 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.187.5.22
players that still today ( if working) would outperform many more modern players, or would an an older player with a great transport and a newer outboard dac outperform old but great cd players? I haven't listened to cd's for years but do have an a large collection of classical and jazz and now want to incorporate them into my listening experience. Thanks Norm
Follow Ups:
I have several newer players but my two favorite are my '95 Meridian 508.20 (Crystal 4329 20 bit chipset using 4 DACs working in differential mode) and my '95 Denon DCM-560 (Burr-Brown PCM1702 R-2R 20 Bit DACs). I have no desire to add an outboard DAC to either.Another older player to consider would be the 2001 Denon DCD-1650AR (20-Bit 4 DACs), built like a tank.
Edits: 12/19/14
I can 2nd the Denon 1650.
Gut out the stock analog output stage and replace it with a competent analog output stage (preferably a tube output stage), you'll discover that the changer's DAC section is one of the best CD D/A converters ever conceived.
I use a modified CDC-935 in both of my systems.
Any ideas on how to accomplish this now that Mr. Allen has retired?
I admit I waited too long after purchasing my CDC-935, one of two audio procrastinations I regret. The other was putting off ordering a Neuance shelf from Ken Lyon for my Roksan turntable, before he suddenly went out of business.
I would be interested in the mods for this player, as well.
You keep hyping this one old Philips player. If this DAC was so remarkable, surely they must have used it in some of their other products.
Todd-
did you perform the mods yourself?
Just about anything that was made with UltraAnalog 20 bit digital chipsets.
That would be Mark Levinson No. 30 and 35 DACs, VTL reference, Manley reference, Audio Reseach DAC1 20, Sonic Frontiers DACs, STAX X-1T, Kinergetics KCD55 ultra, Threshold DAC2 and a few others.
Also the THeta Gen V and some DACs that use the BB PCM63K or AD1862 chipsets.
There are probably "vintage" CD players out there that still do sound great. But I owned a bunch that didn't, as evidenced by the first one that DID sound good, a Pioneer DV414 that was really a DVD player! This followed a $3700 Conrad Johnson DAC/transport which followed a well-reviewed JVC 1050. My first REALLY good CD player was a Raysonic 128 which I would strongly suggest you seek out except that the company is defunct and the Raysonic players are a little long in the tooth.
Bottom line: newer is probably better, IMHO.
frame of reference ...
> > There are probably "vintage" CD players out there that still do sound great. But I owned a bunch that didn't, as evidenced by the first one that DID sound good, a Pioneer DV414 that was really a DVD player! This followed a $3700 Conrad Johnson DAC/transport which followed a well-reviewed JVC 1050. My first REALLY good CD player was a Raysonic 128 which I would strongly suggest you seek out except that the company is defunct and the Raysonic players are a little long in the tooth. < <
The first CDP which impressed me, was a very early 16.bit Philips player. It was my brothers, and he quickly ditched all his analog. I, however, stayed the analog route...
Shortly after, came the bit wars... as they increased, my continuing impression of digital reproduction decreased accordingly. Nearly every early (relatively expensive) 18 and 20 bit player introduced & auditioned IMO, took digital a further step back, most sounded more & more compromised - when compared to similarly priced analog.
The first CDP I actually purchased, was an early "MASH" based NAD. I bought on the cheap (late model clear-out sale) simply to introduce digital into my system. That player couldn't compete with my analog, as a stock unit, so I attempted to modify (op-amps, output stage, connection quality, inner damping, etc). It didn't really get played within my system much, but strangely enough; this ~1992 model still plays within a friends cottage. I recently asked him to return it this winter because the power supply capacitors are in real need of replacement (a project I'll undertake over the snow). He was quite reluctant. He's certainly no audiophile, but he claims he doesn't like the sound of his CDs thru any other device he has up there. Anyway ...
That particular player didn't really do much to convince me that digital was a serious musical medium. Having heard many more expensive alternatives, I became so disenchanted with the clinical-digital-sound, I actually gave up on the medium within my system.
Then, late '90's, arrived but a few players which sounded good enough to regained my interest. I decided to re-introduce digital into my system again, so I auditioning many, purchased a few, but alas - everyone ended up sitting idle; they simply couldn't compete with analog.
That ended circa~1998. I still use that player, and continually compare it to many a current digital alternative. More importantly, it competes head-2-head with my ever improving analog system ... which trust me, has embarrasses many a digital alternative irregardless of "hi-rez".
> > Bottom line: newer is probably better, IMHO. < <
I tend to agree, but only from the point-of-view that currently - a much higher volume of available models exist which could be considered "good". In the late 90's, IMO, only a handful existed. Most then, sounded either too opaque or too edgy; certainly few could reproduce the freq.extremes correctly, ex: a hit cymbal often sounded anything but a real musical instrument. However, today, many tend to sound too soft and rounded at the frequency extremes, an artifact I started hearing during the up/over-sampling wars.
tb1
Very nice over-view TBone-
those early NAD players are still killer. Recently a fellow audiophile friend's 1987 NAD spinner finally died- I loved the way it sounded over the years.
I, too, remember the "bit wars". But, we did get some pretty sweet cd players as a result.
EDIT: SHOULD BE "...TOO EDGY" IN THE SUBJECT LINE.I'd say too laid-back or too edgy, but we're close :-)
Incidentally, that el-cheapo Pioneer DVD player that DID sound good to me playing CDs was then "discovered" by The Absolute Sound, though they couldn't bring themselves to actually recommend it in more than a semi-grudging way. Kinda funny.
Edits: 12/18/14
"Bottom line: newer is probably better, IMHO."
My experiences have been to the contrary, but at least DACs in the past 2 or 3 years have shown noticeable improvement over the ones marketed 5 to 10 years ago. But the best I've heard is still 1990s vintage.
I will agree Todd-
the 1990's was a special decadefor digital!
Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of 1990s stuff, and earlier.
But not digital. Can you cite some specific players/DACs that prove your point?
Just as a frame of reference, it took me a LONG time to find a CD player I considered even remotely listenable, and while I found the 1990s players (and one non-oversampling DAC) a definite improvement, they couldn't come close to my vinyl and tape setups. Now they do. By "they," I mean the digital players/DACs of my self and a number of audiobuddies.
There are new or recent CD players which adhere to the wisdom and implementation of older digital technologies. I'm using one of them and its better than the CD players I've previously had (Sony SCD-1, Marantz CD7, Cambridge Audio CD3, Arcam Alpha 5, NVA CD50, Twindac DAC among others). With I2S, it sounds sublime. It has more in keeping with the sonic glory of legends like the Marantz players of old (CD94, et al), or Mark Levinson and so on, in my experience.
If you want a new DAC which might compete with some of the masters of previous decades, wait for the Schiit Yggdrasil (designed by the same chap who made the Theta DS Pro Gen V). It may be what you are looking for and is due early next year (if we're lucky :^).
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Big J,
you have owned some nice players!
I've been lucky. But there are digital architectures I never got the chance to really play with, such as the Ultra Analog DACs and so forth. Or players with external clocks, etc.
Still, I've learned what I like and am enjoying it. Aside from the Yggdrasil, not many new players (that I can afford) have my attention, currently. Would much rather rescue an obscure overachiever from the past and refresh its parts where possible. But I can also do that with my present DAC , and perhaps achieve better results with better parts.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Modding these products is very cool. We need more modders in the world.
Yes, many , many great spinners were made in the 1990's.
That was a great decade for cd players in general!
A friend sent me an old S7000 to compare what difference a transport makes since he had tried a few old ones. For CDs into my NOS Octave DAC, it is clearly quite superior to my Oppo BDP-83. Another friend got an S7000 also after hearing it.
For CDs I don't think that you can beat the S7000 as a transport for <$100.
BTW, the headphone output is not worth listening to and I tried the optical output and it, too, was inferior to the coax RCA output.
Edits: 12/15/14
I have a S7700 which I don't use anymore so I plugged it in for 24 hours and then connected the coax RCA to the digital-in of my Oppo BDP-105. I played several CDs in the S7700 with the BDP-105 as a DAC and in the BDP-105 as a player. Very similar, I can't tell the difference.
I did have a BDP-83SE and the BDP-105 sounds much better.
I can also recall several years ago using the remote to get into the firmware of the S7700 and calibrating the lasers for DVD and CD.
Thanks. That's an interesting comparison.
Both the S7000 and S7700 are still regarded as transports.
After reading your post I read further on line and it sounds like it was/is a great cd transport. I have been trying to figure out dates of production and guessing by serial number if it was an early or later production model. Don't the lasers go at some point? Would a later model ( mid 2000s?) likely last longer than an early production model? If the laser goes are there places to fix it? Because, after reading on line, it seems like an excellent solution to my problem, except for my concern of the life expectancy of the laser. Norm
I have no idea about laser life and have the same concerns as you. But I know 3 people w/ these and they are working like new so far.
I can never go back to a bad transport, so if/when this fails if it can't be repaired, then maybe I find another one or get a $700 transport?
I would be more concerned about moving parts than a laser though.
My other friends are using Bifrost DACs, BTW.BTW, I always found it strange that I did not hear much difference in sound quality between satellite radio and CDs (from Oppo). Now, there is a big difference between radio and discs. When I had the Gungnir DAC to try it locked on both radio and Oppo as having tight clocks, so jitter is not the weak point of the Oppo (or radio), it seems to me. There are other aspects that are very important in a transport, which I do not know.
Edits: 12/15/14
Any stock Oppo is simply a catch-all spinner. Additionally, it has a nice DAC for computer audio applications.
It must be "modded" to go to the next musical level.
CD player laser life from around this era (late 90s to early naughties)was typically quoted as circa.10,000 hours. However what I don't know is if that is to zero output. If so a laser would cease to have sufficient power to read discs well before this point was reached especially those designed for hybrid SACD.
BTW, the only transports that I have had that needed laser replacement were from the Sony 333/555/777 ES series (all use basically the same device).
I hope the S7000 ones are better, because that's only 1.5 years if the player is left on, unless it turns off the laser after some idle time.
I leave my "transport" powered on since it sounds a little better that way (after ~40 hours on, it changes from having minor glare to no glare).
I also used to leave my Oppo on when I used its analog outputs because it took ~5 days to sound its best. But now I leave my Oppo off since it has become a secondary source (for movies only).
Don't worry on the point that you raise. The laser only switches on when you insert a disc (to read TOC) and then when you press play.
In many players it is essential to leave the machine on particularly those that use resistor ladders to set the voltage values in the DAC as thermal stability is required. Pertinent here as this is, in part, a thread about vintage players where such technology is common.
I haven't the experience you seek.
Isn't this question partly about whether one likes to hear Red Book CDs oversampled? I don't. A great transport will make a big difference. I would prefer a non-oversampling DAC and a great transport, based on my in-shop experience with Audio Note equipment. It really makes a difference. My new CD player has a "pretty good" tránsport and a very good NOS Dac. The only thing i have at home to compare it against is a Mac computer system with a USB over-sampling mini-dac, but I don't use the oversampling. My CD player sounds better to my ears.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
My current Audio Note transport and the Metrum Hex dac is better then any cd player I have ever owned. Sony 777es and Sony 5400es were the more recent. My transport with the $500 Teredac Chamelion is better than those two cdp players.
Alan
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
