| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Early CD player sound.
Have read here and elsewhere that early CD players weren't
transparent. The usual reason given is they used complex analog filtering at the output which resulted in audible artifacts. Later players lacked these complex high order filters and are considered transparent to the source. My question is in the normal specifications, early CD players tested out with extremely low distortion, flat frequency response etc. etc. In short the specs look pretty much identical to those of current CD players. So what part of what kind of technical testing would reveal the audible deficiencies of those first generation players? Dennis |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Dennis Moore" wrote in message
... My question is in the normal specifications, early CD players tested out with extremely low distortion, flat frequency response etc. etc. In short the specs look pretty much identical to those of current CD players. So what part of what kind of technical testing would reveal the audible deficiencies of those first generation players? Many of the early players did not have true 16 bit converters so the dynamic range would be less than 96 (or 93) db. Also, many of the early players had high frequency artifacts caused by their analog or digital filtering, so the actual distortion at high frequencies was higher than their spec would indicate. These two flaws would be easy to detect. With a test disc using signals designed to highlight these kinds of problems, it would not take "golden ears" to hear these deficiencies. Keep in mind that the specs on most consumer audio gear are nearly worthless because of the way they are measured and reported. Providing a single number for "distortion" or "frequency response" simply doesn't tell the whole story. People often talk about gear with "good specs" that sounds bad. However, usually this is a case of the "good specs" being incomplete or improperly measured. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/
The above is a set of basic tests done by Arny. What in these measurements would indicate that the very first Sony wasn't a transparent source? What other tests would do so? Dennis |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
His graphs don't show the phase cq impulse response of the player which
could indicate if the brickwall filter is analog or digital (the shaky frequency response could point either towards an analog chebychev or a short digital filter. In the former case, the phase response would be rather abysmal. However, CD players were equipped with oversampling quite soon. The most interesting measurement is THD at -60dB. As you can see the player produces a plethora of harmonics. This is indicative of linearity errors (dnl) in the DAC transfer function, which is in the same league as crossover and quantisation distortion in that it doesn't decrease with signal level, but increases (that is- it stays roughly constant, but it becomes more significant as the fundamental drops). You might think -100dB isn't so bad, but compared to the -60dB of the signal that is a whopping 1% of distortion with a very rich harmonic content. This can be heard directly in quiet passages (hence some people's deep-rooted fears of low-level digital signals) and at full modulation it shows up as a muddy stereo image with deficient dynamics. Modern DACs don't have that problem (real multibit devices still do to some extent but it's well under control now). Having said that, some of the old DAC chips, like the TDA1541A (1985) have held their own in many ways until recently. The matching upsampling filter, the SAA7220 wasn't so bright though - it was not dithered. These are the main issues limiting the sonic performance of early digital. Cheers, Bruno "Dennis Moore" wrote in message ... http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/Sony_CDP-101/ The above is a set of basic tests done by Arny. What in these measurements would indicate that the very first Sony wasn't a transparent source? What other tests would do so? Dennis |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Bruno Putzeys wrote:
His graphs don't show the phase cq impulse response of the player which could indicate if the brickwall filter is analog or digital (the shaky frequency response could point either towards an analog chebychev or a short digital filter. In the former case, the phase response would be rather abysmal. However, CD players were equipped with oversampling quite soon. The most interesting measurement is THD at -60dB. As you can see the player produces a plethora of harmonics. This is indicative of linearity errors (dnl) in the DAC transfer function, which is in the same league as crossover and quantisation distortion in that it doesn't decrease with signal level, but increases (that is- it stays roughly constant, but it becomes more significant as the fundamental drops). You might think -100dB isn't so bad, but compared to the -60dB of the signal that is a whopping 1% of distortion with a very rich harmonic content. This can be heard directly in quiet passages (hence some people's deep-rooted fears of low-level digital signals) and at full modulation it shows up as a muddy stereo image with deficient dynamics. Modern DACs don't have that problem (real multibit devices still do to some extent but it's well under control now). How would an LP/cartridge/tonearm/turntable system from the same era compare, as regards these measurements? -- -S. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Bruno Putzeys wrote:
The most interesting measurement is THD at -60dB. As you can see the player produces a plethora of harmonics. This is indicative of linearity errors (dnl) in the DAC transfer function, which is in the same league as crossover and quantisation distortion in that it doesn't decrease with signal level, but increases (that is- it stays roughly constant, but it becomes more significant as the fundamental drops). You might think -100dB isn't so bad, but compared to the -60dB of the signal that is a whopping 1% of distortion with a very rich harmonic content. This can be heard directly in quiet passages (hence some people's deep-rooted fears of low-level digital signals) and at full modulation it shows up as a muddy stereo image with deficient dynamics. Modern DACs don't have that problem (real multibit devices still do to some extent but it's well under control now). Steven Sullivan wrote: How would an LP/cartridge/tonearm/turntable system from the same era compare, as regards these measurements? No doubt a turntable system would measure worse in almost any parameter than even an early CD player, except perhaps with jitter or quantisation distortion. As you know, all distortion is not created equal. With the turntable you will hear more noise - stylus 'rush', pops and clicks, etc. - that is confined to the background, similar to the fan noise mentioned, which you can ignore. With the CD player, most of the distortion rides the music signal and becimes part of it. Even the slightest effect of a brick wall filter will impact the high frequencies and reduce the listener's enjoyment of the music. The CD distortion may measure less but it is much harder to ignore and interferes more with the music itself. Regards, Mike |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Mkuller wrote:
Bruno Putzeys wrote: The most interesting measurement is THD at -60dB. As you can see the player produces a plethora of harmonics. This is indicative of linearity errors (dnl) in the DAC transfer function, which is in the same league as crossover and quantisation distortion in that it doesn't decrease with signal level, but increases (that is- it stays roughly constant, but it becomes more significant as the fundamental drops). You might think -100dB isn't so bad, but compared to the -60dB of the signal that is a whopping 1% of distortion with a very rich harmonic content. This can be heard directly in quiet passages (hence some people's deep-rooted fears of low-level digital signals) and at full modulation it shows up as a muddy stereo image with deficient dynamics. Modern DACs don't have that problem (real multibit devices still do to some extent but it's well under control now). Steven Sullivan wrote: How would an LP/cartridge/tonearm/turntable system from the same era compare, as regards these measurements? No doubt a turntable system would measure worse in almost any parameter than even an early CD player, except perhaps with jitter or quantisation distortion. As you know, all distortion is not created equal. That's why I'm asking about these *specific* measurements. If you were to quantitate the *same* types of distortion mentioned in the above post, in a turntable system of that era, how would the results compare with the CD player? -- -S. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
... Have read here and elsewhere that early CD players weren't transparent. The usual reason given is they used complex analog filtering at the output which resulted in audible artifacts. Later players lacked these complex high order filters and are considered transparent to the source. My question is in the normal specifications, early CD players tested out with extremely low distortion, flat frequency response etc. etc. In short the specs look pretty much identical to those of current CD players. So what part of what kind of technical testing would reveal the audible deficiencies of those first generation players? Dennis My recollection is that many early CD players had DACS with fairly poor differential linearity, extremely bad distortion for small signals. They sounded very good in loud passages, but were very harsh at low levels. Better DACs, dither, oversampling and better filters have eliminated this particular problem. Another recollection is that the early single bit DACs were usually better than the standard ones. A means of testing was measurement of distortion as a function of signal amplitude. I have no test data from those early days, but recall that low level distortion was reported if it was good, ignored if not. Dave |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Michael R. Clements" wrote: Also, many of the early players had high frequency artifacts caused by their analog or digital filtering, so the actual distortion at high frequencies was higher than their spec would indicate. These two flaws would be easy to detect. With a test disc using signals designed to highlight these kinds of problems, it would not take "golden ears" to hear these deficiencies. Any examples? Sure. How about the Burr Brown PCM1710? This chip has great specs (for its time) but puts out HF noise that doesn't show up in the specs. I read somewhere that this had something to do with the clock getting into the signal but that's an old memory. If the Sony in question used an analog HF filter, I'd be interested to see its phase vs. frequency graph. "Nearly worthless"? I don't think so. While it is true that .001 % distortion doesn't sound any better than 0.1%, so what? Both have inconsequential distortion. However 10% is audible. 1% may be. Just because competent modern gear usually passes with flying colors doesn't make the data worthless. A single number of only one form of distortion which is not even an average but taken at a single frequency, is indeed "nearly worthless" because it does not tell you what the total distortion is, or whether that distortion is a function of frequency. If they want to provide something useful in a single number, they should sum up all forms of distortion and take the maximum value over the entire audible bandwidth. This would be incomplete but at least a step in the right direction yet very few consumer products do even this. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Michael R. Clements" wrote in message
news:bn27nv023h1 If the Sony in question used an analog HF filter, I'd be interested to see its phase vs. frequency graph. Yes, that original Sony used an analog HF filter. Also seems like it had about 14 bits monotonic out of 16, so those low level problems were quite low in level I would think. Also if I recall, Phillips planned on the CD being only 14 bits. And already had some dac's ready. But Sony rather forced them into making it 16 bit. Which is why early Magnavox (aka Philips) players used 14 bit dacs with over-sampling to make them 16 bit equivalent. One side benefit, simpler HF filters. Sony also used one dac rather than two. It was multi-plexed between the right and left channel. Dennis |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
The low-level distortion would be better. The phase response would be lots
better than that of a DAC with analogue brick wall. Other specs would definitely be worse. Unfortunately for the early CD player, distortions that grow with decreasing level are much more unpleasant than ones that go up with level, for the obvious reason that our own ear's distortion increases with level too. Now should you want my personal opinion, I prefer the sound of vinyl to early digital. I also prefer the sound of modern digital to vinyl. I can live with the scratches. It's the pinch distortion that does it for me. "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:FeUkb.826900$YN5.863201@sccrnsc01... Bruno Putzeys wrote: His graphs don't show the phase cq impulse response of the player which could indicate if the brickwall filter is analog or digital (the shaky frequency response could point either towards an analog chebychev or a short digital filter. In the former case, the phase response would be rather abysmal. However, CD players were equipped with oversampling quite soon. The most interesting measurement is THD at -60dB. As you can see the player produces a plethora of harmonics. This is indicative of linearity errors (dnl) in the DAC transfer function, which is in the same league as crossover and quantisation distortion in that it doesn't decrease with signal level, but increases (that is- it stays roughly constant, but it becomes more significant as the fundamental drops). You might think -100dB isn't so bad, but compared to the -60dB of the signal that is a whopping 1% of distortion with a very rich harmonic content. This can be heard directly in quiet passages (hence some people's deep-rooted fears of low-level digital signals) and at full modulation it shows up as a muddy stereo image with deficient dynamics. Modern DACs don't have that problem (real multibit devices still do to some extent but it's well under control now). How would an LP/cartridge/tonearm/turntable system from the same era compare, as regards these measurements? -- -S. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Ref: early cd player sound issues...
Dennis.. For what its worth...I have one of the first Magnavox CD players to have a DAC for each channel!! The early Japanese CD players had a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels!! In comparing an old Sony with the Magnavox there was a general feeling that the Magnavox had an extended frequency range and other characteristics that I deemed a tad better than the single DAC multiplexed setup. I ran into certain "mindsets" that thought there was no need for a DAC for each channel. A marketing ploy, so they said...sound familiar? Leonard.. __________________________________________ On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:13:03 +0000, Dennis Moore wrote: Have read here and elsewhere that early CD players weren't transparent. The usual reason given is they used complex analog filtering at the output which resulted in audible artifacts. Later players lacked these complex high order filters and are considered transparent to the source. My question is in the normal specifications, early CD players tested out with extremely low distortion, flat frequency response etc. etc. In short the specs look pretty much identical to those of current CD players. So what part of what kind of technical testing would reveal the audible deficiencies of those first generation players? Dennis |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Yes, sounds familiar. My first CD player was a Magnavox
based upon short auditioning with some headphones in a store with both it and the Sony. Seemed clearly different and better when listening to the Magnavox. Which surprised me considering the reviews and that I at that time thought anything with those low distortion specs, almost perfectly flat frequency response, and great S/N would have sounded the same. I only read Stereo Review and Audio at that time. Both were the same price give or take $20. And considering other stuff with the Magnavox name on it in those days I was highly predisposed to get the Sony. Both were fed into a Sony receiver to use into the headphones. Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. Dennis "lcw999" wrote in message news:krxlb.609962$cF.279705@rwcrnsc53... Ref: early cd player sound issues... Dennis.. For what its worth...I have one of the first Magnavox CD players to have a DAC for each channel!! The early Japanese CD players had a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels!! In comparing an old Sony with the Magnavox there was a general feeling that the Magnavox had an extended frequency range and other characteristics that I deemed a tad better than the single DAC multiplexed setup. I ran into certain "mindsets" that thought there was no need for a DAC for each channel. A marketing ploy, so they said...sound familiar? Leonard.. __________________________________________ |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:9dAlb.1428$HS4.1998@attbi_s01... Yes, sounds familiar. My first CD player was a Magnavox based upon short auditioning with some headphones in a store with both it and the Sony. Seemed clearly different and better when listening to the Magnavox. Which surprised me considering the reviews and that I at that time thought anything with those low distortion specs, almost perfectly flat frequency response, and great S/N would have sounded the same. I only read Stereo Review and Audio at that time. Both were the same price give or take $20. And considering other stuff with the Magnavox name on it in those days I was highly predisposed to get the Sony. Both were fed into a Sony receiver to use into the headphones. Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. Dennis "lcw999" wrote in message news:krxlb.609962$cF.279705@rwcrnsc53... Ref: early cd player sound issues... Dennis.. For what its worth...I have one of the first Magnavox CD players to have a DAC for each channel!! The early Japanese CD players had a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels!! In comparing an old Sony with the Magnavox there was a general feeling that the Magnavox had an extended frequency range and other characteristics that I deemed a tad better than the single DAC multiplexed setup. I ran into certain "mindsets" that thought there was no need for a DAC for each channel. A marketing ploy, so they said...sound familiar? My first player was a Magnavox model # CDB 650. To my ears it doesn't sound different from any other player I've had since then, the latest being a Marantz Professional, model PMD 331. I've listened to them via a variety of headphones; 2 models of Stax, 2 of Sennheiser, AKG, and several Sonys, loudspeakers; Magneplanar Tympani IC and IVa. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:9dAlb.1428$HS4.1998@attbi_s01... Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. My first CD player was an Onkyo DX-530 and when it died I replaced it with a Rega Planet. Then I got tired of the Rega Planet "sound" and replaced it with a Rotel RCD-1070. All three of these players did sound different from each other but (other than the Rega) it required careful listening to bring it out. IME most CD Players sound SUBSTANTIALLY similar but there are tiny differences if you listen carefully to demanding sources. Of course, those tiny differences could be the result of small differences in output level -- for example 2 versus 2.1 volts, which is about 0.4 dB, which is enough to detect "something is different about this sound" but not be able to articulate it as a level difference. That said, there is something different between the HF reproduction of modern CD players versus some of the early CD players. It's not evident in all music, but with audio having strong HF content like bagpipes, jingling keys, castanets, etc. Is this phase distortion caused by the analog HF filters of the early players? Is this a ripple in the waveform caused by suboptimal digital HF filtering? I don't know what is the cause, only that the modern CD players seem to handle it a lot better. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
I agree Mr. Clements.
But I wonder where that shows up in measurements. The handling of high frequencies is why I have a Wadia DAC. Now it also slightly rolls off the treble, but there more than that going on. I have rolled the highs slightly via other means, and it doesn't make other players/dacs sound like that Wadia. Even with levels carefully matched. Dennis "Michael R. Clements" wrote in message news:3XSlb.3637$9E1.23213@attbi_s52... "Dennis Moore" wrote in message news:9dAlb.1428$HS4.1998@attbi_s01... Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. My first CD player was an Onkyo DX-530 and when it died I replaced it with a Rega Planet. Then I got tired of the Rega Planet "sound" and replaced it with a Rotel RCD-1070. All three of these players did sound different from each other but (other than the Rega) it required careful listening to bring it out. IME most CD Players sound SUBSTANTIALLY similar but there are tiny differences if you listen carefully to demanding sources. Of course, those tiny differences could be the result of small differences in output level -- for example 2 versus 2.1 volts, which is about 0.4 dB, which is enough to detect "something is different about this sound" but not be able to articulate it as a level difference. That said, there is something different between the HF reproduction of modern CD players versus some of the early CD players. It's not evident in all music, but with audio having strong HF content like bagpipes, jingling keys, castanets, etc. Is this phase distortion caused by the analog HF filters of the early players? Is this a ripple in the waveform caused by suboptimal digital HF filtering? I don't know what is the cause, only that the modern CD players seem to handle it a lot better. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:36:33 +0000, Norman Schwartz wrote:
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message news:9dAlb.1428$HS4.1998@attbi_s01... Yes, sounds familiar. My first CD player was a Magnavox based upon short auditioning with some headphones in a store with both it and the Sony. Seemed clearly different and better when listening to the Magnavox. Which surprised me considering the reviews and that I at that time thought anything with those low distortion specs, almost perfectly flat frequency response, and great S/N would have sounded the same. I only read Stereo Review and Audio at that time. Both were the same price give or take $20. And considering other stuff with the Magnavox name on it in those days I was highly predisposed to get the Sony. Both were fed into a Sony receiver to use into the headphones. Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. Dennis "lcw999" wrote in message news:krxlb.609962$cF.279705@rwcrnsc53... Ref: early cd player sound issues... Dennis.. For what its worth...I have one of the first Magnavox CD players to have a DAC for each channel!! The early Japanese CD players had a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels!! In comparing an old Sony with the Magnavox there was a general feeling that the Magnavox had an extended frequency range and other characteristics that I deemed a tad better than the single DAC multiplexed setup. I ran into certain "mindsets" that thought there was no need for a DAC for each channel. A marketing ploy, so they said...sound familiar? My first player was a Magnavox model # CDB 650. To my ears it doesn't sound different from any other player I've had since then, the latest being a Marantz Professional, model PMD 331. I've listened to them via a variety of headphones; 2 models of Stax, 2 of Sennheiser, AKG, and several Sonys, loudspeakers; Magneplanar Tympani IC and IVa. __________________________________________________ __ Ref: Ole CD player still sounds as good as they get... Norman.. I would suggest that you stay with the CDB 650. However, be that as it may, there are newer and better recording formats out there that do add a bit to the audio scenario. Things change and tend to improve. Be aware and change with the flow when it comes about. Nothing in any aspect of life stays the same...the only constant is change itself. We must all "deal with it"! My long-term audio memory is not great enought to determine if all recent CD player efforts sound no better than a given CD player of the past. A few years ago I went to the MSB CD hardware and Power supply combo..it was a revelation to me when playing some older CD's. I am not of the "school of thought" that somehow thinks that they got it all right the "first time"! Its not likely!! Anyway, enjoy the music..no matter the age of the hardware! Leonard... |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Yes, I knew about the algorithm. I only mentioned it
because people have said before that it only sounded different because the treble was down a bit. Of course simply showing the response to pulses and square waves indicates quite simply there is more difference than just a frequency roll off. I too use mine to drive the amp directly. Very nice units. Dennis "Mkuller" wrote in message ... "Dennis Moore" wrote The handling of high frequencies is why I have a Wadia DAC. Now it also slightly rolls off the treble, but there more than that going on. I have rolled the highs slightly via other means, and it doesn't make other players/dacs sound like that Wadia. Even with levels carefully matched. I also use a Wadia, primarily because it has a digital volume control and I connect it directly to my amps. The high frequencies are a little different, but not because they are rolled off - it's because Wadia uses its own proprietary alogrithm (Theta uses a different proprietary one also) to decode the digital signal. Some people like the highs on the Wadia; others don't. I'd say it depends on your associated equipment. Regards, Mike |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Mr. Schwartz,
Not trying to disagree with what you have said. A 650 was a third or fourth generation player. It would have had 16 bit dacs running at 4x over sampling. (TD1541's I think) And would not have the complex analog filtering at the output by that time. Dennis "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message ... "Dennis Moore" wrote in message news:9dAlb.1428$HS4.1998@attbi_s01... Yes, sounds familiar. My first CD player was a Magnavox based upon short auditioning with some headphones in a store with both it and the Sony. Seemed clearly different and better when listening to the Magnavox. Which surprised me considering the reviews and that I at that time thought anything with those low distortion specs, almost perfectly flat frequency response, and great S/N would have sounded the same. I only read Stereo Review and Audio at that time. Both were the same price give or take $20. And considering other stuff with the Magnavox name on it in those days I was highly predisposed to get the Sony. Both were fed into a Sony receiver to use into the headphones. Yet, the Sony was unpleasant, while the Magnavox wasn't. So I got the Magnavox. Knew nothing about dacs, how they were done or anything. Just how they sounded to me. A trend for how I would choose audio equipment in the future. Dennis "lcw999" wrote in message news:krxlb.609962$cF.279705@rwcrnsc53... Ref: early cd player sound issues... Dennis.. For what its worth...I have one of the first Magnavox CD players to have a DAC for each channel!! The early Japanese CD players had a single DAC that was multiplexed between channels!! In comparing an old Sony with the Magnavox there was a general feeling that the Magnavox had an extended frequency range and other characteristics that I deemed a tad better than the single DAC multiplexed setup. I ran into certain "mindsets" that thought there was no need for a DAC for each channel. A marketing ploy, so they said...sound familiar? My first player was a Magnavox model # CDB 650. To my ears it doesn't sound different from any other player I've had since then, the latest being a Marantz Professional, model PMD 331. I've listened to them via a variety of headphones; 2 models of Stax, 2 of Sennheiser, AKG, and several Sonys, loudspeakers; Magneplanar Tympani IC and IVa. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Norman Schwartz wrote:
My first player was a Magnavox model # CDB 650. To my ears it doesn't sound different from any other player I've had since then, the latest being a Marantz Professional, model PMD 331. I've listened to them via a variety of headphones; 2 models of Stax, 2 of Sennheiser, AKG, and several Sonys, loudspeakers; Magneplanar Tympani IC and IVa. ================================== Interesting. I got one of those as an accommodation from Magnavox though a dealer for whom I did repair work, way back when the CDB560 was brand new. It has never been used, beyond a short trial to prove that it worked, because the newest and latest big craze suddenly became the Magnavox CDB582 that was so highly touted by more than one audiophile magazine. Good thing I test equipment when I get it; the first CDB582 I got skipped so badly when warm, it sounded like Porky Pig, stuttering on a bad day. "THAT'S ALL, FOLKS!" Anyway, I still use the SECOND CDB582 I opened up; it was a good one. A well-known audiophile manufacturer used it as the basis for their CD player, so its transport and basic disc handling would seem to be credible, in any event. I've been tempted to do some upgrades to it over these many, many years but never got around to it, and have to say I have no complaints about its sound, which might explain my never getting around to it. -Gene Poon |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Yeah, Audio Alchemy did that so you could either use passive
volume controls or their own buffered pre-amp which offered unity gain. No intent to confuse the issue of sound quality with level differences I think. Other than implying foregoing an active pre-amp was possible and good to do. Dennis "Nousaine" wrote in message ... This mirrors my experience. I've used literally dozens of players. I used to give one away to students in my economics seminars in the mid-late 80s and early 90s as a reward for a telecommunications technolgy quiz. I bought them at retail and never paid more than $100 for a unit (not counting sales tax.) And I never found one that sounded substantially different from another WHEN levels were matched. It is true that they were seldom precisely level matched with one another or with my reference piece straight out of the box. I'm guessing that my experience with an Audio Alchemy outboard DAC might be illustrative. Using that device for a level matched test I discovered that the output of the AA was +10 dB compared to the analog output of a Marantz CD-63 player. Inside the case there was a jumper with 0 dB and +10 dB settings. Moving the jumper to the 0 dB position and, guess what, the output was still +4 dB. So to an end-user the device always delivered a higher output level. I'm guessing that this kind of level de-match accounts for practically all, if not exactly all, of the reported cd-player sound differences. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Thanks for the information Dennis. However I don't believe you could
disagree with anything I had posted. The topic being early CD player sound, I simply wrote that a CDB 650 was *my* first player. I did however audition the very first Sony (costing $999.?). A friend had it for audition and possible purchase, and brought it to my set-up so that we could both listen together. He hated the sound (too "antiseptic") and I loved it. I never concern myself with dacs and oversampling and only go by what pleases me. I recall it being preferred and popular in the early days to employ a CD player as a transport and a separate converter. Then jitter was discovered and all the separates were dumped, and it became preferred to listen to the player as a whole. "Dennis Moore" wrote in message ... Mr. Schwartz, Not trying to disagree with what you have said. A 650 was a third or fourth generation player. It would have had 16 bit dacs running at 4x over sampling. (TD1541's I think) And would not have the complex analog filtering at the output by that time. "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message My first player was a Magnavox model # CDB 650. To my ears it doesn't sound different from any other player I've had since then, the latest being a Marantz Professional, model PMD 331. I've listened to them via a variety of headphones; 2 models of Stax, 2 of Sennheiser, AKG, and several Sonys, loudspeakers; Magneplanar Tympani IC and IVa. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
No I didn't mean that unity was on the DAC.
As far as I know there isn't a standard for such things. Generally they put out 2 volts. But that isn't a standard. Audio Alchemy also made a buffered unity gain pre-amp. The DAC even at lowest settings put out more than most to facilitate use with such no gain pre-amps and passive volume controls. The adjustments internal to the dac were to allow an even higher output for such use if an amp required it, or you wanted additional volume headroom with CD's recorded with lower than normal levels. This wasn't uncommon. Mod Squad CD players put out much more than normal as they also made such unity gain pre-amps. Wadia DAC's put out over 4 volts max to permit use with passive volume controls. Some even control the digital output level so you can connect directly to an amp. Dennis "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Dennis Moore" wrote: Yeah, Audio Alchemy did that so you could either use passive volume controls or their own buffered pre-amp which offered unity gain. No intent to confuse the issue of sound quality with level differences I think. Other than implying foregoing an active pre-amp was possible and good to do. Dennis OK, but why was "unity gain" still +4 dB? |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
news:vBimb.20110$e01.38764@attbi_s02... Thanks for the information Dennis. However I don't believe you could disagree with anything I had posted. The topic being early CD player sound, I simply wrote that a CDB 650 was *my* first player. I did however audition the very first Sony (costing $999.?). CDP-101: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?193 |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
In April, 1983, I bought a Sony CDP101 along with the only 7 classical
CDs that the store had. I was very disappointed with the sound. Most of the CDs were shrill, distorted and generally unpleasant sounding. The one exception was the Isaac Stern 60th anniversary celebration (Columbia CD36692). That CD sounded good and still does. Being only strings, there was no problem with "glaring" brass. I still think most of the problems were with the early CDs plus the fact that speakers at the time were voiced to provide good sound with LPs. Later CD players seemed to tame the treble a bit but CDs were improving also. The 101 was not as good as current CD players but I don't think it was as terrible as many people think. -MIKE |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
normanstrong wrote:
I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. LOL. I love seeing 'Coby' stuff, just for the shamelessness of their attempt to fool people into confusing it with Sony, with their sorta-soundalike name and the same font. It plays CDs all right, as well as CD-R, and doesn't sound half bad over the supplied headphones. When connected to my living room system it's pretty much indistinguishable from higher price players. Soon I will tear it apart and find out how it's designed and built. Stay tuned. Will do. -- -S. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
---MIKE--- wrote:
In April, 1983, I bought a Sony CDP101 along with the only 7 classical CDs that the store had. I was very disappointed with the sound. Most of the CDs were shrill, distorted and generally unpleasant sounding. The one exception was the Isaac Stern 60th anniversary celebration (Columbia CD36692). That CD sounded good and still does. Being only strings, there was no problem with "glaring" brass. I still think most of the problems were with the early CDs plus the fact that speakers at the time were voiced to provide good sound with LPs. Later CD players seemed to tame the treble a bit but CDs were improving also. The 101 was not as good as current CD players but I don't think it was as terrible as many people think. If the speakers (or your stereo's settings, which might be another source) were the problem , then a CDP101 played over today's gear should sound fine. -- -S. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"normanstrong" wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:Lmwmb.11904$9E1.57145@attbi_s52... "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:vBimb.20110$e01.38764@attbi_s02... Thanks for the information Dennis. However I don't believe you could disagree with anything I had posted. The topic being early CD player sound, I simply wrote that a CDB 650 was *my* first player. I did however audition the very first Sony (costing $999.?). CDP-101: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?193 I find it fascinating to read reviews and predictions about new technology from the early days, comparing them with what actually happened. Gordon Holt wrote about the CDP-101, and CD in general, in 1983. He predicted that CD would replace LP in about 5 years, but that CD players would never be as cheap as a cheap LP player. It didn't take 5 years, and the CD player is cheaper than any turntable arm and cartridge. I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. It plays CDs all right, as well as CD-R, and doesn't sound half bad over the supplied headphones. When connected to my living room system it's pretty much indistinguishable from higher price players. Soon I will tear it apart and find out how it's designed and built. Stay tuned. Norm Strong This mirrors my experience in the mid-late 80s. In a course I taught on telecommunications economics I used the cd-player (new, at the time) as a tool to demonstrate how telecom technology trickled down to consumer markets (negative feedback, solid state, digital storage, integrated circuits, etc.) As an incentive I offered a Quiz at the end of the class where a 100% score would win a cd-player. Over the course of 6 years I gave away a couple dozen players (never paying more than $100 retail for any one) and was pleasantly surprised to find that not one of them sounded any different from my reference player. Many of them were "portable" in style, if not in function, and some actually had small squares of styrofoam in the case to hold a floating transport. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:blKmb.32250$e01.64388@attbi_s02... normanstrong wrote: I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. LOL. I love seeing 'Coby' stuff, just for the shamelessness of their attempt to fool people into confusing it with Sony, with their sorta-soundalike name and the same font. The place that I see Coby most frequently is in local National Liquidators and Odd-Job Stores. The store names speak for themselves. It plays CDs all right, as well as CD-R, and doesn't sound half bad over the supplied headphones. When connected to my living room system it's pretty much indistinguishable from higher price players. Soon I will tear it apart and find out how it's designed and built. Stay tuned. Will do. -- -S. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
news:uEAmb.12851$mZ5.75312@attbi_s54... In April, 1983, I bought a Sony CDP101 along with the only 7 classical CDs that the store had. I was very disappointed with the sound. Most of the CDs were shrill, distorted and generally unpleasant sounding. The one exception was the Isaac Stern 60th anniversary celebration (Columbia CD36692). That CD sounded good and still does. Being only strings, there was no problem with "glaring" brass. I still think most of the problems were with the early CDs plus the fact that speakers at the time were voiced to provide good sound with LPs. Later CD players seemed to tame the treble a bit but CDs were improving also. The 101 was not as good as current CD players but I don't think it was as terrible as many people think. Many early CDs had no "glaring" brass on my first CD players; Magnavox CDB 650 and Sony 302. Examples popular back then, first on digital LPs and eventually on CD; the Haydn and Hummel trumpet concerti by Schwarz (Delos) and Marsalis (CBS). Then there was "The Sound of Trumpets" played by Schwarz and the Y Chamber Society (Delos) and "Carnaval" by Marsalis (on coronet) with Eastman Wind Ensemble (CBS). Although recorded on tape eventually making its way to CD, aided by grants from the Absolute Sound, Wilson Audiophile CDs; "Windows of War and Peace" and "Center Stage". All the brass you might care to hear, and more, all with no glare. IMO demonstration quality CDs which could be used to audition loudspeakers. Which high-end speakers could you suggest were voiced for CD? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
Norman Schwartz wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:blKmb.32250$e01.64388@attbi_s02... normanstrong wrote: I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. LOL. I love seeing 'Coby' stuff, just for the shamelessness of their attempt to fool people into confusing it with Sony, with their sorta-soundalike name and the same font. The place that I see Coby most frequently is in local National Liquidators and Odd-Job Stores. The store names speak for themselves. I see Coby stuff for sale at most 7-11 markets around here. -- -S. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
I find it fascinating to read reviews and predictions about new
technology from the early days, comparing them with what actually happened. Gordon Holt wrote about the CDP-101, and CD in general, in 1983. He predicted that CD would replace LP in about 5 years, but that CD players would never be as cheap as a cheap LP player. It didn't take 5 years, and the CD player is cheaper than any turntable arm and cartridge. I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. It plays CDs all right, as well as CD-R, and doesn't sound half bad over the supplied headphones. When connected to my living room system it's pretty much indistinguishable from higher price players. Soon I will tear it apart and find out how it's designed and built. Stay tuned. Norm Strong Heh! Heh! Heh! (my evil laugh)- I find it funny and maddening at the same time that your experience with the Coby player matches my own. Funny because I thought that I was the only one in the world using such a cheap player in my system to play cds. Maddening because my wife paid $24 for the little bugger and I was tickled pink until I saw that you paid $12. Last night I played a "the best of Earl Klugh" cd on my ESL63/Gradients and the sound was excellent. ESTG/ |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
normanstrong wrote:
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:Lmwmb.11904$9E1.57145@attbi_s52... "Norman Schwartz" wrote in message news:vBimb.20110$e01.38764@attbi_s02... Thanks for the information Dennis. However I don't believe you could disagree with anything I had posted. The topic being early CD player sound, I simply wrote that a CDB 650 was *my* first player. I did however audition the very first Sony (costing $999.?). CDP-101: http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?193 I find it fascinating to read reviews and predictions about new technology from the early days, comparing them with what actually happened. Gordon Holt wrote about the CDP-101, and CD in general, in 1983. He predicted that CD would replace LP in about 5 years, but that CD players would never be as cheap as a cheap LP player. It didn't take 5 years, and the CD player is cheaper than any turntable arm and cartridge. I just bought a portable CD player from a drugstore for $12, including headphones and a couple of batteries. It was made by a company called Coby, that I've never heard of. It plays CDs all right, as well as CD-R, and doesn't sound half bad over the supplied headphones. When connected to my living room system it's pretty much indistinguishable from higher price players. Soon I will tear it apart and find out how it's designed and built. Stay tuned. Norm Strong Norm, can you play some pink noise on your Coby vs. your regular CD player? I think you need some demanding material to tell if there are differences, and there still might not be any that you can readily discern. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Early CD player sound.
"chung" wrote in message
news:TUlnb.32377$mZ5.161931@attbi_s54... Norm, can you play some pink noise on your Coby vs. your regular CD player? I think you need some demanding material to tell if there are differences, and there still might not be any that you can readily discern. No offense, but I'm constantly amused by the way that "audiophiles" have a need to find something wrong with playback systems - even good ones - to justify their finickiness. If it sounds just as good on the music that he listens to, shouldn't THAT be the true test? Nope - better do a test that's out of the realm of real world usage in order to make us all feel right about buying the expensive stuff! Don't get me wrong - I'm all about getting great sound. But if I can't hear the difference, no amount of testing, marketing, or inflated pricing is going to convince me that something is "better" for me. Bill Balmer |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| DVD player with good CD sound? | General | |||
| Recurring problem - no sound from factory CD player in 2002 Chevy Venture | Car Audio | |||
| science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio | |||
| No sound from cd player | Car Audio | |||
| Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
