Have your say & ask the experts!

an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac....the surprising conclusion

37 replies [Last post]
Ketan Bharadia
Ketan Bharadia's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Jun 2007
Posts: 276
RE: i think the proof is in

The transport, and particularly the laser,  tends to be the weak link  in older players. If that's working properly there's no reason they won't last. Spare parts are starting to become an issue, though.

__________________

Technical Editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision

MajorFubar
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 2345
RE: i think the proof is in

stevebrock wrote:
However I would never ever dismiss an old CDP
Yeah I know mate Smile That wasn't specifically aimed at you. Just generally, people often issue the (well indended) advice about staying away from old CD players. Yet with just a handful of exceptions, the risk of them suddenly biting the dust three days after you've dropped a couple of hundred on them is over-exaggerated.

__________________

Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794

Also cluttering-up the place:

Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1

MajorFubar
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 2345
RE:

When you think about it, it's asking a lot for a modern £300 DAC to take on a CDP which was a highly-respected £500 player some 15/16 years ago, which crucially was at the tail end CD players' "golden era".

If we use the Marantz as an example (though obviously there were other great players from that era as well), it's difficult to say exactly how much of that £500 was purely spent on sonics. But if you consider the basic CD-63 mk2 was half the price, then that gives you some idea.

For a good modern £300 DAC to take it on and win comfortably, then the cost of manufacturing DAC circuitry of any given sonic calibre needs to have halved in 15 years. I'm not sure it has.

I tend to use my Mac Mini with my HRT II+ more than my CD63KI player, really for convenience-sake more than anything else. I'm really not at all sure that it sounds better.

__________________

Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794

Also cluttering-up the place:

Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1

psurquhart
psurquhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 494
RE: i think the proof is in

What a great post Shafesk - brilliantly reviewed imo - they should give you a job on What Hi Fi !

This is one that could go on and on though because as you have correctly posted, it all really boils down to personal prefererences.

I still kick myself in the teeth for selling my Marantnz cd63se mk11 on fleabay a few years back. I really miss that sound, brilliant cd player.

Great read though, so thanks.

__________________

plastic penguin
plastic penguin's picture
Online
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 12920
RE: i think the proof is in

It all boils down to preference: Do you want versatility or just play CDs?

__________________

Leema Pulse MKII-S; Naim CD5i MKII; Denon TU-260L MKII; MA RS6 speakers; Pro-ject Xpression 1; loads of different cables...

 

Formerly known as plastic penguin

Native_bon
Native_bon's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Posts: 571
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac....the conclusion

When it comes to any source hifi equipment these days the differences are very little. Again it all depends what you patntering the source with. Something that sounds thin in one system may sound good in another. Like most people may be aware by now, Hifi is a very tricky business. You have to get some much right to get the right sound, or may I say the type of sound you looking for.

I have a recording studio & also having been to so many over the years I have come to the conclusion that the speakers has to be the best you can afford then take it from there to know what your source & amp actually sound like. I think only then can u really built a good system. This is just my opinion, others may think otherwise.

If am to really to decide about dacs & cdps a traditional hifi system I will say cdp anyday. Computer based systems & or both hifi & computer systems then dacs start to make sense.

__________________

No rules. If it sounds good to you it sounds Right!!.Transpor:t . Oppo BDP-105EU Blue ray player.DAC: Rega dac & Audio lab M-Dac. AMP; MARANTZ SR7007. SPEAKER'S; SONUS FABER CREMONA'S. (FLOOR STANDING) SYSTEM STAND:QUADRASPIRE. INTERCONNECT;CHORD CHAMELEON SLIVER PLUS. DIGITAL CABLE:Clearer Audio silver Optimus. SPEAKER CABLES: RUSS ANDREWS CRYSTAL-24... Mains conditioner: Isol 8.

Computer: Yototech: 600T case: graphice GTX690 Graphics card. 32gb RAM. Processor: I7 3960X. Solid state drive. 500gb. Sata drive 2TB. blue ray drive. studio monitors: Yamaha SH80M Active speakers. Mixer: Presonus studiolive 16.0.2. Audio connection Firewire via presonus. Screen: Asus 27inch VG278H

MajorFubar
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 2345
RE:

Just picking-up on an easily-overlooked point in Shafin's opening post:

shafesk wrote:
Let me first say that the differences were far more subtle when I burned a cd from itunes from 320kbps mp3s. However it was when I played a Dire Straits CD that the differences became clear.
...which kind of infers that all those people who say that 320k MP3s sound just the same as CDs need to try listening to real CDs on a decent player.

__________________

Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794

Also cluttering-up the place:

Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1

ajrduff
ajrduff's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Nov 2003
Posts: 24
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac

Very interesting. I've often looked at CD63 KIs on Ebay and wondered about taking the plunge.

Inflation is probably a factor in the relative performances, too. The Marantz' £500 list price is more like £750 in 2012 terms, while the Dacmagic would have been around £200 in the late nineties.

__________________

NAD C565BEE, Harmon Kardon HK1200, B&W DM620, Graham Slee Novo, Sennheiser HD650

Native_bon
Native_bon's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Posts: 571
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac

ajrduff wrote:

Very interesting. I've often looked at CD63 KIs on Ebay and wondered about taking the plunge.

Inflation is probably a factor in the relative performances, too. The Marantz' £500 list price is more like £750 in 2012 terms, while the Dacmagic would have been around £200 in the late nineties.

yes true, but think technology has moved on abit since then.

__________________

No rules. If it sounds good to you it sounds Right!!.Transpor:t . Oppo BDP-105EU Blue ray player.DAC: Rega dac & Audio lab M-Dac. AMP; MARANTZ SR7007. SPEAKER'S; SONUS FABER CREMONA'S. (FLOOR STANDING) SYSTEM STAND:QUADRASPIRE. INTERCONNECT;CHORD CHAMELEON SLIVER PLUS. DIGITAL CABLE:Clearer Audio silver Optimus. SPEAKER CABLES: RUSS ANDREWS CRYSTAL-24... Mains conditioner: Isol 8.

Computer: Yototech: 600T case: graphice GTX690 Graphics card. 32gb RAM. Processor: I7 3960X. Solid state drive. 500gb. Sata drive 2TB. blue ray drive. studio monitors: Yamaha SH80M Active speakers. Mixer: Presonus studiolive 16.0.2. Audio connection Firewire via presonus. Screen: Asus 27inch VG278H

MajorFubar
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 2345
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac

Native_bon wrote:
yes true, but think technology has moved on abit since then.
True but in terms of audio quality, as I said above, I'm not sure it's moved on so much that a cheap(ish) modern CDP or DAC will routinely outperform one of the best CDPs from CD's heyday.

__________________

Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794

Also cluttering-up the place:

Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1

NHL
NHL's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 290
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac

The new DAC's sound differ surprisingly much from older DAC's. Can it be the preamps, which have gone from discrete components to pure IC with switched power supply?

shafesk
shafesk's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Posts: 753
RE:

MajorFubar wrote:
When you think about it, it's asking a lot for a modern £300 DAC to take on a CDP which was a highly-respected £500 player some 15/16 years ago, which crucially was at the tail end CD players' "golden era". If we use the Marantz as an example (though obviously there were other great players from that era as well), it's difficult to say exactly how much of that £500 was purely spent on sonics. But if you consider the basic CD-63 mk2 was half the price, then that gives you some idea. For a good modern £300 DAC to take it on and win comfortably, then the cost of manufacturing DAC circuitry of any given sonic calibre needs to have halved in 15 years. I'm not sure it has. I tend to use my Mac Mini with my HRT II+ more than my CD63KI player, really for convenience-sake more than anything else. I'm really not at all sure that it sounds better.
You are right, in terms of adjusted price level the 500 pound cd 63 KI would be much more expensive and let's not forget it was quite a high end cdp whereas the dacmagic is an entry level dac. However, I thought that since the Dacmagic is so raved about that it would have performed better or even outperformed the cd 63.

__________________

Hi-fi:

Denon DNP-720AE network streamer, Mordaunt Short Mezzo 6, Cayin A-55 T, Technics-SLQ210, Denon DP-29F turntable, 540p, Dac-magic, Marantz 5004CD and 6025 Turntable, Mac ,Pure AV interconnects, QED Revelation speaker cables, QED Performance interconnects.

Head-fi:

Akg K702, Grado SR60i, UE Triple-fi, Musical Fidelity X-cans, HRT Music Streamer 2+

shafesk
shafesk's picture
Offline
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Posts: 753
RE: i think the proof is in

psurquhart wrote:

What a great post Shafesk - brilliantly reviewed imo - they should give you a job on What Hi Fi !

This is one that could go on and on though because as you have correctly posted, it all really boils down to personal prefererences.

I still kick myself in the teeth for selling my Marantnz cd63se mk11 on fleabay a few years back. I really miss that sound, brilliant cd player.

Great read though, so thanks.

Thank you for the kind words, a job at Whathifi would for me be a dream come true. I do have a blog on hi-fi which you are welcome to visit at www.audio-fixation.blogspot.com

__________________

Hi-fi:

Denon DNP-720AE network streamer, Mordaunt Short Mezzo 6, Cayin A-55 T, Technics-SLQ210, Denon DP-29F turntable, 540p, Dac-magic, Marantz 5004CD and 6025 Turntable, Mac ,Pure AV interconnects, QED Revelation speaker cables, QED Performance interconnects.

Head-fi:

Akg K702, Grado SR60i, UE Triple-fi, Musical Fidelity X-cans, HRT Music Streamer 2+

MajorFubar
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Posts: 2345
RE:

shafesk wrote:

MajorFubar wrote:
When you think about it, it's asking a lot for a modern £300 DAC to take on a CDP which was a highly-respected £500 player some 15/16 years ago, which crucially was at the tail end CD players' "golden era". If we use the Marantz as an example (though obviously there were other great players from that era as well), it's difficult to say exactly how much of that £500 was purely spent on sonics. But if you consider the basic CD-63 mk2 was half the price, then that gives you some idea. For a good modern £300 DAC to take it on and win comfortably, then the cost of manufacturing DAC circuitry of any given sonic calibre needs to have halved in 15 years. I'm not sure it has. I tend to use my Mac Mini with my HRT II+ more than my CD63KI player, really for convenience-sake more than anything else. I'm really not at all sure that it sounds better.
You are right, in terms of adjusted price level the 500 pound cd 63 KI would be much more expensive and let's not forget it was quite a high end cdp whereas the dacmagic is an entry level dac. However, I thought that since the Dacmagic is so raved about that it would have performed better or even outperformed the cd 63.

Very true Shafin, it just goes to show technology hasn't advanced as much as some people think in SQ terms. Maybe the baseline has been raised with today's budget players beating yesterday's budget players (even then I wouldn't like to risk a bet without listening first), but a great CD player is still a great CD player no matter how old it is.

__________________

Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794

Also cluttering-up the place:

Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1

ReValveiT
ReValveiT's picture
Offline
Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Posts: 98
RE: an ancient cd player vs a modern day dac....the surprising..

I had the DM for a while... Concluded it was utter kak.