[Anacondastan]

I have never heard the Toshiba 3950 I have the 3960. Some say the latter is a wee-bit more refined in the bass dept. I keep getting the itchy finger to buy something else to create a "real" he-man rig, but everytime I hear the darn thing I can't make the rational case to spend the money. I just can't think of what I am missing

Hmmm, here is an idea, maybe I can get a Mark Levinson No. 39 shell and slip the 'shiba inside of it and then I will be able to relax forever in audio blissdom

Enjoy!

 

[dSquared]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anacondastan I have never heard the Toshiba 3950 I have the 3960. Some say the latter is a wee-bit more refined in the bass dept. I keep getting the itchy finger to buy something else to create a "real" he-man rig, but everytime I hear the darn thing I can't make the rational case to spend the money. I just can't think of what I am missing Hmmm, here is an idea, maybe I can get a Mark Levinson No. 39 shell and slip the 'shiba inside of it and then I will be able to relax forever in audio blissdom Enjoy!

What you're missing? Bling bling.

You should encrust the 3950/3960 with sapphires and diamonds, like other luxury consumer electronics. See this NY Times (reg required) article here!

 

[bundee1]

You can also use 22'' rims as a platform for your cdp. You can also stack 3 of them with Yokohama tires as speaker stands. Make the playa haterz go crazy!

 

[Robert Seletsky]

People were wondering about comparisons among the Toshiba SD-3950, Cambridge Azur (540c and 640c), and NAD (521i and BEE are what I know), and whether the Toshiba is all hype.

A few details first. The Toshiba 3950 has a huge return and disposal rate, if one can judge from the number of repacks at Best Buy and the staggering number of them for sale cheap on ebay at various times.

The 3950 is not optimized for CDs, but rather for DVDs *and* a TV monitor. The display on the unit won't show anything but elapsed time. Pre-gaps don't read-out at all, just freezing at 00:00 for their duration, and if you attempt to scan backwards and hit a pre-gap, the 3950 (and 4900) go nuts and skip to the *beginning* of the previous track.

Yes, the 3950 is sweet-sounding, has good imaging/soundstage and detail. Not a particularly controlled bass, but a decent one. But this is not a new audio design from Toshiba. They've been using it for at least three years. For some reason, it's the 3950 that got noticed. That's especially ironic because it's the first one on which CDs are hard to play because of the display, pre-gap incompatibility etc. The 2002 Toshiba SD-1800, also about the same give-away price, has a display that *does* offer remaining time, total time, track number, CD text, all on the unit with no need for a TV monitor! It also recognizes pre-gaps and treats them like any dedicated CDP, counting the seconds backwards; it scans through them normally too in both directions. The electronics are the same (including the 24-bit/192kHz DAC) as the later 3950 (and 4900), as is the sound. But it tends not to break: I don't ever remember seeing any repacked 1800s at Best Buy, and there aren't even many for sale on ebay. I got one on ebay--sealed and under warranty (the seller had won it in a raffle and didn't know what to do with it). I own three SD-1800s, and all have been great for two years. The 3950 is apparently not built as well.

I had a three-week affair with the CA Azur 540c and 640c. They are definitely not worth 6-8 times the price of the Toshiba SD-1800. In fact, a number of listeners--like me, professional classical musicians--preferred the more honest and less artificially etched sound of the Toshiba SD-1800. The Azur 540c plays in badly: it starts sweet and detailed, but in three days, the midrange becomes thin and muddy, and the top becomes ugly and wiry. The 640c is very detailed but a little too lean and bright; real music just doesn't sound like that. Artificiality was the keyword I associated with the older CA CDPs too. And the transport is no better than the Toshiba 1800; it might not even be as good: the Azur drawers slam shut, rattling the CDs, and scratched discs are not made welcome. The transformers (especially the 640c) hum loudly ("like an old fridge" as one reviewer put it), and the remote is so huge and unwieldy that you can get tendonitis from using it. Moreover, there is wild unit-to-unit variation in sound, cosmetics (power lights can be blindingly bright), transport (initial-read speed varies, drawer-speed can go from reasonable to dangerous), and remote sensitivity (one worked from most angles, the other only in a very narrow range). And, oh yeah: if you don't eject, close, and turn off the power in exactly the right order, waiting the four seconds for the "No Disc" display, there is a good chance that the motor will continue to run while the power to everything else is off! I returned mine.

NAD: to my ear, although the units are solid, the sound is boring and quacky with peculiar upper roll-off, making the bass over-pronounced, the midrange dull, and the top mismatched--though not harsh. Also, NAD refuses to include a remaining-time-per-track feature, a ridiculous and consistent omission. Initial CD scanning seems to take ages. They're clunky. The weird LED display can only be read from the front.

Find a Toshiba SD-1800. The only quirks are: as a DVD player, it does instant-play whether you want it to or not (they all do); and while it will read out total *time* on the unit, total *tracks* is the one thing that requires a TV screen. $60-75 vs. $300-579 when the cheaper option may subjectively be for the better? Are you kidding?

RS

 

[TMC]

Robert: Didn't you say your 540C was starting to skip a lot towards the end when you had it? The sonical changes you heard might very well be due to your unit being defective. My remote works and feels just fine, if you think it's much too heavy I feel working out might be in order

And the 640C surely sounded better than the 540C to me, but I'm no purist trying to achieve something "true" with my setup. I just go with what I enjoy more.

 

[Robert Seletsky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC Robert: Didn't you say your 540C was starting to skip a lot towards the end when you had it? The sonical changes you heard might very well be due to your unit being defective. My remote works and feels just fine, if you think it's much too heavy I feel working out might be in order And the 640C surely sounded better than the 540C to me, but I'm no purist trying to achieve something "true" with my setup. I just go with what I enjoy more.

Yes, I exchanged the defective 540c a week ago and started all over. The new one started out lovely, as I wrote--and it didn't even have a disturbingly bright power LED, like several others. (Both had aggressive, slammy CD drawers.) In three days, however, the warmth of the midrange had been replaced by an antiseptic, distant quality and the highs developed an unattractive edginess--a close presence but an ugly one. With this, the bass seemed more unnatural and unbalanced than ever--so "crisp" that even accurately transferred 78s sounded absurdly etched while their top registers were glassier and more unsupported than the 78s ever were; and I know the engineer, who would *never* mess with the source material in such a garish way. On the Toshiba SD-1800, the 78 transfers, like everything else, sounded natural. The 540c that started skipping and was replaced had also begun to exhibit nasty sonic features as it played in, and would have developed in the same way as its non-defective replacement. The 640c I A-B'd was smoother but had too much energy in the top, nothing like real music, except perhaps the kind of music I don't listen to, and the physical transformer hum practically vibrated the surface on which I placed the unit; both 640c's that I sampled did this. The sad thing is that I desperately wanted to like one of these Azurs after all the hype and the company's reputation, but I didn't like them and nobody who listened to them with me did either, when comparing them with the little Toshiba SD-1800. Thanks for asking.

RS

 

[Reader]

Not sure about 3950, but 4900 I had was PoS, in a week it's dead, won't even power on.

I have a 3960(which feels even cheaper than 4900 but did not die after a week) and a Azur 640c at home now, 640c(new right out of box) simplely beat the crap out of 3960 which has been break-in for about 200 hours, simplely sound better in everyway. Then again it should, for something cost 6 times as much.

 

[Robert Seletsky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reader Not sure about 3950, but 4900 I had was PoS, in a week it's dead, won't even power on. I have a 3960 (which feels even cheaper than 4900 but did not die after a week) and a Azur 640c at home now, 640c (new right out of box) simply beat the crap out of 3960 which has been break-in for about 200 hours, simply sound better in everyway. Then again it should, for something cost 6 times as much.

I heard that the newer Toshibas had a big DOA rate. Not so for the ones from a few years ago. Sound-wise, when we compared the Azur 640c or 540c to the Toshiba SD-1800, the Azurs were cleaner, more spacious, and classier--well, for $329 and $449 they should be; *but* the Toshiba SD-1800 was warmer, more natural, and easier to listen to for longer, but still with a good image, and nicely detailed, though not to the extent that the Azurs are. I still think that for classical music, the 640c is over the top, making old recordings sound like new ones. I prefer accuracy to glitz.

My SD-1800s are two years old--three of them, of which I only use one for audio--and there has never been the hint of a problem or weirdness. The Azurs I had for a few weeks were nothing but problems in every department--sound, function, cosmetic. I can't speak for the longevity or sound of the newer Toshibas like the 3950 or 3960 compared to the Azurs, but I already expressed doubts after my small experience with the 3950 and 4900, and then seeing their huge return rate--not shared by the older Toshibas.

RS

 

[Reader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Seletsky I heard that the newer Toshibas had a big DOA rate. Not so for the ones from a few years ago. Sound-wise, when we compared the Azur 640c or 540c to the Toshiba SD-1800, the Azurs were cleaner, more spacious, and classier--well, for $329 and $449 they should be; *but* the Toshiba SD-1800 was warmer, more natural, and easier to listen to for longer, but still with a good image, and nicely detailed, though not to the extent that the Azurs are. I still think that for classical music, the 640c is over the top, making old recordings sound like new ones. I prefer accuracy to glitz. My SD-1800s are two years old--three of them, of which I only use one for audio--and there has never been the hint of a problem or weirdness. The Azurs I had for a few weeks were nothing but problems in every department--sound, function, cosmetic. I can't speak for the longevity or sound of the newer Toshibas like the 3950 or 3960 compared to the Azurs, but I already expressed doubts after my small experience with the 3950 and 4900, and then seeing their huge return rate--not shared by the older Toshibas. RS

I am confused, so how do yout think the sound of 3950/4900 compare to 1800?

 

[Robert Seletsky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reader I am confused, so how do yout think the sound of 3950/4900 compare to 1800?

You were talking mostly about the survival rate of the 3950/4900, which is much worse than the older 1800. I only had the 4900 for a few days and returned it because it was not usable as a CD player--you needed a TV monitor to see any real display and pre-gaps made it crazy.

Soundwise, I remember that the 4900 seemed darker and less open than the 1800. Several people listening to the 1800 in direct comparsion with both CA Azurs liked the 1800 as much or more than the Azurs about half the time for its balance, warmth, and imaging; so maybe the 1800 really does sound better than the newer 3950/4900, since you say that the "640c...simply beat the crap out of 3960...in every way...the Azur blows the 4900 away."

The Azurs are definitely more impressive than the Toshiba 1800 in spaciousness, detail, and bass definition. The 1800 is definitely warmer, has a more normal soundstage (the Azur image has a hole between the channels), and a rounder, if less defined, bass. But if, as you said, the Azur is better than the newer Toshibas "in *every* way," than I'd say the 1800 was better than the 3950/4900.

No one would claim (I hope) that the Toshiba DVD players are like high-end equipment, but they do make stuff in the $300-500 range (NAD, CA) seem overpriced--especially the 1800, which has (really "had" since it's not made now) very few DVD-based operating eccentricities, good unit-to-unit consistency, and a low break-down rate.

Sorry for another long answer.

RS

 

[Absorbine_Sr]

I'm resurrecting this thread to say thanks. After reading all of the comments, especially those by Robert Seletsky, I purchased a Toshiba SD-1800 on Ebay. I'm essentially a newb, and am working at keeping my wallet from feeling too much pain. So at $49.95 I was pretty happy. And now that I'm listening to it I'm even happier. Paired with my Mint Vibe and HD 555's, I'm a grinning fool!

Thanks for all the great info, and now I think I need to talk to Norm about that Headsave Classic....

A_Sr.

 

[bundee1]

Man Absorbine that is the best name ever.

 

[stevieo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC I really don't expect that the 3950 will do even close to as well as what some of the guys think in AA (which is a rather unfortunate abbreviation btw), but I'm still interested in how far away it would be from a NAD C521BEE or a Cambridge D500SE.

the $500 ack! dack! does wonders for the $65 unmodded toshiba. for $565 or there about you have 1 really decent source for the money. that $565 source may sound a whole lot better than un-dac'd sources costing a a couple of thousand more. it sounds better than my brand new creek cd50 mk 2 without the ack! now i am waiting to get my toshiba modded & i can sell my new creek - not! but the meridian g08 un-dac'd still tops them both .

 

[Nutty]

Since we're talking about older Toshiba units, does anyone use a SD-2109 as a CD player? I bought one around 1999 and gave it to my parents (who never use it). I've wondered how it might compare to the 3950/3960...

 

[pbirkett]

Personally, although I havent heard the DVD players in question, I am not really that surprised that it may rival the budget NAD, Cambridge CD players. Quite frankly, the budget CD players I've heard, I couldnt see what the fuss was about (and FWIW, they are only really hyped up on this forum, out of the ones I visit), to be honest these CD players were at best no better than, and at worst, considerably worse sounding than a £100 soundcard.

Someone said in this thread that the likes of CA and NAD are getting away with robbery. I agree. However, they are not going to stop doing this until people question what they are getting for their money, and that isnt happenning at the minute.