Old CD players 80's to early 90's Thread.

[majorloser]

I still use my Denon DCM-460 changer. Never gave me any problems.

 

[mentorron]

Philips/Magnavox vs other brands

I have always been trying to find a player that works best with my stereo systems. I have had quite a few players since CD players became available at horrendous cost originally in the '80s. I think my first was a Toshiba for about $700, which came with no remote!
Over the years I became enamored with Philips players, probably due to the TDA1541 DAC: they always seemed to work well with my electronics of the time.
Unfortunately I sold my Philips CD-473 in 1997 due to a suggestion I "hide" my rack of 150 CDs in a carousel player. Due to lack of funds and having a JVC surround amp and tape deck at the time, I bought their XL-MC222. I initially found it was not quite as good as the Philips, but live-able (it has a 1bit, non-P.E.M. DAC). It was feeding Mission 761i speakers with a Paradigm PS-1000 sub through an Energy passive x-over.
When I upgraded by system to an Onkyo tuner, Rotel preamp, Adcom amp and bi-wired Martin-Logan Aerius speakers, I felt the JVC CD player was not at the level I needed to match the quality of the rest of the new system (the tape deck hasn't been played for some years now).
Again, as I had an even smaller amount of cash to devote (I'm now retired), I began hunting for used equipment in thrift stores and installed the following in sequence:
Magnavox CDB-492 (TDA1543 / CDM4)
Philips CD-614 (TDA1543 / CDM4)
Denon DCD-1420
Sony CDP-950 (aka CDP-307ESD) (uses a TDA1541)
After weeks and sometime months of A/B/A listening, I settled on the CD-614. The Magnavox had too harsh a treble (IMO), and the Denon and Sony had too full and muddy a bass response and were too "forward" (in my system). I attribute these effects to the analog output circuits, not the DACs. As the latter two have had some good reviews, I assume they work fine in other systems, just not mine.
Unfortunately, a couple of years ago I found a Philips CD-880 at a thrift store for $20, but it would stick on some tracks of all CDs (but sounded great on the tracks it DID play). As I wasn't willing to pay the $85 to have it checked out professionally (plus any repair costs), I returned it to the thrift store for a refund. Several weeks later I found a user forum that showed how to fix this problem in 5 minutes: the player has a trap door on the bottom to allow access to the laser sled for lubrication: it even listed the correct lubrication type. arrrrggggg.....maybe I'll find another 880 someday.
I have just obtained a copy of Robert Harley's The Complete Guide to High-End Audio and agree with his assessment that an audio component must be MATCHED to a system: that magazine/user reviews or specs can't tell how a device will sound within your specific system. Like most enthusiasts, I expected the better specs of the Denon and Sony to result in them outshining the Philips and was disappointed somewhat when they didn't: I liked the motorized variable audio out/headphone and CustomFile features of the Sony.
Strangely, the JVC would be my second choice after the CD614 (it is still in my system as a backup unit) and continues to function as a storage device for the original 200 of my 500 CD collection. Of course, it could be placed in random program mode and provide background sound for a month

 

[Seth=L]

Unfortunately, a couple of years ago I found a Philips CD-880 at a thrift store for $20, but it would stick on some tracks of all CDs (but sounded great on the tracks it DID play). As I wasn't willing to pay the $85 to have it checked out professionally (plus any repair costs), I returned it to the thrift store for a refund. Several weeks later I found a user forum that showed how to fix this problem in 5 minutes: the player has a trap door on the bottom to allow access to the laser sled for lubrication: it even listed the correct lubrication type. arrrrggggg.....maybe I'll find another 880 someday.

You should have kept it, you probably won't find another one. That deck is exceedingly valuable and rare. Completely dead it would have been worth more than $20.

I have just obtained a copy of Robert Harley's The Complete Guide to High-End Audio and agree with his assessment that an audio component must be MATCHED to a system:

Pardon my saying, but Robert Harley is a nut job. He's not unlike most blueblood audiophiles though. Never the less, I take everything he writes/says with a big grain of salt.

 

[mentorron]

Sony

Yes, Seth, I realized immediately after reading the maintenance info on the 880 that I had made a big mistake in returning it. These days the thrift stores do not allow refunds, some allow just immediate exchanges the day of return, so I usually keep whatever I buy for a long while while I ponder what to do with whatever I'm not happy with.
Fortunately in the last day and a half, I took to sorting out why the Sony CDP-950 was so far down my pecking order of CD players when so many users seem to think it is good enough to perform upgrades on.
As it also was bought at a thrift store, and knowing how haphazardly items are brought to and mishandled in the store as well, I thought it was worth an in depth investigation. I downloaded the service manual from the 'net and luckily there was a description (in layman's language) about adjusting the laser focus and tracking pots. As I was unhappy with the sound of the player as-is, I took it upon myself to manually adjust the two pots using a test CD I have, some poorly burned CD-Rs, as well as difficult discs with things such as massed violins in large orchestras (I have no oscilloscope to verify the accuracy of the adjustments). These types of disc have caused the most problems for all the players I've ever had.
The bottom line is that after adjusting the laser, which was out of focus by 1/8 of a turn of the pot and off-tracking by about 1/10 turn of that pot, the Sony has moved to #1 in the pecking order, replacing the Philips CD-614. I couldn't believe how much of a difference that adjustment could make! It now has the most accurate string (violin/viola) reproduction I've experienced so far: the harshness and grain are GONE, replaced by about the correct degree of steeliness I would expect at a live concert. The bass has tightened up and the player can now handle all the discs without skipping, including the ones which I burned with an old computer that Easy Audio Copy on my new PC shows as having dozens of unrecoverable errors.
The soundstage now has about the same depth as the Philips, which was one of it's best features, but as I said, it's the orchestral strings which strike me as having the most noticeable improvement: so much so that I am going through my whole collection checking disc after disc to see if thay all show the same improvement. So far, so good, after about a couple of dozen discs with various orchestras, even "ancient instrument" ones, which previously were the greatest challenge. This is Amazing: who said all CD players sound alike?
I finally got my $12.99's worth from this player...I guess that old late 80's-early 90's Sony/Philips collaboration paid off in spades.

 

[skizzerflake]

My favorite was an old Samsung, model # unknown, from about 1982. It weighed in at about 25 pounds, had special clips to lock down the laser apparatus when you moved it and, in addition to the regular box, it had a small box about 4 inches square protruding from the back. My favorite part, however, was a window on the front, through which you could see the disk spinning. There was an eerie green light in there. The spinning disk made it look like there was some sort of matter-antimatter energy source inside the unit, but having a laser in there, most people were afraid to look because they just might go blind.

 

[Seth=L]

My favorite was an old Samsung, model # unknown, from about 1982. It weighed in at about 25 pounds, had special clips to lock down the laser apparatus when you moved it and, in addition to the regular box, it had a small box about 4 inches square protruding from the back. My favorite part, however, was a window on the front, through which you could see the disk spinning. There was an eerie green light in there. The spinning disk made it look like there was some sort of matter-antimatter energy source inside the unit, but having a laser in there, most people were afraid to look because they just might go blind.

Sounds like a Philips/Magnavox rebadge to be completely honest, albeit a high end one. Most CD players of the period had high levels of similarities because Sony and Philips were the principle providers of parts and technology to several other manufacturers including Pioneer, Revox, Meridian, Marantz and countless others.

 

[mentorron]

CD player similarities

I have also noted this similarity within the Sony models. From what I have been able to glean from the Web, the famous Sony CDP-555ESD (1987) had the same major components on the PCB as my CDP-950. So far I've confirmed the CXA1081 RF Amp, CXD1125 DSP, CXD1088 4x oversampling digital filter, JRC NE5532 op amps, and of course the TDA1541 DAC. The 950 lacks the LC6523H-3446 error prediction IC and assoc circuity, but this could be added to the 950 if I thought the cost was worth it (probably about $50-60 in parts). Naturally the chassis and disc drawer are much more robust in the 555 (metal instead of plastic) to warrant it's additional cost.
The only difference between the 950 and it's sister CDP-307ESD is the above-mentioned EP IC, as they use the same PCB, those parts just missing on mine (my service manual covers the two models). Otherwise their functionality and appearance are identical, as per photos posted on the Web of the interior and exterior of both units.
Another well-regarded unit that utilizes some of the same componentry is the Adcom GCD-575 (1988): the TDA1541, KSS150A laser and CXD1088 Digital filter. Their list of features is almost a copy of the 950's, with a few additions of their own: a polarity switch and reversible feet with "iso-points".

 

[miniSQ]

I still have my Denon 1500 mk 2....although i do not think it still works...but i should break it out and see.

 

[mentorron]

I returned my Denon DCD-1420 as I found it seemed to have a rolled off treble and a bass that was too strong and indistinct. It also wouldn't play two different brands of CD-Rs, which meant I would have had to stop using those brands and re-copy every one of them onto another brand of disc.
From what I have just learned about the effects of a misadjusted laser on my Sony, this could have been the cause of the Denon's problems. However there was no service manual that I could find on the Web and the PCB didn't have the laser adjustment pots named as to their functions.
I'm sure it couldn't have been a much better player than the Sony, but was probably a close equivalent from what I have heard of other Denons in it's class. It seemed solidly built, as it was the heaviest unit of the ones I've tried in my system at 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs). The Sony is 5.6 kg (12.4 lbs). The Denon had 2 x Burr Brown PCM54HP DACs, Sony's KSS210A laser and both optical and coaxial digital outputs (the Sony only has coax, but the remote-controlled volume on the Sony operates BOTH the headphone and RCA outputs). The Sony also has Custom File which is similar to Philips Favorite Track Selection, and Disc*Memo which allows limited labelling of discs for display on the front panel when inserted. These two features are limited to 226 discs. The Denon was 20-bit while the Sony is 16-bit. For some reason I have problems with any 1-bit player I've heard, including my JVC: they seem to slightly blur the details (bad) in order to provide the ultimate smoothness (good). Maybe it's just what my ears/brain have become accustomed to, having listened to 16-bit for so many years (since 1985).
The comparitive specs were:
SONY.........DENON........my prev PHILIPS
0.003%......0.005%.......0.016% Harmonic Distortion @ 1kHz
>104 dB.....>103 dB......>100 dB Signal-to-Noise Ratio
>95 dB.......>98 dB.......>90 dB Dynamic Range
>95 dB.......>92 dB.......>95 dB Channel Separation @ 1kHz

 

[mentorron]

Improving impact resistance

One area the Sony seemed to be weak in is external impact resistance. Most stereo magazine equipment reviews indicate this as an important area, and indicate a value for top and side impact in their testing procedures. The Sony was very weak in this area (just lightly tapping it anywhere with one finger caused a momentary loss of audio), but I read it could be improved in one of two ways: the use of isolating feet (such as Vibrapod Isolators) or weighting down the player. As weighting it down was the least expensive option, I at first tried large books, but to get adequate weight, those larger books would not fit between the top of the player and the shelf above it. I found a better option with plastic coated, concrete filled dumbbell weights which I no longer use. I used two 5 pound (2 x 2.5 kg) weights across the back half of the top cover and have terrific impact resistance now. Solid whacks with my knuckles on the top or sides do not seem to affect the laser; no loss of sound at all. I don't know if the quality of the sound could also have been improved by this, as I had no issues with it to start with and according to my Radio Shack Sound Level Meter, I don't listen at peak levels higher than 85 decibels anyhow. Also, the player is stacked on a very heavy solid wood bookshelf/storage cabinet wall unit. The speakers are spiked through wall-to-wall carpet onto a concrete skim subfloor so they create little, if any, structural vibration: just airborne.
One other area of interest. Having read up on several recordings I have in my collection, I find it is easy with the Sony to notice the "digital glare" they mention in some early 1980's recordings compared to the more lifelike recordings made of similar works in the 21st century. The one I'm listening to now: Saint-Lubin's Virtuoso Works for Violin recorded in the Glenn Gould studios in Toronto in 2008 puts you right there in the studio with no audio reproduction distractions. Next on tap are the James Ehnes recordings to see how they measure up.
W-O-W!! I wonder if the previous owner of this Sony knew what he was giving away? Probably replaced it with a cheap DVD player.

 

[walter duque]

My first CD player was a Carver, I would say mid 80's pictured on top of Pioneer Reel to Reel. At that time I would say it was tops. This is a picture of an old picture. A few goodies on there are a few SAE Power amps, VSP Gold Edition Streight Wire Preamp and 2 VSP Gold Edition La b Series Power Amps, DBX Dynamic Range expander, Thorens Turntable and a few moore goodies. I know you see the Bose 901's but I was running 4 of them plus 2 Fouriers and 2 Quinns, does it make sense to you, maybe not but this system canked for its time. Don't foreget that was early to mid 80's. Sorry of the picture quality.

 

[DTS]

I have my receipt for my JVC XL-Z411 dated 5/31/89, serial #6429, at a low, low price of $250. It was my first CD player and only dedicated one, I think. Used my PS3 for several years than reconnected this for when I don't want to run the TV/PS3. Still works great. Not the greatest photo, and no comments on the Monster Power center, it was a good price and had lots of pretty lights.

 

[mentorron]

new development in ongoing listening trials

An interesting thing has happened as I break in the Sony: after many hours of listening I have had to gradually return the Focus and Tracking pots back to almost their original positions (RV102 and 104). I'm not sure why this has happened, as they definitely would not produce a quality signal in those positions when brought home from the Thrift Store a few weeks ago.
In the interim, I read elsewhere that quite a few posters have picked up various late 1980's-early 1990's Sony ES units from various thrift/goodwill outlets for $10-$20 and have in most cases been happy with their finds. One poster mentioned his unit wouldn't work until he adjusted one of the pots. Hopefully he tried both of them, as you must go back and forth between the two settings if you are only using your ears and a test or damaged cd to do the adjustment. As that particular post was from about 2005, I didn't bother posting my experiences there as he's either got it resolved or has dumped the unit by now.
Others posters have attempted mods with some success either upgrading parts (caps and op amps) and/or lampization. As I am very happy with the stock sound so far, I doubt if I will go that route.
Currently I am also noticing a more solid placement of instruments on the soundstage and better leading edges on transients, compared to the other CDPs I have auditioned in my system (listed above).
I finally have to agree with Stereophile magazine that my "now vintage" Martin-Logan Aerius speakers are capable of resolving the differences between source components, and that you have to get deep into higher-end sources and amplification before you consider replacing them.
Oh, yes, and one last thing: one poster somewhere said that the difference between a CDP-307ESD and the 950 was that the 950 had no digital out. Well, mine does (a coaxial), with a rear panel switch to select it (analog out is then disconnected). The only difference I could find between the two models was the 307ESD's error prediction logic circuit centered around IC203 (an LC6523H-3446).

 

[mentorron]

Repositioning

Well, I discovered another freebie tweak today...For better display visibility, I repositioned my equipment by moving the FM Tuner from the bottom of the stack to the top. So it is now (from top to bottom): Tuner, CD player, Preamp.
This has again cleaned up the sound noticeably (which I didn't expect). All aspects are better: treble less strident on marginal recordings from early digital era, bass tighter, soundstage better defined, etc. I'm not sure whether this is from moving the tuner away from the preamp, or the extra weight on top of the CD player (in addition to the dumbbell weights, which are now on the tuner), or both. I wish I could separate all the components from each other instead of stacking, but I'm restricted (WAF) to their present locations.
Makes me wonder what other free upgrades I might discover in the future...
Oh, and I neglected to mention I replaced my Preamp-Power amp interconnect from the old (1990) Omega to an AR Professional Series (directional, balanced, twisted-pair, Mylar foil shielded, oxygen-free) APO31, a week ago. It's marginally better than the Omega. The Omega is now between my backup CD/storage device JVC 200 disc carousel and preamp.

 

[Seth=L]

Well, I discovered another freebie tweak today...For better display visibility, I repositioned my equipment by moving the FM Tuner from the bottom of the stack to the top. So it is now (from top to bottom): Tuner, CD player, Preamp.
This has again cleaned up the sound noticeably (which I didn't expect). All aspects are better: treble less strident on marginal recordings from early digital era, bass tighter, soundstage better defined, etc. I'm not sure whether this is from moving the tuner away from the preamp, or the extra weight on top of the CD player (in addition to the dumbbell weights, which are now on the tuner), or both. I wish I could separate all the components from each other instead of stacking, but I'm restricted (WAF) to their present locations.
Makes me wonder what other free upgrades I might discover in the future...
Oh, and I neglected to mention I replaced my Preamp-Power amp interconnect from the old (1990) Omega to an AR Professional Series (directional, balanced, twisted-pair, Mylar foil shielded, oxygen-free) APO31, a week ago. It's marginally better than the Omega. The Omega is now between my backup CD/storage device JVC 200 disc carousel and preamp.

I'm sorry, but this goes too far.

I repositioned my equipment by moving the FM Tuner from the bottom of the stack to the top. So it is now (from top to bottom): Tuner, CD player, Preamp.
This has again cleaned up the sound noticeably.

Before you accuse me of not reading your whole post, I say this is pure nonsense. I mean this as no offense to you, but if someone else reads this they may believe it for some insane reason.

Oh, and I neglected to mention I replaced my Preamp-Power amp interconnect from the old (1990) Omega to an AR Professional Series (directional, balanced, twisted-pair, Mylar foil shielded, oxygen-free) APO31, a week ago. It's marginally better than the Omega. The Omega is now between my backup CD/storage device JVC 200 disc carousel and preamp.

Unless the old cables were somehow defective or not shielded I might agree, but if that's the case you should just toss out the cables. Cables don't alter your sound unless they are defective or not the correct specification for audio use.

 

[jamie2112]

Well, I discovered another freebie tweak today...For better display visibility, I repositioned my equipment by moving the FM Tuner from the bottom of the stack to the top. So it is now (from top to bottom): Tuner, CD player, Preamp.
This has again cleaned up the sound noticeably (which I didn't expect). All aspects are better: treble less strident on marginal recordings from early digital era, bass tighter, soundstage better defined, etc. I'm not sure whether this is from moving the tuner away from the preamp, or the extra weight on top of the CD player (in addition to the dumbbell weights, which are now on the tuner), or both. I wish I could separate all the components from each other instead of stacking, but I'm restricted (WAF) to their present locations.
Makes me wonder what other free upgrades I might discover in the future...
Oh, and I neglected to mention I replaced my Preamp-Power amp interconnect from the old (1990) Omega to an AR Professional Series (directional, balanced, twisted-pair, Mylar foil shielded, oxygen-free) APO31, a week ago. It's marginally better than the Omega. The Omega is now between my backup CD/storage device JVC 200 disc carousel and preamp.

I am with Seth on this,no offense to you ......... you may just need cable risers

 

[mentorron]

I agree there are two "camps" on the audibility of these types of changes, and I also agree that some may be a placebo effect and not proveable by double-blind listening tests. However, the relocation of my tuner from below the preamp to above the CD player has indeed improved the sound. If you wish to consider it a placebo effect, that's ok with me, but IMHO it has definitely improved my overall enjoyment of my system: enough so that I would not consider moving them back to their original positions except to re-prove the seeming effect if I begin to mistrust my senses.
Could it not be some electrical interference effect between two adjacent components, or the reduction of cabinet vibration by the tuner weighting down the CD player over-and-above the dumbbell weights I also use? I know Sony placed a dense foam rubber damper pad inside the CD player's top lid, slightly off-center, which I assume was to reduce vibration.
For the cables, it could just be that the Omegas (not the same company that makes high-end cables today) were about 18 years old and were possibly not in pristine condition? They've been used in several systems and plugged/unplugged countless times over the years in various cities. The AR's seem to be of a higher quality (and of course are new), although they didn't cost an arm and a leg like some of the ridiculously high-priced, high-end cables do.

 

[mentorron]

Placebo effect?

Well, I took the time and effort to re-stack my components the way they were before with the tuner on the bottom, and the sound went back to the way it was before...less realistic.
The two most noticeable changes were in massed orchestral violins playing above the staff and brushes on cymbals: they are more correctly reproduced when the tuner is above the CD player. To a lesser degree, spitty sibilants are either reduced or more accurately portrayed: not sure which.
When the tuner is on the bottom, my mind keeps wandering away from the music by being distracted by these inaccuracies. With it on top, I find I become more immersed in the music and no longer thinking about what I must try or buy to improve the sound.
Placebo effect or not, it works for me.
As I said before, I made this change for better display visibility: I had not expected an audible difference to occur. As you can see in my new attachment, my wife likes to have teddy bears everywhere, including on, beside and in front of my equipment, so the re-stack was part of a WAF. The teddy bear remains; the equipment moves. Fortunately we're now BOTH happy with this arrangement: win-win situation.

 

[WaynePflughaupt]

My first CD player was a Pioneer P-D70 that I got in maybe 1986. Highly sought after in some circles, I understand, because of its “built like tank” quality. The drawer was solid aluminum, and the tray loading mechanism was all metal – no plastic to be found anywhere.

I wasn’t aware of all that when I found it for a killer deal at a local stereo chain that was going out of business. All I cared was that it was silver like the rest of my system, and IIR silver CD players were hard to come by.

Sadly, it bit the dust and totally died one day when I walked up to open the drawer and zapped it with static electricity! So, I guess plastic players do have their advantages...

My next player was a used late-80s Yamaha CD-700 that I picked up about 1990 at a pawnshop for something like $100. It was a few years newer than the Pioneer and had the same $600 list price, but was lightweight like most players had become by that time.

That player was a piece of junk. It would do bizarre things like play backwards. I am not kidding! It was actually a blessing when someone broke into our house and stole it (along with most of the rest of my stereo gear).

I came across it in another pawnshop a few years later (I had replaced the big round feet with little rubber stick-on feet, so I knew it was mine). Kinda chuckled to myself, knowing that the shop was going to end up eating that one...

My third player was a Nakamichi MB-3s, which we got in 1995 and still own today. This is a very cool player, a 7-disc changer that has the footprint of a regular single-disc player. There were some reliability problems with the model line, and I did have to badger Nakamichi into doing a post-warranty repair for a reduced price when it was a couple of years old. However it’s still working fine all these years later. I’m going to be really sad when this one bites the dust. I’ll definitely shop eBay for a replacement.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

 

[Seth=L]

The Nakamichi music bank CD players are very popular in certain crowds. I almost got one for a song but I think the guy realized it was more valuable once I expressed interest in it (the downfall of doing too many transactions with the same person).

Given the design nature of the 7 disc changers (fitting all that in to a compact space) I often wonder if Nakamichi had any hand in the design of my TEAC Reference PD-H570 7 disc changer. The Teac is the most compact unit I've ever seen to hold so many discs. It is probably slightly taller than the MB-3, but is significantly more narrow in comparison. The TEAC is also not quite as deep as the MB-3. The operation is smooth for a changer. I'm extremely impressed with it. Also, like the MB-3, the magazine is internal, not ejectable like many Pioneer designs of the 80's and 90's.