+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: Modern versus vintage CD players

  1. #31
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: penzance,cornwall uk

    Posts: 358
    I'm paul.

    Default

    had plenty of cambridge cd2 and 3...killer machines sound wise,iffy displays and build on the cd 2 for sure but saying that the first one i had lasted 15 yrs before the display gave up....my sony top of the range sacd1 lasted 13months before the laser packed up and had a hell of a fight with sony to get it repaired for free because it was out of warrenty!!
    think you really need a high resolution system to really hear this old stuff at its best and to judge,i still rate the old cambridges,lack detail by todays standards and a slight tubbiness to the bass for sure,but that can be a big help with some of this modern stuff that passes as good new hifi.
    alot of this applies to plenty of other classics,and never forget those old cd mechs make killer transports if they have a digital output,even if they dont its not usually rocket science to tap or add one.
    its just back to the laser and mech gubins at the end of the day that is the make or break aspect to these things if they cant be sourced.
    ive had plenty of different cd players from day one when introduced,and theres been a very small amount that i would call sterile/hard or cold,alot less then the cd medium they played at the time...some of those early cds really sucked
    and then theres tweaking and modding...that can really turn some players around sound wise!!
    just saying.....

  2. #32
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: East Riding of Yorkshire these days

    Posts: 4,779
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    But were those early players really 'bright and harsh'? Or was it the systems they were plonked in, systems voiced to add a bit of edge to an essentially warm and cuddly vinyl front end or the gently compressed sound of compact cassette?

    The only first generation CD player I have heard is the Sony CDP1, it was not bright and harsh. I've also had three Technics SLP1200 players, all different configurations, none of them were bright and harsh either, although I grant you they are not strictly first gen machines, but they do date from 1987 which was still early days for digital.

    Why would a format with effectively zero distortion and a ruler flat frequency response be responsible for a sound that is bright and harsh? It makes no logical sense. I'm not disputing want anyone hears, I have heard it myself, plenty of times. But it was always the result of the partnering equipment.

    That's not to say that you can't buy a cd player that sounds genuinely poor, regardless of the system. I've heard a couple but they were bargain basement plastic fantastic efforts, not serious hi-fi components.
    Don't know to be honest Martin because back then, around 1987, I was using an Incatech Claymore integrated amplifier that I soon replaced with a Musical Fidelity A100 class A biased amp. I was also using the early version of the Musical Fidelity MC4 loudspeakers, with the transparent bass drivers. Things were so much better when I bought the Meridian two box setup. Huge difference in cost of course.

  3. #33
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haselsh1 View Post
    Good job I only use mine as a transport then isn't it ?
    Players sound different from each other even used as transports. Some good some less so.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  4. #34
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: penzance,cornwall uk

    Posts: 358
    I'm paul.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walpurgis View Post
    Players sound different from each other even used as transports. Some good some less so.
    that they do.
    its a shame,i always loved the early philips transports that philips/marantz and various other makes used,but the digital output was pretty crap on those players....so not ideal for a transport,even though the mech is....still,plenty of mods to sort that problem out now.
    the sonys had good mechs to(early ones),they also had alot better digital outputs if it came with a coax output,trouble is sony early lasers and mechs are real hard to source these days.
    i do miss the cdp glory days,and the killer battleship builds of yesteryear!!

  5. #35
    Join Date: Mar 2014

    Location: Welsh Marches

    Posts: 267
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Just stumbled across this thread as I'm listening to an early CD pressing of DSOM on my resurrected Philips CD100 / Primare Pre32 / ATC 20 active towers. Sounds bloody good to me. The CD player was my first foray into CD, got put away for "better" players when the transport strated making a whistling noise, but recently got it serviced by a bloke in Ludlow. There were lots of dry solder joints. It looks cool in the sitting room system and sounds really good. Do things really get that much better ? Just hype ?

  6. #36
    Join Date: Mar 2016

    Location: Brighton, UK.

    Posts: 3,061
    I'm Mike.

    Default

    I wouldn't spend too much on a vintage CDP, thing is they go wrong and it can be hard to know why. Saying that I recently got a Pioneer PD 8700 which was mint and only £60, so far so good. Mind you I see some nice Sony cdps such as the 338ES, which have me hovering over the bid now button...........

  7. #37
    Join Date: Apr 2008

    Location: Warrington

    Posts: 3,451
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walpurgis View Post
    Players sound different from each other even used as transports. Some good some less so.
    Yup, CD transports frustratingly make a difference especially with older or more minimal DACs. Probably the one HiFi component that irritates me the most!
    Mana Acoustics Racks / Bright Star IsoNodes Decoupling >> Allo DigiOne Player >> Pedja Rogic's Audial Model S DAC + Pioneer PL-71 turntable / Vista Audio phono-1 mk II / Denon PCL-5 headshell / Reson Reca >> LFD DLS >> LFD PA2M (SE) >> Royd RR3s.

  8. #38
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,624
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yomanze View Post
    Yup, CD transports frustratingly make a difference especially with older or more minimal DACs. Probably the one HiFi component that irritates me the most!
    Even digital interconnects have varying effects. I'm fussy about them as they can sound awful. And I keep well away from Toslink optical connections, never found them as good. Having tried a few digital cables (some rather expensive) with variable results, I now assemble my own and get great sound.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  9. #39
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 110,012
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yomanze View Post
    Yup, CD transports frustratingly make a difference especially with older or more minimal DACs. Probably the one HiFi component that irritates me the most!
    Lol... I've never quite understood that concept. Why worry about something, if using it causes an obvious and worthwhile improvement? Just enjoy the improvement and its positive effect on your favourite music!

    Marco.
    Main System

    Turntable: Heavily-modified Technics SL-1210MK5G [Mike New bearing/ETP platter/Paul Hynes SR7 PSU & reg mods]. Funk Firm APM Achromat/Nagaoka GL-601 Crystal Record Weight/Isonoe feet & boots/Ortofon RS-212D/Denon DL-103GL in Denon PCL-300 headshell with Funk Firm Houdini/Kondo SL-115 pure-silver cartridge leads.

    Paul Hynes MC head amp/SR5 PSU. Also modded Lentek head amp/Denon AU-310 SUT.

    Other Cartridges: Nippon Columbia (NOS 1987) Denon DL-103. USA-made Shure SC35C with NOS stylus. Goldring G820 with NOS stylus. Shure M55E with NOS stylus.

    CD Player: Audiocom-modified Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC.

    Tape Deck: Tandberg TCD 310, fully restored and recalibrated as new, by RDE, plus upgraded with heads from the TCD-420a. Also with matching TM4 Norway microphones.

    Preamps: Heavily-modified Croft Charisma-X. LDR Stereo Coffee. Power Amps: Tube Distinctions Copper Amp fitted with Tungsol KT-150s. Quad 306.

    Cables & Sundries: Mark Grant HDX1 interconnects and digital coaxial cable, plus Mark Grant 6mm UP-LCOFC Van Damme speaker cable. MCRU 'Ultimate' mains leads. Lehmann clone headphone amp with vintage Koss PRO-4AAA headphones.

    Tube Distinctions digital noise filter. VPI HW16.5 record cleaning machine.

    Speakers: Tannoy 15MGs in Lockwood cabinets with modified crossovers. 1967 Celestion Ditton 15.


    Protect your HUMAN RIGHTS and REFUSE ANY *MANDATORY* VACCINE FOR COVID-19!

    Also **SAY NO** to unjust 'vaccine passports' or certificates, which are totally incompatible with a FREE society!!!


  10. #40
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: North Down /Northern Ireland/ UK

    Posts: 19,484
    I'm Neil.

    Default

    What frustrates me is folks saying they don't make a difference. Anyone sitting in my listening room hearing me switch from an Esoteric P3 to P5 would have to have been dead not to hear the massive difference between the two transports. Same cabling was used, including power leads.

    Always been the same any time I have compared transports, digital cables do make a big difference as well.
    Regards Neil

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •