Marantz CD-73

[hermit]

I have on loan a lovely example of this first gen CD player. To my amazement, it sounds unbelievably good. I was always under the impression that very early cd players weren't up to much. I was wrong. Very wrong.

It is a beautifully built machine and has a door mechanism that never fails to please. It only has twin mono 14 bit Philips TDA-1540 dacs but manages to produce a smooth punchy analogue sound that is really very enjoyable. TBH, I love this thing so much I'm going to buy it from my friend.

Does anyone else here still enjoy a first generation spinner?

Here's a couple of pics that don't really do it justice.

http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p753/neradi/Marantz%20CD-73/2015-07-19%2014.53.59_zpsijhorwpc.jpg

http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p753/neradi/Marantz%20CD-73/2015-07-19%2014.53.39_zpscxsftnrd.jpg

[walpurgis]

I like the look of that. Never tried one though. Marantz were one of the first to make CD players and having used a few of their older models, I've honestly not heard a bad one.

I've had a couple of Meridian 206s. They are old, but sound really lovely.

[struth]

I have on loan a lovely example of this first gen CD player. To my amazement, it sounds unbelievably good. I was always under the impression that very early cd players weren't up to much. I was wrong. Very wrong.

It is a beautifully built machine and has a door mechanism that never fails to please. It only has twin mono 14 bit Philips TDA-1540 dacs but manages to produce a smooth punchy analogue sound that is really very enjoyable. TBH, I love this thing so much I'm going to buy it from my friend.

Does anyone else here still enjoy a first generation spinner?

Here's a couple of pics that don't really do it justice.

http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p753/neradi/Marantz%20CD-73/2015-07-19%2014.53.59_zpsijhorwpc.jpg

http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p753/neradi/Marantz%20CD-73/2015-07-19%2014.53.39_zpscxsftnrd.jpg

dont think its first gen but my old Denon is late 80's and still sounds bloody good; always works first ask as well even when been idle for many months in shed. apart from a soldering iron burn on fascia its in pretty good nick too. even works with remotes

[hermit]

I found this recent review on zstereo (http://zstereo.co.uk/2014/02/26/marantz-cd-73/).

[Gordon Steadman]

I don't have one now but used to have one of the first Phillips machines. Built like a tank, sounded terrific and probably cost lots more to make than the selling price. The players got worse as they were made cheaper and cheaper and more plastic.

Perhaps if they had kept up the same standard, Karajan would have been proved right!

I traded the player in against the rebuild of my electrostatics - along with quite a few other bits - and I still regret it occasionally.

[Barry]

I don't have one now but used to have one of the first Phillips machines. Built like a tank, sounded terrific and probably cost lots more to make than the selling price. The players got worse as they were made cheaper and cheaper and more plastic.

Perhaps if they had kept up the same standard, Karajan would have been proved right!

I traded the player in against the rebuild of my electrostatics - along with quite a few other bits - and I still regret it occasionally.

Indeed, the 104 and 104B cost more to make than the selling price. Philips made a loss on every one of them. The 104B was my first CD player.

[Macca]

The ides that first gen CD players were not up to much has become one of those classic hi-fi myths much repeated on forums by folk who have never heard one, or heard one back in the 1980s through a 'flat earth' system specifially desigend to flatter their Linn Sondek LP12

I was fortunate to get a listen to a Sony CD1 back in the mid-'Nineties which was very impressive and not in any way harsh, shrill, or fatiguing, much to my surprise.

The Technics SLP1200 B I have (when it works) makes even contemporary players sound like child's toys. Yet you still see people expresing the view that 'digital has come a long way.'

No it hasn't. Whatever they did with those 1980s players - some say it is the mech, some the power supplies, some the analogue output stage, they did it properly. Now they just bodge it together as cheap and as simple as they can and tell you that you need software that has a frequency range out to 48Khz in order to get a good sound and that was were we were all going wrong in the past. If you believe that I've got some beach front property in Arizona I can sell you at a good price, PM me.... ;)

[Gordon Steadman]

The ides that first gen CD players were not up to much has become one of those classic hi-fi myths much repeated on forums by folk who have never heard one, or heard one back in the 1980s through a 'flat earth' system specifially desigend to flatter their Linn Sondek LP12

I was fortunate to get a listen to a Sony CD1 back in the mid-'Nineties which was very impressive and not in any way harsh, shrill, or fatiguing, much to my surprise.

The Technics SLP1200 B I have (when it works) makes even contemporary players sound like child's toys. Yet you still see people expresing the view that 'digital has come a long way.'

No it hasn't. Whatever they did with those 1980s players - some say it is the mech, some the power supplies, some the analogue output stage, they did it properly. Now they just bodge it together as cheap and as simple as they can and tell you that you need software that has a frequency range out to 48Khz in order to get a good sound and that was were we were all going wrong in the past. If you believe that I've got some beach front property in Arizona I can sell you at a good price, PM me.... ;)

PM sent:)

[Barry]

I believe it is the CDs themselves that have come a long way. Record companies were so eager to provide CD versions of their output, they simply used the tapes that had been prepared to cut the lacquer (?) for LP production. These tapes had been processed so it was physically possible to cut a lacquer. That meant the bass was virtually mono and the treble had to be limited in amplitude, otherwise the stylus would fly out of the groove.

The first generation of 'remasters' were a revelation; unfortunately engineers now remastering tapes for CD production are pandering to the current, insidious, fashion of virtually eliminating all of the dynamic range. :(

Dave (DSJR) has discussed this before: I believe he knows a recording engineer at Decca, who might be able to elaborate.

[hermit]

The ides that first gen CD players were not up to much has become one of those classic hi-fi myths much repeated on forums by folk who have never heard one, or heard one back in the 1980s through a 'flat earth' system specifially desigend to flatter their Linn Sondek LP12

I was fortunate to get a listen to a Sony CD1 back in the mid-'Nineties which was very impressive and not in any way harsh, shrill, or fatiguing, much to my surprise.

The Technics SLP1200 B I have (when it works) makes even contemporary players sound like child's toys. Yet you still see people expresing the view that 'digital has come a long way.'

No it hasn't. Whatever they did with those 1980s players - some say it is the mech, some the power supplies, some the analogue output stage, they did it properly. Now they just bodge it together as cheap and as simple as they can and tell you that you need software that has a frequency range out to 48Khz in order to get a good sound and that was were we were all going wrong in the past. If you believe that I've got some beach front property in Arizona I can sell you at a good price, PM me.... ;)

I think that you've nailed it Martin. All good points well made. I suspect this old Marantz does digital better than anything I've had before. I wish I still had my AN DAC to compare the two. That also used an old DAC, the 18 bit AD1862, and was very analogue sounding.

[Macca]

I believe it is the CDs themselves that have come a long way. Record companies were so eager to provide CD versions of their output, they simply used the tapes that had been prepared to cut the lacquer (?) for LP production. These tapes had been processed so it was physically possible to cut a lacquer. That meant the bass was virtually mono and the treble had to be limited in amplitude, otherwise the stylus would fly out of the groove.

The first generation of 'remasters' were a revelation; unfortunately engineers now remastering tapes for CD production are pandering to the current, insidious, fashion of virtually eliminating all of the dynamic range. :(

Dave (DSJR) has discussed this before: I believe he knows a recording engineer at Decca, who might be able to elaborate.

That may be the case with some recordings but it canlt be the whole reason since those early cd transfers are now highly sort after precisly because they just switched on the master tape and pressed record - no mucking about with the levels or anything.