"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...



"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"keithr" wrote in message
...

That is strange because Sony only considered it a medium quality
product, as the name indicates - 101 binary for 5 or 5 out of 10. If
you don't believe it check this link:-

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-20/h5.html


Since the CDP 101 was Sony's only CD player at the time, it was by
definition the middle ground.

**Not here in Australia. I attended the launch of the CDP101 and CDP701
here in Sydney back in 1983. I asked the guy if I could hear the 701
through the excellent Esprit electronics and Sony flat driver speakers.
He said: "The 101 and 701 sound the same." I pressed him and he finally,
reluctantly demo'd the 701.

I beleive that you may have things a little confused. There was a Sony 701
that was available in 1983, but it was the PCM-701, a digital recorder.
The CDP-701 came a year or more later.

**I am not confused. I will state it once mo I attended the SYDNEY launch
of the CDP-101 and CDP-701 in 1983. It was the clearly and obviously the
CDP-701 that I auditioned (along with the CDP-101).


Technically, the CDP-701 and PCM-701 used an improved converter chip, as
compared to the CDP 101 and PCM-F1 which proceeded them. The PCM-F1 was
available several years before the CDP 101, if memory serves.

The difference was hardly subtle.

That is no doubt due to the usual problems with sales presentations as
opposed to proper listening tests. No level matching, no time synching, no
bias controls. In fact the CDP 701 did have a number of technical
refinements that did make it sound subtly different, as compared to the
CDP 101. The two can be distinguished in a blind test with certain
recordings. I've heard the difference along with about 2 dozen other
people, and we all agree that it is slight.

**I'm pleased you agree that the difference is audible. It was certainly
audible to myself and a friend who attended the event with me. I will also
add that the Sony amplification and speakers used were very, very good
products. I have no doubt that, through lesser equipment, the differences
would have been difficult to pick.


The point here is that people who talk about huge differences among good
electronics are telling a diffferent story - the *reakl* story is about
how bad their experimental controls are.

**Indeed. Fortunately, I am (and was) a detacted professional. I am not and
was not swayed by advertising hype. The differences between the machines was
obvious (as you have already noted).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au