+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Early Philips and Marantz CDPs

  1. #21
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  2. #22
    Join Date: Feb 2010

    Location: Berkshire, UK

    Posts: 3,250
    I'm Tom.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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).
    Main: Speakers 'RFC' Tannoy Canterburys / custom crossovers with Tannoy ST25 supertweeters; Amp - Radford STA100; Pre EAR 912; Vinyl: Thorens TD124 MkII + Ikeda IT345-CR1 9 inch and Ikeda IT-407 12 inch tonearms; Cartridges Stereo - Miyajima Madake, Miyajima Takumi, Ikeda 9TT, SAEC/Excel C3; Mono - Miyajimas - Zero 0.7, Premium 1.0, Edison '78' 4.0 conical, and Shure M44 strapped for mono with several Expert Stylus conicals for different eras of 78s; Phono stage and SUT from EAR 912 + Miyajima ETR-Mono SUT; Esoteric Sound Re-Equalizer for equalisation of early mono and 78, switchable in from tape loop; Digital: Audio Note CDT2/II transport, heavily modded AN Kit DAC + Mutec MC3+USB.

    Study: Speakers - Tannoy DC6; Amp: Pass Aleph 'Mini'; tube preamp - Gate Audio tube; Vinyl: Garrard 401 with AT1503 Mk I tonearm and vintage Ortofon SL-15e with matching Ortofon 2-15k SUT; Phono Stage from Gate Audio preamp; Digital - Trichord Genesis III CDP + Arcam rBlink.

  3. #23
    Join Date: Mar 2016

    Location: Barnet, london UK

    Posts: 1,055
    I'm Adam.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.
    "lack of passion is fatal"

    Vinyl: Garrard 401, Russ Collinson 'shindo style' plinth / Tenuto gun metal mat / SME-3012 j7 rewired / audio-technica ATP-12T - phonomac modified / Ortofon Vintage SPU GTE /Shure M3D / Ortofon Royal N / Cartridge Man Music Master with isolator / Miyajima Zero B 0.7mil mono / Vintage GE VRII mono / Amps: Radford STA25 mk3 / David Coe AD Audio 'Satchmo' pre & phono / Hashimoto HM-7 SUT / Digital: SW1X Audio Design DAC 1 signature / Roon / Tidal Speakers: Tannoy 12" MGs' in RFC custom 'Rutland' Cabinets with RFC custom crossovers / Cables: Duelund DCA16GA tinned copper / Kimber 12TC / SW1X Audio Design USB-SPdif / Duelund DCA20GA interconnects / SW1X Audio SPDIF Aero 6 / Mains Power Conditioner / Box Furniture sapele rack

  4. #24
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by montesquieu View Post
    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  5. #25
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WESTLOWER View Post
    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?
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  6. #26
    Join Date: Mar 2011

    Location: Readimg

    Posts: 89
    I'm George.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George47 View Post
    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

  8. #28
    Join Date: Mar 2016

    Location: Barnet, london UK

    Posts: 1,055
    I'm Adam.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    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.
    "lack of passion is fatal"

    Vinyl: Garrard 401, Russ Collinson 'shindo style' plinth / Tenuto gun metal mat / SME-3012 j7 rewired / audio-technica ATP-12T - phonomac modified / Ortofon Vintage SPU GTE /Shure M3D / Ortofon Royal N / Cartridge Man Music Master with isolator / Miyajima Zero B 0.7mil mono / Vintage GE VRII mono / Amps: Radford STA25 mk3 / David Coe AD Audio 'Satchmo' pre & phono / Hashimoto HM-7 SUT / Digital: SW1X Audio Design DAC 1 signature / Roon / Tidal Speakers: Tannoy 12" MGs' in RFC custom 'Rutland' Cabinets with RFC custom crossovers / Cables: Duelund DCA16GA tinned copper / Kimber 12TC / SW1X Audio Design USB-SPdif / Duelund DCA20GA interconnects / SW1X Audio SPDIF Aero 6 / Mains Power Conditioner / Box Furniture sapele rack

  9. #29
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: Southall, West London

    Posts: 36,847
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    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.

  10. #30
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 21,983
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    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.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Technics SLP1200 CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *


    'This is the sort of music I'd be listening to if I was going shopping for a training bra.'

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •