Hello, I'm in the market for a cd player and I'm interested in their sound quality compared to an iPod.

In general terms, how expensive do you think the cd player has to be to outperform an iPod as a Hi Fi source. Or, put it the other way, is the iPod better as a source than cd players of which price range?

I'd appreciate if you could give examples of specific models and your opinions.

To be more clear, when I refer as "iPod as source" I refer to a recent iPod (especially the iPod Classic) in a good quality dock (for example the Denon ASD1R or Arcam rDock) playing Apple Lossless songs. The cable shouldn't make any difference since both the cd player and the dock use the same 2xRCA to 2xRCA cable (except for cd players which use XLR connectors).

Many thanks!

Your CD player might have a better DAC, but otherwise, its the same.

Hi. Thanks for your reply!
Do you have both, so that you can give a comparison? Also, could you give some examples of some models you've listened to?
Thanks.

I'm not so good at guessing what CD player you own, so no.



I don't even remember the last CD player I listened to. Probably sometime in the late 90s.

It's unlikely you'd hear a difference between the two. Even if you did, are you willing to give up the convenience of having all your music in a small, easy to navigate player?

Good point! But my priority is audio quality (given a certain budget). Hence if for similar money a cd player can sound better I go cd player all the way!

First, I'd be surprised if most CD players in the less than $300-$400 range have a better DAC than the IPOD itself. One approach you might consider for a home system is the Wadia iTransport. This should be released any time now. This is a high end company although the transport is one of their cheaper offerings (the ipod transport is $349, the company's CD players/DACs are more like $14,000). The nice thing about this is that it delivers the digital signal out of an iPod, bypassing the IPOD's DAC. You can then send this digital signal to a good DAC and then on to your preamp/amp. But this wouldn't be very useful unless you are planning to add your own external DAC. The analog outputs of the wadia ARE using the IPOD DAC. Only the digital outputs of the WADIA bypass the IPOD DAC.

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2008/010708wadia/
edit: i just found this picture googling for the wadia...I certainly don't endorse the discussion references to "$2,500 cables", etc. Does give me a laugh though!

Personally, I use an old laptop connected to a USB harddrive with music files (running fb2k) >> SPDIF cable >> Benchmark DAC >> home stereo. If I didn't do this, I would definitely consider using the wadia iTransport in place of the computer. The squeezebox approach is also a possibility for home use.

p.s. On my home system, I can't ABX mp3 (lame -v2) music played from my IPOD (through standard Apple dock connector) versus the same music played from original CD on a Sony CD player through same system. I'm interested in quality too, but as anyone can learn on this forum, price does not equal quality. My only reason for using something other than the IPOD at home as the transport, is that I can't fit my entire digital collection on a 160gb ipod.

Hi. Thanks for your reply. I've read about the wadia itransport, and although I think it's quite a good idea, and some may find it useful, I think it misses the point. I think the idea is to get the best audio quality out of a certain budget. If you add ipod plus wadia itransport plus dac converter you're already spending quite a lot, and in that case you could get a high end cd player. Your dac costs in the uk around £700. Hence the whole package will cost more than £1000. Do you think in this case this system would sound better than a £1000 cd player? Anyway, I'm looking more for simpler solutions. Maybe one day apple will release an ipod with digital out (esp now with the move to non drm music) and then ipod+dac could be a great idea.

Also, why do you say you can't compare music from your ipod to that one from your cd player? That would be an interesting comparison.

I'm not saying it is not "possible" to compare my IPOD to CD player on home stereo. I'm saying that when I do a blind test comparison of the two sources, I am NOT able to detect which source is playing. Thus, for me personally, I would not lose "quality" in simply playing my IPOD (with its internal DAC) through my home stereo.

I do in fact keep my CDs archived as FLAC files and do play those through my home system (through the benchmark DAC). But this is only because I have them, not because I can detect a difference between these files and mp3 (lame -v2). And the reason I use these digital versions rather than the CDs themselves (with a high-end transport) is that I like the convenience of having 5,000+ CDs available at the click of a mouse, searchable, etc.

EDIT: p.s. for the same cost, I'd be surprised if you'll find a CD player that would out perform a digital solution like an IPOD (particularly if using lossless files, to the extent that your ears can detect a difference in lossy vs lossless). Don't think that just because a CD player is larger that it has any better DAC inside. Money spent on speakers rather than a several thousand dollar CD player is probably a much better investment for your sound quality.

Hi! Thanks for your reply! Very clear too!
So, which cd player do you have then, that is undistinguishable from the ipod?
I think I'll stick with my Marantz cd player in that case too, and forget about the ipod.

Sounds like you're happy with your current cd player. One other thing to note: currently this thread has been viewed 330 times and not one post where someone can abx an ipod and a high end cd player.

Anyone?

Not that it is really that relevant, but to answer OP's question, my CD player is a 2 or 3 year old Sony consumer quality player (nothing special). Can't recall the particular version. Again, nothing special. And I simply never use it. Frankly, I'd be shocked if I could ABX my FLAC files through the Benchmark DAC against even a $20,000 CD Transport.

Great post!
It's been viewed many times, yes, that's true, but that's because I think we're dealing with quite important subjects, which test the whole of the audio industry, at least as digital sources go.

I think we're dealing with mainly two things:
1. I you can't tell an ipod playing lossless from a cd/dvd combo, why would you upgrade to an ipod if you're just concerned about sound quality?

2. and then, if you can't tell an ipod from those high end (read very expensive) cd players, what's the point of those cd players, then? And if you take point 1 into account too, what's the point of these expensive cd players anyway, if they basically sound the same as the cd/dvd combos we all have?

So, all those people interested in this thread too, could you post your views? Do you have a cd player and an ipod? How do they compare in terms of sound quality (playing lossless and through a dock)?

Cheers!

There is much more to having your music on a portable device than simply music quality. If portability has no interest for you, then you don't need an IPOD. I wouldn't call an IPOD an "upgrade"...just a different medium with different characteristics, including portability.

Why do people pay $20k for a CD player? I don't know. Why do some pay $5,000 for a 1.5 meter cable to connect said CD player to something else. I really, really don't know. Then again, my wife doesn't understand why I need so much music. Her point is, "how could you really listen to more than maybe 20 CDs that really matter." My answer is that if you ask that question, you'd never understand my answer.

Great comment!
I know about the portability of the ipod, it's obviously without question, but I don't really listen to music on the go, so I'm not so interested in that. Besides, if you want portability, then an ipod nano would be better, and then you don't really need lossless if you're using earbuds, etc, etc. Another advantage of the ipod, and this applies also for listening at home, is the ability to make playlists very easily, which is impossible with a cd player.

Also like your second comment. Why would people pay $20k? I don't know either. But would it be worth to pay $2k? I'm more interested in this question.

And also, about the number of cds, hehe, just the Beethoven sonatas already fill almost 20 cds, so I'd really agree with you on that one!

I guess the lack of ABX results is because they are a somewhat complicated.

It's very easy to test different audio files using your favorite ABX tool.

Testing equipment is not that easy.
- you need to level match the different inputs
- to switch sources you probably need a second person (and it's not double-blind)

An alternative would be recording the output of you're CD player/iPod and then ABX the audio files. But then the recording setup is also part of the test.


A question about those iPod docks: Do the simply use the analog out of the iPod? Or something more advanced, like the dock has a builtin DAC and the audio data is digitally transferred to the dock?

1. Hi. What's an ABX test and an ABX tool?

2. Well, I have my reservations for your second comment. Testing equipment is not easy, true, but in the end the whole purpose of getting better equipment is if you can notice the difference. If you can't tell for yourself whether your ipod or your cd player sound better (in case you have both), then it means you could do with any of them!

3. yes, I agree that adding a recording step in the experiment is not a good idea.



There're many ipod docks.
1. The entry level apple ipod dock, with 3.5mm stereo output
2. The denon, marantz, yamaha, pioneer, etc, with rca outputs, and which sell around £80 here
3. The Arcam rDock, with rca outputs, and slightly more soffisticated, for £120
all these still extract an analogue signal from the ipod, but as they get it from the dock connector and not the headphone jack they get a better signal (I guess it doesn't go through the headphone amp either, not sure). Also, with the docks with rca outputs you can use better connecting cables.
4. the Wadia itransport, which extracts a digital signal from the ipod. This is obviously the ultimate in sound quality, but it seems it doesn't even have a DAC convertor, so then you'll need one of those too. In the end you would have spent £1000 on getting music out of your ipod, which makes me think whether it wasn't better just to get one of the other docks for when you want the convenience of the ipod, and a cd player for when you want the best sound quality, and also for less money in total.

See this (and included links) for info on an ABX test. Foobar 2000 will allow one to easily do ABX between two different sound files (e.g., FLAC and mp3). Equipment ABX is much more complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...mponents_(List)

As far as I know, the Wadia is the only IPOD dock commercially available that actually extracts the digital signal before passing through the IPOD DAC. All the other Docks mentioned simply pass the audio signal FROM the DAC.

I'll have a look! Yes, exactly, only wadia gets the digital out, as I said in my post too. Would be interesting to know whether people can tell one dock apart from the other too!

The ABX test is very interesting, especially when done double blind.
Anyone could try doing this test for themselves, comparing their cd player and ipod (if they have both). And then they could publish the results here. That would be great, although it can't be done double blind since that would require special equipment and would be too involved.

Looking forward to anyone publishing their results about this issue!

I could be done double blind by recording the analogue outputs of both the CD player in question and the iPod, level matching the resulting files, and aligning the files so they start at exactly the same point.


On the whole subject of docks - I strongly believe this is another matter of chasing the least significant bit. Unless there is a design flaw in one dock or another, the odds of you being able to audibly distinguish between them is very low. Better to spend the time and money on speakers - the most significant bit.

The suggestion for your double blind test is good, but then it should be done by professionals, since it involves doing the recording of a signal. I'm afraid that if one of us did it then we would be adding noise in different stages.

I agree that probably the most significant upgrade is on docks, but what I'm discussing here is the difference between sources.

Thanks.

We could try a test setup like this. E.g. compare the output of the CD player/iPod against the original.

For a more number-based evalution, I found some RMAA results of iPods here.

Can anyone else verify this? I believed that (almost) every dock worked like this, or at least those designed specifically for the iPod. I thought that was why they connected to the docking bit at the bottom rather than the headphone out?

NB I have never used a docking station or owned an iPod, so I don't claim to be any authority here...

Most docks, like the apple, denon, marantz, pioneer, arcam, etc, work by extracting the analogue signal through the dock connector. As far as I know, only the wadia gets the digital out.
My opinion is that apple should release next generation ipods with digital out, like all the other mac products. The wadia dock is just there to fix a flaw originally found in the ipod itself.

Hi. Good idea, although I must confess I'm not a big fan of this "scientific" tests, for many reasons, but especially because usually the equipment used is so bad that the results end up being random.

But we could set up an experiment like this: (do you have an ipod and a good dock and a cd player and decent recording equipment, or anyone else here?)
A. Original track in .wav, converted digitally
B. track played by cd player and recorded from the ouputs
C. track played by ipod and recorded from the dock outputs

Then the difference between A and B or C will serve as an indication of how good the recording is, but if we can notice differences, then we won't be able to tell whether it's a problem of both the dock and cd player, or the recording.
But maybe if we're lucky, B and C will sound quite different, but either B or C very close to the original A, in that case we'll be able to say whether the cd player or the dock is better.

But then, maybe it's just much easier if people listen to these sources by their own and share their experiences, which is what I'm encouraging people to do here. I'm not a big fan of these experiments because the idea is to check perception of differences in audio quality. I'm sure there're differences already, and people could use wave analysing programs and not their ears to spot them. How can you be sure people are not doing this instead of actually telling them apart by just using their ears?

I'd prefer if people just tell me their views about the sound quality from the ipod docks compared to their cd players. I'm also going to do this soon, since a friend of mine will lend me his ipod. I'll keep you posted on that!


But anyway, I think I found the answer to my question just from this forums and others I read. I think the ipod will sound very similarly to cd players of the same price range, around £200, like the Cambridge Audio 640C, or many others. But then it will be outperformed by the cd players above, like the CA 740C, etc, since these players start to do upsampling. Hence my conclusion would be to get one of these players if you can afford it (which many also come with digital input), and then wait until Apple releases an ipod with digital out (which should happen soon, given the move to non DRM downloads), or use a laptop with digital out as source (like any Macs, or many other brands), and connect it to the digital input of a cd player.

The problem with non-blind tests is that placebo effect is very strong, i.e. a $5000 CD player will (seemingly) sound much better than any iPod. But when comparing in HiFi stores, etc. there's normally no way to do blind testing.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the difference should be rather small and pretty much neglectable. Other factors as speakers/room acoustics play a much much bigger role.

So is it worth the hassle to setup the test? I would be interested in some real results to back up my opinion.

I could access a somewhat decent CD player. Also, I have an iPod nano, but no dock. The problem is that the headphone out has very low output volume which will negatively affect quality (I guess).

Hi. I agree with your views. But regarding the placebo effect, let me also say that the point is to determine what you enjoy the most. If you listen to both sources and they sound the same, then they are both equally good.

I'm also going to compare what I have. I have a Marantz cd player with headphone output, Marantz CD 48, entry level Marantz cd player from around 1995, and an ipod classic without dock. Then I'll use my Sennheiser HD 465.

Point taken. Placebos do work in medicine, so why shouldn't we use them with audio? The only problem is: Placebo pills are cheap, HiFi placebos are very expensive

To return to the original topic: I just did a quick test soundcard (m-audio audiophile 24/96) vs. ipod without dock. There were no obvious differences in sound quality (except for the above mentioned low output level).

Maybe I could spot a difference taking more time or if I could directly switch between the sources. Looking forward to your conclusions.

Hi. I won't be able to post them for some days. Thanks for your post.
About the placebo, and also related to what you say about not being able to switch directly between sources, I think that's the limit of what I consider indistinguishable. If you can't tell two sources apart even when you just have a 1 second pause between them, that means they are the same! I may even say that even with a pause of one hour we should be able to tell two sources apart.
Let me give a clear example, just for illustrations purposes. When I listen to my headphones and then I switch to my laptop speakers I can obviously tell them apart. But even if I stopped listening to music for 50 years, I think I'd still be able to tell them apart.
But if I needed to switch between them many times, and without pause in between, so that I'm kind of able to spot some minor difference, which may also be that I can't even then say one is better or worse, then that means there's no difference, and I could use any of them (I'd choose the cheaper or more convenient, but that's a personal choice). I think this is a fair point regarding sound quality, and a good criterion to say when something sounds better or worse.

Another example: I also have a cheap portable Packard Bell cd/mp3 player. Well, when I compare it to my cd player I can spot the difference straight away. The portable cd player, due to bad amplifier design, has a constant hissing noise in the background, which is not present in the Marantz cd player. However, when using the line output of the portable player, this hissing noise disappears, since the signal bypasses the amplifier. Hence I don't use the portable player anymore, just stick with my Marantz cd player. This is the difference in audio quality I'm talking about (and also more subtle ones, of course, but still clearly noticeable).

The point is about music, and its subtleties, not about perfection in electronics design!

Hope this post clarifies my ideas better.

Hi Guys, I have updates for this topic.
Comparing reproduction of compressed lossless files and uncompressed lossless files, there should indeed be a difference!

Read out the thread http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=49990, and links therein.

The difference arises from the fact that reading data sometimes incurs in errors, and given that the source is forced to deal with these errors in a limited time (since the sound should be reproduced at a certain speed), some of these errors can't be corrected by the correction mechanism and get through to the dac. Then, the difference between compressed and uncompressed is that compressed files take longer to decode, therefore the error correction circuit has less time to correct errors and more get through.

Hence, yes, there IS a difference between Apple Lossless, Flac, etc, and wav or umcompressed files.

s/should/could/


You fail to appreciate the incredibly small value for "sometimes".

You fail to appreciate while this time is short to a human, it is long to a CPU.

You fail to realize how infinitesimally small the numbers of errors which might get through to the DAC through a situation such as you describe is.

Again, a failure to understand the scale of the times, error rates, and corrections speeds in this hypothetical situation you have described has led you to make conclusions which are no longer based in objective reality.
That was point one.
Point Two is:
Why do you expect the error rate to be lower and error recovery rate to be higher for uncompressed audio formats than for compressed (lossless) formats? Do you appreciate how little CPU time it takes to decode FLAC / ALAC? Do you believe that the data streams in real-time from the lossless format decoder straight to your sound reproduction device with no buffer of PCM data in RAM somewhere?

This really makes no sense at all. I don't think you understand this whole "computers" thing very well.

Probably not! But please correct me if I'm saying something wrong. I was just sharing the information I found.

As response to soap, well, let me repeat again that the purpose of my comment was to share information, which for me was very interesting, and I think very relevant to the thread, which aims to find an objective justification in the fact that some people claim flac to differ from audio.

But then, let me say that I completely agree that this difference is beyond what any human can perceive! I agree completely that if there are any errors in the reading, they are still incredibly rare, let's say 0.0001% (just to give a number). Well, if it takes slightly longer to read compressed than uncompressed, then the errors would be slightly higher, again, just for illustration let's say 0.0001000000001% instead of 0.0001%.
So, again, even if it is completely unnoticeable, it still makes one format "better" than the other, and some people may prefer for this reason to use .wav instead of .flac, but obviously I wouldn't choose one format over the other just for this reason!

And coming back to the original purpose of this thread, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that what makes the ipod worse than a cd player is what occurs after the DAC. There the fact that it's such a small device puts constraints for the performance of the amplifier which feeds the signal to the dock. This is why an ipod would be outperformed by a cd player, maybe even cheap ones! But I'd like to know more about the ipod circuitry. Does anyone know where to find information about this?
Cheers.

Who says such a claim is legitimate? Until an objective test is performed showing an audible difference between a compressed audio source and an uncompressed audio source (a difference which can not be explained by "improper" reproduction by one source or the other (i.e. out-of-compliance reproduction)) there is, IMHO, no point in speculating why a possible yet implausible and undemonstrated phenomenon exists.


No need to go any further - you are failing to account for error correction. Your whole premise appears to me to be based on the ideas that:
1 - compressed audio is more error prone than uncompressed audio.
2 - errors are not detected / not corrected.
I argue that both of these are false.



Perhaps I missed something - but where has it been shown that the analog line-out of an iPod is less accurate than the analog line-out of a CD player?

If you talk playing a CD, you talk about 650 Mb in 1 hour. In computer terms this slow, horribly slow.
If you talk about ripping, the computer is not listening, it only copy data from one device to another doing some transformation on the fly and all mechanical devices are much slower than electronics.
In case of errors ripper likes EAC can be tuned to read a spot 80 times, just to detect what is the most likely result, no real time listening at all!
Ever installed software from a CD rom?
In general the drive spins like a turbine and this is CD-ROM not redbook audio so no errors are allowed.

Hi.

1. No, I think compressed takes longer to decode
2. and then most errors are corrected, but as compressed files take longer to decode, the error correction system has shorter time to do the corrections, and hence, statistically, an infinitesimal increase in error output.



Well, this is exactly what I'm asking people about! Do you know about this? Have you got an ipod and a cd player? Can you give your impressions about this?
I'm just speculating on possible causes for differences. I believe, from the information I'm gathering, that the digital part of the ipod is as good as one from a cd player. But then the analogue part, as it's placed in such a small case, may be less powerful, or may have interference with the circuitry or the hard disk, etc.
I'm just asking about the difference between an ipod and cd players as sources. What are your views about this issue?

Please just re read my original post which started this thread. I think it's pretty clear, and it doesn't really ask about whether one format is better than the other (well, almost, it asks about lossless vs cd player, but for me lossless is the same as .wav, but if for anyone it's not, just think, .wav vs cd player). What it asks is to compare an ipod with a cd player, and especially taking into account their prices.

Your conclusion is invalid. If we assume (I think safely) that uncompressed audio formats leave more CPU cycles unused per unit of time than compressed audio formats, it still does not follow that this means there is not enough CPU time for error correction. Again you are failing, IMHO, to grasp the scale of the issue. There is plenty of CPU time to fix errors w/o interrupting playback. There is plenty of time on my 80MhzX2 iPod, much less on a desktop/laptop.

My impression is worthless - the placebo effect is greater than my brain. I am willing to believe any objective test shown to me.

My view on the issue is you are better off spending money buying better speakers, spending time on better room layout and sound dampening, and worrying about the issues which cause the most audible failures in accurate reproduction. Unless the iPod line-out is shown to be flawed in design you should, IMHO, consider it the equal of any other unflawed analog line-out device.

Ok, thanks Soap.
I'm also starting to realise about the much bigger effect of speakers and the rest of the system, and not so much the source. And I think in a way what you say about the Placebo effect shows that you can't really tell an ipod apart from a cd player. I think I can't either, but that may be because of my cd player. Which cd players have you listened to, that you couldn't even say if they're better or worse than an ipod?
Thanks!

I think you're missing my point.
IMHO, unless a CD player / DAP / PC sound card is shown to be flawed (have audible distortion / noise) I think they should all be considered equal for the sake of this sort of discussion.

In direct reply - I have never attempted to ABX a CD player vs a DAP.

What do you mean by a source being flawed? There are some reviews online which say that the ipod doesn't have a flat response for example, see http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/au...asurements.html. Would you consider this as a flaw then? Besides, every equipment has some kind of distortion, even the most expensive in the world, hence I don't really understand what you mean by is "shown to be flawed (have audible distortion / noise)".

The iPod 5th gen in that link appears to have 1dB of attenuation @ 20Hz. The iPod Classic even less. I doubt if that is audible.

Yes all equipment has distortion - does it have audible distortion?
That would be a flaw.

Unless you plan to use the iPod as a portable device in addition to using it as your main source for audio on your system, it may make more sense to invest in something like a SqueezeBox from Logitech (www.slimdevices.com). It has a digital output so you can use whatever DAC you desire, including the one that may be build into your existing receiver. It also has RCA outs for analog output.

You can get the "classic" squeezebox 3 for $299 US. The combination of a 6G iPod and a good dock will likely exceed the $299 pricetag of a squeezebox.

A squeezebox will play a number of lossless formats, including FLAC.

Hi. Thanks for your suggestion but I prefer to go for a cd player in that case. Also, you say the box goes for $300, which is the same as an ipod, but the ipod doesn't need a dac.



Hi. I think the Classic had more distortion than the 5g ipod, and that was the reason for posting that analysis.
And about the fact that the difference has to be "audible", let me say that the name of the game here is to first measure a difference and then claim that it's audible! But then for us customers it's difficult to know when we could hear these differences or not.

Anyone out here who can ABX an ipod from a cd player?

Thanks.

I have done this with a 3rd gen iPod (15gb) and a Micromega Stage 2 CD player. It is 90's vintage so is quite old so maybe not high-end enough, but it's what I have.

I have a Meridian 201 pre-amp which is programmable so when you switch between different inputs/sources the perceived volume can be matched. So I matched the iPod output via its dock with the CD player.

I ripped tracks in AIFF and put them on the iPod, I then cued up the same track on the original CD and the iPod and got them playing simultaneously so when you use the remote to switch between the sources the tracks are in-sync timewise. Having done this with several different pieces of music I could hear no difference between the iPod and CD player.

So as far as my ears and equipment are concerned, my iPod is as good a source as my CD player.

My speakers are B&W 802 Nautilus powered from a Perreaux 6000B power amp (300wpch RMS).

I would like someone else to jump in here - but the article linked appears (to my eyes) to be greatly exaggerating the distortion of the iPod Classic. By my reading of the graphs we're talking distortion which is mostly below the noise floor, and some odd 22KHz behavior which is ~0.25dB louder than everything else.
The day I worry about a quarter of a decibel is the day I shoot myself.
That being said - perhaps I am missing something important in the graphs. Someone with more knowledge care to chime in?

That will make a noise far in excess to a quarter of a decibel. Use hearing protection!

Thanks! Great post! Thanks for doing the test.
Sorry I don't know much about your gear. How do you think it'd compare with some new gear? Have they released new versions of these models? How are they called now?

The Micromega received many positive reviews when it was produced. It is made by a French company. They were modular, so you could take it back to the dealer and they would replace internal components for a fee ;-)

When you got it back, the display would be altered to reflect the 'stage' you had upgraded to.

I think the stage 1 was like most conventional players of the time. The Stage 2 had separate DACs for each channel both powered from the same power supply. The Stage 3 had separate power supplies for each DAC board. The DACs were of the Linear 1 bit type. I think later the stage concept was extended up to level 6. If you do a google search you can find out more.

The company ran into difficulties and may have gone bankrupt at some point, but I think it was revived and is still going http://www.micromega-hifi.com/

I have no idea how it would compare with current CD players. It was not a cheap budget player when it was purchased but not really high end either. BY high-end I mean the cost, not the 'real' audio quality produced. ;-)

I suspect there is almost no audible difference between CD players that do not have an outright engineering defect. I doubt it would sound any different to most current CD players, but this is just a 'belief' that I have not tested. I have a cheap DVD player that is about 4 years old I could drag away from the TV and compare it to if you like but I do not have access to any recent manufacture CD players. I think my sons xbox 360 can play audio CD's so I could try that as well.

I hardly ever use my CD player any more. These days I just rip to 224kbps AAC and use the iPod.

Hi. If you can it would be interesting to know the results of that comparison.