Early Philips and Marantz CDPs

[Lawrence001]

I mean the generation with the TDA1540 chips. I used to have a Philips CD104 which was a nice sounding machine but I thought the captive RCAs were a bottleneck on the SQ. I never got round to changing them and eventually sold it. Anyway I put an offer on this on a whim and got it. Looking forward to revisiting the organic laid back "analogue" sound with better RCAs.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F 263730474079

Does anyone have an experience with these good or bad? Their strong point is the indestructible CDM1 mech and heavy all metal cases. They can also be NOS modded. The only weakness IMO is the lack of digital out, but then they'd cost 2-3x more as transports.


Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[montesquieu]

I mean the generation with the TDA1540 chips. I used to have a Philips CD104 which was a nice sounding machine but I thought the captive RCAs were a bottleneck on the SQ. I never got round to changing them and eventually sold it. Anyway I put an offer on this on a whim and got it. Looking forward to revisiting the organic laid back "analogue" sound with better RCAs.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F 263730474079

Does anyone have an experience with these good or bad? Their strong point is the indestructible CDM1 mech and heavy all metal cases. They can also be NOS modded. The only weakness IMO is the lack of digital out, but then they'd cost 2-3x more as transports.


I'm afraid these are the very machines that convinced diehard old record fans like me to pronounce that CD would never catch on, so badly did they compare at the time to a decent (well even an average) turntable ... but I guess you'll make your own mind up.

It's a shame as they do have handsome, classic looks and, as you say, a battleship mechanism, but the sound ... not for me anyway. The fact they can't be converted to transports means they aren't worth much except as a piece of history.

I was recently on a transport hunt and looked everywhere for details of efforts to convert these old machines. I don't believe it's ever been done in a straightforward fashion (that is, without major, technically challenging transplantation of bits from more expensive, usually rarer, later machines that makes it a lot cheaper and easier just to go and get a later model with digital output).

[Minstrel SE]

I fired up a 104 fairly recently but didn't have enough time to do full comparison tests because while the board was being restored it went into mono only ( a long story of somebody barely interested in the repair letting me down). I decided to sell it on to a restoration specialist.

I honestly think my pleasure was mainly the nostagia and that CDM 1 mechanism. A brief thought was that it wasnt as detailed and the atmospheric soundstage was more closed in than later players but what was there was quite pleasant.

Its interesting that they are being marketed now as having an analogue sound which will bring a smile from those who did not find them better than a good turntable.

The terms warm and laid back also cloud the issue and there is a fair bit of nostalgia hype going on with them.

Its a funny market for them balanced with an obsession for 1540s 1541s, the tank like build quality and nostalgia for older equipment

I see the Lampizator pages show what can be done with them but these are the big boys in terms of taking feeds off boards and even adding valve output stages.

I couldnt make it transport only and I couldn't repair a 104 board so away it went with a tear in my eye :)

All the best with it

[Lawrence001]

I'm afraid these are the very machines that convinced diehard old record fans like me to pronounce that CD would never catch on, so badly did they compare at the time to a decent (well even an average) turntable ... but I guess you'll make your own mind up.

It's a shame as they do have handsome, classic looks and, as you say, a battleship mechanism, but the sound ... not for me anyway. The fact they can't be converted to transports means they aren't worth much except as a piece of history.

I was recently on a transport hunt and looked everywhere for details of efforts to convert these old machines. I don't believe it's ever been done in a straightforward fashion (that is, without major, technically challenging transplantation of bits from more expensive, usually rarer, later machines that makes it a lot cheaper and easier just to go and get a later model with digital output).
I think I recall you looking onto this and thinking you're onto a losing battle, yes the main upgrade for these is to convert the dac to NOS mode, I don't think the transport thing is practical but I'll have another look at lampizator's website to remind myself.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Primalsea]

I think mechanically some of the early highend players were superlative but electronically not so good. I think they followed the conventional wisdom at the time for what was supposed to be good but didn’t actually measure that well when you drilled down and looked at things like switching noise from the digital circuits polluting the power supplies.

[Macca]

Not found that myself and I've had a few early high end players, still have 2 here, one from 1992 and one from 1989 (which is my daily driver). Sound quality is outstanding.

You have to use them with an accurate system though, and not one that is tuned to make a soggy 1980s belt drive TT or cassette deck sound crisp and involving (Naim, Exposure etc).

People who were into classical and had older kit/valves in the 1980s never had an issue with CD, they embraced it positively right from the beginning, unlike the pop and rock fans. No complaints there about a harsh and fatiguing sound. It was the younger reviewers with the whizz-bang flat earth systems that couldn't get on with it. Sadly they did not know enough about hi-fi to twig that their confidence in their 'reference systems' was badly misplaced.

[Primalsea]

I had a CD94, Chord DAC64 WD KT88 and Martin Logan speakers; not highest end, but certainly not soggy. The CD94 needed new bands for the tray mech and while fixing this I took quite a few measurements with a scope.

[Macca]

I'm not saying these early players were perfect so don't get me wrong. I'm just saying they are a whole lot better when partnered appropriately.


Although I've never got on with Marantz, they have their own 'house sound' which is quite coloured and flatters certain genres, especially acoustic music.

[Lawrence001]

Not found that myself and I've had a few early high end players, still have 2 here, one from 1992 and one from 1989 (which is my daily driver). Sound quality is outstanding.

You have to use them with an accurate system though, and not one that is tuned to make a soggy 1980s belt drive TT or cassette deck sound crisp and involving (Naim, Exposure etc).

People who were into classical and had older kit/valves in the 1980s never had an issue with CD, they embraced it positively right from the beginning, unlike the pop and rock fans. No complaints there about a harsh and fatiguing sound. It was the younger reviewers with the whizz-bang flat earth systems that couldn't get on with it. Sadly they did not know enough about hi-fi to twig that their confidence in their 'reference systems' was badly misplaced.That's a good point whenever I buy a new component I have a play around with the other links in the chain to give it a good chance. If I tuned my system to an LP12 with flat earth amps and speakers, I imagine just chucking in a cd player without thought might fall flat on its face in the same way as plugging an LP12 into a Leak Stereo 30 and Wharfedale Linton speakers might not lead to the correct judgement of the LP12's abilities.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

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.

[montesquieu]

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 ... :lol:)

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.

[Lawrence001]

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

[Macca]

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.

[Lawrence001]

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

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

No worries about that.

[Lawrence001]

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

[Macca]

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.

[Barry]

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. :D

[Macca]

Yes - he was listening through Linn Isobaraks. :D

...driven by old school Naim.

Yes, we have a winner!

[Macca]

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.

[montesquieu]

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.

I agree that Naim stuff of that era sounded awful especially used with Isobariks and the likes. That's why I never owned any (sticking with Japanese gear which - by contrast - was actually a bit of a snooze-fest by comparison). How do you explain people like me who still didn't like the new digital?

And not all LP12s were sleepy, I used an AT OC9 for donkey's years which had (and has) quite an aggressive treble lift. Not that I knew that at the time, I was more interested in buying records at the time than in reading hifi magazines which were just as full of utter crap then as they are now (albeit we got more measurements rather than endless pointless descriptions of what albums sound like).

[WESTLOWER]

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.

Don't know about that, imho, the early attempts at the Blue Note stables digital transfers were terrible. I'm not a great fan of remastered transfers and polished beyond recognition, but those early CD reissues were poor.

[Macca]

I agree that Naim stuff of that era sounded awful especially used with Isobariks and the likes. That's why I never owned any (sticking with Japanese gear which - by contrast - was actually a bit of a snooze-fest by comparison). How do you explain people like me who still didn't like the new digital?

).

Don't conflate not liking it with harsh and fatiguing? Unless that is still the reason you don't like it? In which case further investigation is required. Digital is never going to sound like vinyl so a preference for vinyl is always going to be just that.

And there is no 'new digital', it isn't any different from what it was in 1983. That's the whole point of my argument.

[Macca]

Don't know about that, imho, the early attempts at the Blue Note stables digital transfers were terrible. I'm not a great fan of remastered transfers and polished beyond recognition, but those early CD reissues were poor.

I don't have a massive amount of jazz on any format so I couldn't say. What specifically was 'poor' about those releases?

[George47]

Don't conflate not liking it with harsh and fatiguing? Unless that is still the reason you don't like it? In which case further investigation is required. Digital is never going to sound like vinyl so a preference for vinyl is always going to be just that.

And there is no 'new digital', it isn't any different from what it was in 1983. That's the whole point of my argument.


I am not so sure....there have been significant changes in filtration with the early brick wall filters being considerably changed. Oversampling, upsampling and better understanding in the studios about how digital works. Early digital was a mess that was rushed to market. Fortunately, the market is a lot more mature and more companies know what they are doing. Not everything has 'progressed' and the introduction of delta/sigma was done for cheapness not audio. 16 bit TDA chips were a great peak in audio and that with a much better understanding of the layout of digital systems and better design of digital filters have helped. Fortunately, people like John Westlake did not rest on his laurels and got on with improving a less than good early start.

[Macca]

I am not so sure....there have been significant changes in filtration with the early brick wall filters being considerably changed. Oversampling, upsampling and better understanding in the studios about how digital works. Early digital was a mess that was rushed to market. Fortunately, the market is a lot more mature and more companies know what they are doing. Not everything has 'progressed' and the introduction of delta/sigma was done for cheapness not audio. 16 bit TDA chips were a great peak in audio and that with a much better understanding of the layout of digital systems and better design of digital filters have helped. Fortunately, people like John Westlake did not rest on his laurels and got on with improving a less than good early start.

Whose been telling you this? 'Early digital was a mess and rushed to market?'

Sorry this is all marketing fantasy. All that has happened in digital since 1983 is some tinkering around the edges. Yes, technical performance has improved as far as lab reports are concerned, but none of it extends to the realm of audibility. It is all a smokescreen to sell new product. The magazines are full of it, I would not rely on them to reliably inform you of anything.

[WESTLOWER]

I don't have a massive amount of jazz on any format so I couldn't say. What specifically was 'poor' about those releases?

Poor dynamics, scale and just pretty flat across the range. In comparison to later release of the same material, these releases were very poor. On the other hand I would say a lot of that material has now been remastered and filtered to such an extent they have lost that atmosphere and feeling, but that's another issue. My long standing gripe that hi res is not always better. But I agree with other posts, the initial releases imho sounded rushed to the digital format.

[walpurgis]

I've noticed that some albums sound noticeably better in their CD release form than the vinyl LP does and that's nothing to do with the system I use. The CD is just better.

[Macca]

I'm not keen on getting into 'better' or 'worse' comparisons because that is all subjective. I've plenty of albums that I have on both vinyl and CD and the presentation is different. The CD lets you hear into the recording, the vinyl sounds more impressive.

Early releases on CD tend to have a high dynamic range. This is why they sound 'flat'. The solution to this is to ramp up the volume. That does require a system that will play cleanly at high spl, this again is where those flat earth systems failed. The amps didn't have the power and were coloured and the speakers were coloured beyond belief. A speaker with a 5-10dB lift in the midband will sound aggressive if driven hard, but will sound 'engaging' at low levels.

But If you don't or can't listen at high levels then I can appreciate why those cds don't cut it for you.

[Spectral Morn]

I have a Marantz CD94 mk2 and CD7 that I like alot, played all sorts of genres on them and never felt they did some better than others.

I like how they sound, both 1541 DACs.

[Lawrence001]

It's here and it's working. Sounds fine too early to comment further. I have also got a recent pre I haven't listened to a great deal which doesn't help the comparison. Might change back to my TVC tonight.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Cool, will await your update.

[Lawrence001]

Changed to TVC, sounding pretty good now. Noticing some different things. It's not more detailed but a bit more prominent in the mid range than I'm used to. Not in a bad way. Definitely musical anyway :)

[Macca]

I am disappoint. It's supposed to be harsh and fatiguing isn't it?

You know, because of the way digital was rushed to market back in the day and all that?

Maybe you need to try some of those early issue CDs on it to get the full effect? The ones that were not done properly (although I've asked a few times for someone to clarify exactly what was not done properly and no-one ever seems to know).

I'll see if I can bring a couple of early cd players and early release cds along to the meet next month and hopefully demonstrate that everything the mags and dealers said about CD is complete and utter nonsense and simply a reflection of how little they actually know about hi-fidelity reproduction.

[anthonyTD]

I have an old Sony CDP 65 in my workshop that I listen to quite often, and its still going strong!
It was my first CD player, and it was second hand when I got it!
Not saying its the be all of what the best digital is capable of but, its listenable. :)
A...

[struth]

got a fairly old denon cd and it sounds very good. not as old as these tho

[Lawrence001]

I am disappoint. It's supposed to be harsh and fatiguing isn't it?

You know, because of the way digital was rushed to market back in the day and all that?

Maybe you need to try some of those early issue CDs on it to get the full effect? The ones that were not done properly (although I've asked a few times for someone to clarify exactly what was not done properly and no-one ever seems to know).

I'll see if I can bring a couple of early cd players and early release cds along to the meet next month and hopefully demonstrate that everything the mags and dealers said about CD is complete and utter nonsense and simply a reflection of how little they actually know about hi-fidelity reproduction.Where is the meet?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Lawrence001]

My first CD was Clannad Legend. It has emphasis ("Dolby" for CD) which I have found throws a lot of modern dacs, a lot of makers don't bother with the de-emphasis feature anymore.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[montesquieu]

I've noticed that some albums sound noticeably better in their CD release form than the vinyl LP does and that's nothing to do with the system I use. The CD is just better.

I've observed that a number of late LP Philips LP releases (the DFD-Brendel Lieder collaborations are good examples, as well as the Uchida Mozart recordings) sound better on CD than on vinyl but these are early 90s recordings so not 'early CD' by any definition ... my suspicion here is that they were mastered for CD (DDD was universal by then) and the LP was an afterthought, indeed by then perhaps the skills to master LPs properly were already thinning out. I could point to any number of early CD releases on multiple labels that are the other way round.

[Macca]

Where is the meet?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?58388-Phonostage-Bake-Off-08-07-18-Penkridge-*NOW-CONFIRMED*

[andyrlb]

The Philips cd850 is still an impressive machine , for sale too [emoji6]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180609/5517a05f589ac637c1e45886835b5da3.heic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[George47]

I'm not keen on getting into 'better' or 'worse' comparisons because that is all subjective. I've plenty of albums that I have on both vinyl and CD and the presentation is different. The CD lets you hear into the recording, the vinyl sounds more impressive.

Early releases on CD tend to have a high dynamic range. This is why they sound 'flat'. The solution to this is to ramp up the volume. That does require a system that will play cleanly at high spl, this again is where those flat earth systems failed. The amps didn't have the power and were coloured and the speakers were coloured beyond belief. A speaker with a 5-10dB lift in the midband will sound aggressive if driven hard, but will sound 'engaging' at low levels.

But If you don't or can't listen at high levels then I can appreciate why those cds don't cut it for you.
My views on early CD and CD players is based on listening experience, listening and like a few other rushing into buying CD players. The early players had crude filters and some were 14 bit because they were rushed out. Philips did all they could to get 16 bit players as soon as they could.

My observations on sound are based on a whole range of systems including a Krell 600 monoblock wtih Wilson speakers. The speakers were closers to 4 ohms than 8 ohms so the amps could generate 1000 watts per channel so there were was no shortage of power or level. And I do listen er...loud as my neighbours can testify even though we live in a detached house.

The delta sigma based players have a dynamically flat sound but that is not true of all of them. The sound of 16 bit R2R based CD players sounds more dynamic but maybe a little cruder. But music has to be about dynamics and I will put up with a slight divergence from a perfectly flat frequency response to get more lifelike dynamics.

I agree on the differences between LPs and CDs and both to me now sound good, different but good. We can now have a good choice between the sound and the 'experience' of both formats. But a similar sound between the very early (14 bit?) CD players, the multi-bit 16 bit and delta sigma players.....no.

[Jimbo]

Sorry but I had the early Phillps CDP and it was shockingly bad. Music sounded like glass bottles being broken!

[Lawrence001]

Sorry but I had the early Phillps CDP and it was shockingly bad. Music sounded like glass bottles being broken!Which model? That seems to be the view of some on the TDA1541, though it's well regarded by many.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[andyrlb]

Which model? That seems to be the view of some on the TDA1541, though it's well regarded by many.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

Philips CD850


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawrence001]

Philips CD850


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWhat Jimbo's terrible sounding one? You're not doing your sale much of a favour :)

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[andyrlb]

What Jimbo's terrible sounding one? You're not doing your sale much of a favour :)

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

According to Jimbo that , I tend to follow what the major say [emoji16]
The same goes for the Marantz KI cdp’s , there are those that say they sound terrible.
Besides it sounds good to me and certainly gives the E-sound a run for its money .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Puffin]

My first CD player was a Philips CD610 MkII that had a TDA1543 chip and sounded pretty good to me. My son used it for years until it expired. Spookily my sister asked me if I wanted her son's old CD player recently....bet you can't guess what it was?????

Must fire it up and do the nostalgia thing.

[Jimbo]

Which model? That seems to be the view of some on the TDA1541, though it's well regarded by many.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

I had the CD104 and the model after that but can't remember model number. Also had some of the early Marantz and they were not much better.

[Lawrence001]

I had the CD104 and the model after that but can't remember model number. Also had some of the early Marantz and they were not much better.What was the rest of the system at the time?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

My views on early CD and CD players is based on listening experience, listening and like a few other rushing into buying CD players. The early players had crude filters and some were 14 bit because they were rushed out. Philips did all they could to get 16 bit players as soon as they could.

My observations on sound are based on a whole range of systems including a Krell 600 monoblock wtih Wilson speakers. The speakers were closers to 4 ohms than 8 ohms so the amps could generate 1000 watts per channel so there were was no shortage of power or level. And I do listen er...loud as my neighbours can testify even though we live in a detached house.

The delta sigma based players have a dynamically flat sound but that is not true of all of them. The sound of 16 bit R2R based CD players sounds more dynamic but maybe a little cruder. But music has to be about dynamics and I will put up with a slight divergence from a perfectly flat frequency response to get more lifelike dynamics.

I agree on the differences between LPs and CDs and both to me now sound good, different but good. We can now have a good choice between the sound and the 'experience' of both formats. But a similar sound between the very early (14 bit?) CD players, the multi-bit 16 bit and delta sigma players.....no.

The 14 bit players were not rushed out. On the contrary the standard was going to be 14 bit and Sony decided to change it at a late stage to 16 bit. 14 bits gives more than adequate dynamic range for all but a few recordings, it isn't an arbiter of sound quality.

Altering the frequency response from flat won't change the dynamic range. If you are talking about 'perceived dynamics' that's different, a perception could be a result of many things.

I'm not saying that players sound the same, I have around 15 of them and they all have a different take on the music. I don't think it is possible to ascertain which aspects of the players make them sound like they do. Just because some reviewer has an opinion on that doesn't make it so. Two players could use the same chip set and sound quite different since many aspects of the design affect the presentation and the quality of the sound.


One thing I have noted (in my set up) is that regardless of the cost of the player or the quality of the engineering none of them sound aggressive, harsh or fatiguing. The budget efforts have a flatter soundstage, maybe sound a little cruder, but they don't sound unpleasant.

[Jimbo]

What was the rest of the system at the time?

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

Quad 405 then Quad 606 with a passive preamp and Spendor speakers. All chosen to tame the sound of broken glass.:)

[Macca]

Friday night I was having a bit of a session using my Technics SLP 1200 player which is one of these for those who are not familiar:

https://i.imgur.com/F1YujUK.jpg

Made in 1989, so not sure if we can count it as an 'early' player but it is pretty early in the overall scheme of things.


Was listening to ZZ Top - 'Eliminator' for no other reason than that was what I fancied listening to. I was thinking about this thread so I was wondering if perhaps I took a step back and tried to hear the badness that some are suggesting is inherent to 'early digital'. I couldn't, in fact I ended up thinking that it would probably be difficult for the sound to get any better, a change of speakers aside of course. But I did hear some things in the mix that I have never heard before, and did not hear the last time I played this album which was only about a week previously.


Why did I hear these 'details' this time> Was it because I had upgraded the system in some way? Nope, not changed a thing since the last time I had played the same album about a week ago. But because I was listening differently, trying to identify flaws, trying to hear the harshness or whatever, I noticed details I had not previously.


Now if I had tweaked some aspect of the system, was using a different player for example, I might well conclude that it was better than the previous one as I could now hear these subtle details.


All down to state of mind - human psychology.


One thing I have noted over the years is that my room is very well damped. Quite a lot of soft furnishings, thick floor to ceiling curtains, carpets with rugs on top, quite a bit of clutter, whereas I notice these days the trend is to have a minimalist room, hardwood floor with maybe one thin rug, blinds not curtains, maybe one leather chair or one 2 seater couch and absolutely no clutter of any kind.


We'd be fools not to take into consideration the environment the sound is bouncing around in. Could it be that this is the source, or at least a contributor to the different results we seem to be getting?

[andyrlb]

Friday night I was having a bit of a session using my Technics SLP 1200 player which is one of these for those who are not familiar:

https://i.imgur.com/F1YujUK.jpg

Made in 1989, so not sure if we can count it as an 'early' player but it is pretty early in the overall scheme of things.


Was listening to ZZ Top - 'Eliminator' for no other reason than that was what I fancied listening to. I was thinking about this thread so I was wondering if perhaps I took a step back and tried to hear the badness that some are suggesting is inherent to 'early digital'. I couldn't, in fact I ended up thinking that it would probably be difficult for the sound to get any better, a change of speakers aside of course. But I did hear some things in the mix that I have never heard before, and did not hear the last time I played this album which was only about a week previously.


Why did I hear these 'details' this time> Was it because I had upgraded the system in some way? Nope, not changed a thing since the last time I had played the same album about a week ago. But because I was listening differently, trying to identify flaws, trying to hear the harshness or whatever, I noticed details I had not previously.


Now if I had tweaked some aspect of the system, was using a different player for example, I might well conclude that it was better than the previous one as I could now hear these subtle details.


All down to state of mind - human psychology.


One thing I have noted over the years is that my room is very well damped. Quite a lot of soft furnishings, thick floor to ceiling curtains, carpets with rugs on top, quite a bit of clutter, whereas I notice these days the trend is to have a minimalist room, hardwood floor with maybe one thin rug, blinds not curtains, maybe one leather chair or one 2 seater couch and absolutely no clutter of any kind.


We'd be fools not to take into consideration the environment the sound is bouncing around in. Could it be that this is the source, or at least a contributor to the different results we seem to be getting?

That’s a cool bit of kit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Macca]

That’s a cool bit of kit




If you are into vintage cd players it is the one to go for. It's the third one I've owned and if it ever dies and can't be fixed I'll be getting another one :)

[Lawrence001]

If you are into vintage cd players it is the one to go for. It's the third one I've owned and if it ever dies and can't be fixed I'll be getting another one :)Ah I was going to ask you if there was a potential swap/px on the table!

Stayed up late last night glued to the chair listening to the Philips. It doesn't embarrass itself next to pretty costly gear (olive 04hd plus JS audio modded Tri Vista dac). It's also in great nick considering it's age, a couple of little hiccups at first but I found marks on the discs so it doesn't like that. Fine once cleaned off. Might also be due to long years of lack of use. Didn't like a CDR, but then it wasn't designed to play them. With the use of good cables it definitely is a step up from the 104 I sold a few years ago and missed. Output stage (or voltage rectification) gets the heatsink on the back nice and warm :) I'm sure it's bigger than the one on the 104.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

CDR is out and sometimes so are discs that are longer than the red book standard. Where they've jammed 2 albums onto one disc. The price of vintage cdp ownership ;)

[Lawrence001]

Haven't tried long discs on this one yet, in the past I've had players that either reject them, or get to 72+ minutes and you lose track selection and time display.

Had a good 2 hour session last night. Need to listen more this week before I make any bold claims which could lead to ridicule.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Need to listen more this week before I make any bold claims which could lead to ridicule.



:lol:

I agree man. A good few sessions with all sorts of music and quality of production is the way to do it. Simple and busy mixes too. If it can get through all that without disgracing itself then it's a good un.


Not saying first impressions are not important, if something falls at the first hurdle then that's it for me. I do tend to get beguiled by superficial loveliness though. Not sure if your Marantz has that 'golden glow' to the sound that some have including the 67SE I have here? At first it's pleasing, then you realise it's there on everything you play. I mean who wants to listen to a 'pleasing' Black Sabbath? No-one, that's who.

[Lawrence001]

I've been listening to this quite a bit, switching between it and my Liv Zen server playing red book via my MF Tri Vista dac (though not in the same session, I've decided not to do any direct A/B comparisons and trust to memory of overall impression). I won't therefore make any comparisons on tonality, purity of treble, timbre etc, just to say when I listen to it it reminds me of listening to music through a decent turntable, rega planar or similar level. I'm referring to bounce, drive and overall "rightness". I've been listening to albums all the way through rather than skipping, and this isn't due to the lack of a remote before anyone asks! There's a bit more midrange than I'm used to which might help, I don't think the treble is as pure, there's a slight loss of the last degree of shimmer on cymbals for example.v (Aging components won't help with this of course,a recap might take it closer.) But for overall musicality it's one of the best components I've had. Top marks to Marantz, my opinion of the 14 bit dac has certainly gone up, when well implemented anyway. I would recommend this to anyone who has a TT and wants a machine for occasional cd use but thought it took thousands to match. It won't match a top class TT but it's fun and has all the emotion of a good vinyl source. Can't vouch for other TDA1540 machines though, didn't like my CD104 as much but then that could have been due to the captive cable.

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[walpurgis]

I struggle with great 'blocks' of writing. I've read it, but some paragraphing would be good.

And yes, some old CD players can be very nice. Grab a Meridian 206 or Pioneer PD-S505 Precision and you'll see what I mean.

[Lawrence001]

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.

I haven't used this for a while now, I'm have been and will be spending the next few months ripping my CD collection, plus I've got a new little project for what there is of my spare time :) Would you still like to try it?

[Sherwood]

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.

I remember recording most of my early cd acquisitions to audio cassette because they sounded so awful when payed back on my Marantz CDP.

[Macca]

I haven't used this for a while now, I'm have been and will be spending the next few months ripping my CD collection, plus I've got a new little project for what there is of my spare time :) Would you still like to try it?

Hi Lawrence - Yes please, I would. Send me a PM at some point and we'll sort it out.

[Macca]

I remember recording most of my early cd acquisitions to audio cassette because they sounded so awful when payed back on my Marantz CDP.

I'm not saying I have heard every vintage cd player, not by a long chalk. There could well be some stinkers out there amongst the multitude. My interest these days is only in the flagship pieces of that era which I think are worth revisiting with an open mind.

[Lawrence001]

Hi Lawrence - Yes please, I would. Send me a PM at some point and we'll sort it out.Great, PM sent

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

[Macca]

Replied to.