|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.50.250.142
In Reply to: RE: F/U to prior question. Are there any "older" cd posted by gonzo on December 15, 2014 at 06:21:56
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
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: