Vintage CD players

[George]

Do you own a vintage (old) CD player? How do you like the sound?

I've seen some old 1987-1989 players recently in thrift shops and was wondering about the SQ on these older players. I saw a Fischer, a Sony and a Kenwood. FWIW.

Any help? 

If you have comments about non-vintage CD players, please post them here. 

[Jay F]

I bought a Kyocera 310 CD player in 1987, along with a Kyocera receiver and the Magneplanar SMGa (I liked the non-black box look). The CD player lasted until 1996 or 97. The sound of this system was wonderful. Eventually, the drawer stopped closing completely, and when it did close, the player no longer recognized discs. That was the beginning of my becoming an audiophile (a state, IMO, of eternal dissatisfaction). How I wish that CD player had lasted even longer. I've thought of buying a used one on eBay, but I can never quite get behind the idea of buying a used twenty-year-old CD player. However, if I were actually able to check one out at a store and get a commitment that I could bring it back if it were DOA or smelled DOA when I played it at home, then I'd probably try one out. Those shipping charges back and forth can cost more than a used player. 

[ChamberNut]

Do these have any advantages over the modern models produced in the last 5 years?

I've seen some old 1987-1989 players recently in thrift shops and was wondering if the SQ on these older players is any better.

Any help? 

As I think I mentioned before, I have a Technics portable CD player that I bought when I was 17 in 1991, and I still bring it to work everday (since playing CDs on the desktop at work causes the computer to vibrate, which can be irritating to co-workers).  My Technics still works great.  I also had a 1991 Technics home audio system, and it was fantastic!  But, it was on it's last legs and I had to replace it last year.  This time I just bought a small home audio system, cheap and nothing to brag about. 

[nut-job]

Had a Technics SL-P1



It definitely had a better mechanical build than the typical consumer set today and I remember it sounded fine.  But I couldn't say it sounded any better than a decent machine sold today.  I suspect if I could  bring hear it again I'd be less impressed than I was then, as my expectations are higher than when I was comparing it to LPs.

[Holden]

This is my CD player. Had it for 10 years so far and it's still going strong. It's the Marantz CD63 MKII SE and the sound quality is excellent. Sure, I could upgrade to a newer player but will I really get that much of an improvement in SQ?

[George]

This is my CD player. Had it for 10 years so far and it's still going strong. It's the Marantz CD63 MKII SE and the sound quality is excellent. Sure, I could upgrade to a newer player but will I really get that much of an improvement in SQ?

Do you know what the bit sampling is on that unit? I was told earlier today that older models only deal in 16 bits and the newer ones use 24 bits, giving a more accurate reproduction of sound. 

[drogulus]

This is my CD player. Had it for 10 years so far and it's still going strong. It's the Marantz CD63 MKII SE and the sound quality is excellent. Sure, I could upgrade to a newer player but will I really get that much of an improvement in SQ?

     I had the 63 and the 67. I love these players. A cool thing is to connect them to a power amp through the variable outs. By bypassing the preamp you can see what effect it has on the sound. So this is a "straight wire" capable CD player, with just a volume control between the CD output and the power amp. I think -20 dB is as low as you can go, but that's low enough.

[RussellG]

Do you know what the bit sampling is on that unit? I was told earlier today that older models only deal in 16 bits and the newer ones use 24 bits, giving a more accurate reproduction of sound. 

I wouldn't get too hung up on specifications like that - when it comes right down to it, it matters what it sounds like, not how many bits of resolution it has, or whether it does upsampling, etc, etc.  For every technology you will find believers and non-believers.  FWIW, both of the MHDT DAC's I've owned (16 bit resolution, maximum 96khz sampling rate, non-oversampling, non-upsampling) totally blew away three different Musical Fidelity DAC's I had, two of which had 24 bit resolution, and one of which used upsampling.  The MHDT Havana is at least as detailed as the MF A324 upsampling DAC, if not moreso, and simply light years ahead in terms of smoothness, warmth, and analog feel.  I'm not trying to be a flag waver for MHDT here - I'm just illustrating the point that big numbers in digital source specifications are far from the be-all and end-all.  Interestingly, although these DAC's support up to 96khz, for Redbook CD they sound better to me being fed the raw 44.1khz, instead of it being upsampled.  This appears to be a common attribute of non-oversampling DAC's.

There are many who feel the old Philips 16 bit chips such as TDA1541A and TDA1545A are superior to the off the shelf chips used in modern DACs.  These chips are out of production now but can still be found in vintage CD Players.  MHDT bought up a supply of TDA1545A's because they still use it in their Paradisea DAC.  If you are looking at old CD Players I would suggest the ones that used these chips would be the ones to go for.  This is a useful thread George:  http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=159567.  FWIW I do recall reading a lot of praise in hifi mags in the early 90's for some of those Marantz CD Players.  The models 63 and 67 ring a bell too, although I never heard them.  You'd need to do your research - a lot of early CD Players sounded bloody awful too.  I had a Harmon Kardon job from around 1990 that was atrocious.

[Bogey]

     I had the 63 and the 67. I love these players. A cool thing is to connect them to a power amp through the variable outs. By bypassing the preamp you can see what effect it has on the sound. So this is a "straight wire" capable CD player, with just a volume control between the CD output and the power amp. I think -20 dB is as low as you can go, but that's low enough.

Is the Optimus 1760 (Radio Shack) just a variation of the above? (I believe it is early '90's)

[Daverz]

I think there have been huge improvements in DACs over the years, so I'm not big on "vintage" CD players.

I think older players often have better ergonomics, though.  All the newer players I've tried recently don't display index points (it was the rare player that let you access them directly) and have the same limited programming features. 

One feature I miss is the ability to have the player stop at the end of the current track.  A useful feature when you are tired, but don't want to shut the music off in mid phrase.  Otherwise you have to nurse the remote waiting for the track to end and hit stop at the right time.  On my old Sony changer you could do this by hitting "Continue" during programmed playback.

[Coopmv]

I think there have been huge improvements in DACs over the years, so I'm not big on "vintage" CD players.

I think older players often have better ergonomics, though.  All the newer players I've tried recently don't display index points (it was the rare player that let you access them directly) and have the same limited programming features. 

One feature I miss is the ability to have the player stop at the end of the current track.  A useful feature when you are tired, but don't want to shut the music off in mid phrase.  Otherwise you have to nurse the remote waiting for the track to end and hit stop at the right time.  On my old Sony changer you could do this by hitting "Continue" during programmed playback.

The older CDP's have much better build too.  A 20+ lb CDP has much better isolation from vibration than the current sub-10 pounder.  Prices for outboard DAC have come down so much that you can now get something quite good, i.e. 24/192 for around $400.  I plan on getting one of these DAC's to go with one of my older CDP's ... 

[DavidRoss]

Do these have any advantages over the modern models produced in the last 5 years?

I've seen some old 1987-1989 players recently in thrift shops and was wondering if the SQ on these older players is any better.

No.  Even the megabuck machines I heard prior to the early '90s sounded horrible--though, to be fair, some of that "digital glare" was due to the recordings as much as to the primitive DACs. 

Today's CD players are way better for SQ.  No doubt the usual suspects will weigh in here with their oft-repeated assertions that all CD players sound alike.  We can only pity their defective hearing, learn from it as an example of the pitfalls of intellectualism, and then go listen to different players so we can learn for ourselves based on direct observation and fact, not supposition and belief.

[The new erato]

No.  Even the megabuck machines I heard prior to the early '90s sounded horrible--though, to be fair, some of that "digital glare" was due to the recordings as much as to the primitive DACs. 

Today's CD players are way better for SQ. 

Seconded fully. I have had 3 generations of (several) players, and even top models from the late 80ies/early 90ies (in general) sound very mediocre (not to say downright bad) compared to even midpriced models of today. Some of the older models had outstanding drive trains though, and can do sterling service coupled to a good DAC. 

[drogulus]

     The first truly great CD player according to just about everyone was this top-loading baby from Philips/Magnavox:

     

     Philips/Magnavox FD-1000

     Apparently it could track discs better than anything else. I think if you could find one of these you should get it and have it looked at by a tech. Incidentally, Meridian used this as the basis for their audiophile player, the MCD.

     

[Coopmv]

     The first truly great CD player according to just about everyone was this top-loading baby from Philips/Magnavox:

     

     Philips/Magnavox FD-1000

     Apparently it could track discs better than anything else. I think if you could find one of these you should get it and have it looked at by a tech. Incidentally, Meridian used this as the basis for their audiophile player, the MCD.

     

When one does not hear an expected error from the CDP, is it really due to the good tracking ability of the player or is it more due to the correction circuitry which masks the error so one does not hear it?

[RussellG]

Do you own a vintage (old) CD player? How do you like the sound?

I've seen some old 1987-1989 players recently in thrift shops and was wondering about the SQ on these older players. I saw a Fischer, a Sony and a Kenwood. FWIW.

Any help? 

If you have comments about non-vintage CD players, please post them here. 

I still think George should try to track down one of those Marantz CD63 or 67 models, especially the CD63 MKII SE.  I'd love to know how they compare to a modern $200 Yamaha.  If you don't like it you can always put it back on eBay.

Also George, did you know the Sony PlayStation 1 has a cult following as a bitchin' CD player?  Apparently it used some ridiculously good (for the application) Wolfson DAC's or something.

[George]

I still think George should try to track down one of those Marantz CD63 or 67 models, especially the CD63 MKII SE.  I'd love to know how they compare to a modern $200 Yamaha.  If you don't like it you can always put it back on eBay.

How much do the Marantz players go for?

[drogulus]

When one does not hear an expected error from the CDP, is it really due to the good tracking ability of the player or is it more due to the correction circuitry which masks the error so one does not hear it?

     It's the tracking ability, most likely. I imagine error correction is mostly a matter of how the data is interleaved on the disc, and a chip that does a repair algorithm to cover gaps. So if this player had an advantage it would be the transport, which is probably mechanically robust in a way that became less common over time as costs were lowered. It wouldn't surprise me that a first or second generation player would be among the best. Sonically as well as mechanically they would have gotten everything right quickly and then tried to keep standards up as they tried to produce players with cheaper parts that would be almost as good.

How much do the Marantz players go for?

      New they were $300-500.

[George]

Thanks Drogulus.

I imagine that they must yield at least that much now.

[Coopmv]

     It's the tracking ability, most likely. I imagine error correction is mostly a matter of how the data is interleaved on the disc, and a chip that does a repair algorithm to cover gaps. So If this player had an advantage it would be the transport, which is probably mechanically robust in a way that became less common over time as costs were lowered. It wouldn't surprise me that a first or second generation player would be among the best. Sonically as well as mechanically they would have gotten everything right quickly and then tried to keep standards up as they tried to produce players with cheaper parts that would be almost as good.

      New they were $300-500.

I had a second generation Marantz, which I gave away to my sister.  That front-loading CDP was built like a tank and made in Japan.  That was also my first CDP.