Spot the diff. Two identical CD players, two DAC systems

[Grimmie]

Nothing speccy here but maybe intriguing. Two almost identical Pioneer CD stackers but entirely different DAC insides. There may be some saying 'both crap' being as these are obviously nowhere near hi-end, but what the heck. Who knows what please

One PD-M423 with a PULSEFLOW D/A Converter

The other PD-M427 1-bit DLC Direct Linear Converter

The why's as to the reasons they changed would be interesting. Purely cost saving? better sound? part scarcity?

The what is the difference in the DAC's even more so. Not being technically inclined but always curious to hear the details as far as I understand.

The which is better is more contentious of course but can the digital guru's agree on better sounding.

 

 

 

 

 

[muon*]

Arch above the screen.

 

Edit: oh sorry I thought this was like where's waldo

Edited May 27, 2022 by muon*

[muon*]

The Pulseflow was the move away from ladder dacs, and the 1-bit DLC Direct Linear Converter followed it, so I understand.

 

I have no idea what would or might sound better out of them.

 

Edit: I think both are 1bit DACs if we ignore the marketing speak.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by muon*

[surprisetech]

6 minutes ago, Grimmie said:

Nothing speccy here but maybe intriguing. Two almost identical Pioneer CD stackers but entirely different DAC insides. There may be some saying 'both crap' being as these are obviously nowhere near hi-end, but what the heck. Who knows what please

One PD-M423 with a PULSEFLOW D/A Converter

The other PD-M427 1-bit DLC Direct Linear Converter

The why's as to the reasons they changed would be interesting. Purely cost saving? better sound? part scarcity?

The what is the difference in the DAC's even more so. Not being technically inclined but always curious to hear the details as far as I understand.

The which is better is more contentious of course but can the digital guru's agree on better sounding.

 

Products like those had a much longer life span than your typical CD player.

Hifi Engine shows 1993 - 1996 for the 423 and 1999 - 2012 for the 427.

 

That's a pretty long time between drinks, so while they look very similar, the 427 would have been re-engineered to use the most cost-effective parts available at that time.  i.e. Most likely the parts they were purchasing in bulk for the other players on the production line at the time.

[Grimmie]

12 minutes ago, muon* said:

Arch above the screen.

 

Edit: oh sorry I thought this was like where's waldo

Ha bloody ha  no, very funny. The 427 is slightly more modern looking but they didn't waste a lot of extra brainpower in the re-release.

[muon*]

Ladder or Multibit DACs were costly to make, the move to 1bit dacs was purely cost cutting I'd say.

 

The two dacs in those players are not different for the most part, both 1bit......maybe noise shaping ect' is different.

Edited May 27, 2022 by muon*

[Grimmie]

6 minutes ago, muon* said:

The Pulseflow was the move away from ladder dacs, and the 1-bit DLC Direct Linear Converter followed it, so I understand.

 

I have no idea what would or might sound better out of them.

 

Edit: I think both are 1bit DACs if we ignore the marketing speak.

 

I 'spose they may well have been cashing-in by down-grading up up-selling.

[Grimmie]

17 minutes ago, surprisetech said:

 

Products like those had a much longer life span than your typical CD player.

Hifi Engine shows 1993 - 1996 for the 423 and 1999 - 2012 for the 427.

 

That's a pretty long time between drinks, so while they look very similar, the 427 would have been re-engineered to use the most cost-effective parts available at that time.  i.e. Most likely the parts they were purchasing in bulk for the other players on the production line at the time.

These two machines have had a long life alright. Rescued from shops that had them on shuffle repeat for god-knows how long. Still working same as day one.

 

Bit of trickle down tech maybe.

[muon*]

When the Pulesflow was released Pioneer still used multibit dacs in the high end players like the PD71 and PD95, but most were moving away from multibit for the cost savings from the 90's and beyond..

[Grimmie]

So the Pulseflow is a ladder DAC. I've read on here that topology has a lot of fans and regard that to sound inherently best.

[Grimmie]

I guess the obvious thing to do would be hook them both up to the best system and give 'em a listen. see whether there's a real difference in the SQ and which if either is better.

Not so sure if I can be bothered but may well do it. I recently dragged my Denon DCD3000 out of the cupboard to compare to my main Bel Canto CD2 and was pleasantly surprised by the nice sounds it produced. So maybe these old wrecks could play above their weight division too.

[muon*]

1 hour ago, Grimmie said:

So the Pulseflow is a ladder DAC. I've read on here that topology has a lot of fans and regard that to sound inherently best.

No, it was a move away from them.

 

It's 1bit I believe.

[Grimmie]

Ah yes, sorry @muon* a re-read of a previous post shows you said that already, I should deep read not skim.

I guess the obvious thing to do would be hook them both up to my main system and give 'em a listen. see whether there's a real difference in the SQ and which if either is better.

Not so sure if I can be bothered but may well do it. I recently dragged my Denon DCD3000 out of the cupboard to compare to my main Bel Canto CD2 and was pleasantly surprised by the nice sounds it produced. So maybe these old wrecks could play above their weight division too.

[muon*]

1 hour ago, Grimmie said:

Ah yes, sorry @muon* a re-read of a previous post shows you said that already, I should deep read not skim.

I guess the obvious thing to do would be hook them both up to my main system and give 'em a listen. see whether there's a real difference in the SQ and which if either is better.

Not so sure if I can be bothered but may well do it. I recently dragged my Denon DCD3000 out of the cupboard to compare to my main Bel Canto CD2 and was pleasantly surprised by the nice sounds it produced. So maybe these old wrecks could play above their weight division too.

That Denon is a little bit special as it uses 4 x PCM1702-J  that are from the r2r/multi bit dac families, highly regarded for a natural sound, like the PCM1704 that followed it and the PCM63 that proceeded it. Along with the TDA1541 they all offer a natural sound that other dac chips don't seem to.

 

So I wouldn't expect these two to beat the Denon, but for curiosities sake maybe have a play with them.

 

There may be mods you can do to the Denon that will improve it further.

 

Service manual here https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/denon/dcd-3000.shtml

Edited May 27, 2022 by muon*

[davewantsmoore]

18 hours ago, Grimmie said:

The what is the difference in the DAC's even more so.

Very little I would guess.

Both early switching DACs.

[Wimbo]

I use to sell the CDM1. We were all amazed.

Funny thing is, I remember when Yamaha released their first Single Bit players back in 90. CDX930 and CDX1030. The two cheaper machines were Multi bit. CDX530 and 730. The Bit stream players were soo much better and it was easy to hear. All listeners thought the same. The press preferred the Multibit players. I wonder if they even listened to them.