Let's talk CD Players!

[Mart68]

Interesting thread. I hope I can pick some brains. I switched from cd playback to an intel nuc and jriver some years ago when to my ears my lowly cd player was outclassed by the new tech. I currently have an Audiolab 8300 cd player, not the latest mqa one. That I would play aes out into Topping D90 then straight to twin Schitt Vidar. Still preferred the nuc playback. Now, a revelation. The new Topping pre 90 in the chain has enhanced my enjoyment of cd playback immensely. Different sound altogether.

So on the asr front what are you all finding is the most revealing sound source? As has been mentioned in this thread cd is old tech yet does it need a 'high end' 'expensive' player to dredge out a highly detailed rendering of what was recorded in the mastering? Are you getting this detail from av players? Granted the rest of the playback chain needs to be able to pass through the data from a resolving source. The question is what, perhaps the science says, is the best form for that source to take ie to be played on or from? What are your experiences guys?

it doesn't really matter that CD is old tech, it has 100% of the recording on it, there's nothing more that can be added.

Subjectively I perceive differences in quality between some units used as transports, I have not tested this blind and level-matched though.

I bought a dedicated transport brand new mainly because I wanted the maximum amount of hassle free time before failure. I don't perceive it as any better than the Sony XB790 QS player I was using before but that has issues with the draw mech, simpler just to replace with new transport and DAC

In short providing the rest of the chain is good pretty much any CD player is capable of outstanding results.

As always loudspeakers and room are the ultimate bottlenecks. You only have to look at speakers measured on this forum to see how many poor ones are out there, and how even well-engineered tweeter-woofer two way speakers are inherently flawed and will compromise even a perfect source.

get a well engineered 3 way loudspeaker and pretty much everything else falls into place.

 

[TheDude]

it doesn't really matter that CD is old tech, it has 100% of the recording on it, there's nothing more that can be added.

Subjectively I perceive differences in quality between some units used as transports, I have not tested this blind and level-matched though.

I bought a dedicated transport brand new mainly because I wanted the maximum amount of hassle free time before failure. I don't perceive it as any better than the Sony XB790 QS player I was using before but that has issues with the draw mech, simpler just to replace with new transport and DAC

In short providing the rest of the chain is good pretty much any CD player is capable of outstanding results.

As always loudspeakers and room are the ultimate bottlenecks. You only have to look at speakers measured on this forum to see how many poor ones are out there, and how even well-engineered tweeter-woofer two way speakers are inherently flawed and will compromise even a perfect source.

get a well engineered 3 way loudspeaker and pretty much everything else falls into place.

Thanks Mart68. This is where the experience of others comes into play. I remember my Sony XB790, in fact I think I still have it stowed away somewhere. So there you are you see, with your experiences not much difference to be found. I agree with you re cd tech. It is what it is and that is the medium we have to work with.

I too have found great revelation from quality speakers and have pretty much transformed my listening room with room treatments. As you say our reviews here show up all sorts of duff speaker designs.
Interesting where the money may be made from cutting edge science in the audio industry. It would seem China is not trying to make $3000 speakers for $1000. We need a giant killing speaker!

 

[davide78]

Thanks to this thread, I recently bought a Sony CDP-X333ES. I still love to play and buy music on CD, and wanted to get an high-end player while you can still find them at reasonable prices.

I don't have the remote, and the matching RM-D991 model seems to cost more than what I paid for the player! Does anybody know if other sony CD player remotes of the same era are compatible?

 

[Mart68]

Thanks to this thread, I recently bought a Sony CDP-X333ES. I still love to play and buy music on CD, and wanted to get an high-end player while you can still find them at reasonable prices.

I don't have the remote, and the matching RM-D991 model seems to cost more than what I paid for the player! Does anybody know if other sony CD player remotes of the same era are compatible?

I've a number of Sony players of different eras and the remotes are interchangeable. Although I can't be specific about the X333ES as I don't have one, I'd say the odds are that any Sony remote will work with it. HTH.

 

[Herbert]

They are all compatible, besides some extra functions like filter, fade etc.
Just use the Sony CD-Player remote you´ll get your hands on.
As one examlpe, I use a remote from my 1982 CDP-101 (Yes, one of the very first)
on my Sony CDP-X5000 (1996)

 

[davide78]

I've a number of Sony players of different eras and the remotes are interchangeable.

They are all compatible, besides some extra functions like filter, fade etc.

Thanks! Having the buttons for direct track access would be nice, other than that I don't need extra functionalities besides the basic play controls.

 

[mhardy6647]

Thanks! Having the buttons for direct track access would be nice, other than that I don't need extra functionalities besides the basic play controls.

FWIW, generic cheap "programmable" remotes will generally get one "most" of the functionality of the factory remote - especially for CDPs - in my experience.

Direct track access can be hit or miss; IME the decks that use a ">10" key to enter track numbers beyond "09" aren't generally supported by generic remotes. My "daily driver" Denon DVDP (not CDP per se) which I use as a transport, is an example. I actually sprung for an OEM remote on eBAY for it (cost ca. $USD, in that case) -- but the DVDP was a dump find, so the overall value was still fine.


BDA-1 plus DVD-1730 by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[davide78]

The original remote of the CDP-X333ES has 20 direct access buttons and a ">20" key to enter track numbers above 20. Some sony remotes have the same configuration, other have only 10 or 16 direct access buttons (with >10 or >16 key). I suspect the latter may not work with my player.
Well, I have to wait for a cheap OEM remote with all the buttons to pop up.

 

[Snarfie]

Did replace about 4 years ago my reference Philips CD630 Cd player for a topping D10. Not because i had any sound complaints but the Topping is more handy to work with dsp ripping etc However we did a A/B blind test with some friends conclusion we could not hear a clear difference than probably a bit more tighter low from the D10.

 

[pedrola_marola]

I am seeing several here posting expensive cd players and / or vintages, but what do you think about the current cambridge audio cd players (axc 25 and axc 35, or something like that)? I never had a cd player and where I live it is very difficult to get a quality vintage.

 

[davide78]

They are probably as good as they need to be. Hifinews measured 104 dB SNR and 0.0019% THD for the axc35. I would choose based on availability, price and functionalities (more or less in that order).

 

[Herbert]

Subjectively I perceive differences in quality between some units used as transports, I have not tested this blind and level-matched though.

Same with me and the robust redundancy of the CD-Format speaks against the subjective.
A LOT must happen to make a CD-Drive sound "bad"
Look at dust and scratches:
CD players click because the laser looses the track, not because of data loss.
A firs gen. Phillips I own is able to play a test disc with gaps that sum up to 6mm.
I assume this is because the defunct swing arm technology could track dirt and scratches
better than 3 beam linear trackers.
But errors on the pits (i.e a scratch from the label side) would make the swing arm skip whereas
linear trackers play them without any problem.

Anyway, to my knowledge, 6mm is a gap that can be restored just by the parity bits without interpolation.
So the drive/transport should have no influence. Jitter?
I assume this can be cured in the receiver of the DAC...

BTW, I read somewhere that in preperation for testing the sound quality
of the satellite uplinks for the Live Aid concert in summer 1984 they used the Sony CDP-101
as this was the most noiseless and dynamic source (and of course more portable
than some reel to reel studio gear that would have the same dynamic range.)

 

[Mart68]

Same with me and the robust redundancy of the CD-Format speaks against the subjective.
A LOT must happen to make a CD-Drive sound "bad"
Look at dust and scratches:
CD players click because the laser looses the track, not because of data loss.
A firs gen. Phillips I own is able to play a test disc with gaps that sum up to 6mm.
I assume this is because the defunct swing arm technology could track dirt and scratches
better than 3 beam linear trackers.
But errors on the pits (i.e a scratch from the label side) would make the swing arm skip whereas
linear trackers play them without any problem.

Anyway, to my knowledge, 6mm is a gap that can be restored just by the parity bits without interpolation.
So the drive/transport should have no influence. Jitter?
I assume this can be cured in the receiver of the DAC...

BTW, I read somewhere that in preperation for testing the sound quality
of the satellite uplinks for the Live Aid concert in summer 1984 they used the Sony CDP-101
as this was the most noiseless and dynamic source (and of course more portable
than some reel to reel studio gear that would have the same dynamic range.)

Yes, read errors that can't be corrected will cause drop outs, they won't make the violin sound 'less natural', you either get 100% or you get nothing.

Either something else is going on or the differences are not real. Probably the latter but I have never seen any properly controlled listening tests done on CD transports. If anyone has a link to one it would be appreciated.

 

[Wombat]

Yes, read errors that can't be corrected will cause drop outs, they won't make the violin sound 'less natural', you either get 100% or you get nothing.

Either something else is going on or the differences are not real. Probably the latter but I have never seen any properly controlled listening tests done on CD transports. If anyone has a link to one it would be appreciated.

FWIW, some links here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=82777.0

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/serious-abx-tests-sony-discman-vs-high-end-sources.243625/

 

[DSJR]

The Sony 101 is still a well balanced 'sounding' player I think (those that survive), but just maybe, the reproduction of far depth effects might not be as good as more recent designs (I'm being careful here as my impressions are sighted subjective). I used to find the very first Philips players gave me listening fatigue after an hour listening which the last 14 bit machines I tried didn't (Philips 104/Mission DAD 7000/B&O CDX) and I subsequently bought a meridian MCD-Pro as my first CD player which had a slightly 'dry' presentation to it. I remember the MCD-Pro wasn't as good reproducing analogue tape hiss in the background as later machines playing the same AAD discs (I was a nutter back then and probably still am...), but obviously no means of confirming that thirty five years on.

To the chap who has or had the CD630. Philips had some real cheap clunkers around this time I remember but I think the 620 and 630 were nice machines I think. Marantz tweaks of these basic chassis' became the UK lower cost review darlings and the Philips models gradually faded from view I remember, as the rather coloured over-ripe 'Marantz SE and later, godawful 'KI Signature' models dominated, but I'm fast forwarding ten years to the mid 90's now.

 

[Herbert]

I remember the MCD-Pro wasn't as good reproducing analogue tape hiss in the background as later machines playing the same AAD discs

Could be. A -60dB 1000hz sinewave plays/shows a sawtooth on older 14/16bit players.
With dithering (I guess) it became more like a sine. Martin Wieland,
sound engineer of Tonstudio Bauer told the story, that Keith Karrett did not like the
digital sound. Wielands explanation was that KJ was irritated by the lack of tape hiss.
Still I would take this story with a grain of salt because I assume the hiss of
the microphone amps is more likely above the tape hiss.

 

[stevenswall]

I like top loading players, though it limits where they can be put...
This is a cheap Chinese Original Da Vinci CD player I use as a transport into DAC/Amp sitting on a subwoofer!

View attachment 35825

Where are you finding this cheaply? I'd love a "turntable" style CD player like that when I don't want to mess with streaming.

 

[Limopard]

Have a Denon DCD 500 AE purely for nostalgic reasons. After some time with cassettes in the late GDR the CD accompanies me for almost 30 years. I'm still not ready to end this chapter entirely, even if I mostly listen to music from the NAS now.

 

[19lexicon78]

have a studer d730. with the gustard x16 dac it's better sounding than sound from computer usb. presentation/dynamics, even detail are better.
the best cd player i've heard was the philips lhh 2000 not long ago. it blew my mind. the dac is old, detail is 3 levels less than gustard. but it's presentation was perfect. also the cd's of the 80's sounded perfect, almost like vinyl. alot of these 80's cd's i didn't like, but with the lhh 2000 those were the best ones, it made me smile. strange philips made this cd player in 1985, but they never reached this level again. the only thing better these days is the dac. it was a double lhh 2000, one had cdm-0 other cdm-1 swingarm. the cdm-0 is in my opinion the best philips made.

 

[restorer-john]

have a studer d730. with the gustard x16 dac it's better sounding than sound from computer usb. presentation/dynamics, even detail are better.
the best cd player i've heard was the philips lhh 2000 not long ago. it blew my mind. the dac is old, detail is 3 levels less than gustard. but it's presentation was perfect. also the cd's of the 80's sounded perfect, almost like vinyl. alot of these 80's cd's i didn't like, but with the lhh 2000 those were the best ones, it made me smile. strange philips made this cd player in 1985, but they never reached this level again. the only thing better these days is the dac. it was a double lhh 2000, one had cdm-0 other cdm-1 swingarm. the cdm-0 is in my opinion the best philips made.

I'm sorry, this is just subjective BS.

The CDM-0 was a touchy laser mech. The optics were Zeiss, and the panels and plates were hand-made. The RF amp was primitive and unreliable. The CDM-1 wasn't much better, but they had moved to die-casting and better optics and electronics. If they'd only used Japanese caps in the RF amps, most would be still working, but no, Philips used their own, crappy, axial, nasty electros and that's why most went into landfill 20-30 years ago. I know, I have been fixing them for nearly 4 decades.

The LHH-2000 was a TDA-1540D based machine and not remotely competitive, even at the time. It was Philips busted-ass version of a "professional" player, when both Sony and Technics had machines that blew it out of the water.

If you want to talk Marantz (Philips LHH) CD-12/DA-12LE (1990) , then we are getting somewhere. TOTL reference machine that actually performed. But guess what? It was made in Japan, with quality components and processes. Not a single Philips component in it and thank goodness, the CDM-1 was made in Japan too. Phew.

The swing-arm mechs are slow to access tracks (compared to a linear motor mech) and apart from the brushless spindle motors on the early ones, they are junk. Even Philips themselves moved to linear (not swing arm) on their "pro" mechs. Garbage they were too.