Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



..... Phil

Phil Allison:

What a time capsule! Enjoy and
take care of that.

wrote:

Phil Allison:

What a time capsule!



** OK - why do you call that ?


Enjoy and take care of that.


** I have no intention of doing otherwise.

In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it is still one of the best CD players ever made.

http://vintage-audio-laser.com/sony/..._cdp-101_5.png



..... Phil

Phil:

It's appearance, and being
the first cosnumer CD player.

It represents that era!

On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 13:14:11 UTC+1, wrote:
Phil:

It's appearance, and being
the first cosnumer CD player.

It represents that era!

My first cd player had the disc upright and played at 1x. I like old electronics generally but saw no merit in that one once better came along.


NT

On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:


In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
is still one of the best CD players ever made.


**Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
(compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
released in the late 1980s.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote: "On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:


In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
is still one of the best CD players ever made.


**Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
(compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
released in the late 1980s.


--
Trevor Wilson "

Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
done with the same exact source
(CD) in the same listening environment,
connected to the same system?


Otherwise such tests are invalid.

On 31/05/2017 6:54 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:


In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
is still one of the best CD players ever made.


**Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
(compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
released in the late 1980s.



Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
done with the same exact source
(CD) in the same listening environment,
connected to the same system?


Otherwise such tests are invalid.

**Did you bother reading what I wrote? Go back and read it CAREFULLY.

In truth, the only invalid part of the MANY tests I did, comparing the
two machines, was the fact that none were done blind. An oversight I
regret.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

wrote:


"On 30/05/2017 9:13 PM, Phil Allison wrote:


In terms of tech specs, sound quality, features and ease of use - it
is still one of the best CD players ever made.


**Sound quality? Nope. The CDP701 (released close to the same time as
the 101) was far better. I recall listening to both at a Sony demo,
through their ES series Sony electronics and those very good flat
diaphragm Sony speakers. The 701 completely outclassed the 101. One of
my clients had both machines and we listened extensively to them
(compared them with 2nd generation master tapes of Hot August Night on
his Studer) and the 701 was a far better sounding machine. Even the Sony
demo guy, who claimed that there would be no sonic difference, was
surprised. That said, a decent multibit machine (like the early Sony and
Philips machines) will sound better than those horrible single bit ones
released in the late 1980s.


Was the CDP101 vs 701 test
done with the same exact source
(CD) in the same listening environment,
connected to the same system?

Otherwise such tests are invalid.



** TWs listening tests are totally invalid - cos he used the audiophool method.

Machine A plays, stop, muck about, have a chat then machine B plays.

Absolute ********.

As a matter of fact, I carried out a blind testing session between my CDP101 and a borrowed CDP701 for a customer. He had a well damped room with Quad ESL63s at the time driven by an expensive Sony amp. It was all nicely set up for best imaging etc.

Both CD players were out in the hallway, so he could not see them or me. All I had to do was swap RCA leads and CDs between machines.

Try as he might, using his favourite classical tracks, he could not tell the machines apart.

Happy that there was no audible difference, he opted to buy the more expensive model.

He merely wanted to be *certain* the cheaper model was not actually better.



...... Phil

Phil Allison wrote: "Try as he might, using his favourite classical tracks, he could not tell the machines apart.

Happy that there was no audible difference, he opted to buy the more expensive model.

He merely wanted to be *certain* the cheaper model was not actually better.

...... Phil "

I rest my case: the SOURCE(what's on
the medium) matters most!

Does the 101 have the delay to match the phase of the channels ?

"** TWs listening tests are totally invalid - cos he used the audiophool method.

Machine A plays, stop, muck about, have a chat then machine B plays.

Absolute ********. "

Actually with stamped CDs it would be valid to just use two copies of the same album. If there is ay doubt switch them but we know that sound quality had very little to do with the audio quality. It is just a matter of how many errors does it have to cover up.

They are stamped, you get two of them right next to each other from the shelf and they are likely to be the same batch and have the same errors. And the only errors that will have any real effect on sound quality will be those pertaining to the deemphasis.

Two disks and a toggle switch would do just fine. then switch the disks ad see if the more favorable rating follows it ort stays with the player.

Kida like splitting a bag of weed when your scalee is broken. "You split I'll pick" or vice versa. Whoever is splittlg is going to get them as close as humanly possible because he knows he gets the smaller one. Or whichever one is perceived as smaller by the picker.

Ever hear of scraping ? They use like a gouge to scrape metal plates to within millionths of an inch. There is no reference because these ARE the reference. they are the standard to which the ways of machines must adhere for flatness and straightness.

they use three plates, why ? Well, you blue it up and then separate the plates and observe the bluing. This really is an art. You can get two plates pretty flat, but there is ONE way they can be off and you can't tel. That is if one is slightly convex and the other concave. That is the reason for the third plate. It makes that type of error detectable because to match perfectly the third plate would have to be concave or convex and thus would math one of the two other plates but not the other.

In other words, all this fiddling switching disks every few minutes is a waste of time. Just switch them and rerun the comparison.

Actually I doubt very mny people can hear ant difference between cD players, butin the US would always prefer the one that has a slightly higher output level because it is louder.

You want an audio A/B comparison ? Golden Earring - Moontan, on vinyl. Compare the US version to the European version. BIG difference.

wrote:

------------------------


Actually I doubt very mny people can hear ant difference between
cD players, butin the US would always prefer the one that has a
slightly higher output level because it is louder.



** CD players are built under license to a standard ( Red Book) which requires the audio output is 2.0V rms for max sine wave level.

Makes comparing them pretty easy if you use the same RCA leads and disk.


..... Phil

On 31/05/2017 6:57 PM, wrote:
Does the 101 have the delay to match the phase of the channels ?


**Yes. In the feedback of the OP amp after the buffer stage, one OP amp
has a 15k resistor in parallel with a 75pF, whilst the other channel has
16k in parallel with a 75pF cap. A bit of a kludge. As I recall, the
CDP701 employed two, separate DACs. I could be wrong, so I'll see if I
can locate the manual tomorrow.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

Trevor, jurb: R.E. "phase of the channels"


Is there something I don't know
about CD players, or how they
function? Does the audio arrive
out of phase/polarity at some
point in the chain inside the
player?

t hekma @gmail.com wrote in message
...
Is there something I don't know about CD players, or how they
function?

Yes. Pretty much everything about audio is something you don't know.
KHF,

In article ,
wrote:

Is there something I don't know
about CD players, or how they
function? Does the audio arrive
out of phase/polarity at some
point in the chain inside the
player?

As I recall: in some CD players (mostly very old ones?), there's only
a single DAC, which is shared between the two channels. The "left"
and "right" samples are converted back to analog at slightly different
times, in alternating sequence. The analog voltage coming out from
the DAC is then fed to a pair of sample-and-hold circuits, one per
channel, and these then feed the (low-pass) analog reconstruction filters.

As a result of this, there's a slight phase delay (equal to the actual
DAC conversion time, or half of the nominal sample rate for the stereo
signal) introduced between the two channels. This would tend to
"pull" the perceived stereo image slightly to one side, since our
ear/brain systems are sensitive to a signal's inter-aural arrival
times as well as to inter-aural amplitude differences.

[I used this trick years ago as a way of enabling a videogame system
to convert a monaural sound sample to one which appeared to move left
and right, quite smoothly - a simple DSP algorithm did both sample
interpolation and filtering, to create timing and amplitude and
frequency-response differences between two copies of the sampled
sound. It could even introduce the equivalent of Doppler shift, to
mimic a sound source moving towards or away from the listener. My
first patent ever!]

It sounds as of the CDP101 used a "tweaked" reconstruction filter, to
introduce a bit of phase difference between the analog signals that
would partially cancel out the phase difference introduced by the use
of the single DAC.

I don't think I've seen the "one DAC, two sample-and-hold" technique
used in a CD or similar media player in a lot of years. Stereo (or
even 5-channel) DACs are jellybean parts these days.

In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

On 31/05/2017 9:12 PM, wrote:
Trevor, jurb: R.E. "phase of the channels"


Is there something I don't know
about CD players, or how they
function? Does the audio arrive
out of phase/polarity at some
point in the chain inside the
player?


**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 1/06/2017 4:18 AM, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".



**Indeed. That little trick was used by Mobile Fidelity back in the
early 1980s. I found some of their limited edition, heavy duty, virgin
vinyl, very expensive LPs, unlistenable. I recall the damage MF did to
my favourite female artist - Crystal Gayle, on her seminal LP, Don't It
Make My Brown Eyes Blue. The bog-standard LP was a glorious thing. The
MF was something else entirely and a good deal more expensive too. I
never purchased another MF product. Well, except my UHQR Pink Floyd -
Dark Side Of The Moon. It is still unopened and the last figure I saw
was about US$1,500.00. A nice return on my 25 Bucks.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 05/30/2017 02:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



.... Phil


It would look great with my Onkyo TX-2500 mk II receiver in my "retro
stereo corner."

Give ya one fiddy for it.

On 5/30/2017 1:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



.... Phil


I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!

Mikek

"Is there something I don't know
about CD players"

As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially.

There are a few things most people don't know about CDs. First of all that they could be quadrophonic. It was never involved, no quad CDs were made and no quad CD players were made.

Also the digital compression scheme used was necessary to make the CD small enough to facilitate in dash CD players in cars of the time, which generally had a predetermined space for the stereo. (that is also why they are not 48 KHz)This facilitated aftermarket stereos and has been changed in more recent cars. The strive to make it non standard so that they have a captive market on the stereos.

And the LASER beam is not a beam at all, it is conical shape. this means that on the bottom surface of the CD where all the scratches and dirt are, the pickup of the signal does not depend on a teeny tiny area.

On a stamped CD, the pits are not darkened at all. They cancel the light out by being ¼ wavelength of light deeper. There is no mask nor pigment involved, unlike burned CDs.

In the beginning of stamping CDs in the US, Teelarc could not produce a defect free disk. They had to get engineers from overseas to figure out what they were doing wrong. So much for "America number one ?".

All obsolete. Now DVDs are obsolete. Now bluray is obsolete. They got a holographic disk now that holds so much more data that nobody can use it. Thatis the only reason it is not on shelves. Also, do you really want your entire library of movies and whatever on one disk ? Scratch that.

On 1/06/2017 4:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 1/06/2017 4:18 AM, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".



**Indeed. That little trick was used by Mobile Fidelity back in the
early 1980s. I found some of their limited edition, heavy duty, virgin
vinyl, very expensive LPs, unlistenable. I recall the damage MF did to
my favourite female artist - Crystal Gayle, on her seminal LP, Don't It
Make My Brown Eyes Blue. The bog-standard LP was a glorious thing. The
MF was something else entirely and a good deal more expensive too. I
never purchased another MF product. Well, except my UHQR Pink Floyd -
Dark Side Of The Moon. It is still unopened and the last figure I saw
was about US$1,500.00. A nice return on my 25 Bucks.


**Scratch that. Looks like my DSOTM UHQR LP is now worth a little North
of 2 Grand. Gotta be happy with that. Factory sealed, still has the
guarantee label stuck to it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation, and for not cowing to
the sudden dip in S/N ratio in this
thread.

jurb wrote: "As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially. "

On early machines such as the
CDP101. Trevor did mention
that subsequent models began
incorporating DACs for each
channel.


Something I am aware of that you didn't
bring up: Pre-emp/De-emp. Some
CDs were mastered with a rising high-
end frequency response, and a
corresponding attenuation in the player.
Sort of a "Dolby NR" for CDs I guess?

Nothing I ripped even in EAC flags
the pre-emp, even though the vast
majority of my CD collection are from
the era when pre-emphasis was most
likely to be used. I would have to load
the WAVs ripped from every CD in my
collection into a DAW and run a spectro
on it to see if it looked unusually top-
heavy, suggesting emphasis. Can't
always tell by ear.

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

Dave Platt wrote: "And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with". "


As was the case with this customer's version
of the Wonder CD I was playing in the store.
Needless to say, I convinced him to buy the
unremastered orignal!

On 01/06/17 10:37, Phil Allison wrote:
wrote:

--------------------------
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation,


** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.

Maybe. Interesting related story: I built a stereo sonar,
using a 40KHz transmitter with two receivers 5cm each side.
The aim was to resolve the angle of the response echo.
Because the receiver circuits detected a response passing
a threshold, and because the receivers would be still
resonating from the transmit pulse, the echo could arrive
either in or out of phase, so the threshold was passed a
cycle earlier or later. 40KHz acoustic wavelength is 7mm,
so there was a 10 degree sawtooth uncertainty in the angle
of the received signal. A time delay of one cycle is 25us.

The only way around this is to not use thresholding, but
to digitize each receiver's waveform and compute the
departure from normal ring-down caused by a reflected
signal.

Since our ears use relative phase to locate signals, I'd
think that a high frequency phase shift (at say 4KHz)
would very likely affect the stereo imaging.

Clifford Heath.

On Wed, 31 May 2017, wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

But Happy Trails was recorded live, though probably some later
"tampering", so one might assume the recording equipment wasn't as great
as in the studio.

ON the other hand, I gather early CDs weren't mastered quite write for the
new medium. I don't know whether it applies here, I have the record, but
don't have it on CD.

Michael

Dave Platt wrote:

-----------------


As I recall: in some CD players (mostly very old ones?), there's only
a single DAC, which is shared between the two channels. The "left"
and "right" samples are converted back to analog at slightly different
times, in alternating sequence. The analog voltage coming out from
the DAC is then fed to a pair of sample-and-hold circuits, one per
channel, and these then feed the (low-pass) analog reconstruction filters.

As a result of this, there's a slight phase delay (equal to the actual
DAC conversion time, or half of the nominal sample rate for the stereo
signal) introduced between the two channels. This would tend to
"pull" the perceived stereo image slightly to one side, since our
ear/brain systems are sensitive to a signal's inter-aural arrival
times as well as to inter-aural amplitude differences.


** You need to apply some common sense before making such conclusions.

What does such a tiny delay amount to in distance ?

Answer:

your head being offset by 1.7mm from exact centre of a pair of speakers.


You are employing the worst of audiophool non-think which holds that IF it exists it MUST be audible.

********.


..... Phil

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------




**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).


** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.



...... Phil

amdx wrote:

-------------




I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!



** That is a nasty and pretty rare fault.

I've had to do the same only twice ever.

Few techs would even think of it.


.... Phil

wrote:

--------------------------
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation,


** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.




...... Phil

On 1/06/2017 10:32 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------




**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).


** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.


**If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different value
resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I presume you are
suggesting that there is a measurable difference, but that difference is
inaudible?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On 1/06/2017 10:35 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
amdx wrote:

-------------




I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!



** That is a nasty and pretty rare fault.

I've had to do the same only twice ever.

Few techs would even think of it.


.... Phil


**Not really. The Magnavox was identical the early Philips/Marantz units
and was built in Belgium. Those whacky Belgians could have learned a
great deal from Sony about how to make decent PCBs. The lasers were
great, but the PCBs were poorly assembled.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:28:14 -0400, Michael Black
wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017, wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

But Happy Trails was recorded live, though probably some later
"tampering", so one might assume the recording equipment wasn't as great
as in the studio.

ON the other hand, I gather early CDs weren't mastered quite write for the
new medium. I don't know whether it applies here, I have the record, but
don't have it on CD.

Michael
All my recordings of Happy trails were obviously made from the same
master tapes. I can hear the exact same noise in the same places on
them all. In fact, the CD almost sounds like it was recorded from the
LP I have. I saw Quicksilver live in San Jose way back when. It was a
great venue and a great concert. And I was listening to Who Do You
Love just a couple days ago which made me think of the difference in
the quality of the recordings.
Eric

Phil Allison: "
** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.


...... Phil "


Then why don't you explain what
was done?

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------




**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).


** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an
obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.


**If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different value
resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I presume you are
suggesting that there is a measurable difference, but that difference is
inaudible?


** FFS TW, do the math on those values.

Find the -3dB frequencies and see how far above the audio band they are and that there is almost no difference in using 15k or 16k - the caps are only 5% types !!

PLUS the fact that it is having NO effect on the 11uS offset.

I reckon it's a bloody typo in the parts list.




...... Phil