[es347]

Hello to fellow VSAers..

I took my trusty Sony CDP-101 out of mothballs yesterday for a trip down memory lane.  I bought this little guy the Spring of 1983 and it was the centerpiece of my system until it was retired, still working fine, in the mid to late 80's when it was replaced with an Adcom player.  I don't remember the model number but it was decent until it died and was replaced by an Arcam FMJ...and so on and so forth until today there sits the McIntosh MCD500.  Anyway, back to my CDP-101.  It has been stored in it's original packaging since then and moved at least 4 times so I really didn't know what to expect.  I got it out a few days ago and fired it up on the bench...problem.  The disc drawer wouldn't open.  You could hear the gear motor working but the drawer was siezed.  I took it to my MAC repair guy and he spent about an hour with it finding that the drawer needed lubricating.  Since I have an open shelf in my equipment rack, I thought what better way to fill it than with THE first commercially available cd player.  Using some old MIT single ended (of course) ICs, I hooked it up to my C46 preamp and sat back for a listen.  Well guys, I realize that I am using a pair of 61 year old ears to make these judgment calls but it sounded pretty darned impressive.  Is the MCD500 better?  Sure it is but it's not as night-and-day as you might imagine.  I was expecting to hear a brittle high end but that wasn't the major difference.  The biggest difference was in the bass; the MCD500 having a better defined bass whereas the Sony seemed almost loose by comparison.  But again, the difference was there for sure but not as wide as one would expect.  There have been great improvements in DACs over the years and transports as well.  But this little guy does pretty darn well considering he was the first guy on the block.  For those of you who have never seen one...better yet never hefted one nor operated it's controls, I can honestly tell you this thing is built like a tank weighing in at 16# 8oz.; the inside of the case is fully Cu shielded and it has a massive transformer in the power supply.  OK enough of my rambling.  Below are a couple of pictures of what I have been describing.  Thank you for indulging me as I dragged you along in this trip back in time.   aa




ps...I am sure if I was to compare the Sony and the MAC for extended listening the MAC would be far less fatiguing.  It would be a hoot to post all this on the AK MAC forum but I would get drawn and quartered.   

[SundayNiagara]

Hello to fellow VSAers..

I took my trusty Sony CDP-101 out of mothballs yesterday for a trip down memory lane.  I bought this little guy the Spring of 1983 and it was the centerpiece of my system until it was retired, still working fine, in the mid to late 80's when it was replaced with an Adcom player.  I don't remember the model number but it was decent until it died and was replaced by an Arcam FMJ...and so on and so forth until today there sits the McIntosh MCD500.  Anyway, back to my CDP-101.  It has been stored in it's original packaging since then and moved at least 4 times so I really didn't know what to expect.  I got it out a few days ago and fired it up on the bench...problem.  The disc drawer wouldn't open.  You could hear the gear motor working but the drawer was siezed.  I took it to my MAC repair guy and he spent about an hour with it finding that the drawer needed lubricating.  Since I have an open shelf in my equipment rack, I thought what better way to fill it than with THE first commercially available cd player.  Using some old MIT single ended (of course) ICs, I hooked it up to my C46 preamp and sat back for a listen.  Well guys, I realize that I am using a pair of 61 year old ears to make these judgment calls but it sounded pretty darned impressive.  Is the MCD500 better?  Sure it is but it's not as night-and-day as you might imagine.  I was expecting to hear a brittle high end but that wasn't the major difference.  The biggest difference was in the bass; the MCD500 having a better defined bass whereas the Sony seemed almost loose by comparison.  But again, the difference was there for sure but not as wide as one would expect.  There have been great improvements in DACs over the years and transports as well.  But this little guy does pretty darn well considering he was the first guy on the block.  For those of you who have never seen one...better yet never hefted one nor operated it's controls, I can honestly tell you this thing is built like a tank weighing in at 16# 8oz.; the inside of the case is fully Cu shielded and it has a massive transformer in the power supply.  OK enough of my rambling.  Below are a couple of pictures of what I have been describing.  Thank you for indulging me as I dragged you along in this trip back in time.   aa




ps...I am sure if I was to compare the Sony and the MAC for extended listening the MAC would be far less fatiguing.  It would be a hoot to post all this on the AK MAC forum but I would get drawn and quartered.   

Sounds like a good candidate for some mods.

[htradtk]

Hi Gavin,

Great story! This reminds me of my first CD player, the Sony CDP-620, I believe it was the second generation model released after the 101. Great machine, used it until I brought the Sony CDP-707ESD in 1989, I used that until I brought my current Sony, the CDP-XA9000ESD in 2003 all three got great usage. Now I have the craving to get that McIntosh that you have. Well, let's see how good Uncle Sam is to me when I get my taxes done later this month!

Henry

[mr_bill]

Thank you for your post,

I still maintain that digital does not sound that much different over the years.  Gains have been small.  Take an old player like you did and compare to a newer one and yes there is a difference, but it is very small (if you're honest and not subscribing to the audiophile bs)
And all this in the face of 'huge advances in digital.'
My old NAD monitor series cd player does not sound that bad.  On the other hand, I didn't much like the sound out of a sony dvp7000 that I used to have.  and yes, my Theta Gen VIII is better but it is amazing that some of these older players sounded real good in comparison.

[bummrush]

Mr bill totally correct about cd,its kind of like you get what you get and thats about it,,and i have a couple cd players that are good but would i call it perfect ,not even close,marketing justs pounds it in your head about newer better,etc.

[Rutgar]

Nice looking set of Macs!

In the mid 80's I had that same Sony CD player.  The dealer let me use it as a loaner until the Sony 10 CD disc changer that I had on order came in (I don't remember the model number now).  The main thing I remember about that player was how harsh is sounded.  I believe it was the same CD player that one of the early reviews coined the phrase 'aluminum violins' refering to how bad it sounded.  However, I also remember that Sony knew what the problem was, and wasted no time in correcting the issue with later models.

[Delacroix]

I agree with others that progress in CD players has been slow, and I learned this the expensive way. My old Rotel 945 with a decent DAC sounds close to anything else and it's lasted 15 years! Sure there is better performance to be had at the nose-bleed level but in my experience, the $$$ invested to get there would be better spent for most of us in other parts of the chain. If your old Sony still plays reliably without skipping or rejecting disks, then try it with the Benchmark or PS Audio DAC and see what $1k can do for you -- I suspect it will get you somewhere you like.

[es347]

I agree with others that progress in CD players has been slow, and I learned this the expensive way. My old Rotel 945 with a decent DAC sounds close to anything else and it's lasted 15 years! Sure there is better performance to be had at the nose-bleed level but in my experience, the $$$ invested to get there would be better spent for most of us in other parts of the chain. If your old Sony still plays reliably without skipping or rejecting disks, then try it with the Benchmark or PS Audio DAC and see what $1k can do for you -- I suspect it will get you somewhere you like.

Not sure if the CDP-101 has digital outputs.  If it does, my MCD500 has accessible DACs and they are killer.  I'll check.  CD mastering and production is where the gains have been made in those 27 years.  I've got some mid 80s cds that have been remastered, Steely Dan for example, and the difference is not subtle.  Whether I play the Sony on occasion or put it out to permanent pasture, it's kind of cool having that bit of history perched just above Nipper, both representing different audio eras.  Thanks for the comments guys.

[JackD201]

There's a funny thing about old CD players from the 80's to early nineties. They sound better today than they did then. Well most of the time anyway. What's funny is that while we often attribute the poor sound of the CD players then to their being "old", most of the time we forget just how bad the first few generations of CDs were to begin with  These were the CDs so shoddily made that the silver stuff seemed to crumble away at the edges. Stamping plants have improved much over the years and the debate about upsampling is still a big thing today. No wonder that the old players now sound better today. Chances are we're playing better made CDs than those we had then 

While I hear the improvements of modern players that upsample to high heavens in the form of the practical banishment of distracting foldback artifacts caused by the early brickwall filters of the day, there is much to be appreciated with the barest of CDPs that do away with digital filters and use no upsampling whatsoever like those from 47 Labs. What it loses in detail it makes up for in texture and harmonic nuance. Then there are the CDPs that by choice were fitted with 1-bit delta sigma DACs that were oh so smooth albeit rolled off up top and a touch flabby down below. But OH the midrange. The now defunct California Audio Labs were a great example of this. This tube like sound can now be found in actual tube output stage players like the Ayon, Consonance, BAT and even China made CDPs from the likes of Opera, Cayin and Shanling.

My three favorite players today are the Emmlabs stack for doing what digital does best being extra quiet with taut powerful bass, the 5000 series Zandens for being the closest I've heard digital sound as compared to megabuck LP sound and the Accuphases from the DP-700 and up that straddles the two.

My favorite old school player is something I still have, a Theta Pearl transport and a Theta Pro Prime 2 DAC. It won't bowl you over but the suckers jost don't do any harm/

[es347]

Perspective from Jack...always welcomed and thought provoking.  Jack, if you have a MAC dealer in your neck of the woods, please have a listen to the MCD500.  I would love to hear your opinion.  The 500 employs four 24-Bit, 192 KHz PCM/DSD digital to analog converters per channel arranged in a differential balanced configuration.  Not exactly sure what the advantages are with this design but it sure sounds impressive  and I believe it's unique to MAC.  The result to these ears is a very warm yet highly detailed sound.  Of course my VR4s may have something to do with that. 

Gavin

[JackD201]

I'd love to check it out in my system but I don't want to impose on JR (MAC's dealer) even if he is a friend because I'm not in the market for a player. I have heard it in an all MAC setup though (including speakers) and the entire set was indeed very good. The sight of so many tweeters was something I couldn't get past though even if the sound wasn't bright

I've always been of the opinion that as far as CDPs go the analog output stage determines more of the player's sonic identity than the chipset used. An example would be the Proceed AVP2 vs the Mark Levinson ML360S which I both still have. They use the same 32bit SHARC DSP processor sets but the Proceed sounds like a proceed and the ML like an ML.

Early on (when one could actually find a dedicated entry level stand alone CDP and not DVD players) many entry level players used the same chipsets from Pacific Microsonics and even had the same transports from OEM suppliers like Philips and Sony. I noticed the difference in sound differed greatly between those that had more robust power supplies and better op-amps or j-fets from those that used the lightweight sets.

Many CD enthusiasts noticed this too and this gave rise to the Mod masters we have today who turn erstwhile good but "ordinary" players with good transports and DACs into really good players by putting in improved analog output sections and some clock work as well. My favorite modders are Alex Paychev of APL, Dan Wright of Modwright and John Tucker of Exemplar. There are however many other outstanding Modders out there. Over here there are a couple of guys who do really good mods but do it only for friends and as a hobby. On the reverse side there are so called hi-end manufacturers that have been accused of sticking a pioneer into a fancy box  Oh dear.

I may then be assuming too by thinking within a set (and most probably flawed) paradigm but I would think your MAC sounds great more because of MAC's expertise in the analog realm as evidenced by their wonderful preamplifiers and amplifiers  than the  contributions of their chosen chipset. I would go as far out in fact to say that even if they used 4 lower spec'd chipsets they would still sound great but more importantly still sound like a MAC. Another way of putting it is if we grafted in the 4 24-bit, 192k chips onto say your Sony. Your Sony would still not have your MAC's bass definition and would still sound like a Sony. 

Here's the rub though. My observations only apply to CD only players. The choice of chips and conversions techniques in CD/DSD players is a whole 'nuther ball game. It's rare to find players that play BOTH formats to the same high standard. An example would be the Audio Aero prestige was fantastic on DSD but not anywhere close it's CD only brother the Capitole on CD performance. This despite the Audio Aero Prestige playing both formats into the same tube output stage. From your description of your MAC in another thread, it appears they made the right choices  I wonder if they use one pair of the chips dedicated to the DSD to PCM converted signals and the other set for straight PCM. Wanna ask your dealer?

[es347]

Uhhh, sure!  Just as soon as I comb my hair....you've blown it back my friend    You are absolutely correct about the importance of the final amplification of the output signal.  Discrete components rather that op amps to start with.  Beyond that, not sure what to ask my dealer.  Maybe I could print your post and take copious notes.  Just kidding Jack.  You certainly have a good handle on this here hobby and I continue to learn from it.  Thanks for the positives on the MAC equipment.  They certainly know how to amplify sound but I'm not convinced, nor are a lot of other folks, that they really know how to design a speaker.  How an array of 20 something tweeters and midranges can image is beyond me and for that matter, beyond MAC seemingly.  But I do love those lovely aqua blue meter lights 

Gavin

[htradtk]

All,

I've been reading this topic with CD players with great interest. Just wondering if any of you have listened to the DCS Scarlatti three piece CD system. This $65,000+ system is considered the best in the world according to "The Absolute Sound". Would love to hear it, better yet, have a one to one comparison between the DCS system and the Sony CDP-101. I'm sure just maybe there may be a slight difference. 

Henry

[SundayNiagara]

I had a listen to the dCS 3 piece system last Thursday evening in Pompano Beach.  The system was comprised of the Krell EVO 2 pre and EVO 900 amps, driving the Focal Grande Utopia EM speakers.  To say that this was the finest digital sound I've ever heard would be a bit of an understatement.

[es347]

I had a listen to the dCS 3 piece system last Thursday evening in Pompano Beach.  The system was comprised of the Krell EVO 2 pre and EVO 900 amps, driving the Focal Grande Utopia EM speakers.  To say that this was the finest digital sound I've ever heard would be a bit of an understatement.

I bet that is for sure.  What was the grand total $$ of the system you auditioned?  Wait, let me sit down first. 

[SundayNiagara]

I had a listen to the dCS 3 piece system last Thursday evening in Pompano Beach.  The system was comprised of the Krell EVO 2 pre and EVO 900 amps, driving the Focal Grande Utopia EM speakers.  To say that this was the finest digital sound I've ever heard would be a bit of an understatement.

I bet that is for sure.  What was the grand total $$ of the system you auditioned?  Wait, let me sit down first. 

About 350k!

[es347]

Cowabunga Buffalo Bob!  We're talking 30 year fixed.   And it probably sounds no better that the Bose Wave

[SundayNiagara]

"And it probably sounds no better that the Bose Wave"

Well just a little!