Old CD players sounded like crap?

Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
When was this? Was it just the first few CD players they spit out? I also wonder if people thought that CD players sounded bad because they where used to the analogous sound of tapes. Is it possible that many people where suddenly experiencing accurate music for the first time and it just wasn't what they where used to, or wanted?

I was simply curious as to when, how, what happened back then to make people say CDs or CD players sounded so horrible. I have some CDs from the 80s (yes, printed in the 80s) and two CD players manufactured in 1986. These 22 year old CD players sound no different to me than the Pioneer Elite CD player I had, or the Toshiba SD-9000 DVD player I have, or the other CD players I have had short of the PS1 (the 5,000 dollar player supposedly) that sounds different, not necessarily better.

What great advances have they made on CD players to even make these high end CD players worth it? SHOW ME THE MONEY!
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
I bought a Sony Discman right when they first came out (around 1982), and it sounded fantastic. It instantly and permanently rendered my vinyl collection obsolete.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
When was this? Was it just the first few CD players they spit out? I also wonder if people thought that CD players sounded bad because they where used to the analogous sound of tapes. Is it possible that many people where suddenly experiencing accurate music for the first time and it just wasn't what they where used to, or wanted?

I was simply curious as to when, how, what happened back then to make people say CDs or CD players sounded so horrible. I have some CDs from the 80s (yes, printed in the 80s) and two CD players manufactured in 1986. These 22 year old CD players sound no different to me than the Pioneer Elite CD player I had, or the Toshiba SD-9000 DVD player I have, or the other CD players I have had short of the PS1 (the 5,000 dollar player supposedly) that sounds different, not necessarily better.

What great advances have they made on CD players to even make these high end CD players worth it? SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Seth, you have to understand that the transition from analog to digital was a monumental change of gear. In fact I would say the transition is still not entirely complete. I think one of the amazing things, is that so much was got right. There were significant problems.

It first started to dawn on anyone in touch, that a change to digital engineering was going to happen back around 1973/74. At least that was about the time it dawned on me.

Digital audio was a project given huge priority by BBC engineering, who I think have to be given great credit for really sparking the interest, and saying this will happen. They entered into a partnership with of all companies 3M, and developed the world's first digital tape recorder. They also entered into a partnership with the British mixer manufacturer Rupert Neve to develop digital processing, and the world's first digital mixer was the result. This latter was a difficult child. Rupert Neve did not really have the financial resources for such a project. It bankrupted them and they were bought by the Siemens group. The BBC, in Margaret Thatcher's view, spent far too much taxpayer money on it, and there were budgetary retributions.

At the same time Herr Willi Studer owner of Studer Revox saw the sun setting on the analog era. He hired a brilliant digital engineer Roger Lagadec to oversee their program. The result was Dash recorders and huge strides in digital processing. They became the world leaders in professional digital recording technology, as they had been in analog.

On the consumer front, Phillips/Sony developed an alliance to develop a consumer digital product for music playback, this took off in earnest around 1980. The CD and the Red Book standards came into being I think it is really remarkable, that at that time, given the available processing power, that they were able to come up with a system that has had almost a quarter century of dominance.

So what were the problems? Well, then current playback systems for one. Many,if not most, receivers of the time had inadequate headroom on their early high gain stages. Speakers were a huge problem. The LP rolls off slightly at both ends. Tweeters particularly were stressed and many fried. It took ferrofluid and many other advances to solve those problems. I saw this coming, and started making wide dynamic range analog recordings back around 1973. By 1984 I had developed speakers well able to cope with the wide dynamic range of the CD.

The first CD players had significant problems. This was mainly related to the analog circuits! Because of the inability to process in the analog domain, those early players had atrocious anti aliasing and brick wall filters.

I think every audio historian would point to the Revox B 225 designed by Roger Lagadec as the first CD player to offer anything comparable to the best analog had to offer. Shortly after this player appeared, guess who hired Roger Lagadec away from Herr Willi Studer! Sony!

I bought my first CD player in 1984, it was the Revox B225. It cost the high sum then of $1200. It is a superb player. Unfortunately about four years ago it developed mechanical trouble with the CD draw. It is on my restore list.

I can't stress enough how loudspeaker deficiencies, in particular, contributed to the reputation for harshness in the early CD era. My personal torture test was a superbly recorded Phillips CD of Ely Amerling singing Schubert Lieder. One of my colleagues familiar with my rig wanted to upgrade his system for CD playback, and get the Revox B 225. I remember taking this disc to Hi-Fi Sound in Minneapolis, where they had a lot of very expensive speakers to audition. Not one speaker could reproduce that disc! Everyone produced gross distortion on the voice, at certain points, at very moderate levels. Most would have blamed the CD. The sales staff did, but we knew otherwise.

So we ended up at Van Alstine's house in Burnsville. He makes the Van Alstine amps in his basement. At the time he was the B & W dealer in the Twin Cities. My friend bought the top of the line B & W monitor, now recently replaced with the B & W 800 Ds
 
zhimbo

zhimbo

Audioholic General
A lot of re-masters to CD did (and do) sound pretty bad. Until relatively recently (late '90s?), nearly every jazz reissue Columbia put out sounded simply awful. Often this was due to overzealous noise-reduction, which helped get rid of hiss and other artefacts but also left every recording sounding dull and lifeless.

Other CDs from the early days - and I have a few - sound great. But its pretty easy for me to see how people would get the impression that "vinyl sounds better" from the stinkers.
 
Jack Hammer

Jack Hammer

Audioholic Field Marshall
I think the 'bad' sound was due to the mixing engineers mixing cd's the same way they mixed LP's. A lot of my old cd's sound flat and somewhat lifeless. I would say it was more the old cd's than the cd players (talking sound quality, not reliability/durability).

Jack
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
I was simply curious as to when, how, what happened back then to make people say CDs or CD players sounded so horrible. I have some CDs from the 80s (yes, printed in the 80s) and two CD players manufactured in 1986. These 22 year old CD players sound no different to me than the Pioneer Elite CD player I had, or the Toshiba SD-9000 DVD player I have, or the other CD players I have had short of the PS1 (the 5,000 dollar player supposedly) that sounds different, not necessarily better.

What great advances have they made on CD players to even make these high end CD players worth it? SHOW ME THE MONEY!
This is probably mostly due to imagined deficiencies in early digital audio and CD player designs. An article by Prof. Stanley Lipshitz is a good example of this:

Lipshitz, S. "The Digital Challenge: A Report", The BAS Speaker, Aug-Sept 1984.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

There are technical reasons why modern CD players have better performance than earlier designs, but this improved performance won't necessarily be audible. Modern CD players usually use digital-to-analogue converters which interpolate sample values above the Nyquist rate (oversampling converters). Older DACs more commonly worked at the Nyquist rate, although an early Philips design worked at 14 bits with oversampling. Prof. Malcolm Hawksford offers an overview of potential weaknesses in traditional DAC designs and explains the advantages of interpolating (oversampling) converters:

Hawksford, M. (1991). "Introduction to Digital Audio", Images of Audio, Proceedings of the 10th International AES Conference, London, September 1991.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C27 AES lecture Introduction to digital audio.pdf


Professor Hawksford also has a paper giving examples of errors introduced by digital converters in some early recordings:

Knee, A. & Hawksford, M. (1995). "Evaluation of Digital Systems and Digital Recording Using Real Time Audio Data". Paper for the 98th AES Convention, February 1995, preprint 4003 (M-2).
http://www.essex.ac.uk/dces/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C69 Evaluation of digital audio.pdf

Probably one of the greatest weaknesses of early digital converters was their limited headroom and footroom. Of course, the relevance of this depended on what material was being recorded (see the papers below for elaboration):

Manson, W. (1980). "Digital Sound: studio signal coding resolution for broadcasting". BBC Research Department, Engineering Division.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1980-15.pdf
Manson, W. (1985). "Digital Coding Ranges For Use in An All-Digital Sound-Studio Complex". BBC Research Department, Engineering Division.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1985-16.pdf
Julian Dunn - 'High Dynamic Range Audio Applications for Digital Signal Processing '. Preprint 3434, presented at the 93rd AES Convention, San Francisco, October 1992.
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/dynrange.pdf
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
This is probably mostly due to imagined deficiencies in early digital audio and CD player designs. An article by Prof. Stanley Lipshitz is a good example of this:

Lipshitz, S. "The Digital Challenge: A Report", The BAS Speaker, Aug-Sept 1984.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

There are technical reasons why modern CD players have better performance than earlier designs, but this improved performance won't necessarily be audible. Modern CD players usually use digital-to-analogue converters which interpolate sample values above the Nyquist rate (oversampling converters). Older DACs more commonly worked at the Nyquist rate, although an early Philips design worked at 14 bits with oversampling. Prof. Malcolm Hawksford offers an overview of potential weaknesses in traditional DAC designs and explains the advantages of interpolating (oversampling) converters:

Hawksford, M. (1991). "Introduction to Digital Audio", Images of Audio, Proceedings of the 10th International AES Conference, London, September 1991.
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C27 AES lecture Introduction to digital audio.pdf


Professor Hawksford also has a paper giving examples of errors introduced by digital converters in some early recordings:

Knee, A. & Hawksford, M. (1995). "Evaluation of Digital Systems and Digital Recording Using Real Time Audio Data". Paper for the 98th AES Convention, February 1995, preprint 4003 (M-2).
http://www.essex.ac.uk/dces/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/C69 Evaluation of digital audio.pdf

Probably one of the greatest weaknesses of early digital converters was their limited headroom and footroom. Of course, the relevance of this depended on what material was being recorded (see the papers below for elaboration):

Manson, W. (1980). "Digital Sound: studio signal coding resolution for broadcasting". BBC Research Department, Engineering Division.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1980-15.pdf
Manson, W. (1985). "Digital Coding Ranges For Use in An All-Digital Sound-Studio Complex". BBC Research Department, Engineering Division.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1985-16.pdf
Julian Dunn - 'High Dynamic Range Audio Applications for Digital Signal Processing '. Preprint 3434, presented at the 93rd AES Convention, San Francisco, October 1992.
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/dynrange.pdf
That is a very nice collection of papers. Thanks a lot.

Here is a picture of the PCM F-1 system I used for public radio broadcasts starting 1984. It is above the monitors.

http://mdcarter.smugmug.com/gallery/2424008_RKGvb#127076985_mNLxx
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
I am curious where the Magnavox CDB-650 and CDB-560 fall into this. Both are 22 years old and running strong. The CDB-650 in particular seems to fetch a fair amount of cash on eBay.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
I am curious where the Magnavox CDB-650 and CDB-560 fall into this. Both are 22 years old and running strong. The CDB-650 in particular seems to fetch a fair amount of cash on eBay.
My first CD player was a Magnavox, but I don't remember the model number. I remember that it was one that was popular with those who liked to modify CD players. If my memory is right, it retailed for about $500. I got it as a demo/open box item for about $115. This must have been around 1983-4 (certainly no later than 1984). It was the most solidly made player I have ever owned. It sounded fine, but then so have many more cheaply constructed players that I have owned since then. It was, however, somewhat temperamental, and occasionally needed to be shut off and restarted to work properly. I had it repaired under warranty for something else, and that did not change its temperamental nature. Eventually, the laser quit working, and it would have cost as much to repair it as buying a new player (because prices fell a lot by about 1990 or so when it died), so I bought a new player instead, which was less solidly constructed, but not temperamental, that sounded the same. The new player also had a remote, and was made by Philips (the company that owned Magnavox).

Anyway, with a lot of things in audio, price reflects what people believe, not actual performance. Unless you are wanting an old player for what it looks like (or some other non-sound related reason), I would not recommend paying much for a used CD player. But if you already own it, I would continue to use it.
 
T

tda

Enthusiast
I have a Philips LHH2000, a professional studio compact disc system from the mid 80's. It has 2 tda1540 14-bit d/a converters. It sounds beautiful. It outperformance my Marantz CD11LE, Marantz CD14 and Philips DAC960 tda1541 S2 easily. Its a 14-bit dac player!!! The detail and control is stunning. :)
 
dorokusai

dorokusai

Full Audioholic
I picked up a vintage Phase Linear setup(DRS250/T5200) awhile back that included a 9500 CDP and it sounded awful as a standalone. That being said, the nostalgia and cool factor was off the charts for me :)

Mark
Polk Audio CS
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
As I mentioned before, I couldn't hear a difference between the Magnavox, Toshiba SD-9000 (a DVD player that was supposed to have very good CD playback), or the Pioneer Elite PD-65 I used to have.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
As I mentioned before, I couldn't hear a difference between the Magnavox, Toshiba SD-9000 (a DVD player that was supposed to have very good CD playback), or the Pioneer Elite PD-65 I used to have.
Well, it may be all in my head, but I think I can hear the difference between my Sony DVD player and my Denon DVD player in CD sound. It just seems like the Denon has a slightly clearer sound.

Don't worry. I'm not going to start saying that my BJC wires sound better than my old Monoprice cables.:D
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top