Rega Isis reference (CD Player)

[Beave]

Without wanting to labour a point, in the context of this thread it's important to understand that a CD player is not primarily a "digital source" and indeed, the cheaper ones don't output a digital signal at all

The owner of this CD player won't be commenting on the digital output as that would be pointless.

They will be commenting on the analogue output the internal DAC and preamp provides the amp.

You could look at some of the reviews of this device yourself.

One particular reviewer made a good point:

"Is it a transport with a DAC or a DAC with a transport"

An interesting question given the topic.

I don't see how that's an interesting question. Going back to when they came out in the 1980s, CD players have always been a transport and a DAC together (usually in one chassis). The concept of splitting them into two separate units is a more recent phenomena, due in part to the use of separate DACs for other things (PCs, streaming, etc) and due to the marketing ideas of "upgrading" the transport or DAC section separately (ie, we can sell more if we split them into two devices!!).

 

[BlueTunes]

Amir's measurements are for the entire product, including the DAC chip and its implementation circuitry.

The vast majority of them perform well enough to consider them audibly perfect.

Yet some don't. Especially expensive ones like this brand here.

What's your point?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I love CDs and have a CD player in my second system that gets a lot of use, but it was cheap asf and sounds perfect enough that any audible flaws are 100% the product of my speakers and the room.

A CD player would have to be pretty incompetently made and/or broken to have more influence on what you hear than do the speaker-room combo.

I have nothing against people throwing their money at things that can be had for 2% of the price, but I do hope the OP understands that he or she will definitely not be getting any special sound improvements for the extra money, just doesn't work that way.

 

[BlueTunes]

Well, not, let's not resort to false accusations.

What else do you think publishers do with the advertising money? Give it to the donkey sanctuary?

The advertisers don't pay for reviews. The relationship is far more subtle (but, IMO, it's there nevertheless).

Let's not repeat falsehoods ...
Which one is it? They do or they don't?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Well now, let's not resort to false accusations. The advertisers don't pay for reviews.

advertiser pay for reviews

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Possible trolling behaviour detected.

 

[LTig]

.Going back to when they came out in the 1980s, CD players have always been a transport and a DAC together (usually in one chassis). The concept of splitting them into two separate units is a more recent phenomena, [..]

If "recent" means 35 years ago you're right
I bought separate transport (Luxman) and DAC (Arcam Black Box 3) in 1991, and those were not the first models on the market.

 

[Mart68]

I think the first two box player was Cambridge Audio CD1 - three boxes with the optional error detector unit - and that was only split because he couldn't fit it all into just one of the cases he already had and wanted to use up. It was perceived as being superior because of that and many followed suite.

 

[DSJR]

At this price point, I think Rega should offer SACD playback too, at least.

I'd politely suggest the financial side and very limited production may have counted against any thoughts of that happening. Their target market and dealer sensibility seems entirely insular and all but isolated with the wider world. They're happy in their little furrow and don't harm anyone - and actually still make very good and reliable basic turntable systems (which don't change every season as one of their big competitios do) which I still think is their 'bread and butter.' Nothing really to see here, to be honest

 

[pinger]

Well now, let's not resort to false accusations. The advertisers don't pay for reviews. The relationship is far more subtle (but, IMO, it's there nevertheless). There are certain manufacturers and advertisers that cultivate a buddy-buddy relationship with reviewers (hanging out at shows, for example), which can lead to other types of bias in reviewers and what gets reviewed.

LOL you know what i meant. Ads keep the mags in business so they can do reviews. You dont bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Jcrow]

That's an over simplification and not true imho.

Again, as mentioned previously, there is the DAC itself and it's implementation and whilst your comment can and should probably be applicable to the DAC raw performance itself, how that performance is resolved into the output is very much a topic for objective review and results. A noisy and poorly engineered output is going to be noisy and poorly engineered and pollute the sound as Amirm oft states in his reviews.

Unless you are adamant that the output of any DAC is effectively a base line std regardless of topology?

In that case, what's the point of reviewing them at all and to the detail this site goes to?

Why bother testing human listening equipment which by design performs beyond the limits of the human ability to listen?

Look, I get the idea that the technology is solved, and my layman knowledge doesn't disagree but you still have to put that in a container for human consumption and interaction.

My Mrs will not store food in plastic containers because she says she can taste it (the plastic). The food is great (she's a great cook) but the delivery is critical and can be ruined by poor implementation.

I mean, if truly, the digital source is a fully solved tech and that's it. Job done, why bother?

It took me a while to get my head around the idea that the differences between most DACS are inaudible. In the link provided earlier on audibility thresholds, you'll see that the SINAD for a mediocre DAC will still be below audibility thresholds (at least that's my understanding). This doesn't mean that they're not worth reviewing, since from a technical point of view it's still interesting to see how they measure up.

As to why they keep coming up with new DACs, I think the the luxury watch market might be a good analogy. Time keep was largely a 'solved' issue after cheap quartz watches came onto the market. Yet here we are with newly developed mechanical watches that measurably keep worse time yet cost tens of thousands of dollars. DACs have become like that. People want exotic stuff like R2R and 1-Bit, and maybe chip based DACs are like quartz watches.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I think the first two box player was Cambridge Audio CD1 - three boxes with the optional error detector unit - and that was only split because he couldn't fit it all into just one of the cases he already had and wanted to use up. It was perceived as being superior because of that and many followed suite.

I bought the Sony 552/702 pair back in 1985ish whilst I was still gullible and believed what Martin Colloms wrote.
I have had lots of 2 box players since and now my principle source is still CD transport into a separate DAC but this time the DAC is in the amplifier...

 

[Mart68]

I bought the Sony 552/702 pair back in 1985ish whilst I was still gullible and believed what Martin Colloms wrote.
I have had lots of 2 box players since and now my principle source is still CD transport into a separate DAC but this time the DAC is in the amplifier...

Likewise but the DAC is in the (Sony) pre-amp.

At least you bought Sony and not some boutique junk

 

[rakka]

Finding the comments here wierd.
DACs can sound totally and utterly different. My experience was using Audioengine B1s to play from a laptop. I had a pair of the older 24bit ones with an AKM DAC, and replaced them with a pair of the newer 32bit B1's expecting better sound and a lesser delay/sync that you always get with bluetooth, and boy was I disappointed as the later 32bits had an ESS-9018K2M instead. The sound was totally different. The ESS was harsh, and lacked bass, the older AKM was smoothm warmer, less harsh, and had bags more low end bass.

Unfortunately for me I sold the older ones before listening to the newer, and it was a big regret.
I suppose its swings and roundabouts as the older AKM always felt a bit too smooth and lacking that piercing top end of the ESS through the tweeters, but as im a bass head my primary enjoyment was curtailed.

The difference was so stark I was like "WTAF" as soon as I played my default list of comparison tunes, which then prompted me to look into what the hell the difference could be, and thats when I found out they changed the chips. Sigh. And no, I am not imagining the difference like cable nutjobs, if you asked me to identify them blindfolded I would 100 times out of 100 when using the same tracks. Like night and day. I'll just need to get used to the new sound.

 

[Purité Audio]

Uh huh.
Try it blindfolded and level matched.
Keith

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The ESS was harsh

It always sounds harsh because they named it eeeeesssssssssssssssss. Had they named it mmmmmmm it would have sound warm and smooth. What were they thinking?

 

[RandomEar]

Finding the comments here wierd.
DACs can sound totally and utterly different. My experience was using Audioengine B1s to play from a laptop. I had a pair of the older 24bit ones with an AKM DAC, and replaced them with a pair of the newer 32bit B1's expecting better sound and a lesser delay/sync that you always get with bluetooth, and boy was I disappointed as the later 32bits had an ESS-9018K2M instead. The sound was totally different. The ESS was harsh, and lacked bass, the older AKM was smoothm warmer, less harsh, and had bags more low end bass.

Unfortunately for me I sold the older ones before listening to the newer, and it was a big regret.
I suppose its swings and roundabouts as the older AKM always felt a bit too smooth and lacking that piercing top end of the ESS through the tweeters, but as im a bass head my primary enjoyment was curtailed.

The difference was so stark I was like "WTAF" as soon as I played my default list of comparison tunes, which then prompted me to look into what the hell the difference could be, and thats when I found out they changed the chips. Sigh. And no, I am not imagining the difference like cable nutjobs, if you asked me to identify them blindfolded I would 100 times out of 100 when using the same tracks. Like night and day. I'll just need to get used to the new sound.

How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[rakka]

How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...

www.audiosciencereview.com

not sure what you are trying to say here?
I just said that the two different audioengines sounded totally different.
The exact same music the high frequencies literally made me wince with the later ESS ones, but the AKM didn't have this horrible harshness.
I don't really care whether it was the chip, or some other change to the circuitry in the thing itself.
After googling AKM vs ESS, there are hundreds of pages of people with the exact same observation as me.
I'm the worlds biggest audio skeptic after having grown up with the industry from being a kid, so know first hand the about of absolute bull there is around.

 

[Purité Audio]

Uh huh.
Try it blindfolded and level matched.
( perhaps you didn’t see it first time )
Keith

 

[Jcrow]

not sure what you are trying to say here?
I just said that the two different audioengines sounded totally different.
The exact same music the high frequencies literally made me wince with the later ESS ones, but the AKM didn't have this horrible harshness.
I don't really care whether it was the chip, or some other change to the circuitry in the thing itself.
After googling AKM vs ESS, there are hundreds of pages of people with the exact same observation as me.
I'm the worlds biggest audio skeptic after having grown up with the industry from being a kid, so know first hand the about of absolute bull there is around.

If you compare the frequency responses of both brands, you’ll see they are largely identical. Both flat in the audible range. So maybe it’s something else, like difference in Bluetooth or some sort of change between the two models. I don’t think you’re hearing a difference between the DACs per se.