From: trc.tellabs.com!ken@uwm.UUCP
Subject: CD Player Question
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:18:58 GMT
	(queueing-rmail) id 194103.7790; Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19: 41:03 EDT
	by trc.trc.tellabs.COM (4.1/smail2.5/09-08-89)

>From: su1bc!segallis@UCSD.EDU (greg segallis)
>Subject: CD Player Question
>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:55:20 GMT
>
>My current full size cd player recently died.  I am trying to decide
>whether
>to get a bare bones, full size, single disc unit or a portable player (the
>ones I have found are about the same price - so cost is not an issue).  I
>already have a portable that I can take to work, in the car, the garage,
>etc.
>So I really don't need the portability (although it would be nice).  But
>why
>should I give up all that wall unit space for a full size, if a portable is
>just as good.
>
>So my questions are this:
>
>1)	Is there any performance difference between a portable and a full
>	size (low end full size)?
>
>2)	My old unit specified a dynamic range (signal to noise ratio) of
>	somewhere around 92 - 95 dB.  Most of the portables seem to spec only
>	about 86 dB.  The 16 bits of the data would theoretically make it
>	96 dB (regardless of the unit).  I assume the loss is due to the
>	anaolog portion of the d/a converter and amp circuitry?
>
>3)	Is this difference really noticable?
>
>4)	If so, to what degree?
>
>5)	And is the extra space, power, and lack of mobility worth buying a
>	full size for this difference?
>
>Thanks,
>Greg Segallis    segallis@su25d.ess.harris.com
>+++++++++++++


Depends on how you listen to your system.  If something like shelf space is
really an issue, than you probably are too cramped to have effective
speaker placement, etc ... In other words, you probably listen to music
while doing other things as opposed to sitting in the sweet spot of
the system, focused on the music (which I make no claim to be the "better"
way to listen to music).  If this is the case, and if you didn't have a
portable
already, then perhaps a portable CD player would be OK (sony currently has
one with a data buffer to keep you less aware of skips.  Neat.).

BUT if you want good sound, you won't come as close with a portable.  Much
of the difference is in the quality of the analog circuitry, also the
stability of the transport and pickup somewhat.  The overriding design
factor for portables is size, not quality of performance.

Admittedly my evidence is second hand and anecdotal but:

A month ago a jazz-trumpeter friend of mine (on a college budget) had to
replace the Sony portable that "had served <him> well for 5 years.  Good
clean sound, no problems."  I told him that before he shopped for another
portable he should go to a high end store, tell the salesperson to play
every unit in his budget without telling him about the brand, the price,
etc.  A semi-blind test, since my friend knew nothing about the high end,
much less brand names.  He did so, and after listening to Rotel, Denon,
Sony ES, and Yamaha, he bought a Denon 1560, discounted from somewhere
around $650 to $400, which was still about two times his budget.  He said,
"I never expected to hear much of a difference in CD players.  Speakers,
sure.  Cartridges, perhaps, but not CD players.  But the comparison between
the portable Sony and my Denon is night and day."

I would agree.  My friend has a cheap rack system.  I never really enjoyed
listening to it before.  But with the Denon, there actually is a sound
stage, and the system doesn't make me cringe.  We'll work on the rest once
he graduates.

So to answer the last couple of questions above, I would say yes, in
general I would expect the full size units should sound noticably better. 
But listen for yourself.


---------------------------------------------------
Ken Laberteaux

ken@trc.tellabs.com
Tellabs Research Center
219-259-9818



---------------------------------------------------
Ken Laberteaux

ken@trc.tellabs.com
Tellabs Research Center
219-259-9818


Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end