What kind of CD player do you use?
gperkins151
I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
George
W. McClintock
Adcom GCD-575. Old, but uses the TDA1541 A/D converter which has a nice,
"full" sound.
W. McClintock
That would be D/A converter. Sorry.
gperkins151
Thanks.
I am considering either replacing my Yamaha (when it dies) with it's
newer Yamaha equivalent or get a NAD C542, as I hear it's got a nice
warm, laid back sound.
However, if the Consonance CD 120 Linear Player is as good as I have
been reading, I may even spring for it.
George
William Sommerwerck
jrsnfld
> On Feb 22, 5:34 pm, "W. McClintock" <mcclintock...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > gperkins151 wrote:
> > > Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
>
> > > I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
>
> > > George
>
> > Adcom GCD-575. Old, but uses the TDA1541 A/D converter which has a nice,
> > "full" sound.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I am considering either replacing my Yamaha (when it dies) with it's
> newer Yamaha equivalent or get a NAD C542, as I hear it's got a nice
> warm, laid back sound.
At one time (this was very long ago), NAD was highly recommended as a
superb sounding but relatively inexpensive player. When I auditioned
it, however, I found that it indeed had a warm laid back sound, but on
close listening one found that the warmth and laid-backness had more
to do with an unnatural blurring of detail than any truth in sound
reproduction. All I'm saying is...try it, and listen closely, before
letting any reviews or hype decide for you. And in any case, what you
hear at home is not always the same as what you hear in a store.
-Jeff
Paige Turner
I've got two in use and four more that I picked up for nothing or next
to nothing (a couple needed cleaning, that's all, the others simply
had bad power cables, I am talking minutes to fix). I use a Yamaha and
a Sony. The Sony is very old, about 15 years old, and it works fine. I
have not found the expense of "audiophile" CD players to be worth
much. If I try them with a direct headphone connection (no amplifier),
I hear no difference, essentially. Bad experiences with two Harman-
Kardon changers, now I use single disk, exclusively. Which is why I
picked up those extra freebies...
Best,
pt
td
>
> I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
I use a Musical Fidelity Nu Vista 3D CD player. This unit uses a slew
of Nu Vista miniature tubes which the maker acquired. They were
developed for use in space, i believe. Provides a very high quality
sound. Has operated flawlessly for over 7 years now without a single
problem. Alas this unit was very much a limited edition, limited by
the number of Nu Vista tubes that were available.
TD
randy...@gmail.com
Denon DVD 5910CI
Steve Emerson
<264a6e70-b535-474b...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
gperkins151 <gperk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am considering either replacing my Yamaha (when it dies) with it's
> newer Yamaha equivalent or get a NAD C542, as I hear it's got a nice
> warm, laid back sound.
>
> However, if the Consonance CD 120 Linear Player is as good as I have
> been reading, I may even spring for it.
For a one-box, modestly priced (non-SACD) solution, I'd definitely be
looking into the two lowest-priced Cambridge Audio players. Check
Audioadvisor.com. A recent mailing from AA showed new, very low prices.
If you turn out not to like it, returns are easy.
The Consonance stuff does look good on paper. I haven't heard it.
Over the years, Yamaha has been all over the map, in terms of what they
put inside the box. There may or may not be any particular consistency
of sound from one product to the next.
The "warm, laid back sound" is not always a good thing, btw, and may not
marry well with or yield benefits in your particular system. I would try
something that is flat but clean, to begin with, like the Cambridge
units. If you decide you have to have something warmer, look into
Marantz, but avoid their very cheapest, consumer-oriented player(s).
SE.
pavane
"Steve Emerson" <eme...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:emersn-7617E3....@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...
Exactly my experience. I auditioned the NAD and Yamaha units available
and settled on the Cambridge Audio D500SE, since upgraded but still
a remarkably solid sonic device for what was delightfully little money.
And, having gotten mine from AudioAdvisor, I can vouch for their
high quality customer service and response.
pavane
Bob Lombard
>
> The "warm, laid back sound" is not always a good thing, btw, and may not
> marry well with or yield benefits in your particular system. I would try
> something that is flat but clean, to begin with,
If you really want 'warm, laid back', get it later in the audio chain,
maybe at the preamp, so you can adjust the warmth and the lean-back.
bl
Paige Turner
Well, I keep hearing mention of "warmth" and the physics doesn't
compute. Where is the CD player adding this warmth?
Best,
pt
Bob Lombard
It is possible, in the analog circuitry following the DACs.
bl
Steve Emerson
<0ecc51f5-3b72-44c3...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Paige Turner <paigetu...@gmail.com> wrote:
As Bob says, primarily in the output stage. Like any other line-stage
device, it has to produce a substantial amount of gain -- which btw is
just one portion of the output stage. In the gain area: op-amp chips and
their implementation. The use (rare) if discrete transistors instead. Or
tubes. The capacitors in the output chain (quality, type, spec, how
many, where they are put); in some cases the use of additional filtering
-- the opportunities for altering the sonic signature ("warmth,"
brightness, etc.) are legion.
If you want to see some physics, open up an ordinary Sony player and
then, say, any Arcam or Marantz. Among other things, you'll see on the
order of five times as many parts in the latter two; many, but not all,
in the output stage.
Too, a beefier power supply (both caps and transformer[s]) can seem to
add warmth because it produces lows with more clout. Varying DAC chips
in themselves have different sounds.
No problem with the way the physics compute.
Best,
SE.
Steve Emerson
"W. McClintock" <mcclin...@verizon.net> wrote:
That ought to be a real winner, and I would expect it could be kept
running forever. The transport mechanism, Sony KSS-210A, appears to be
readily available, and cheap.
SE.
Fugue
Paige Turner
> In article
> <0ecc51f5-3b72-44c3-a320-e00d641a6...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks, Steve. I am puzzled, in view of what you say, about the little
difference I notice when I try out various CD players directly from
the headphone output (no outside amplifier). There is the possibility,
of course, that I am just not hearing the major difference, warmth,
etc., or that such a difference becomes more noticeable when the
component is hooked up to a system. But I would think the direct
output to headphones would reveal the difference, and it hasn't.
Purely anecdotal and not meant to contradict the existence of a
substantial difference.
Best,
pt
gperkins151
Which Yamaha are you using?
Perhaps considering that I am fairly happy with my player, it's lasted
9 years and still going, plus a replacement would be under $250 I
should just go with another Yamaha when my current unit dies.
George
Paige Turner
> Which Yamaha are you using?
>
> Perhaps considering that I am fairly happy with my player, it's lasted
> 9 years and still going, plus a replacement would be under $250 I
> should just go with another Yamaha when my current unit dies.
>
A CDX-530, I bought it used for cheap, from a guy who became an iPod
fan. I have another Yamaha (can't remember the model, it's boxed in
the basement), quite old but in good condition.
Best,
pt
J.Martin
Marantz SA-8260. I also have an Arcam CD72. The Marantz is a little
better, particularly in the lower registers, and plays SACDs.
JM
Matthew Silverstein
> I have a top-end Sony multi-ch SACD player.
Which one, out of curiosity?
I'm using the DVP-NS9100ES connected via iLink to the STR-DA7100ES digital
receiver.
Matty
Steve de Mena
> If you want to see some physics, open up an ordinary Sony player and
> then, say, any Arcam or Marantz. Among other things, you'll see on the
> order of five times as many parts in the latter two; many, but not all,
> in the output stage.
Is that physics or a large company like Sony having the money &
resources to consolidate many components into large-scale integrated
circuits?
Steve
Dave Cook
Disclaimer: CD players should supposedly all sound the same, so the
following my all be in my head.
When my Arcam Alpha 9 started mistracking, I replaced it with an
Cambridge Audio 840C. But I also decided to have the Arcam fixed to
use in the bedroom. Lo, the much loved Arcam came back after several
months sounding rather hard. But no player I've heard reproduces the
sense of instruments in a real hall the way the Arcam does. The
Cambridge projects things too forward in comparison, and there is less
sense of space around instruments, something the Arcam excels at. I
also have an Oppo 980H, and I actually prefer the spatial presentation
of the Oppo to the Cambridge, though the Oppo is somewhat veiled and
grey sounding. But I sort of blew my wad on the Cambridge (their top
of the line player). Maybe I'll try a cheaper players like an NAD.
Otherwise it's the mad upgrade ladder.
I also tried a Rega Apollo and liked it a lot. It is very clean
sounding, without sounding either forward or recessed, but it seemed a
little light in the bass (their step up from that, the Saturn, is
nearly twice the price, so I didn't bother auditioning it to see if it
had better bass). And I found that I liked the top loading. The unit
is not very tall, so was easily usable on a lower shelf on my rack.
There were QC problems with the earlier Regas; I wouldn't buy a used
one.
Scott Foglesong
A Rotel RCD-1072. Usually I use its own analog output into my amp
(Arcam), but I also have the system set up so I can route it through a
Benchmark DAC1.
I haven't decided whether I like the sound of the Rotel's DAC better or
the Benchmark DAC...
Cheers,
Scott
--
Scott Foglesong
Chair, Department of Musicianship and Music Theory
San Francisco Conservatory of Music
SF Classical Music Examiner
Steve Emerson
There may be some of that going on in the digital portion of newer
machines.
But browse through the rest of my post.
You can't implement a transformer or power-supply capacitor in an IC.
You can't implement filter or coupling capacitors in an IC. You can't
implement shielding in an IC.
The Sony I had in mind (along with every other mass-market CD player and
DVD player that I've looked inside) has an op-amp-based output stage.
The op-amp (or op-amps) is the only IC in these output stages. And BTW,
none of those op-amps are made by Sony.
SE.
Andy Evans
player". For a start, you get much better sound out of the top range
of DACs. Some are expensive, others can be built from nearly-completed
kits, typically with the digital surface mount stuff already in place
on a PCB. A good example is the RAKK DAC which is the one I use.
http://www.kandkaudio.com/digitalaudio.html
You can - to my hearing - improve further with a really good tube
output stage, and in my case I use directly heated triodes for this
(DHTs). RAKK offer a decent tube output stage, but you can go further
if you know what to use.
And then there's what to drive the DAC with. CD players are useful for
this - the RAKK takes coax S/PDIF in. But it also offers a USB board,
which opens the way to superior interfaces with your computer, where
more and more people are storing their music collection. Ultimately
the best sound will come from using a computer as transport, with an
outboard DAC with its own clean power supply. There are some cutting
edge systems out there.
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/ Look at computer audio.
Time has moved on since CD players!!
andy
Alan P Dawes
<f6a139c7-3dab-4853...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Cook <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When my Arcam Alpha 9 started mistracking, I replaced it with an
> Cambridge Audio 840C. But I also decided to have the Arcam fixed to
> use in the bedroom. Lo, the much loved Arcam came back after several
> months sounding rather hard.
The 2 occasions when I have had mistracking in old CD players it has been
due to a build up of dust in the grease which had hardened on the guides
on which the head moves. Careful cleaning of the guide rails with a cotton
bud dipped in alcohol followed by the mearest smear of clear silicone
grease cures it. Whilst the top is off you can also blow off any dust from
the lens and clean it. The 20+ years old Technics CD player near my
computer still gets daily use.
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
Steve Emerson
<f7059066-f5f1-4051...@p13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you guys are on the wrong track if you're still thinking "CD
> player". For a start, you get much better sound out of the top range
> of DACs.
I don't disagree, although I wouldn't be quite this absolute about it.
Splitting out the DAC won't in itself make for a better result. But -- a
lot of the more enterprising designers seem not to want to bother with
the transport side of it, which is comparatively a commodity. Hence,
their thinking goes into DACs.
I've been using free-standing DACs for about six years. But they seemed
to fall outside the scope of the OP's quandary.
Thanks for the links, will check into them. But if I spend any money,
expect some cursing.
SE.
Derek Haslam
ups.com>
"J.Martin" <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JM
Arcam CD62
Derek Haslam
--
Mastery of the rules is a prerequisite for breaking them creatively.
Paul Goldstein
>
>In message <3445b529-bc80-449f...@p20g2000yqi.googlegro
>ups.com>
> "J.Martin" <mista...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2:25 pm, gperkins151 <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
>>>
>>> I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
>>>
>>> George
>
>> Marantz SA-8260. I also have an Arcam CD72. The Marantz is a little
>> better, particularly in the lower registers, and plays SACDs.
>
>> JM
>
>Arcam CD62
Rega Planet.
Russ (not Martha)
But I wish my good old Denon DCD1520 hadn't given out; I loved the
Time Search feature where you just key in track:minute:second and it
pops you right there!
Russ (not Martha)
Steve Emerson
<5f7cafc5-0cd9-441c...@e5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Are you certain it's gone for good? Beyond repair? Do you still have it?
SE.
Bob Harper
I just learned that my gorgeous old Sony CDP-555-ES (mid-late '80s) has
achieved boat anchor status. A few years ago the laser went out. I was
able to find another, but only after a great deal of searching (it
finally came from either Germany or Denmark; I forget which). Well, it
started skipping the other day, and the 'new' laser has crapped out.
Chances of finding a replacement are at the south end of slim to none.
Ah, well, it gave good service for a number of years.
So I'm in the market, willy-nilly.
Bob Harper
Steve Emerson
Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
Are you sure it doesn't need cleaning? Elsewhere in the thread somebody
mentioned this procedure, which I've done several times. You can find
instructions on-line. Generally, there are tracks that the lens moves
on, which are subject to gumming-up and hardening of grease, and to
trapping of dust. That's true of most of the designs, anyway.
SE.
Bob Lombard
? Are you calling SE "Willy-Nilly"?
bl
Bob Lombard
Whatever you do, Bob make sure you have the funds for the Seattle
concert. Beyond that, here is a link to a description of the Cambridge
Audio 540c, at a left coast dealer's site.
bl
Bob Lombard
grobbe...@gmail.com
> Bob Lombard wrote:
> > Bob Harper wrote:
> >> Steve Emerson wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> "Russ (not Martha)" <roppenh...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Marantz CD5001.
>
> >>>> But I wish my good old Denon DCD1520 hadn't given out; I loved the
> >>>> Time Search feature where you just key in track:minute:second and it
> >>>> pops you right there!
>
> >>> Are you certain it's gone for good? Beyond repair? Do you still have it?
>
> >>> SE.
>
> >> I just learned that my gorgeous old Sony CDP-555-ES (mid-late '80s)
> >> has achieved boat anchor status. A few years ago the laser went out. I
> >> was able to find another, but only after a great deal of searching (it
> >> finally came from either Germany or Denmark; I forget which). Well, it
> >> started skipping the other day, and the 'new' laser has crapped out.
> >> Chances of finding a replacement are at the south end of slim to none.
> >> Ah, well, it gave good service for a number of years.
>
> >> So I'm in the market, willy-nilly.
>
> >> Bob Harper
>
> > ? Are you calling SE "Willy-Nilly"?
>
> > bl
>
> THE LINK:
>
> http://www.wildwestelectronics.net/cambridge-audio-azur-540c-version
It seems that CD manufacturers always make it point to let it be known
when their product contains a Wolfson 24-bit/192kHz DAC. Is there
something very special about this brand of digital to analogue
converter? What brand do more usual CD players have?
Dil.
Russ (not Martha)
> In article
> <5f7cafc5-0cd9-441c-8154-7ecb23106...@e5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Marantz CD5001.
>
> > But I wish my good old Denon DCD1520 hadn't given out; I loved the
> > Time Search feature where you just key in track:minute:second and it
> > pops you right there!
>
> Are you certain it's gone for good? Beyond repair? Do you still have it?
>
It's in storage now. It still played but it started having problems
tracking one or two CDs that the Marantz sails right thru, so
something had gotten out of spec. . I had already spent major money
and a good long wait on a repair several years before deciding to
replace the Denon.
Rus (not Martha)
Steve Emerson
<90cd9751-c2a3-4b85...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
"Russ (not Martha)" <roppe...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
Ah, so "wishing it hadn't given out" and paying to have it fixed are two
different things. Understandable. I merely thought that if the thing
was a treasure, you might want to know that replacement transports for
said Denon remain available.
SE.
Bob Harper
understand it, that the laser itself is toast. I'd love to be wrong, but...
Bob Harper
Steve Emerson
<ee6b6e11-ca1f-44f3...@r41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
grobbe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 5:52 pm, Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> > Bob Lombard wrote:
> > > Bob Harper wrote:
[...]
> > >> So I'm in the market, willy-nilly.
> >
> > >> Bob Harper
> >
> > > ? Are you calling SE "Willy-Nilly"?
> >
> > > bl
> >
> > THE LINK:
> >
> > http://www.wildwestelectronics.net/cambridge-audio-azur-540c-version
(BTW, there's a lot of additional background information on this
machine, i.e. numerous rave reviews, posted at the Audio Advisor site.)
> It seems that CD manufacturers always make it point to let it be known
> when their product contains a Wolfson 24-bit/192kHz DAC. Is there
> something very special about this brand of digital to analogue
> converter? What brand do more usual CD players have?
A quick sketch with probably a lot of omissions:
There are numerous Philips converters out there, all over the map as to
pricing and intent. A handful of Philips designs that gave great results
(at least per many respected audio designers and per results I've heard)
-- were discontinued long ago.
Burr-Brown (now a division of TI) and Crystal both make chips that get
used where there are audiophile aspirations; pro audio and otherwise
(pricing so dictates). Analog Devices may be the same, not sure if they
make any cheap ones.
Nippon Precision Circuits made several celebrated designs used
extensively by Marantz and Arcam, also by Onkyo.
TEAC, Sony, and undoubtedly others have proprietary designs.
Wolfson and the company that makes the DCS RingDAC seem to concentrate
on just a few products. They might come the closest to having a "brand"
that is meaningful. Mostly, these companies have a wide range of
designs. They get implemented in varying ways with varying results, etc.
HTH,
SE.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:emersn-982FCA.14325823022009@nnrp-
virt.nntp.sonic.net:
The same is true of my Technics SL-P8. However, the motor that moves the
tray in and out broke down ten or so years ago, and it cost me nearly $200
to fix. A couple of years later it gave out again, and I really didn't
feel like paying that much again, so I decided to just play my CDs on my
Pioneer Laserdisc player, later my Apex DVD player, and now my Toshiba
player that works with SACDs, DVDs, and CDs.
Make me an offer on the old Technics, if you think you can either fix it
and use it yourself, or use it for parts.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Martin
>
> I've got two in use and four more that I picked up for nothing or next
> to nothing (a couple needed cleaning, that's all, the others simply
> had bad power cables, I am talking minutes to fix). I use a Yamaha and
> a Sony. The Sony is very old, about 15 years old, and it works fine. I
> have not found the expense of "audiophile" CD players to be worth
> much. If I try them with a direct headphone connection (no amplifier),
> I hear no difference, essentially. Bad experiences with two Harman-
> Kardon changers, now I use single disk, exclusively. Which is why I
> picked up those extra freebies...
>
> Best,
>
> pt
pt
You really should try using a headphone amplifier. It improves the
sound considerably, adding depth, soundstange and removing artifical
brightness. I have become increasingly addicted to them and now have a
Musical Fidelity X-CAN v3 and an X-CAN v2 as well for my Rega Planet
CD player. Both are out of production, replaced by a new v8, but can
be picked up at ebay. There are an enormous number of other types in
production, and head-fi.org will tell you more than you want to know
about the subject. For small outlays you can get a marked improvement
in sound over the standard headphone out socket on a cd player.
Martin
J.Martin
> have not found the expense of "audiophile" CD players to be worth
> much. If I try them with a direct headphone connection (no amplifier),
> I hear no difference, essentially.
Unfortunately, there is no for a CD player to drive a pair of
headphones without some form of amplification. When you plug in
directly to the CD player's headphone outlet, you're using the
(usually very very cheap and minimal) amplification that was built
into the player. Most often, it is inadequate to drive a decent pair
of 'phones. This may help to explain why you have not heard much
difference between players. You might wish to try a headphone amp--
you might be startled by the differences you hear. Then again, if
you're happy with what you're hearing, why bother?
JM
one_o_six
I'm new to the group, got aware of it while googling something else. I
subscribed it long before, ages ago, in another environment other than
Google, as well as other, similar groups.
Please be aware that I don't pretend to know the absolute truth, all
I'm saying are personal opinions. Also, please be aware that English
isn't my first (nor second) language.
In order to tell you what player I'm using I need a small
introduction.
Please be patient.
I'm a classical music listener, mostly orchestral, and I do care a lot
about sound. I look for a sound close to what I listen in the concert
hall, so tried a lot of hi-fi along years. Don't get me wrong, I can't
afford highend gear, but I've always listened to it, either in shows
or at owner's place.
To make it short (up to a certain point...), no commercial stuff ever
convinced me. In chamber, baroque, solo, and others, I got fine
results with tube/valve (push-pull, not SE), but not with orchestral.
All systems, lacked the minimal dynamics I looked for, so I was about
to give up, and go back to valves (and vinyl), when I met the DIY
world of electronics buffs.
I understood at was wrong, and why it's son, and succeeded, with a
huge help form my friends, go get satisfactory results, although I'm
still looking for more.
I found out that the source is indeed crucial in a system, as mostly
know.
The best amplifier and speakers, with zero distortion (if possible),
will amplify and reproduce the distortion received from the source.
So, the CD player (or turntable, or whatever) is very important. And,
BTW, CD players don't sound the same. Whoever has exchanged
transports, keeping the same DAC, knows it.
When researching, I found out that first DACs, the multibit ones, were
superior to the current bitstream ones.
I repeat these are just personal opinions, I don't own the truth, nor
want to impose my views to anybody. Hope this is OK for you.
Among the multibit DACs, the TDA1541A and its variations was once the
best, and the PCM63 succeeded it later.
Now, supposing you've patient enough to reach this point, you'll
understand my choice.
That being said, by current player is a hugely modified one, partially
based on an old Marantz CD-65 II box. My next player will be similar,
but probably based on a Pioneer PD-8500 instead.
The Marantz has a TDA1541A, the Pioneer a PCM63. I'd love to opt for a
PD-9300, due the lovely bronze box, but its DAC is "only" a PCM58, not
a PCM63.
I had several players before, such as Philps, Marantz and meridian,
and used a few borrowed ones as well. No need to say I have also tried
DVD players and SACD ones, without success.
I'd only like to add that I'm also proud of my analogue sources, but
that's a totally different affair.
Regards,
Jorge
On Feb 22, 10:34 pm, "W. McClintock" <mcclintock...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> gperkins151 wrote:
> > Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
> > I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585 George
> Adcom GCD-575. Old, but uses the TDA1541 A/D converter which has a
> nice, "full" sound.
gperkins151
> Among the multibit DACs, the TDA1541A and its variations was once the
> best, and the PCM63 succeeded it later.
Thanks, Jorge
Do you know which Manufacturers used these DACs? If you know the model
numbers/years of use that would be great as well.
George
one_o_six
Sure, check
http://www.marantzphilips.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_list/ or
http://mestertuning.fw.hu/ or
http://www.htg2.net/index.php?action=printpage;topic=25228.0 or
http://www.mayfly.co.kr/flybbs/zboard.php?id=ustory&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=380
or
http://www.audiostereo.pl/Lista_DAC_ow_w_playerach_14940.html,
and so on; you'll find that info and more in there.
Please be aware that
a) This is just a personal opinion, not the absolute truth, there are
other POVs;
b) A CD player (or separate DAC) isn't just a chip, but a whole, and
many parts have implications on final sound quality.
Regards,
Jorge
W. McClintock
> In article <gnsjt3$siq$1...@aioe.org>,
> "W. McClintock" <mcclin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> gperkins151 wrote:
>>> Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
>>>
>>> I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
>>>
>>> George
>> Adcom GCD-575. Old, but uses the TDA1541 A/D converter which has a nice,
>> "full" sound.
>
> running forever. The transport mechanism, Sony KSS-210A, appears to be
> readily available, and cheap.
>
> SE.
Cheap indeed. I am about to buy a couple to keep on hand.
Simon Roberts
gperkins151 says...
>
>Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
>
>I use a Yamaha Natural Sound CDC 585
I have lots of devices that play CDs, including an Oppo DVD (+ just about
everything else) player, but in the sense you probably mean, a Sony
something-or-other connected to a separate Meridian D/A converter (whose
ultra-fussy separate transport wore out my patience a few years ago).
Simon
gperkins151
> On Feb 25, 3:10 pm, gperkins151 <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 9:41 am, one_o_six <jorge.sal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Among the multibit DACs, the TDA1541A and its variations was once the
> > > best, and the PCM63 succeeded it later.
> > Thanks, Jorge
> > Do you know which Manufacturers used these DACs? If you know the model
> > numbers/years of use that would be great as well.
> > George
>
> orhttp://www.audiostereo.pl/Lista_DAC_ow_w_playerach_14940.html,
> and so on; you'll find that info and more in there.
>
> Please be aware that
> a) This is just a personal opinion, not the absolute truth, there are
> other POVs;
> b) A CD player (or separate DAC) isn't just a chip, but a whole, and
> many parts have implications on final sound quality.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jorge
Thanks VERY much!!
gperkins151
> best, and the PCM63 succeeded it later.
Would a TD6709N be considered a variation of the TDA1541A?
George
David Cook
> when I met the DIY
One of the DIY yourself projects that intrigues me is modifying a cheap SACD
player to make a direct DSD connection to a DAC like the Buffalo DAC.
http://www.twistedpearaudio.com/digital/buffalo.aspx
I haven't found much detail on how to do this, and it seems to be beyond my
current DIY abilities.
Dave Cook
one_o_six
Regards,
Jorge
gperkins151
Bummer. Can you be more specific about what you mean when you say
TDA1541A and it's variations? IOW, what would the variations look
like? Same prefix (TDA) and suffix (A) with different numbers
inbetween?
George
Steve Emerson
<45cd290b-d74d-49e8...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
gperkins151 <gperk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are some "crown" versions of TDA1541. I expect that is what he
means. All of them are long out-of-production.
The TDA1543 may have some commonality, but I wouldn't count on similar
results.
The letter suffix is not significant. Alphanumeric material up to it --
is.
Soooo -- if you really want the sound of the 1541, best bet is to track
down an old player that has one. For which, you could consult
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-10403.html
I have one and am very happy with it. Cost me $20 a couple of years ago.
I did some mods. It has replaced the pricey Arcam in my bedroom system.
SE.
gperkins151
Very helpful, Steve. Thanks very much.
Where do people buy used players? Amazon? Ebay?
grobbe...@gmail.com
> In article
> <45cd290b-d74d-49e8-a961-959cf32ef...@r27g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
Steve, was there something you did not like about the Arcam? I know
that brand has a very respected reputation and I have been thinking of
getting an Arcam to replace my current 26 year old Philips player
(the first CD player on the market and still going but the laser ((I
suspect that's what it is)) is starting to go with intermittent
moments of silence (very frustrating when it happens).
Dil.
btw, FWIW, in followup to your response about my inquiry into Wolfson
DA converter's (thank you), I looked at Wolfson website and they list
about 30 current DAC models. I noticed that Arcams contain the top of
the line Wolfson (the WM8741). See:
Steve Emerson
<6f3d9d3f-5f0c-4390...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
grobbe...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think you can go wrong with Arcam. It's a great company. Their
designs are terrific, they use a lot of superlative parts in the
products, they sound good. Unlike Creek, they don't particularly have a
"house sound," i.e. a consistent set of colorations. Then again, you may
want that, particularly when it comes to digital.
The amplification in my main system is Arcam stuff. The CD player, which
I still have -- it wasn't a matter of there being anything the matter
with it. It was more that the other (old Philips/Magnavox) is so good. I
picked it up on a whim due to the 1541 chip, listened, was amazed, did
the mods. It was so good, I couldn't not use it.
Besides, the designs of the current Arcam players are entirely different
from that of my 1998 model.
The Cambridge products are less expensive than Arcam's.
SE.
A. Brain
news:f6a139c7-3dab-4853...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 22, 2:25 pm, gperkins151 <gperkins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just curious, especially because I may soon be replacing old unit.
Disclaimer: CD players should supposedly all sound the same, so the
following my all be in my head.
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------
I think it is. I've been through this since the early '70s
and the days when I cared about and even read
reviews of audio components and yakked with
friends (age 17-18) about what components
to buy back in the age of vinyl. I've long ago put
away...well you know the rest.
We would have been better off smoking dope
and listening to "The Band", that is if you could
not find a friend to listen to Sibelius (which I
did).
Let's just consider the variables other
than turntable and cartridge:
1. Speakers
2. Listening room
3. Placement of speakers
4. Mental state
All of which probably affect the listening experience
more than differences, if any, between and among
CD players.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Beaver Lad
Cables: Kimber PBJ.
Does anyone have an opinion about sending the digital output to a DAC?
Would I be able to get substantial improvement?
Steve Emerson
<9998ae5b-5e40-4688...@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
gperkins151 <gperk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Soooo -- if you really want the sound of the 1541, best bet is to track
> > down an old player that has one. For which, you could consult
> >
> > http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-10403.html
> >
> > I have one and am very happy with it. Cost me $20 a couple of years ago.
> > I did some mods. It has replaced the pricey Arcam in my bedroom system.
> >
> > SE.
>
> Very helpful, Steve. Thanks very much.
>
> Where do people buy used players? Amazon? Ebay?
eBay and for the audiophile brands, audiogon.com. And as with other old
stuff, thrift shops.
The more abundant and more affordable items on the above list will be
the Philips machines -- many of them sold in the U.S. as Magnavox. There
are countless other variables among all the assorted players; some
affect sound and some don't. Some players use transports that are
discontinued, some don't. Unfortunately, the one in my Philips/Magnavox
CDB650 - is.
SE.
David Cook
> We would have been better off smoking dope
An audio tweak unavailable to me for many years, alas. I no longer have
that friend that has a friend who knows a guy. I have to settle for a good
IPA, which is at least still legal.
> 1. Speakers
> 2. Listening room
> 3. Placement of speakers
Coincidentally, I just rearranged my speakers to put them out in the room
while putting my couch against a wall. It's like having a whole new system,
the soundstage is huge and deep, extending beyond the speakers, is more
coherent with better center fill, and the bass has more authority. Something
to try if audiophilia nervosa is kicking in, and you're itching to upgrade.
Though I did not go through all the steps of it, there's a theory behind
this speaker placement:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/faq/audiophysic.html
However, the spousal acceptance factor for this arrangement may be
pretty low.
> 4. Mental state
And the state of my tinnitus.
Dave Cook
one_o_six
The variations of the "TDA1541A" are the "TDA1541AS1 (single crown)"
and the "TDA1541AS2 (double crown)".
Anyway, players with these DACs are rather old now, and their
reliability and sound quality, as well as parts (mainly transport
ones) availability should be scarce nowadays, although some Marantz
models could be worth considering. Be aware the some are pricy (CD7,
CD12). The CD-65 MkII is usually cheap, and transport parts should
still be available.
Instead players with PCM56, PCM58, PCM 63, PCM1700~PCM1704 from Burr-
Brown are much newer.
I’d like with to remember the DAC itself doesn’t mean a player sounds
well.
Regards,
Jorge
gperkins151
All good stuff. Thanks, George.
George
one_o_six
Sorry, typing error:
"I'd like YOU to remember the DAC itself doesn't mean a player sounds
well."
Andy Evans
> It seems that CD manufacturers always make it point to let it be known
> when their product contains a Wolfson 24-bit/192kHz DAC. �Is there
> something very special about this brand of digital to analogue
> converter? What brand do more usual CD players have?
Crystal is very good.
one_o_six
subjects, which I can't find now. From memory:
- Someone asked something about DIY. I must confess the huge help from
my friends included 99% of the work, so I suppose I won't be able to
help (all I succeeded was making a chipamp work).
- SACD/DSD is against my religion. More seriously, it's bitstream
stuff, so, not enough accurate for me. I must remind you there are
other opinions (but I only stick to mine). As long as I can choose,
I'll stay away from bitstream.
- Problem with a separate DAC is jitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jitter). I'd prefer avoiding it.
- Someone mentioned TDA1543. This was what Philips called ‘Economic
Version'. It's a lost cause. Its replacement, TDA1545, is even better.
TDA1543 became popular after some Oriental cheap separate DACs, so-
called Shigaraky clones, reached the market. I knew them pretty well.
Please forget them, the sound is too bad to be described. A humble
Philips CD-160 player, even a much more humble CD-210, easily beats
those outboard DACs.
Once again, this is only a personal opinion. There are others.
Regards,
Jorge
gperkins151
.
W. McClintock
course, I don't know if it is the sole reason that my Adcom deck sounds
better to me or if it is a combination of factors. All I know is that
I've heard many CD players over the years[cheap to mid-priced] and the
Adcom is the best of the bunch. Although it can have a bit of grain in
the mid-range but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.