"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
I have AB'ed the 965 with a Philips DVD 707 player (entry level player

about

18 - 24 months old), and while I found the 965 to be better at
CD playback, the difference wasn't night and day (IMHO)


**The differences between *any* CD players (post 1988) is not night and
day.
We are splitting hairs here, you know.


I wasn't attempting to nitpick, I really did think there would have been
a more noticable difference in CD playback between the CD player and
DVD player (the tests weren't done blind and level matched though)

**For my ears, DVD players (sub AUS$400.00) suck, big time. Most use output
ICs which date back to 1978. More expensive DVD players (AUS$1,000.00)
sound pretty decent, IME.



**That depends on where you are.

it is a dark and miserable grey day in Sydney from my window at the
moment ... not beach going weather!

**The rain is most welcome.


In the UK, Arcams are pretty well priced.
In the US, Rotels are far too expensive. In Australia, Rotel recently
raised
its prices, making them far less attractive.



Rotels are still cheaper in Oz than Arcams though (compared to UK retail
prices). I rang a local Sydney dealer recently, and got quoted AUD$900
for the Rotel RCD-1072 and AUD$1200 for the Arcam CD73. The dealer also
mentioned that the local Rotel distributor had readjusted prices recently.

**Both brands are probably better priced than in the US. Still, things
change.


I believe the RCD-1072 retails for £595 and the Arcam £400 in the UK.
A recent TAS issue had a review of the 1072 with a retail price of US$700.



**Fair enough. Personally, I like the high end players from a few years
ago.

which could have been the "golden age" of CD players, before the sale
(and production) of DVD players started taking off like a rocket. Some
posters on this newsgroup seem to drool over the Arcam Alpha 9 player
with the RingDAC converter ...

**Ah, now THAT was an impressive player.




Arcams are cheap and easy to service, since they use bog-standard
Philips
stuff inside. I don't much care for their construction, but the sound
quality is fine.

IIRC, the Arcams from the early to mid-90s used Philips components, but
ther current range use Sony transports. You are right, the internal
components are standard off the shelf parts, so should be easily
serviceable.

**I was not aware they had switched to Sony bits. I only see them after a
few years, when they start going belly-up.


Am I the only one who actually liked the look of the cheesy, front
plastic panels of their late 90s Alpha range?

**Yep. I reckon they look really crook.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au