[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman You might as well ask someone who buys a present-day Porsche 911 why they don't buy an 80's job and tack some new wings and suspension onto it.

And what's wrong with that?

I detest snobbery for no reason other than to possess the latest model to come off the production line.

I'm talking "sound quality" here and not snobbery.

Mike.

 

[Duncan]

lol...

I give up with this dead horse... I'm happy, thats all that matters...

Forget I ever said anything... certainly won't anymore...

 

[bangraman]

Pinkie, my approach is to buy or to loan for an extended audition and then decide to keep it or not. I usually do quite a lot of research before buying since if I buy a lemon, I have to sell it at a loss. Snobbery has nothing to do with it, and how I feel about how it sounds has everything to do with it.


Since we're on about this, what I'd like to know is how much research did you do before proclaiming whatever the player is better than what you can buy today?

 

[Duncan]

Actually... I will...

What is it that you guys actually want here? This thing cost me $100 all in, now... you tell me how I can get a better sound quality for... lets say... five times the cost... I bet you'll find it hard...

A quote from the guy I got this player from... Quote:

I'm glad you like it. I have to admit when I tested it for the last time before packaging I had great reservations about selling it. I played it back to back with the Marantz CD6000 OSE LE again trying to convince myself that the Marantz was better and I really couldnt concince myself. I could certainly hear differences but I actually preferred the sound of the CD850 ! I hate all the audio press mumbo jumbo but in this case the CD850 was simply more 'musical' and much easier to listen to IMHO. The other thing about the CD850 is just how well built it is, the drawer mechanism feels as though you could stand on it in comparison to the Marantz. Oh well, some you win, some you lose Enjoy

This guy is no slouch either, having a Naim setup...

But, the jury has cast their vote... lol... oh well, think i'll hang out at DIY Audio from now on... Probably for the best.

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman Since we're on about this, what I'd like to know is how much research did you do before proclaiming whatever the player is better than what you can buy today?

Do you remember Bangraman, that I have had one of these now, for... what is it... about four months I think...

Anyway... I compared it to all of the Arcam line again (seeing that that is all that my local audio dealer stocks it seems)... and, it walked all over them... maybe not in the 'i can hear a pin drop from the 37th row whilst i'm stood on the stage' stakes, but in sheer musicality... a no brainer, the Arcams sounding very distracting.. and.. fake in comparison.

I've already mentioned in another thread that the digital output to me sounds pretty brittle compared to newer players, but - the analogue workings are brilliant... if they put as much effort into mid-fi players these days, as they did in those days.. there would be no such thing as 'high end' equipment...

Oh well, whatever will be will be... I'm tired of fighting my corner... i'm just going to sit in silence.. and... enjoy the music.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman Pinkie, my approach is to buy or to loan for an extended audition and then decide to keep it or not. I usually do quite a lot of research before buying since if I buy a lemon, I have to sell it at a loss. Snobbery has nothing to do with it, and how I feel about how it sounds has everything to do with it. Since we're on about this, what I'd like to know is how much research did you do before proclaiming whatever the player is better than what you can buy today?

Research???? I visited loads of Hi-Fi shops and used my ears. Look, I'm not affiliated to Philips in anyway shape or form but I can vouch for the abilities of the CD850........... I reeeally don't have an agenda with this device, or any other device, and I'm only stating fact from my own experience of the CD850.

You, being such an expert in all things audio, should know a bit about the CD850 and I'm surprised you are dismissing it so off handedly.

 

[bangraman]

I'm not an expert. But I don't form my concrete opinions on what I listen to at a shop, but over a period of weeks using it in my own environment. Anything I don't do this with, I don't profess a qualified opinion. For example, Before I bought it, I'd listened to the Omega II's for long enough that some people might consider enough to post opinions about it. I didn't say anything much about it until I got my own pair and listened to it for a while. It's the same for sources.


Anyway, this seems like a good catalyst to get together for another 'Head-Fi mini meet with mains sockets'. Perhaps in the autumn. And this time we can actually keep it to two or three, instead of inviting 10 and ending up with three

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman This seems like a good catalyst to get together for another 'Head-Fi mini meet with mains sockets'. Perhaps in the autumn. And this time we can actually keep it to two or three, instead of inviting 10 and ending up with three

lol... comparing it to a £2,500 Sony... it'll highly likely get trounced... completely...

My thing here, my own personal axe to grind isn't that these are the 'ultimate in sonic refinement' or anything like that, merely that for the few pounds / dollars / euros that you can pick these up for... that they offer major value compared to todays equivilant cost lo-fi products...

This thing cost me 1/3 of the retail cost of the XE570 that I also have, and I can safely say that the Sony is majorly outclassed in this field... so - who is the idiot? the person buying a cheap old school player that can snap at the heels of the mid-fi players, or the person paying full retail for a budget player that can only just beat the best of the PCDPs out there?

Its all relative.

 

[ampgalore]

I guess it's my fault, I shouldn't have started this flame war.

But let's all be realistic, like other people have said, digital technology has progressed leaps and bounds over the years. The DAC in those 20 year old CD players simply cannot compete with today's DAC's.

The analog section might be a different story. But still, keep in mind that all things degrade over time. A 20 year old CD player probably needs to be extensively serviced to bring it back to factory specs.



That being said, I am happy with my old Yamaha CD changer paird with my Benchmark DAC1 (meaning I don't have to dish out $$$$ for one of those outrageously priced newer CD dekcs

).

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore But let's all be realistic, like other people have said, digital technology has progressed leaps and bounds over the years. The DAC in those 20 year old CD players simply cannot compete with today's DAC's.

Look at what DAC the Marantz CD7 used.. - A reference player from only 5 years ago.. then look at when that DAC was invented... then, we'll see what players can do with '20 year old DACs'...

 

[ampgalore]

Under $1000, Sony's ES line of CD players have superb build quality. They were built like tanks, and built to last. Most of today's midfi, even some hifi CD players are far more flimsy in comparison.

The NAD c541i and c542 come immediately to mind. Philips 936sa. All those players' physical construction are just atrocious. The NAD line of CD players even had trouble reading CDRs' until they came out with the c541i. Even then the NAD CD players aren't all that reliable.

I once had a 10 year old Sony ES CD player. That one played CDRs just fine. Heck even my Yamaha CD changer can play CDRs like chewing gum.

For use as a transport, I would gladly pick up a Sony ES CD player.

 

[bangraman]

I'm not sure it's a proper flame-grilled war yet (apart from Pinkie's outburst, which I have to say I smiled an evil grin at... Motorcycles, Pinkie, motorcycles

).


I am sure we'd like to see some solid comparisons to quantify the benefits. We can rustle up something for the next 'mains sockets' meet. If we start early, it shouldn't be too much problem to give things a fair hearing (i.e more than a few minutes). Perhaps if I can find a buyer in advance for a midrange CD/Universal deck without a ridiculous loss, I can purchase such a deck or decks.

 

[bln]

My dad has had a Magnavox CDB500 in his home stereo for at least 10 years now. It's well built, and boasts such audiophile-sounding features as a "high-resolution twin-DAC system," which greatly surprised me since my father's not an audiophile in any sense of the word. I did a search for the model number on Audioasylum, it turns out that some of the older Magnavox units have a following among those more knowledgeable about digital sources, old and new, than myself. The CDB500 sounds great to me in a system with an old JVC receiver and a pair of vintage bookshelf speakers (Avid 80's) that I just bought.

And on the subject of current-production CD players, I own a NAD C541i and use it in my headphone system. Unreliable? I've heard the stories about trouble reading discs with the C540 and C541, but the "i" revision and the newer C542 are without those problems, according to many posts I've read here and on Audioasylum. And "flimsy"? "Atrocious physical construction"? I hardly see how those terms could be applied to the C541i. It's not a flashy player, but it's simply designed and well-built, especially for a unit available used for $200 to $250. Have you actually owned a NAD, ampgalore, and if so which model?

 

[ampgalore]

I haven't owned a NAD. I played around with a NAD 541 in store. Compared against a Sony ES player, the 541 just pales in physical construction.

And I yes, I do find it inexecusable that NAD did not properly implement CDR reading into their CD players until the 541i line. Whereas 15 year old Sony ES players could properly read a CDR disc.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ampgalore The NAD c541i and c542 come immediately to mind. Philips 936sa. All those players' physical construction are just atrocious. The NAD line of CD players even had trouble reading CDRs' until they came out with the c541i. Even then the NAD CD players aren't all that reliable.

i have to agree with bln here. i dont know what makes you think NAD 542's build quality is "atrocious"... i think thats a bit over statement there...
i know they are not made from brick and steel and stuff... but i have to say that it is far from clumsy, its not like some sort of cheap, plasticky, light or hollow player...

i dont know much about SONY ES line player, but all i can say is, for me personally, i think NAD's built quality is solid enough for a CD player. its not like you need to bump it around so often or something... it just stays there on the bench, playing CD. i dont need a bulletproof material for that.

of course, i dont mind to have a super solid quality CDP, but these days, things are getting smaller and lighter not like good old electronic stuff from the past..

back in my parents home, we still have a vintage SONY integrated amp (i am sure its at least 20 years old - we already had that since i was a little kid, and im 28 now.) and casette player.

both are thick as hell and so darn heavy, i dont think i can even lift it with one hand...
the amp is so pretty too, made from combination of some sort of wood enclosure and metal
the amp's front face is in silver (i dont know what type of metal its made from), and black metal on top, with both sides of the amp are wooden.

i would love to have that kind of material, but im afraid if i have that kind of solid built for my NAD 542, the NAD will probably cost twice or maybe triple as much as it is now... (material, shipping cost, logistics cost, etc...)