[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't question that the PS1 sound good. But saying that it can replace a high-end CD player is wrong, imo.

Wrong? I dunno, I think spending $7k on a cd player in 2007 is "wrong". Or at least, pretty dumb. YMMV.

I might have to try the mods spritzer mentioned. Oh and don't forget to add $5 for a proper remote control.

 

[hciman77]

Whenever I hear folks saying how a cheap player cannot possibly match an expensive one due to X, Y or Z I remember the Matrix HiFi tests where a $10,000 Oracle CD player was found to be indistinguishable from a $200 Pioneer DVD player or Masters and Clark's 1980s tests where $12000 boutique Amps were indistinguishable from $230 receivers. Or the 2004 HiFi show where a 3rd gen iPod was mistaken for a $20,000 CD player. Decoding and playing back digital audio data with minimal errors and undetectable timing variations is utterly trivial these days, $2 opamps can be flat to 20K. There is no reason a cheap well designed unit cannot perform perfectly competently.

 

[meat01]

Quote:

But high quality part, for a high-end player, cost a whole lot more.

Yes, With a high end CD player, you have an expensive machined aluminum enclosure. Herandu is correct in that you are getting a value in the parts, because the parts are bought in such large quantities as opposed to boutique parts. As mentioned also, there is no display or remote.

I have not looked at the interior of the PS1, but I am sure the power supply does not compare to a high end player.

I have not compared a PS1 to another player, so I will reserve judgment.

 

[kpeezy]

What about the remade ps1 in the different case? Is it the same?

 

[Marc303]

this whole post is a weird sarcastic joke right ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's old news, but not bad advise. The PS1 was manufactured on a large scale, making it a relatively inexpensive mass market product. The R&D cost that has gone into the PS1 surpasses even the world's most expensive CD player by several 1000's or more times. Put in another way: your 50K Burmeister would see less than 1000 pieces sold. That's U$50M. Out of that amount comes R&D cost. The PS1 sold in their millions. R&D cost would have made the R&D cost of the U$50K Burmeister look like small change to Sony.

a playstation is a games console which has the added bonus of being able to play audio cds. I seriously doubt any R&D went into the consoles audio side.
Quote:

But there is more! The PS1 includes a processor and memory bank that surpasses anything that has ever been fitted to any "standard" CD player.

errr because standard cd players do not need to process anything and do not need to store anything?

Quote:

That processing power was bit accurate for video images, which are several times more demanding compared to a 16 bit audio signal. Did I mention the PS1 video bandwidth accuracy compared to a CD player audio bandwidth?

processing information and throwing the end result out of a tv socket is nothing like reading information from an audio cd bitstream.

Quote:

If that wasn't enough, the PS1 optical pick up was a masterpiece of engineering. Trying to buy one on the open market was near to impossible. Sony never sold them to anyone. You had to send your PS1 back for exchange if you needed a new laser pick up.

billshut. The laser is a bog standard cd drive laser and it is available everywhere

Quote:

You talk about clock accuracy? It would have many current day clock mods for breakfast. Ever noticed how stable the video image was even during complex games manoeuvres? And just imagine that the video was at a higher bit rate than the audio!

wrong again. video image stability is nothing to do with the audio clock. The 2 parts are not connected and never will be.

Quote:

So which high-end U$250K CD manufacturer has a better R&D facility than Sony? Didn't Sony and Philips invent the CD format? And someone can better that? I think not. Not even in a U$500K CD player.

huh ? sony and philips stand alone cd players sound better than all other cd players then ?

 

[greggf]

This does seem to be a humor post, not a serious one.

 

[Blitzula]

Can we hear more from people who have actually used the PS1 as a player?

There are way too many posts saying it can't sound the same as expensive players from people who seemingly haven't even heard it.

You're brainwashed by high-end pricing if you think the dollars spent directly correlate with the sound that's returned to the point where this isn't even possible.

 

[Icarium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well then,whose fault is it if you tried the PS2 when the PS1 was the one to try? Follow up generations are not always as good. the PS2 was more featured packed, not sonically gifted. The Philips CDM-2 mechanism is still being used today in some high-end CD players, because it was over engineered just to make sure it would last. Same with the PS1 laser unit and electronics. Last thing Sony wanted was a world wide failure rate that would spell the death knell of all their investment. Just look how much Microsoft is valuing the problems of the XBox at. Was it not around U$10 Billion?

So you are saying that Sony built the PS-1 with this sonic gift in mind? While they didn't do the same with the PS-2? I don't think so... if anything it's a side effect. Also the PS-1 laser was notorious for being unreliable I've had to replace the one on mine twice. In fact the laser is dead right now which is the only reason I've never tested its sonic potential.

Edit: http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102962 <- this person even agrees with you that it has an audiophile level of sound, but still says its an unreliable piece of crap. The PS1 may very well sound quite decent for a potentially 20 dollar buy it may beat out various 500-1k level cd players (I'm not sure I totally buy that just yet, but I admit its quite possible), but if anything this quality of sound is NOT due to fantastic build quality or probably even strong engineering, but more a testament to the nuanced differences between high end cd players and low end. And while I do buy pricey I totally admit that it is nuanced and minor and for 99.99999999999 percent of the population, not worth it.

 

[silverrain]

Wow -- business plan!
Buy some $20 players as mentioned, and put them in an expensive-looking *sealed* outer shell (so no one opens it up, of course, and sees the truth) and sell the rig for big bux!
Why wouldn't that work?
(busy buying parts and stuff to get rich quick)

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarium /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you are saying that Sony built the PS-1 with this sonic gift in mind? While they didn't do the same with the PS-2? I don't think so... if anything it's a side effect. Also the PS-1 laser was notorious for being unreliable I've had to replace the one on mine twice. In fact the laser is dead right now which is the only reason I've never tested its sonic potential.

What you think and what the facts are, are two different things. How old is the PS1, and how many years hours of play time has your been getting compared to your CD player? You replaced your laser??? You mean you sent the PS1 off and they replaced the whole unit. Right?

 

[Herandu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverrain /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow -- business plan! Buy some $20 players as mentioned, and put them in an expensive-looking *sealed* outer shell (so no one opens it up, of course, and sees the truth) and sell the rig for big bux! Why wouldn't that work? (busy buying parts and stuff to get rich quick)

Many (aftermarket) companies have been doing that with various products for years. The MIssion 1st CD player was a far cheaper Philips CD player with a few changes to justify the higher price. Linn has been doing that for decades. Many of their arms and cartridges were from Audio Technica. The famously expensive LP12 was a far cheaper Ariston in origin.

 

[Icarium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif What you think and what the facts are, are two different things. How old is the PS1, and how many years hours of play time has your been getting compared to your CD player? You replaced your laser??? You mean you sent the PS1 off and they replaced the whole unit. Right?

Ever thought that "What you think and what the facts are,a re two different things" applies to you? I've listed my experiences and I've posted a link to a forum where many others share the same experience. All my friends in real life who eventually had their original ps-1 die was for the same reason. The laser failed/burnt out. I could make up some numbers, but truth be told I have no idea how many hrs were on my PS-1. Does it really matter? Sure maybe the PS-1 was used more heavily than any of my cd players during that time of my life (But nowadays my CD players definitely see more action than any console I own), though perhaps not since I was never a hardcore console gamer only owning perhaps 6 titles total on the machine and everytime it died was in the midst of a long running RPG. Somehow the engineers at Sony behind the PS-1 designed and built it to be an amazing cd player but didn't design it to last long as a game console? That doesn't make any sense. It's primary purpose was to play games why would resources be focused into making it a solid cd player rather than a solid game machine.

You haven't shown ANY facts or evidence of any sort that the PS-1 was engineered for superior sonics yourself. You've have some vaguely circumstancial evidence (And I use the word evidence in the loosest sense possible) at best. So Sony put a lot of money into R&D. How much of that money was dedicated into making it a quality game machine versus a cd player? Are you going to even try to argue that you have any idea? It may very well be that Sony spent less R&D money making it the PS-1 a quality cd player than Bumeister put into theirs (Even if their over all budget/cost was 1000x less). You have no idea.

And who cares how awesome the processor/memory bank is in the PS-1. How does that have any bearing on how good it sounds? Guess what anyone who frequents these boards probably has more computing power/memory at their disposal in their personal computer than even the PS-1 (Let alone even the most modern cd player)... and yet somehow all that processing power has not transformed the computer into an audio playback power house. Maybe that means that computational resources isn't the #1 (Or even a very big factor) in sound reproduction. Same goes for bandwith. Where's the evidence that the video bandwidth is even used for audio transfer or that this increased bandwidth even makes a difference in sonics.

See above regarding clocks. Ever watch a 3d rendered cinematic in a computer video game? Damn is that image stable and fluid. What's the effect on my sound? Are you honestly going to try and tell me audio reproduction more of a secondary function to a PC than to a game console? Most of my friends have probably not ever played a CD in a PS-1 while they play mp3s and flacs on their computers alll the time.

I think we already covered the laser unit. List me some high end current in production cd players that use that exact transport. Not that the fact any Phillips transport particularly impresses me. I have a VRDS Neo transport in my player... now that is a transport.

Essentially you are saying big consumer electronics company = awesome cd player. That just isn't always true (Some would even say RARELY true) even when they intend to market a player for cd playback. And now you would suggest that it is true for a particular (Not even all) game console? There is a reason these companies are big. That is because they have a diverse # of products which their resources are divided over. So total resources has 0 bearing on an individual product. Even Sony's top of the line dedicated audio disc players are not considered universally the best though some models have had their cult following. So what bearing does the fact that they developed the cd have any bearing on anything.

Your case is weak.

I'm not even ruling out the fact that the PS-1 might sound very good. It might. I try and keep an open mind about these things. I believe in cables for chrissakes. But I will be the FIRST to admit that the evidence for cables making a difference is profoundly weak. And the evidence for the PS-1 being some sort of giant-killer is no less weak. Arguing or trying to make a point from any other standpoint is just crazy/wishful thinking.

 

[spritzer]

Many of the reasons why so many people love the PS1 is because it doesn't sound like a high-end player. It's the same reason why people love vintage turntables, amps, speaker and even headphones. It is my opinion and many others that somewhere along the way, the high-end took a wrong turn and stopped being fun and lifelike. The same thing happened with mid-fi in the 70's but the late 80's hit the high-end hard. Manufacturers embraced new material and technology that sounded worse the ever but you did get a more linear response and an extra octave of bass. The same happened with the hi-fi press as early 90's reviews were short and actually listed some flaws (the SR-Omega and Orpheus reviews in Stereophile are a great read) but in the late 90's every bit was great and all that was new was a breakthrough.

Many other players and components present the same sonic signature as the PS1 but none are as cheap except you can find one of the second generation CDP's in good condition. That's about the time things started to be real bad.

 

[Filburt]

The PS1 sounds just like what it is; an older midrange delta-sigma converter with the NJM2100 on the end of it. I've used, worked on, and modified many devices that use that the 2100. It's a jellybean that was pervasively used in japanese electronics throughout 80s and 90s, and it has a fairly distinct sound that it tends to impart on whatever has it; which is a decent, but not great performance. While I'll entertain (and, it seems, engage in) what is relative heterodoxy on this forum, I don't think the PS-1 is really a case of superlative performance.

 

[Sarchi]

The funny thing is that of all the people crying foul, not a single one has given any personal experience of actually trying it.

Ah, well....whatever. To me it sounds about on a par with the Naim CD3.5...not the world's best player, but very smooth, unoffensive, quick, nice sense of PRaT, and decent resolution of detail.

Fwiw, I think the priciest cdp I've heard is the 47 PitTracer, my stepdad owned one for a few years. It did not sound like music to me. But yeah I'm an analog guy.