"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m...
But the cd 100 and the Marantz were, as far as I know just double
oversampling 14bit d to as, surely we have more accurate chips these days.
My current Marntz is much better than the CD100, its less bright to my
ears, though dynamics sonded more dynamic on the CD100, which may well
just be the difference in tonal balance I guess.
I do have a problem with my current Marantz though, it will sometimes not
find a track, and give up. Then you have to eject the cd and start again.
The old CD100, seemingly will keep trying to find the track start for
ever...

Such dodgy CDs play fine on a Yamada DVD player, sigh...
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Serge Auckland wrote:

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote:
You know I reached under my bed and found my old Phillips CD100 the
other day. It still works!
A bit touchy to seizmic events, slow to find tracks, band a bit on the
bright side of comfortable, but it does still play CDs.

Be an antique soon I guess. sigh.

Double blind test. You know you want to!


--
Eiron.

I've just been given a Marantz CD63, which was the Marantz-badged
version of the CD100. Compared it to my current Meridian 206, couldn't
say there was any obvious difference, even though the Meridian was going
to my 'speakers SP-DIF to SP-DIF direct, and the Marantz was going
through my A-D converter first.

Just goes to show that if a product is audibly transparent, it's
transparent, and one transparent product will sound like another
transparent product.

If I can be bothered, I may do some level-matched blind testing, but
even sighted and not accurately level matched, there really wasn't
anything to choose between them.


Do you mean 'no difference between the transports', as opposed to
complete units including DACs?

Rob


Although modern CD players may well measure slightly better, even the
earliest players' performance were so far below thresholds of audibility
that they were essentially "perfect". If they were perfect then, any
improvements can't make them audibly any more perfect. That's why I haven't
found any audible improvement in CD players since 1983.

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com