[Headdie]

Last week, I brought my old Denon DCD-1400 at the audiophile shop for a tune up. I asked the maintenance guy if it would make sense to clean it up again, when I could buy a Marantz CD5004 for 350$. Note that I've paid my Denon 750$ twenty years ago. The maintenance guy told me that under 1000$ now, I'd be better to keep my Denon. How could it be so ?
 
It's true that the SQ of my Denon is very good, but the DAC inside is probably obsolete. How could a 20 year old DAC compete against the new ones that we can find in player like the CD5004 ?

 

[LFF]

The old Denon CD players do indeed have a nice magic to them. I was doubtful initially as well until I compared them directly. At the time I was considering a nice player from Cambridge, a new top of the line Sony or Marantz or the Denon. I ended up with a lightly used Denon DCD 1560 CD Player. To this day, I am very happy with it. I paid $120 for it back in 2003. The sound it puts out is solid and IMHO, rather neutral and natural, so good in fact, that it can stand next to modern CD players costing up to $2,000.00 or more. I think it can still be used as a reference player. Usually, if you want to see what these Denon CD players can really sound like, you need to connect them directly to your main amp via the variable outputs on the back. Then you'll see just how much degradation is being added by the pre-amp and just how amazing the sound is. A lot of people who hated these players back in the day was most likely due to the result of bad synergy with crappy dolby pro-logic receivers. Trust me on that!
 
As for build quality, except for the main transport door, the build quality is also top notch. The transport assembly and laser are top notch!
 
Can you buy something better? Sure you can! However, you'll be spending a lot more dough to find something better. The DCD 1600 is supposed to be slightly better than the 1560 too (although many say it sounds the same)! I haven't heard a 1600 but I have heard a 1650 and IMHO, it sounded relatively close to the 1560 - a very good thing indeed!

 
I think it would be a wise choice sticking with your 1600. If the repair bill it too much, you could probably pick up two used 1520's, 1560's or even an S series from 1995-1996 for the same amount. They all sound fantastic.
 
How can this be? Some people feel that because the CD was still relatively new, most companies invested in quality products and design and used reference analog systems as the "gold standard". As time passed, less and less $$ went into designing quality products and the companies starting cutting corners by using cheaper plastics, eliminating the better chips and using inferior parts over-all. Others feel that these old chips sound more analog than their more accurate, modern counterparts. Still, other feel that vintage stuff is just better. Personally, I don't know and don't care as long as I feel it sounds good.
 
There must be a reason certain old (circa 1989) players still sell for over $1,000!

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

How could a 20 year old DAC compete against the new ones that we can find in player like the CD5004 ?

A good CD player is much more than just its DAC.  

 

[Headdie]

Two good comments. After posting yesterday, I went to The Audio Critic website, looking for an answer. It looks like DAC were already mature in the 90s. They would have progressed since then, but on papers only, not audibly...

 

[Deep Funk]

Denon? Interesting, I once read about the TDA 1549 CD-players. I found two of them of which one I kept. It is true those CD-players have a very musical sound, good enough to seriously enjoy

.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I'm not familiar with the Denon decks, but have come to appreciate vintage digital. Some years back, I picked up an original Rega Planet. Very nice-sounding deck and I haven't been able to part with it. I'll open her up sooner or later to install some fresh electrolytics in the power supply.

 

[Ultrainferno]

I'm still using my 1991 Kenwood CDP, celibrating it's 20th anniversary next year.
Only the transport door doesn't immediately open from time to time, but it's still playing great. They made quality back then

 

[leveller1642]

I have a 21 year old Marantz CD-80. I'm really not that impressed by it. It is far too dark for my tastes, but to be fair, the capacitors probably need replacing. 

 

[computerparts]

It all comes down to personal preference. Yes the dac inside, the Marantz player is newer but does it sound better? It's subjective. Marantz has always sounded warmer and less dry than Denon in my experience which is more to my preference. But the DCD-1600 was a unit that unfortunately, Denon cut corners on. The build of the older 1560 was better. The 1650AR was by far their best IMO. That being said, I say give the Marantz a try.

 

[Headdie]

Already done ! The Marantz was in demo at the audio shop where my Denon got maintenance. Honestly, I couldn't hear a difference, even if the audiophile guy told me that the Marantz wasn't a match for my Denon. Maybe the markup is better on maintenance than on selling new stuff, who knows...
 
Quote:

It all comes down to personal preference. Yes the dac inside, the Marantz player is newer but does it sound better? It's subjective. Marantz has always sounded warmer and less dry than Denon in my experience which is more to my preference. But the DCD-1600 was a unit that unfortunately, Denon cut corners on. The build of the older 1560 was better. The 1650AR was by far their best IMO. That being said, I say give the Marantz a try.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Two good comments. After posting yesterday, I went to The Audio Critic website, looking for an answer. It looks like DAC were already mature in the 90s. They would have progressed since then, but on papers only, not audibly...

Indeed, by 1990 you had 18 or 20 bit and 8x oversampling CD players where the noise was inaudible and distortion was at absurdly low levels and the FRs were by design utterly razor flat, between 1984 when I had a 14 bit Marantz machine and 1989 when I got a newer Marantz the performance had improved massively !
 
As for audible differences between CD players, that is a different matter. Once I had bought a decent Switch Box and was able to switch between CD players synchroniized and playing the same CD it became apparent to me that the biggest difference was always volume, I have 3 CD players and a separate DAC and no two have the same output level, the DAC is 0.7db hotter than the quietest CD player and when switching always sounds bettter, however I recorded samples from my CD players and adjusted the volumes and when compared (even crudely) volume matched the differences were inaudible.
 
Whilst it is possible to design a CD player to sound different, and Wadia for instance notoriously add a 3db roll off to their DACs, many reported differences between CD players may simpy be due to flawed comparisons where listeners rely on memory often hours, days or even weeks old, and do not correctly adjust volume levels to make fair comparsons, the Spanish hifi site Matriixhifi for instance did level matched blind tests between a Pioneeer $230 DVD player and a $12000 Oracle CD player, none of their audiophile members could detect a difference.
 
If you look at test measurements for CD players such as Stereophile's apart from some oddiities the FR, the single most important audio parameter,  is always flat from 20 - 20K. That being so why would two flat CD players be significantly audibly different, other CDP parameters such as noise and distortion and crosstalk are typically beyond reproach.

 

[computerparts]

...

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

Already done ! The Marantz was in demo at the audio shop where my Denon got maintenance. Honestly, I couldn't hear a difference, even if the audiophile guy told me that the Marantz wasn't a match for my Denon. Maybe the markup is better on maintenance than on selling new stuff, who knows...
 

 

 
You're rarely going to be able to test an immediate difference between sources. The difference will be in long term listening.

 

[computerparts]

nick does bring a good point in volume matching. However, there are often subtle differences that one will be able to detect in long term listening. Rapid A-B comparisons are usually not long enough to determine these subtle differences.

 

[nick_charles]

The nature of human memory (puts on "Psychologist" hat) being what it is, long term listening is *more* likely to be *less* sensitive than quick switching, Tom Nousaine's article "Flying Blind" for instance outlines how long term listeners were unable to detect 2.5% distortion in a black box, whereas in rapid switching tests the difference was reliably detected, to date there really is no verifiable strong evidence for the idea that long term listening is a sensitive method of detecting small differences, nobody (afaik) has ever done any serious long term tests...
 
Ironically, one could test this quite simply. Give a listener two sources and run level matched DBTs when one or both sources is new/unknown to the listener, get a baseline measure of detection, then allow the listener to live with both for an extended period; days, weeks or months and the rerun the DBTs. 
 
If the long term listening is effective then the differences would be detected. Anecdotally my kit sounds different from day to day, it always sounds better for instance when I have finished teaching for the day

 and it (hopefully) is not changing in between much. With so much variability caused by human perception I would hesitate to rely on long term memory.

 
Quote:

nick does bring a good point in volume matching. However, there are often subtle differences that one will be able to detect in long term listening. Rapid A-B comparisons are usually not long enough to determine these subtle differences.