"Rob" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Martin "Schöön"" wrote in message
...
Gentlemen,

I replaced the driving belt of my trusted old Thorens TD166
this week and today I find the CD-player has become so
upset by this it refuses to play or even acknowledge the
existence of the CDs I feed it.

The CD player is a Cambridge Audio thing (everything
important inside is labeled Sony) about five years
old (the Thorens is 25 years old).

So, even though the Thorens 166 works just fine and
I have a number of LPs to play I am in the market
for a CD-player.

I don't care much for fancy brand names and exotic
design but I want good sound reproduction. (and
reliability).

Any recommendations?
Second hand? (New models are not always better)
DVD-players?
**Forget second hand, unless you are prepared to throw a new laser in a
decent exotic machine. IMO, the best value around today is the Harman
Kardon HD970. Brilliant machine for not too much cash. It'll even play
MP3s.

Trevor Wilson
It's well over 200UKP. Why does it sound better than a Sony £30 DVD
player?

**Send me the schematic of your 30 Squid Sony and I'll tell you. The HK
has a number of significant technical details which, IMO, make it sound
better than all the cheap players (and most of the expensive ones) I've
ever heard.


Can't help with that I'm afraid. The manual just has a list of specs,
rather than components (it's a xd-ax10, badged Aiwa). From what I gather
(from this NG):

**Then, without a schematic, it is impossible for me to highlight what
problems the Sony may have (or not). Specs do not tell the whole story.


1. DACs are a 'done deal', and have been for about 10 years - differences
such as they are are inaudible;

**Not IME.

2. Transports are transports - it's not possible to have an audio
signature, they work or they don't;

**I'd be inclined to agree with that.

3. Analogue amplification has to be mightily wrong to create difference,
and it's so simple and cheap it has no effect in practice.

**Wrong. There are a raft of issues with analogue stages in CD players,
where mistakes are often made. Here's a few things I've found wrong with
cheap players:

* Cheap, crappy OP amps used in the critical output stages. I've even found
4558-class OP amps used. These date from the late 1970s and are vastly
inferior to the 5532/4 - LM833 OP amps used in the first generation Sony and
Philips machines. The cost difference is minor.
* High value series resistance in the output of the analogue section.
* Poorly implemented muting transistors, which short output to ground. A
relay is a much better idea. And costs marginally more.
* The use of LM78XX and LM79XX regulators, instead of the vastly superior
LM317/LM337 regulators. Again, the cost difference in in the order of a few
cents.
* Poor quality filters (not so much of a problem nowadays).


OTOH, if I believe what I read in the mags, differences are either
presented as obvious, or technically valid (an article on jitter, for
example, laid claims IIRC). Which leads me to ...

I thought that all named CDPs sound identical nowadays?!

**I suggest you do some listening. You may well be in for a shock.


I have. I *think* I can detect difference, but I've never been able to
reliably distinguish between digital sources using the same material, and
I certainly can't state whether one's better than t'other.

**You've compared the HK to a cheapo Sony?


To this end, most of my digital music is on HD/lossless compression, and
plays through a Mac Mini. I've given away about 500 CDs, and kept about
200 for some reason, probably sentimental. I use lossless compression
because I can hear the effects of mp3 compression - not always
objectionable, although I find the sound a little 'thin'.

The conclusion I've come to - that if there is a difference it doesn't
matter - could be a result of mid-fi speakers (Castle and Dynaudio), room
acoustics, my hearing or some psychological factor. Or that CDPs (and
indeed digital playback) are sufficiently indistinguishable.

FWIW, if I did find the HK sounded better, my guess would be that
something was going on in the analogue amplification stage.

**That would be a reasonable assumption. HK have clearly put a lot of effort
into building a quality analogue section in that machine.

Trevor Wilson