"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. The difference was hardly subtle. The 701 was a far better
sounding machine. It's not surprising that Sony did not want to demo the
701, as it would have damaged sales of the 101.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson"
Arny Krueger"

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


** Silly no sequitur.


**Not here in Australia. I attended the launch ...


** TW was completely out to lunch at the time.

As always.



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. The difference was hardly
subtle.


** Yawnnnnnnnnnnn....

TW is a notorious audiophool with a passionate aversion to the CDP101.

Who know why - who cares ....



....... Phil

"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.

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.

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.

The 701 was a far better sounding machine. It's not surprising that Sony
did not want to demo the 701, as it would have damaged sales of the 101.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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

"Trevor Wilson"


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.


** Permanently and congenitally ****ed in the head is more like the truth.

TW is a notorious audiophool and former hi-fi sales criminal with a
passionate aversion to the CDP101.

Who know why - who cares ....




I will state it once mo I attended the SYDNEY launch of the CDP-101
and CDP-701 in 1983.


** Totally impossible.

There was no such simultaneous product release.

The CDP101 predates other Sony models by around 12 months.

The first CDP101 sold in Sydney was by " Sydney Hi-Fi " in May 1983.

The second one sold by the same firm was to me.


It was the clearly and obviously the CDP-701 that I auditioned (along with
the CDP-101).


** The second Sony CD player model released in Sydney was the CDP501.



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.


** That is a MASSIVE ****ing lie.

TW can and DOES makes up any damn stupid thing he likes and then claims it
to be true with ZERO evidence - cos he has none.

TW is a notorious audiophool and former hi-fi sales criminal with a
passionate aversion to the CDP101.

Who know why - who cares ....




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.


** ROTFLMAO !!

The only completely "detacted " (sic) thing about TW is the link between
his brain and reality !!!!!


TW is a NOTORIOUS audiophool and former hi-fi sales criminal with a
passionate aversion to the CDP101.

Who know why - who cares ....




...... Phil