was Denon purpose.

No, there's nothing specific between these two, Denon respects the "standards", like voltage output, voltage input sensitivity, output/input impedance, as they and many other manufacturers have been doing for decades, so they don't specifically pair (and if they would, we could see that very clearly in measurements).

As a "standalone" unit, my recommendation is that you ear it before buy it, or buy it with a good return policy.

Cheers

RA

That is not a bad recommendation, everyone can have a perception and decide based upon it.

 

[RM7]

Can you please provide us measurements of the same kind NTTY has performed on his unit to back up your disagreement with his objective review ?

I don't have any.
However, I don't see any reason to doubt Flo's excellent analysis.

My opinion, based on perception as a owner, comparing this cdp with many others I've had/some I have, is the one I've set out above.

Perhaps this is one of those cases where a piece of equipment with excellent measurements, nice reviews and apparently well thought out in terms of engineering (that's what convinced me), fails as a proper musical reprodution device.

 

[Scytales]

If you do not have any measurement and don't see any reason to doubt NTTY's analysis, why did you wrote that you "must disagree [...] (with maybe also objective review) of this cdp" ?

 

[RM7]

If you do not have any measurement and don't see any reason to doubt NTTY's analysis, why did you wrote that you "must disagree [...] (with maybe also objective review) of this cdp" ?

‘Patience is the companion of wisdom.’ – Saint Augustine