"Old Fart at Play" wrote in message
...
Tat Chan wrote:

I have a geriatric Rotel 965BX CD player (great in its day, yadda
yadda). I am happy with the sound from it (but then again, I haven't
done any AB comparisons with other CD players) and am not in any hurry
to replace it, but I may be able to purchase a 2nd hand Arcam Alpha
7SE for a reasonable price.

Would the Arcam 7SE be a major improvement over the Rotel CD player?
Or would I be better off saving my pennies for something like a new
Rotel 1072?

Keep the Rotel until it breaks.
All CD players sound the same.

**Dream on. The 965BX had a number of limitations and strengths. An Arcam
will blow it away. As will more recent Rotels.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ...

**Dream on. The 965BX had a number of limitations and strengths. An Arcam
will blow it away. As will more recent Rotels.

Trevor, could you elaborate on the limitations and strengths? Or is
this well documented in the Google groups archives?

I haven't had to chance to do any AB comparisons between the Rotel and
other (newer) CD players. I know you hold the older 971 in high
regard, have you had the chance to compare it with the newer
1060/1062?

Thanks.

Tat Chan wrote:
I haven't had to chance to do any AB comparisons between the Rotel and
other (newer) CD players. I know you hold the older 971 in high
regard, have you had the chance to compare it with the newer
1060/1062?


whoops, I meant 1070/1072

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
om...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

**Dream on. The 965BX had a number of limitations and strengths. An
Arcam
will blow it away. As will more recent Rotels.

Trevor, could you elaborate on the limitations and strengths? Or is
this well documented in the Google groups archives?

**I have no idea if it is well documented. I only speak on behalf of my own
experiences. The 965BX is noisy. Around 80dB S/N. The noise signal is
supersonic, but unacceptable.


I haven't had to chance to do any AB comparisons between the Rotel and
other (newer) CD players. I know you hold the older 971 in high
regard, have you had the chance to compare it with the newer
1060/1062?

**Nope. The 971 was a significantly better player than the 965 though. I
would expect the newer players to be better again. Whether that betterness
(I wonder what my spellchecker will do with that?) will translate into
superior sound quality, is a whole 'nuther issue. I just wanted to make the
point that the 965 was flawed.

Additionally, the Arcams are very good sounding players. I suggest you
shortlist them.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

**I have no idea if it is well documented. I only speak on behalf of my
own
experiences. The 965BX is noisy. Around 80dB S/N. The noise signal is
supersonic, but unacceptable.

and an acceptable S/N ratio for a CD player would be?

**Nope. The 971 was a significantly better player than the 965 though. I
would expect the newer players to be better again. Whether that betterness
(I wonder what my spellchecker will do with that?) will translate into
superior sound quality, is a whole 'nuther issue. I just wanted to make
the
point that the 965 was flawed.

point taken. The DAC in the 965 is more than a decade old, and I would
expect modern CD players to wipe the floor with the 965.
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)


Additionally, the Arcams are very good sounding players. I suggest you
shortlist them.


yes, they are good, but overpriced compared to the Rotels, no thanks to the
freight charges and whatever else
makes its way into the final retail price here.

The Arcam I am watching on Ebay is getting a bit too pricey for a 2nd hand
ex-demo CD player that is 3 years old.

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

**I have no idea if it is well documented. I only speak on behalf of my
own
experiences. The 965BX is noisy. Around 80dB S/N. The noise signal is
supersonic, but unacceptable.

and an acceptable S/N ratio for a CD player would be?

**96dB+


**Nope. The 971 was a significantly better player than the 965 though. I
would expect the newer players to be better again. Whether that
betterness
(I wonder what my spellchecker will do with that?) will translate into
superior sound quality, is a whole 'nuther issue. I just wanted to make
the
point that the 965 was flawed.

point taken. The DAC in the 965 is more than a decade old, and I would
expect modern CD players to wipe the floor with the 965.

**Not quite. IMO, after around 1988 or so, the advances in CD players have
been modest.

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.



Additionally, the Arcams are very good sounding players. I suggest you
shortlist them.


yes, they are good, but overpriced compared to the Rotels, no thanks to
the
freight charges and whatever else
makes its way into the final retail price here.

**That depends on where you are. 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.


The Arcam I am watching on Ebay is getting a bit too pricey for a 2nd hand
ex-demo CD player that is 3 years old.

**Fair enough. Personally, I like the high end players from a few years ago.
A high end Sony (5ES) might sell for AUS$500.00, when it originally sold for
a couple of grand. Ditto, other brands. One of my favourite old players in
the Technics SLPS900. Around AUS$800.00, when new (ca. 1990). It sounds very
nice and can be picked up for around AUS$100.00 or less (I still own mine).
I saw a Marantz CD80 recently for around AUS$400.00. Great player.You may
need to allow for the cost of a laser replacement, in an old player, though.
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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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)


**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!

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.

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 ...



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.

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