[bassett]

Bill Riel" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...


Howard Ferstler wrote:

One problem is that it might be hard
these days to even find an affordable CD player.

Is that just a USA thing ?

Plenty here in the UK e.g.
http://www.richersounds.co.uk/produc...S&s ort=price

No, you can get affordable CD players. The lower end Denons are quite
good and don't cost much for example.

For the OP: nothing wrong with using a DVD player as a CD player in
terms of sound quality. My only annoyance with them is that usually they
are kind of slow when accessing or skipping tracks compared to CD
players.

Bill

Really, have you considered the quality of the DAC in the DVD player
compaired with the design of the DAC in a dedicated CD player.

There really is quite a differance, But if your happy with your DVD
player, I;ll just stay in my kennel. I'm just glad I don't need to put up
with a crap DVD player, for my music systems.

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.
bassett

[Eeyore]

bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

Graham

[paul packer]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:24:32 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

It draws attention. Bassett is a show pooch.

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.
bassett

No, I've never heard that. And it is possible that would change my mind.
In fact, all that I have is pretty middling stuff as far as CD players
go, but I can't say that I've noticed a difference (though maybe
something actually high end would sound better).

fwiw, I've got a Denon CD player for my 2 channel playback, a Panasonic
DVD player in the home theatre that I sometimes use for CD playback,
I've used my computer as a source and even an old Panasonic "Diskman"
type portable player. I realize none of these are in any way high end -
is there really much of a difference with CD sources?

--
Bill

[Eeyore]

Bill Riel wrote:

fwiw, I've got a Denon CD player for my 2 channel playback, a Panasonic
DVD player in the home theatre that I sometimes use for CD playback,
I've used my computer as a source and even an old Panasonic "Diskman"
type portable player. I realize none of these are in any way high end -
is there really much of a difference with CD sources?

Well...... even the cheapest CD player will be quite reasonable but there are
certainly areas where improvements can be made but mostly these are hyped up
beyond belief and largely imaginary once you've reached a certain level of
performance ( which isn't hugely expensive ).

Graham

[bassett]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Bill Riel wrote:

fwiw, I've got a Denon CD player for my 2 channel playback, a Panasonic
DVD player in the home theatre that I sometimes use for CD playback,
I've used my computer as a source and even an old Panasonic "Diskman"
type portable player. I realize none of these are in any way high end -
is there really much of a difference with CD sources?

Well...... even the cheapest CD player will be quite reasonable but there
are
certainly areas where improvements can be made but mostly these are hyped
up
beyond belief and largely imaginary once you've reached a certain level of
performance ( which isn't hugely expensive ).

Graham


What your paying for is the quality in the DAC [digital analogue
converter]
Most decent Hi Fi shops, will allow you to audition, there stuff using
your own CD's . Just go in and show some interest in there products, after
all everyone going into the shop is a potential customer. Then you can
judge for yourself, and see why it does sound better.
bassett

[[email protected]]

bassett wrote:
Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.

It seems like the best option would be to get a great separate DAC so
that you can use it for any digital source, not just CD's. I'm looking
into building one from a kit or plans.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

bassett wrote:

There really is quite a differance, But if your happy with your DVD
player, I;ll just stay in my kennel. I'm just glad I don't need to put up
with a crap DVD player, for my music systems.

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.

The Musical FIdelity pieces I have heard have convinced me their name
is a misnomer. They also have the habit of using obsolete parts which
they have cornered the market on so as to pork you in the butt when
replacements are needed.

LOL

Many DVD players have reasonable DACs. There is no evidence that many
expensive CD-only ones use better, nor that any CD or universal player
works as well as relatively modest priced DAC units at any price point.

You are correct, sir.

What does the most expensive DAC chipset out there cost, anyway?

$40 maybe?

But I hate the way DVD players FF and lack basic controls!

I just don't get why "decent" DVD players are now $100, and they want
$300 for a CD player! And, no, the DAC ain't no better, or at least
not THAT much better.

Seems like there would be a LARGE market for decent-quality,
inexpensive, old-fashioned CD PLAYERS.

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

bassett wrote:
Bill Riel" wrote in message
says...
Howard Ferstler wrote:

One problem is that it might be hard
these days to even find an affordable CD player.

Is that just a USA thing ?

Plenty here in the UK e.g.
http://www.richersounds.co.uk/produc...S&s ort=price

No, you can get affordable CD players. The lower end Denons are quite
good and don't cost much for example.

For the OP: nothing wrong with using a DVD player as a CD player in
terms of sound quality. My only annoyance with them is that usually they
are kind of slow when accessing or skipping tracks compared to CD
players.

Bill

Really, have you considered the quality of the DAC in the DVD player
compaired with the design of the DAC in a dedicated CD player.

There really is quite a differance, But if your happy with your DVD
player, I;ll just stay in my kennel. I'm just glad I don't need to put up
with a crap DVD player, for my music systems.

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might change
your opinion.

The Musical FIdelity pieces I have heard have convinced me their name
is a misnomer. They also have the habit of using obsolete parts which
they have cornered the market on so as to pork you in the butt when
replacements are needed.

Many DVD players have reasonable DACs. There is no evidence that many
expensive CD-only ones use better, nor that any CD or universal player
works as well as relatively modest priced DAC units at any price point.

What does the most expensive DAC chipset out there cost, anyway?

How esoteric do you want to be ?

There's a number of very competent stereo DACs for around $2.50 in manufacturing quantitites. I've
been using Wavefront's.
http://www.wavefrontsemi.com/index.php?id=11,12,0,0,1,0
Hmmmm..... down to $1.95 now !

The real cheapo DVD and CD players may be using an 'integrated' DAC though in part of 'another
chip' and these will definitely be inferior.

AKM don't seem to have pricing on their site. This seems to be their top one.
http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/...94/ak4394.html

No luck on pricing with Cirrus either
http://www.cirrus.com/en/products/pro/detail/P1023.html

$9.95 for TI's ( Burr Brown ) best
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder.../pcm1792a.html

Graham

[Eeyore]

dizzy wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

What does the most expensive DAC chipset out there cost, anyway?

$40 maybe?

$9.95 it turns out to be unless you have a thing aginst Burr-Brown 192kHz 24-bit
converters with ~130dB snr !


But I hate the way DVD players FF and lack basic controls!

Me too.


I just don't get why "decent" DVD players are now $100, and they want
$300 for a CD player! And, no, the DAC ain't no better, or at least
not THAT much better.

Seems like there would be a LARGE market for decent-quality,
inexpensive, old-fashioned CD PLAYERS.

Probably not large enough to justify. I went round a Chinese factory ( Oritron )
where they churn out 5 shipping containers of DVD players daily.

Hang on to your old CD player if only for use as a transport.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical
Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might
change
your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

**Bassett likes to draw attention to his command and use of the English
language. He is one of Australia's finest intellectuals.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

I just don't get why "decent" DVD players are now $100, and they want
$300 for a CD player! And, no, the DAC ain't no better, or at least
not THAT much better.

Seems like there would be a LARGE market for decent-quality,
inexpensive, old-fashioned CD PLAYERS.

Probably not large enough to justify. I went round a Chinese factory ( Oritron )
where they churn out 5 shipping containers of DVD players daily.

The products people are buying have changed. Most people are buying
some kind of HT system and get CD playing ability as part of that.
There also seems to be a reasonable market for portable CD players.
The rest of it is probably taken care of by personal computers, and
much of that is simply ripping a CD to use with an iPod.

Hang on to your old CD player if only for use as a transport.

A lot of reasonably-priced DVD players serve well as a transport too.

Don't they all have this really slow response time though ? I'm unclear why that
should be though.

Graham

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

A lot of reasonably-priced DVD players serve well as a transport too.

Don't they all have this really slow response time though ? I'm unclear why that
should be though.

Most, if not all. I think it's because the transport design is
significantly different. What with DVD drives obviously dominating in
volume, I'm not even sure if modern CD players don't just use DVD
drives.

Anyone here own a newish CD player? How's the FF performance? Does
it flitter-along nicely, or hop skip and burp like DVD player?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:03:37 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical
Fidelity,
considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It really might
change
your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

**Bassett likes to draw attention to his command and use of the English
language. He is one of Australia's finest intellectuals.

Unfortunately that's true.

Which is why I weep for my country.

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:03:37 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical
Fidelity, considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It
really
might change your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

**Bassett likes to draw attention to his command and use of the English
language. He is one of Australia's finest intellectuals.

Unfortunately that's true.

Which is why I weep for my country.

Never mind Paul. You can help make up for him. God knows what you do about
Philly though !

Incidentally, to get back on topic.......

What can actually be seriously different about any 2 CD players apart from
the DACs involved ( assuming a modicum of competent design in the related
parts ) ?


Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:56:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

I just don't get why "decent" DVD players are now $100, and they want
$300 for a CD player! And, no, the DAC ain't no better, or at least
not THAT much better.

Seems like there would be a LARGE market for decent-quality,
inexpensive, old-fashioned CD PLAYERS.

Probably not large enough to justify. I went round a Chinese factory (
Oritron )
where they churn out 5 shipping containers of DVD players daily.

The products people are buying have changed. Most people are buying
some kind of HT system and get CD playing ability as part of that.
There also seems to be a reasonable market for portable CD players.
The rest of it is probably taken care of by personal computers, and
much of that is simply ripping a CD to use with an iPod.

Hang on to your old CD player if only for use as a transport.

A lot of reasonably-priced DVD players serve well as a transport too.

Don't they all have this really slow response time though ? I'm unclear
why that
should be though.

I've noticed response time problems mostly when loading the disc. This is no
doubt due to the many options that the player has to test for while
identifying the disc.

There is one ready source of CD-only players that remains on the market -
portables.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:05:24 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


**Bassett likes to draw attention to his command and use of the English
language. He is one of Australia's finest intellectuals.

Unfortunately that's true.

Which is why I weep for my country.

Never mind Paul. You can help make up for him. God knows what you do about
Philly though !

Incidentally, to get back on topic.......

What can actually be seriously different about any 2 CD players apart from
the DACs involved ( assuming a modicum of competent design in the related
parts ) ?


To be honest I've never detected any appreciable difference between CD
players, but then I've only ever heard budget players. There's a much
greater difference between amps, but I'm prepared to concede, and have
written on RAO, that I don't believe those differences would be of any
importance to, or even detectable by, 99.9% of the population. They're
still real though, and important to some of us.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


paul packer wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:03:37 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
bassett wrote:

Have you heard the performance of the A5 CD player from Musical
Fidelity, considered by some to be the best CD Player ever, It
really
might change your opinion.

Was there a reason to make this a brand new thread ?

**Bassett likes to draw attention to his command and use of the English
language. He is one of Australia's finest intellectuals.

Unfortunately that's true.

Which is why I weep for my country.

Never mind Paul. You can help make up for him. God knows what you do about
Philly though !

Incidentally, to get back on topic.......

What can actually be seriously different about any 2 CD players apart from
the DACs involved ( assuming a modicum of competent design in the related
parts ) ?

**Quite a bit, but Bassett is wrong (no surprise there) about the DAC being
the major part of the problem. I've worked on quite a number of cheap DVD
players and have been surprised about the poor quality analogue ICs used in
the output stages. Most use 4558 class chips. These date back to the late
1970s and are not even as good as the chips used in the first generation CD
players. Early CD players almost universally used LM833/5532 class chips
(which are still quite respectable today). The other major problem I've
found with cheap DVD players is their use of transistor muting, in stead of
relay muting. If relays are substituted and output chips replaced with
something more modern (I rather like the AD825), the sound improvement is
quite substantial. Unfortunately, it is difficult to persuade people to part
with nearly 10 times the original price of the DVD player for an upgrade. In
any case, most DVD players are used with HT receivers, which renders such
mods a moot issue.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

**Quite a bit, but Bassett is wrong (no surprise there) about the DAC
being the major part of the problem. I've worked on quite a number of
cheap DVD players and have been surprised about the poor quality analogue
ICs used in the output stages. Most use 4558 class chips. These date back
to the late 1970s and are not even as good as the chips used in the first
generation CD players. Early CD players almost universally used LM833/5532
class chips (which are still quite respectable today). The other major
problem I've found with cheap DVD players is their use of transistor
muting, in stead of relay muting. If relays are substituted and output
chips replaced with something more modern (I rather like the AD825), the
sound improvement is quite substantial. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
persuade people to part with nearly 10 times the original price of the DVD
player for an upgrade. In any case, most DVD players are used with HT
receivers, which renders such mods a moot issue.

Trevor is being quite paranoid on both counts. The sonic and measured
performance of low-cost DVD players with the design features that Trevor
decries is actually quite good.

For example, the 5532 chip is a wonderful chip, but is not required for
equipment that drives consumer impedances (10K and up) with relatively low
voltages (always less than 2.5 vrms). The muting transistors have been long
used in all kinds of equipment with good results at these signal and
impedance levels.

The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear that
is highly regarded.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear that
is highly regarded.

No it *isn't* Arny. At least not in any respectable kit.

The 4558 ( originally Raytheon's 1558 ) is no more than a dual '741 class'
op-amp.

The only 'pro' gear I've normally seen it in is low-end budget Asian kit.
Notably DJ gear.

Even the modest change to the 4560 provides very real benefits.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear
that
is highly regarded.

No it *isn't* Arny. At least not in any respectable kit.

I guess you'd be amazed where I've found them.

The 4558 ( originally Raytheon's 1558 ) is no more than a dual '741 class'
op-amp.

That was the 558.

The NJM 4558 that is currently used is a far different chip. It does things
that the orgional 4558 could never do, like swing +/- 12 volts at 30 KHz.

The only pro gear I've normally seen it in is low-end budget Asian kit.
Notably DJ gear.

It shows up in more highly-regarded places.

Even the modest change to the 4560 provides very real benefits.

A better device for many apps, true.

However, DVD players with 4558 line drivers don't seem to have any technical
or audible failings because of them.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear
that is highly regarded.

No it *isn't* Arny. At least not in any respectable kit.

I guess you'd be amazed where I've found them.

Perhaps not entirely. I did hear that Otari used a load. Standard mod is to bin
the lot of them.


The 4558 ( originally Raytheon's 1558 ) is no more than a dual '741 class'
op-amp.

That was the 558.

Now you're making things up ! Here's the original Raytheon 1458/4558

http://www.datasheets.org.uk/search....458&sType=part
http://www.datasheets.org.uk/specshe...?part=RC1458DE

And here's JRC's current 4558.

" The NJM4558/4559 integrated circuit is a dual high-gain
operational amplifier internally compensated and constructed on a
single silicon chip using an advanced epitaxial process.
Combining the features of the NJM741
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

with the close
parameter matching and tracking of a dual device on a monolithic
chip results in unique performance characteristics "

http://semicon.njr.co.jp/njr/hp/file...o?_mediaId=148


The NJM 4558 that is currently used is a far different chip. It does things
that the orgional 4558 could never do, like swing +/- 12 volts at 30 KHz.

Do tell how it does that with a slew rate of 1V/us please !


The only pro gear I've normally seen it in is low-end budget Asian kit.
Notably DJ gear.

It shows up in more highly-regarded places.

Such as ?


Even the modest change to the 4560 provides very real benefits.

A better device for many apps, true.

However, DVD players with 4558 line drivers don't seem to have any technical
or audible failings because of them.

I'm rather less convinced than you about that.

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear that
is highly regarded.


Heheh.
In guitar amplifier circles, it is highly sought after because of its
specific distortion characteristics.

In that sense, you're "right" again, Arny.
MI amps *are* pro gear, after all ;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

**Quite a bit, but Bassett is wrong (no surprise there) about the DAC
being the major part of the problem. I've worked on quite a number of
cheap DVD players and have been surprised about the poor quality analogue
ICs used in the output stages. Most use 4558 class chips. These date back
to the late 1970s and are not even as good as the chips used in the first
generation CD players. Early CD players almost universally used
LM833/5532 class chips (which are still quite respectable today). The
other major problem I've found with cheap DVD players is their use of
transistor muting, in stead of relay muting. If relays are substituted
and output chips replaced with something more modern (I rather like the
AD825), the sound improvement is quite substantial. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to persuade people to part with nearly 10 times the original
price of the DVD player for an upgrade. In any case, most DVD players are
used with HT receivers, which renders such mods a moot issue.

Trevor is being quite paranoid on both counts. The sonic and measured
performance of low-cost DVD players with the design features that Trevor
decries is actually quite good.

**It would seem so. It is a pity that they sound like crap.


For example, the 5532 chip is a wonderful chip, but is not required for
equipment that drives consumer impedances (10K and up) with relatively low
voltages (always less than 2.5 vrms). The muting transistors have been
long used in all kinds of equipment with good results at these signal and
impedance levels.

**Indeed they have. However, decent equipment always use relay muting.
Transistor muting seems to introduce audible problems that (cheap) relays do
not. Don't forget: We're only talking about $3.00 relays here.


The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear that
is highly regarded.

**No, it is not. It was so highly regarded, why did Philips choose the 5532
and Sony the LM833 for their first generation CD players? After all, the
4558 was MUCH cheaper back in 1983. Any ideas?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

**No, it is not. It was so highly regarded, why did Philips choose the
5532 and Sony the LM833 for their first generation CD players? After all,
the 4558 was MUCH cheaper back in 1983. Any ideas?

I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype and
tremendously overbuilt. Most engineers that have looked at it and how it was
built, speculate that Sony lost big bucks on every one they sold. Sony moved
away from a lot of its design features as quickly as they could.

[Eeyore]

Sander deWaal wrote:

Eeyore said:

However, DVD players with 4558 line drivers don't seem to have any technical
or audible failings because of them.

I'm rather less convinced than you about that.

Never mind, Graham, you and I and Trevor Wilson are gainfully (self)
employed in the audio field, Arny isn't, but he's just *right* because
he's Arny.

Stievie Wonder anticipated his Usenet appearance with his song "He's
Misstra Know-It-All". You can find it on the "Innervisions" album.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Eerily so !

He really needs to learn when to stfu !

Graham

[Sander deWaal]

Eeyore said:


However, DVD players with 4558 line drivers don't seem to have any technical
or audible failings because of them.


I'm rather less convinced than you about that.


Never mind, Graham, you and I and Trevor Wilson are gainfully (self)
employed in the audio field, Arny isn't, but he's just *right* because
he's Arny.

Stievie Wonder anticipated his Usenet appearance with his song "He's
Misstra Know-It-All". You can find it on the "Innervisions" album.


Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[George M. Middius]

Is this a crack in Poopie's wall of Kroopologism?

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Eerily so !
He really needs to learn when to stfu !

Good grief, Poopie. There may be hope for you yet.

(Cue chorus of "cram it" and "sockpuppet" from Poopie and Ribbetborg...)




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

**No, it is not. It was so highly regarded, why did Philips choose the
5532 and Sony the LM833 for their first generation CD players? After all,
the 4558 was MUCH cheaper back in 1983. Any ideas?

I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype and
tremendously overbuilt. Most engineers that have looked at it and how it
was built, speculate that Sony lost big bucks on every one they sold. Sony
moved away from a lot of its design features as quickly as they could.

**Except the use of LM833 output chips. Curious, huh?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[dizzy]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:07:41 GMT, dizzy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

A lot of reasonably-priced DVD players serve well as a transport too.

Don't they all have this really slow response time though ? I'm unclear why that
should be though.

Most, if not all. I think it's because the transport design is
significantly different. What with DVD drives obviously dominating in
volume, I'm not even sure if modern CD players don't just use DVD
drives.

Anyone here own a newish CD player? How's the FF performance? Does
it flitter-along nicely, or hop skip and burp like DVD player?

Ah, ok. I can't really say since I'm not sure if I've ever really FF
with the new player.

Well, try it and report back, man!

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype...

Not really. I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982. The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the
front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype...

John attacks:


Not really.


I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.

And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps from
lab prototype to the CDP 101.

The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic....y-cdp-101.html

"On October 1, 1982 Sony introduced the CDP-101"

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the DAC
operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because it was only an
8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then scaled itself by 256
and converted the other half of the data word.

This shows up on the schematic in the service manual - which it appears that
John never really understood.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype...

John attacks:


Not really.


I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.

And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps
from lab prototype to the CDP 101.

The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic....y-cdp-101.html

"On October 1, 1982 Sony introduced the CDP-101"

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the DAC
operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because it was only
an 8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then scaled itself by
256 and converted the other half of the data word.

This shows up on the schematic in the service manual - which it appears
that John never really understood.

One unsubstantiated conclusion, Arny.

Unlike you, John doesn't still have/use the machine, along with the
technical manual. Memory over 23 years is not perfect...neither his nor
yours.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab
prototype...

John attacks:


Not really.


I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.

And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps
from lab prototype to the CDP 101.

The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic....y-cdp-101.html

"On October 1, 1982 Sony introduced the CDP-101"

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the DAC
operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because it was only
an 8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then scaled itself
by 256 and converted the other half of the data word.

This shows up on the schematic in the service manual - which it appears
that John never really understood.

One unsubstantiated conclusion, Arny.

Harry I guess you don't know what "it appears" means in English. Hint: it
means that no firm conclsion is made at this time.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


Arny Krueger wrote:

I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype...


John attacks:


Not really.

I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.


And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps from
lab prototype to the CDP 101.


The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.


The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic....y-cdp-101.html

"On October 1, 1982 Sony introduced the CDP-101"


The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.


John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the DAC
operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because it was only an
8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then scaled itself by 256
and converted the other half of the data word.

This shows up on the schematic in the service manual - which it appears that
John never really understood.


Why are you so preoccupied with obsolete technology and gear, Arny?
Who in God's name still uses 1982 CD players, let alone discuss their
properties? ;-)

CDs are soooooooooo 20th century! LOL!

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

The 4558 that Trevor decries is even widely used in professional gear
that is highly regarded.

No it *isn't* Arny. At least not in any respectable kit.

I guess you'd be amazed where I've found them.

Perhaps not entirely. I did hear that Otari used a load. Standard mod is
to bin
the lot of them.

Otari is pro audio gear that runs at pro audio signal levels and impedances.
IOW, not a consumer DVD player running at consumer levels and impedances.

The 4558 ( originally Raytheon's 1558 ) is no more than a dual '741
class'
op-amp.

That was the 558.

Now you're making things up ! Here's the original Raytheon 1458/4558

http://www.datasheets.org.uk/search....458&sType=part
http://www.datasheets.org.uk/specshe...?part=RC1458DE

The fact that Raytheon had that part does not disprove the existance of the
part I mentioned. I know about both parts, thank you.

And here's JRC's current 4558.

" The NJM4558/4559 integrated circuit is a dual high-gain
operational amplifier internally compensated and constructed on a
single silicon chip using an advanced epitaxial process.
Combining the features of the NJM741
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whatever that means. Its a vague statement.

with the close
parameter matching and tracking of a dual device on a monolithic
chip results in unique performance characteristics "

http://semicon.njr.co.jp/njr/hp/file...o?_mediaId=148


Been there done that, thank you very much.


The NJM 4558 that is currently used is a far different chip. It does
things
that the orgional 4558 could never do, like swing +/- 12 volts at 30
KHz.

Do tell how it does that with a slew rate of 1V/us please !

Look at page 3 of the PDF you cited, upper right hand corner. Then ask the
same question of NJM. It's their document.

The only pro gear I've normally seen it in is low-end budget Asian kit.
Notably DJ gear.

It shows up in more highly-regarded places.

Such as ?

Stephen's NHTPro studio monitor speakers, which he seems to be very happy
with. All of the EQ is in the signal path, no matter what settings are
chosen. Seen 'em in some Rane gear as well. Just can't remember which.

Even the modest change to the 4560 provides very real benefits.

A better device for many apps, true.

However, DVD players with 4558 line drivers don't seem to have any
technical
or audible failings because of them.

I'm rather less convinced than you about that.

You say you have AP test gear - check out your typical $39.95 DVD player.

Needless to say, I've done my homework in this regard. I'm no fan of
NTM4558s but when they cause no discernable harm, well they are what they
are.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...

Why are you so preoccupied with obsolete technology and gear, Arny?

Hmm, me? Well, its true that I have quite a bit of experience with tubed
gear, from the day of.

Who in God's name still uses 1982 CD players, let alone discuss their
properties? ;-)

By chance I stumbled into one about 2 years ago, and was surprized by how
well it worked. Then there is the one I tested at

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/index.htm .

Frequency response is a tad rough and rolled-off above 8K, but not bad for
analog filters.

CDs are soooooooooo 20th century! LOL!

I didn't know that you were so preccupied with avoiding obsolete technology,
Sander. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
.. .

Why are you so preoccupied with obsolete technology and gear, Arny?

Hmm, me? Well, its true that I have quite a bit of experience with tubed
gear, from the day of.

Who in God's name still uses 1982 CD players, let alone discuss their
properties? ;-)

By chance I stumbled into one about 2 years ago, and was surprized by how
well it worked. Then there is the one I tested at

http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/index.htm .

Frequency response is a tad rough and rolled-off above 8K, but not bad for
analog filters.

CDs are soooooooooo 20th century! LOL!

I didn't know that you were so preccupied with avoiding obsolete technology,
Sander. ;-)


Kudos, Arny!

One of the very first times in 10-odd years of being on Usenet that
you really made me laugh out loud, not about you, but about what you
said! :-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab
prototype...

John attacks:


Not really.


I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.

And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps
from lab prototype to the CDP 101.

The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

http://kobnet.net/misc/www.cedmagic....y-cdp-101.html

"On October 1, 1982 Sony introduced the CDP-101"

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the DAC
operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because it was
only an 8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then scaled
itself by 256 and converted the other half of the data word.

This shows up on the schematic in the service manual - which it appears
that John never really understood.

One unsubstantiated conclusion, Arny.

Harry I guess you don't know what "it appears" means in English. Hint: it
means that no firm conclsion is made at this time.


It "appears" .... no wait, it is certain, that you are blathering with
debating trade tactics again, M'Lord.

[John Atkinson]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
I know that the CDP 101 was about one step past being a lab prototype...

John attacks:

Hardly an attack. More like a gentle correction, I would have thought.


I remember 2 previous generations of Sony players that were
used as technology demonstrators prior to the Japanese launch of CD in
the fall of 1982.

And then John agrees that there were only a very small number of steps
from lab prototype to the CDP 101.

Not at all. Two years of development elapsed between the first dem of
a Sony CD player I witnessed before the Japanese launch of the
CDP-101 in October 1982.

The most recent mounted the disc vertically on the front
panel and was being shown at the 1982 Summer CES in Chicago.

The CDP 101 was first seen in public that fall.

That's correct. I checked my published report on the
vertical-disc-format
prototype. It was shown at the 1981 CES, not 1982. My apologies for
the error.

The CDP-101 was very much a production machine, but suffered from
operating at 1xFs and using analog reconstruction filters and a
time-shared singe-channel DAC. Those were the features that were
replaced in subsequent Sony designs.

John contradicts himself because using a shared DAC means that the
DAC operatesat 2FS. However, it actually operated at 4FS because
it was only an 8 bit DAC. It converted half of the data word and then
scaled itself by 256 and converted the other half of the data word.

Interesting. I didn't remember that detail, only that it was shared
between the channels. I meant by "1Fs", of course, that the audio
data were not oversampled by a digital filter, ie, the first images of
the audioband signal appeared at 44.1kHz +/-22.05kHz. The first
true oversampling player to come from Japan was the Yamaha,
which oversampled the audio data to 2Fs (88.2kHz) and appeared,
if I remember correctly, in early 1984.

Unlike you, John doesn't still have/use the machine, along with the
technical manual. Memory over 23 years is not perfect...neither his
nor yours.

Too true. Of course, I tend to forget that Mr. Krueger is always
*right* :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile