+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: Early Philips and Marantz CDPs

  1. #11
    montesquieu Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    That's what I'm saying. Context is everything. It only took a few people to say that early digital was rubbish and now everyone believes it even though they have never tried it retrospectively.


    The mags, dealers and makers never disabuse anyone of this myth because they want people buying the latest bit of kit, which is always better than what went before of course.

    My objection to digital in the 80s - as a 90% classical listener - was mainly on the grounds of unappealing, harsh sound, but also on the limited repertoire available.

    Yes I had an LP12 at the time, into a Technics amp and Tannoys. Didn't use my 1970s Sony tape deck much except to make tapes for the car. But as a system it was enjoyable.

    I could see the benefits of CD - no crackly noise to distract from the quiet passages, no worries about tracking in the loud bits, or about jumps and scratches - but overall the sound just wasn't there for me.

    And what material was coming out in the classical market wasn't that compelling - DG were in thrall to Karajan so you got lots of new recordings of the old potboilers - Beethoven and Brahms symphonies, warhorse romantic piano concertos, endless weirdly shaped box sets of tedious operas. Not that much interesting stuff. And this approach was replicated by their competitors. If you already had a decent record collection and any sort of taste beyond the safe, stuffed-shirt material on a loop at the Royal Festival Hall, you were out of luck.

    Even worse in non-classical though - visiting a hifi shop and it was wall to wall Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, electro-pop manufactured to sound snappy and modern for CD - it was awful. (My, how things have changed ... )

    Anyway I didn't buy a CDP till the early 90s and I replaced my amp and tape deck at the same time with Denon gear as it sounded better to me than the early stuff. By that time some classical stuff was only being released on CD.

    Of course there was good gear coming out by the mid-late 80s, but I couldn't have afforded a CD 94 at the time, or at least I wouldn't have borrowed that much money for it without any CDs to play on it.

    Remember that LPs at the time were £5-6 for full price, and from about a quid for stuff with the corner snipped off, as opposed to £13.50 for a CD. Even better when second hand stuff began appearing in large amounts by the early 90s as all the idiots got rid of their vinyl - some of us filled our boots. Some places could hardly give classical records away. I recall in New Zealand one s/h record shop in Wellington (what would now be called a 'pop-up as it was only open for a few weeks) offering 4 LPs for $1 NZ - at the then exchange rate that's four for 30p. I have some fabulous Lieder and chamber music recordings from that store but also jazz and rock - Jimmy Smith, Humble Pie, Brubeck ...

    Hopefully we aren't far off the moment (we may be in it now) when you can't give away classical CDs as all the fashion followers pile into streaming.

    Anyway I've never actually reached a point where my digital has been better than my analogue and I doubt I ever will. But digital in 1984, when the CD84 came out ... a piece of history, a bit of fun, but even plugged into a quality modern setup I doubt it will suddenly blossom.

  2. #12
    Join Date: Jun 2015

    Location: London/Durham

    Posts: 6,869
    I'm Lawrence.

    Default

    I'm sure that's all true but part of the fun in this hobby is trying out new things, sometimes leftfield but it's all good experience especially when it's cheap

    Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

  3. #13
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lawrence001 View Post
    I'm sure that's all true but part of the fun in this hobby is trying out new things, sometimes leftfield but it's all good experience especially when it's cheap

    Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
    If you get fed up of it let me know and I'll have it. I reckon I have my system set up to get the best from digital so I'd be interested to see if I can hear the alleged harshness etc.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  4. #14
    Join Date: Jun 2015

    Location: London/Durham

    Posts: 6,869
    I'm Lawrence.

    Default

    Ok that's a deal but postage might not be cheap it weighs a ton!

    Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

  5. #15
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    No worries about that.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  6. #16
    Join Date: Jun 2015

    Location: London/Durham

    Posts: 6,869
    I'm Lawrence.

    Default

    Hoping to get it on Friday, will report back soon after on the sound (children permitting).

  7. #17
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Re the Sony cdp101, I was reading about it on another forum. One person heard it back in the 1980s and was not keen on it, and was listening to it through Naim 32.5 / HiCap, 250 or 135s, Isobariks

    later in the thread same person says

    Digital has been a few years coming to this standard.
    At the beginning I couldn't see how it would ever sound any good.
    Technological advances have been big but when you consider 40 years or so not so fast.
    The last few years seem to have been the biggest improvements


    Hands up who can spot the problem here.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  8. #18
    Join Date: Jan 2009

    Location: Essex

    Posts: 31,853
    I'm openingabottleofwine.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Re the Sony cdp101, I was reading about it on another forum. One person heard it back in the 1980s and was not keen on it, and was listening to it through Naim 32.5 / HiCap, 250 or 135s, Isobariks

    later in the thread same person says

    Digital has been a few years coming to this standard.
    At the beginning I couldn't see how it would ever sound any good.
    Technological advances have been big but when you consider 40 years or so not so fast.
    The last few years seem to have been the biggest improvements


    Hands up who can spot the problem here.
    Yes - he was listening through Linn Isobaraks.
    Barry

  9. #19
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Yes - he was listening through Linn Isobaraks.
    ...driven by old school Naim.

    Yes, we have a winner!
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

  10. #20
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 37,779
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RothwellAudio View Post
    I agree. I've heard more hard/cold/abrasive sounds attributable to Naim amps than to CD players.
    Those old Naims are like paint strippers unless you've got a nice, compressed, rolled off source like a TT or a tape deck, then they sound excellent. Is it any wonder that when people stuck a source that was flat to 22Khz into those systems that they didn't like what they heard?

    But they assume that the amps and speakers are blameless and decide it is this new fangled digital that is the problem. After all, the tapes and vinyl sound fine.

    Then 20 odd years on when they have a completely different system they try digital again and low and behold it sounds much better! And then they ascribe that to it being 'hi rez' or 'better masters' or 'digital tech improving massively' (which it hasn't. It has barely changed at all because it worked fine from the get-go).

    So much bollocks has been made up all due to this one simple misunderstanding decades ago. My favourite is that the early transfers to cd were 'botched' because the labels didn't know what they were doing, and that is what the problem was with early digital.

    Yes, because cuing up an RTR and connecting it to a ADC is like rocket science even for an experienced studio engineer. Added to which anyone into cd always goes for the earlier releases and not the re-masters because they sound better due to their increased dynamic range! It's the later releases you (usually) want to avoid.

    Pretty much any explanation is seized on except the true one, which is that those flat earth systems were effects boxes, not hi-fi.
    Current Lash Up:

    TEAC VRDS 701T > Sony TAE1000ESD > Krell KSA50S > JM Labs Focal Electra 926.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •