|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.16.134.80
I am fascinated by the concept of Teac's VRDS transport.
Thanks to chris redmond for mentioning it. Questions:
1. Is the world of transports basically just Phillips, Sony and VRDS?
2. If the VRDS is leaps ahead of the other transports out there, why aren't all the modders out there like ModWright, APL, Exemplar etc. just finding the cheapest VRDS players to mod???? What am I missing here.
Thanks!
Hukk
Follow Ups:
...as I believe that there is nothing currently available to outperfom Esoteric transports.
Regards,
Alex
I had an Esoteric P2 transport, which was the first edition of this very same transport. The P2 trasport unit originally retailed for $4000, I believe. After I had the P2 transport for a while, I recall that Ric Schult said that transports don't make that much difference, and it would be better to have the transport and DAC together in one chassis.
I purchased a Sony 9000es player and one of the comparisons I made was the transport section of the stock Sony to the Esoteric P2 (out to Ric's Millenium DAC). The only difference between the two was that the Esoteric transport had somewhat better bass, and that was before modifying the Sony player, which may have brought the bass of the Sony up to the level of the Esoteric (I sold the Esoteric before I had the chance to compare).
The lesson I learned from this is that I strongly doubt that transports make that much differnece to the sound, if any at all. I will acknowledge that it is a LOT more impressive to place a CD into a solid metal tray than in a cheap plastic tray.
Retsel
.
Thin man, in a powder blue suit, with eyes that slice you right through. The cut of his clothes are strange indeed, a hundred years too soon.
I don't think I said they don't make much difference.......they do....as well as everything else. I am sure I said that putting the transport and DAC in a single box will always sound best (if implemented the exact same way as in separates). Sending and receiving digital signals without loss (especially with SPDIF) and distortion is very, very hard. Best to keep the digital path short and use super low jitter clocking inside the unit.
Every little thing you do to a transport will change the sound. A friend had a $2000 mod done to the $13,000 Teac he is using as a transport only. The tray in the Esoteric is silver metal and I had him black the inside edge of the tray.....just the tiny inside edge of the tray nearest the laser mechanism....you know the horseshoe. He said it sounded much better. Then he got some green paper and glued it on the top of the tray for much better sound again. Seems that Esoteric knows nothing about the fact that the laser light needs to be stopped from splaying all over, messing up the sound.
What transport does the EMM Lab CDSA use? Couldn't find any info on Meitner's web site or in any of the reviews.
I just saw the answer to this within the past week or two. I remember being surprised, but I can't remember which transport it was. As I recall, it wasn't anything fancy. It may have even been from an Oppo or something like that. I'll keep scratching my head.
..EMM will be introducing a new player/transport that wll be using the newest cheapest VRDS transport, which is based on the VOSP transport.
IMO, this is a step in the righ direction for EMM.
Regards,
Alex
;-)
I have read this transport (SACD-1) is all aluminum is built in house and is designed to compete with the Teac mechansim.
I'd have to see it in person before offering any opinions.
A lot of companies are starting to make *cosmetic* changes to what are basically ordinary transports in order to compete with the big Esoteric drives. One time I was at the Tokyo Hi-Fi show and Luxman had a Pioneer transport that was completely decked out with cosmetic metal pieces that tried to hide the plastic innards. No meaningful improvements would be expected.
Even Esoteric is playing this game. For example, the (now discontinued) Esoteric DV-50 had a stock Pioneer mechanism to which they replaced the plastic "bridge" holding the clamping puck with a metal one. I doubt this made much difference in the performance of the transport. Now they are introducing much lower priced transports and still calling them "VRDS". For more information see the post linked below.
A good friend of mine who’s an audio manufacturer has had a very close look at both—and I’ve seen them as well. In his opinion, the TEAC is still the transport to beat, but he puts the Marantz at a pretty close second. Of course, that’s just one man’s opinion, but I don’t doubt it. The SA-7S1 is one of the finest-built CD players I’ve ever seen. I’m sure you’ll get much more informed opinions from people like Charles and Alex, but I trust my eyes and ears.
There are three differences between the VRDS transport and conventional transport:
a) Normal transports have the spindle motor and the laser on the same side of the disc. This means that the "puck" that spins the disc must be small so that the laser has access to the data. In contrast, the VRDS puts the motor on the top side of the disc. The drive "puck" then is full size so that it damps the disc. (NB. With a conventional transport the top of the disc can be damped with a full-sized "puck" if a top-loading mechanism is used.)
Also please note that this is exactly the same situation as was used for the old Pioneer Stable Platter CD mechanism, except turned upside-down. In the Pioneer, the motor and full size "puck" were on the bottom and the laser was on the top. This required inserting the disc upside-down. So the VRDS is essentially an upside-down version of the old Pioneer Stable Platter drive.
b) Teac claims to have developed a method for the servos to move the laser while maintaining perpendicularity to the disc better than a conventional laser head. I have no idea of the validity of this claim, and if so, how much of an improvement there is.
c) The obviously massive overkill construction, leading to outstanding rigidity and damping.
Make no mistake, the VRDS is clearly the best optical drive made today. But it is massively expensive as well. It's not clear to me that the performance of the VRDS couldn't be equaled by using a good full size damping disc (necessitating a top-loader) on a massively built conventional transport.
"It's not clear to me that the performance of the VRDS couldn't be equaled by using a good full size damping disc (necessitating a top-loader) on a massively built conventional transport."
I realise that politically it would be a nightmare, but if a few specialists companies like your own could put their funds and expertise together to design a high-end transport to rival the VRDS would be great.
If one designer was agreed on and an R&D figure agreed and funded collectively to spread the cost, perhaps a universal transport mechanism far better than the norm but a fraction of the cost of the VRDS could be developed which could also be sold to other companies and the development costs even recuperated?
It just seems like there's basically the VRDS mechanism and nothing else approaches it at the moment, whereas at one time we did have the Pioneer Stable Platter as you mentioned and the Philips die-cast swing-arm designs which were both excellent.
The shame is that digital playback has improved beyond recognition in the last few years in spite of flimsier transport mechanisms, so better mechanisms would be the final piece of the jigsaw.
Of course, having competing companies coming together in the spirit of co-operation and mutual advantage is something I can't actually remember happening in my lifetime, but it doesn't hurt to dream. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
> > It just seems like there's basically the VRDS mechanism and nothing else approaches it at the moment, whereas at one time we did have the Pioneer Stable Platter as you mentioned and the Philips die-cast swing-arm designs which were both excellent. < <
What about Linns own unique transport, still used today.
TB1
< < What about Linns own unique transport, still used today. > >
The Linn "Silver Disc Engine" wasn't anything special from a mechanical engineering point of view. It was quite expensive for what it was, and included *zero* licensing fees. As far as I know, no other manufacturer was tempted.
Actually, I take that back. I think that the new Classe was looking at. They decided it was cheaper to hire the designer than buy the mechanism. So they hired Alan Clarke from Linn. He designed slot-loading DVD notebook drives into the Classe players.
Charles, from what I have seen with my Linn in comparsion to other OEM transports, they're built very differently.
And more importantly, they sound truly excellent, compared to the OEM transports that Linn also use.
TBone
From what I have read the Unidisk transport is essentially a modded Sony. I believe a reviewer in the UK referenced that fact.
I've owned a few sony transports, and none look anything like the Linn engine.
A few quotes ...
"The Karik transport (Linns first proprietary transport) represents a "ground-up" engineering effort. Rather than buy off-the-shelf mechanisms with their inherent mass-scale cost compromises, Linn started with a clean sheet of paper and rethought what a transport mechanism should do. The entire mechanism was designed and built by Linn in Scotland. It is unusual in many ways, including the method of clamping the disc from the top"
"and precision-machined transport mechanism with a rigid circuit board that locates all servos, decoding circuitry, control circuitry, software, motors, pulleys, belts and optical sensors together. The slim CD drawer is milled from solid aluminum and is the only visible part of the proprietary CD mechanism."
"transport mechanism, designed by Linn from the ground up, features four motors, a replaceable laser, a diagnostic output for verifying the transport's performance, and a clamping device that secures the disc from the top."
Also, the Linn engine isn't a belt drive in the traditional sense ... it uses 4 quality motors. 1 motor powers the CD directly, while the other 3 motors are individualy responsible for the rest of the transports motions - however not directly - thru belt drive / pulley mechanisms.
I've seen a few transports in my day, and I can safely say that the Linn transport is very unique.
TBone
I think we have already established that the data is getting read from the disc well enough, so it seems like maintaining much better isolation between the clock and the "dirty" digital section that is presently corrupting it with jitter components would be a more cost effective approach. Of course, that would mean using D/A convertors without built-in digital filters since you want the DAC chips in the clean section, and would necessitate re-syncing the data to the new word and bit clocks generated on the clean side.Just a thought. I've done it in DACs using BB ISO150 type high speed digital couplers to good effect, only bringing the data across the barrier to the clean side. Much easier in a CDP since you have a fixed crystal and don't have to worry about synchronization.
Gets a lot more complex (as I know you've addressed in your company's products) when designing multi-format players.
That big magnesium clamping mechanism, the overdone, hot-rodded motor and super heavy, overengineered stable base result in much better reads; yes more data gets transferred resulting in less read errors. The difference between identical players, one using the VRDS, and one not, - is dramatic, I've heard it directly.
Thin man, in a powder blue suit, with eyes that slice you right through. The cut of his clothes are strange indeed, a hundred years too soon.
From what I've seen it is close to zero with most decent transports. Couldn't be enough to change the sound unless it was constant errors, could it? Has to be the the result of the PLL clocked datastream coming off the disc interfering with the timing of the system clock at the read FIFO, and at all points after, aka data correlated clock jitter. Many electrical mechanisms in play.
whatever...
To my knowledge, everyone who's done a test has come to the same conclusions as me, - the transport affects the sound of the overall player dramatically, and yes, sounds much better than the other transports.......
Thin man, in a powder blue suit, with eyes that slice you right through. The cut of his clothes are strange indeed, a hundred years too soon.
The sonic difference between transports is *not* due to "fewer data errors" or anything like that. If the player is properly designed, then jitter shouldn't be a factor either. Basically it something that nobody fully understands. All we can do is make changes and note the sonic differences produced by those changes....
But seriously, do you really believe there is some X-factor beyond data integrity and clock jitter that isn't yet (or can't) be measured but that affects digital to analog conversions? I realize there are many other factors that contribute to the ultimate sound, everything from RF noise to power supply capacitors, but time shift the digital datastream from two different transports by storing it to hard drive and you lose the transport sound signature when the files are played back, provided the data is read correctly. That would imply to me that the difference is all clock jitter when you are in the digital domain, and that nobody knows how low it has to be before inaudible.
< < do you really believe there is some X-factor beyond data integrity and clock jitter that isn't yet (or can't) be measured but that affects digital to analog conversions? > >
Absolutely.
In fact there are thousands of "x-factors" that affect all sorts of different aspects of sound reproduction. We don't really know how any of them work.
The best analogy is gravity. For example, we understand the *effects* of gravity so well that we can send a space probe to Pluto, which is literally 5 billion miles away with unbelievable accuracy. But nobody has the slightest idea how gravity actually works.
Similarly, we can build massive optical drive transports that sound better than lightweight plastic ones, but nobody knows why. All we can do is observe the effects.
"Basically it something that nobody fully understands."
What a breath of fresh air it is to hear someone like yourself say this!
With the VRDS, is it the case that the over-engineering and superior disc clamping is resulting in superior information retrieval from the disc, or is it that there is physically less vibration affecting the rest of the analogue circuitry?
As you suggest, it will probably be the case that we'll find out only by constant sucking and seeing rather than head scratching.
It's interesting that the Memory player with it's 'read until right' technology has received excellent reviews in terms of providing the highest CD resolution and that the VRDS Esoteric players use a similar technique and buffer so that the same CD pits are being read many times during playback.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
< < VRDS Esoteric players use a similar technique and buffer so that the same CD pits are being read many times > >
That's the first I've heard of that. I don't believe it to be the case.
And the "read until right" thing is just a myth. It's only required when a computer drive is ripping the disc at some ultra-high speed like 24x or whatever. Any ordinary audio CD drive will get all of the bits perfectly also.
< < is it the case that the over-engineering and superior disc clamping is resulting in superior information retrieval from the disc > >
Well, if that were the case, I would assume that it would be something easily measured -- jitter, cleaner "eye" pattern, et cetera. So I don't think that's it.
< < or is it that there is physically less vibration affecting the rest of the analogue circuitry? > >
I also don't think that this is the case. In the first place, if you stop and think about it, solid-state circuitry shouldn't even be vulnerable to vibrations. (But we know that it is, because different "footers" will affect the sound of solid-state components!) And in the second place, I don't think that ordinary transports create all that much vibration in the first place -- certainly not a lot more than the VRDS. And if vibration were a problem, then SACD would sound bad since the disc rotates at roughly 10x the speed of a CD.
Like I said, nobody knows...
"That's the first I've heard of that. I don't believe it to be the case.
And the "read until right" thing is just a myth. It's only required when a computer drive is ripping the disc at some ultra-high speed like 24x or whatever. Any ordinary audio CD drive will get all of the bits perfectly also."
I'm not sure if it's the Esoteric players in general then or just the APL player which uses the VRDS NEO, but below is text from a review of the APL describing the benefits of the VRDS NEO;
1. Since the reading speed is much higher, the audio data is being stored in large SDRAM memory buffers. The audio data is being clocked out of the SDRAM which effectively eliminates jitter coming from the transport.
2. If reading error occurs (imperfection on the disc), the laser assembly can be sent back to the problematic passage to re-read the data and try to correct the error. This happens while you are listening to uninterrupted music coming from the SDRAM buffers. In other words, the VRDS-NEO is capable of extremely powerful error correction, including the so called RUR (Read Until Right).”
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Alex is a really smart guy, so I'm hesitant to disagree with him. But in this case I think I'll have to. I've never seen a dedicated (ie, non-computer) DVD player play CD's at anything besides 1x. Obviously the mechanism is capable of reading higher speeds, because DVD runs at higher speeds. But if you take the cover off while playing a disc, every DVD player I've seen runs at normal (1x) speed while playing CD's.
All of this is controlled by the electronics. The Esoteric UX-1 uses the same chipset as the Pioneer players (Mitsubishi MPEG decoder chip.) When it plays a CD, it goes into CD mode and uses what are essentially standard CD algorithms that have been used for decades. I doubt there is a practical way to change the behavior of the Esoteric DVD player in this regard. I have a UX-1 sitting around somewhere, if I had enough time I could take the top off and verify the speed.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
"I've never seen a dedicated (ie, non-computer) DVD player play CD's at anything besides 1x. Obviously the mechanism is capable of reading higher speeds, because DVD runs at higher speeds. But if you take the cover off while playing a disc, every DVD player I've seen runs at normal (1x) speed while playing CD's."
Below is some more text from the review by Constantine Soo, but I'm not sure if the information is actually from Constantine or Alex.
It does state that ALL digital discs rotate at a higher than normal rate though:
"Besides the mechanical superiority of the VRDS-NEO transport, its electronics companion, the Digital Signal Processing (DSP) board, is also of the highest possible quality. The DSP uses the best devices by Sony Electronics ensuring unbeatable processing quality. The disc rotation speed for all digital formats being played on the VRDS-NEO is much higher than normal."
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Like I said, I could be wrong.
I have the schematics for the unit at work (only in printed format, not electronic). The machine is here at home, but it is too heavy for me to pick up from my wheelchair. Maybe I'll see if I can get someone to help me take it apart and look at it.
Again, I would be very surprised if it spins *any* disc at greater than 1x speed. Normally that is the province of computer-based machines. The first time I heard of that in a stand-alone player was the Denons. They used a computer drive and spun the disc just slightly faster than normal. I believe it was 1.2x or something. The idea was to fill up a video buffer so that the layer change on the double-layer DVD was very quick. Normally the picture will "freeze" for 1 to 2 seconds during the layer change. A buffered design (which includes all of the cheap players such as Oppo and low priced Pioneers) based on the MediaTek MPEG decoder chip also have a very quick layer change and must read the DVD at slightly higher than 1x speed.
But if they do this for CD, it would be the first I've heard of it. The Ayre CX-7e and Resolution Opus 21 use a computer-based CD-ROM drive running at 2x. The data feeds into a buffer. When the buffer is full it stops making requests for data. When the buffer is less than full it requests more data from the drive. But even in this case the data is never *re-read*. There is no reason to, as there are never any errors unless the disc is scratched so badly that it skips.
All newer Esoteric DVD based transports (VRDS and VOSP) spin the CD at x4 and buffer in SDRAM. The only exception is the older Pioneer based DV-50 that spins CD at x1.
To my knowledge, there is nothing better than Sony RF, CD/DVD/Digital Servo and DSD (SACD) digital signal processors. This is what all current Esoteric transports are using.
Regards,
Alex
Howdy
The hassle is that RUR as advertised from the Memory player folk doesn't pay attention to whether there's a read error indicated from the drive, they read more than once using their own idea of error detection and correction... It confuses matters to use the term "RUR" in other contexts since this is quite different than what essentially everyone else does. (And FWIW I agree with Charles that the number of uncorrected errors encountered in practice for most disks is so small that all of the RUR is just hype.)
-Ted
nt
Look at the post down the page for the answer (linked below). I only know of three products that use the Teac transport:
1) The new dCS stack that goes for around $70,000.
2) The new Spectral that is around $25,000 or $30,000. This is something of an anomaly. I am told that Spectral is not really a business in the sense that it makes money. My understanding is that the owner is independently wealthy and the company is more of a "vanity" business. Many (if not all) of the Spectral products are priced 20% or 30% less than what most other manufacturers would charge. So if you like the way the Spectral products sound, you can get something of a bargain. The disadvantages are that they only have a handful of dealers and the wait for the equipment is usually several months. Search the forums for more on this.
3) APL Labs sells a super-modified Esoteric X-01 for (I believe) $25,000. They replace all of the analog circuitry and make modifications (or possibly replace, I'm not sure) to the power supply and digital circuitry. The Esoteric chassis is retained.
... The good folks at Esoteric told me that Krell was now buying the transport along with 3/4 other manufacturers whose names they couldn't reveal because they hadn't gone public with the info yet.
So the Esoteric transport IS begining to make its way into other, high-end players. But you're correct, at its cost it'll never be the majority of them.
John Crossett___
It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
Esoteric has introduced several transports lately. They are *not* all the same. The first was the VRDS-Neo as used in the X-01. The OEM pricing on this was around $4,000.
Apparently the laser used in that model was discontinued, so they started selling a "junior" version that was similar but with less "overkill" construction. This is what was used in the X-03 series products from Esoteric. The OEM cost for this transport was around $3000. I believe that this is what is used by dCS and Spectral.
But lately they have introduced two new drives. One has an OEM cost of $800 (with a metal tray). Other than the metal tray and the "vertically aligned laser" it appears to be quite ordinary. Both the spindle motor and the laser are on the bottom, just as any conventional transport.
The newest one has an OEM cost of $500. It has a plastic tray and a big plastic damping "puck" on top. Besides the size of the damping "puck", this is supposed to have the "vertically aligned laser". Otherwise it is quite ordinary and made from plastic and bent sheet metal.
So be sure to compare apples to apples. Esoteric calls *all* of these transports "VRDS-Neo", which is fairly misleading in my opinion.
...is used on the Teac Esoteric DV-60, Charles. I noticed that it was *not* the VRDS/VRDS NEO in my recent review of the DV-60 (link below). Having spent time with the X-01 and the UX-1 in 2006, I was familiar with those drives.
Teac calls this particular drive in the DV-60 the "VOSP" (for "Vertically aligned Optical Stability Platform"). The unit that I reviewed had a plastic tray, with metal internals. Oddly enough, it doesn't look quite like any of the images that you supplied (Teac's site supplied the DV-60 drive image...top view, internal...that I used in my article).
The race to the bottom seems to be on with these transports...and given OEM prices of $4K for the VRDS, one can understand why.
david
The "VOSP" is somehow supposed to keep the laser more perpendicular to the plane of the disc than a normal laser assembly. I've never seen any information about how it works or why it is different, so I can't really say how significant this is.
I would guess that the mechanism in the DV-60 is the same as the third one down in my post, but with a plastic tray instead of a metal tray. (They offered this transport as an OEM piece for $600 with a plastic tray and $800 with a metal tray.) If you'll notice, the "bridge" assembly that holds the clamping puck was removed in the photo I posted. I would assume that it is the same "bridge" assembly that is included in the photo in your review.
...since I was told that the disc clamping system on the DV-60 had a metal puck.
The transport has worked very well while here...clean and positive action, and very quiet in operation...and the remote is terrific. An OEM price of $600 for high-end use isn't too bad...its action was clean and positive...though I don't doubt that a metal tray would probably have more appeal for 'philes. An additional $200 at the OEM level is pretty spendy by the time it gets to MSRP, however.
I know that EMM Labs isn't using Teac Esoteric engine in my CDSD SE or in the CDSA SE. Personally, I prefer the drive in the DV-60 to the CDSD SE...a metal tray would be more attractive ergonomically, though. (I still miss my CD-12. Wish that Linn would do an SACD-12.)
The drive in the Marantz SA-7S1 is also very nice: quick on the TOC read-up, clean action, and nice ergonomics on the remote. Don't know the price on that one.
All the best,
david
< < I know that EMM Labs isn't using Teac Esoteric engine in my CDSD SE or in the CDSA SE. > >
I just saw which transport they use somewhere on the internet in the last week or two. I was kind of surprised, because it wasn't the Philips or a Sony (which is what I was expecting). I can't remember what it was but it seemed like something fairly low cost, like maybe an Oppo or something. I'll see if I can find the article again. Or you could just ask Ed -- he's a straight-shooter (and a very sharp designer!).
...so I could check with him, all right.
I do know that the current price/performance/reliability structure for SACD playback is a frustration to him, and to more than just a few who've considered producing SACD or universal players over the years.
"Want our *really* good pricing? Easy! Just sign this contract for 50,000 units...!"
;-)
david
< < An OEM price of $600 for high-end use isn't too bad > >
Well that depends on your point of view. The Pioneer manufacturing kit we use is significantly less expensive than that. (Another hidden factor is that the Pioneer includes all licenses and royalties, while the Teac kit provides about half of the licenses and none of the royalties.) The only potential advantage to the Esoteric as used in the DV-60 is the "VOSP" laser. Since I have no information about what it really is, how it works, and how it might affect the sound, I have very little incentive to investigate it. If we were to build a product with that transport, it would have to be *significantly* more expensive than the C-5xe. I would not want to do that unless the performance were also improved significantly, and it's not at all clear that would be case.
Furthermore, I think that the $6000 price of the C-5xe represents an upper limit where the consumer is willing to accept a plastic tray. If we were to make a more expensive model, it would need to have a metal tray (or be a top-loader) to be accepted in the market. This would drive the price up even more. And then if we were to make a player at (say) $10,000+, the customer would probably also expect a fancier chassis, which would drive the price up even more.
I think you get the picture. There are a lot of design decisions that have to be made. I think we did very well balancing all of the factors with the C-5xe. It is a great sounding product that has been well received by both the press and the consumer, plus it has proven to be quite reliable. And finally, Pioneer offers superb support to us with spare parts and service information, which allows us to do the same for our customers. (Which is why I would *never* use a Philips transport.)
...but somehow you slipped that reference in.;-)
As to manufacturing costs: it does indeed depend on your point of view, your economies of scale, and your target market. Teac's DV-60 apparently uses the $600 drive that you described, but with relatively (I would guess) large scale production, prices it at an MSRP of USD $5,600. That's in the price range of your C-5xe, though the size of the production runs at Ayre will be different, I'd venture to say.
Since you've mentioned the C-5xe: you and I talked about *PFO* reviewing it a couple of years ago. Email me if you'd like to pursue this further...we have quite a few universal players here right now, including the DV-60.
All the best,
david
< < Teac's DV-60 apparently uses the $600 drive that you described, [and] prices it at an MSRP of USD $5,600. > >
Sort of. They are willing to *sell* the drive (including the MPEG decoder PCB and front panel display) in very small quantities for $600. I would assume that it costs them somewhere around $200 or $250 to manufacture these parts. And if you look at the pictures in your on-line review, you can see that they put their money in different places than we do.
The Ayre has fully discrete audio circuitry, high quality polystyrene capacitors, expensive low-loss PCB material, audio-grade resistors, etc. The Teac has full video capability, including HDMI, component, S-video, and composite outputs, includes a word clock input, and has complete multi-channel audio capabilities.
The final retail cost for both products is similar. Both products represent good value, it's just that they are aimed at different customers with different desires.
I seem to recall seeing these for very mortal prices.
Do they not contain the VRDS transport that we are talking about?
Thanks for your help,
Hukk
I assume that you are talking about the VRDS mechanism that was for CD only. Wadia used these in the 800 series players. My understanding was that the OEM price for this transport was something like $500 or $600.
The only problem is that they were discontinued about 6 years ago or so. Otherwise there would be at least a half-dozen high-end companies using them. Now all the Teac transports are DVD transports and priced significantly higher. They keep introducing cheaper models, but they are not really VRDS designs.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: