HIFIDIY CD Transport Kit - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Source

Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd August 2007, 01:01 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: hong Kong
Send a message via ICQ to ackcheng
first picture: LED positive on the left side, jumper
2nd picture: +ve
3rd picture: for push switch
4th picture: I have no idea!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2007, 09:07 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default cdm12

Hi,

The QC problem is that the led unit did not light up as intended. When changed everything works ok.

Here are the answers to the picture quiz:
1a) led + on the left
1b) jumper position
2) led + on the long lead
3) 4) same as 1)
5) socket for sliding lid switch. There is a lever switch on the bottom side of the lid which tells the motor to start or stop.
6) leave C128, C141 and R124 un-populated.

Cheers,

KK
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 02:26 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Default cdm12 upgrade

Hi,
The lastest development to this motor unit is that the VAM1202 will be replaced by CD pro:

http://www.hifidiy.net/zxbd/200708/t20070822_1268.htm

Since I already have a working cdm12, I would wait for the full blown CD pro motor unit which is in development. But for someone who is shopping around, this hybrid version can be on the list. No indication of the price since it is still in beta stage.

Cheers,

KK
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 02:42 AM   #14
anatech is offline anatech  Canada
diyAudio Moderator
 
anatech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Georgetown, On
Yes, definitely wait.

VAM1202 is very, very poor quality. Complete junk for a transport from what I have seen in the field. These are extremely variable in HF level and quality. The eye pattern is very noisy.

Avoid these transports!

-Chris
__________________
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" my Wife
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 08:32 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: highlands
Quote:
Originally posted by anatech
Yes, definitely wait.

VAM1202 is very, very poor quality. Complete junk for a transport from what I have seen in the field. These are extremely variable in HF level and quality. The eye pattern is very noisy.

Avoid these transports!

-Chris
Thanks for the warning, i have done a little research and it turns out that Naim are fitted with theese transports.

Naim cd5i, cd5x og cdx2 that is.

These players cost up to $6600 in Norway.

Can the VAM1202 be so poor if they are used in the metioned players?

I also like to say thank's to all who replied to my questions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 10:53 AM   #16
rabbitz is offline rabbitz  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
rabbitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Newcastle, Australia
A high cost player does not mean a top transport is used. I think that transport was used in some of the budget Marantz models.

I'd take notice of anatech's advice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 04:20 PM   #17
pooge is offline pooge  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Northern Va.
Is this transport strictly Redbook?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2007, 09:58 PM   #18
anatech is offline anatech  Canada
diyAudio Moderator
 
anatech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Georgetown, On
Hi pooge,
Quote:
Is this transport strictly Redbook?
I don't see where "redbook" has anything to do with it. It is cheap with wide variances on quality and signal levels. The signal is so noisy that I can't imagine getting clean data off the disc - any disc.

The quality of a transport is evident from two things. The quality of the build (does it last and is one very much like the next?) and the quality of the RF signal that can be processed further. The VAM1202 only has price to recommend it. It is almost the worst thing I've seen. I'm thinking the HOP-M3 head, but I'm rethinking that. They could be tied.

Hi rabbitz,
I take it you've seen these as well?

-Chris
__________________
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" my Wife
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 02:20 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
The really sad thing is that EVERY CDM-12-series transport, as far as I've seen, and I have seen a lot of them, mostly failing, uses the same basic laser pickup. VAM1202, CDM-12.4, CDM-12Pro(there's an oxymoron!), CDM-Pro2(guess they left out the 12 on this one to make it a less obvious oxymoron), etc. If you carefully transplant the ribbon cable from one's laser to another, you can use any CDM-12 version to replace the laser in any other version.
As I have ranted here before, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would base anything more ambitious than a discman on these horrible, cheap, ultra-high-failure-rate pieces of junk. I mean, a Sony KSS-210 or KSS-213-based transport, at even small production quanities, can't more than a few dollars higher cost for vastly superior reliability, consistency & performance. I consider any manufacturer who uses the Philips junk to be too penny-pinching to be trusted.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 02:34 AM   #20
anatech is offline anatech  Canada
diyAudio Moderator
 
anatech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Georgetown, On
Hi stephensank,
A manufacturer I spoke with is attempting to get away from Philips as well. They hate them! However, they are forced to buy those if they wish to sell any CD players or DVD machines. The average person has been told that Philips CD transports are the best and have been for many years. They can't win because "we" force them to use junk.

Quote:
As I have ranted here before, I can't see why anyone in their right mind would base anything more ambitious than a discman on these horrible, cheap, ultra-high-failure-rate pieces of junk.
I can. If you think they work badly in a home, just wait until you see their lack of performance in an unstable environment.

Quote:
I mean, a Sony KSS-210 or KSS-213-based transport, at even small production quanities, can't more than a few dollars higher cost for vastly superior reliability, consistency & performance.
You are talking about Sony - remember? These people have a long honourable history of pricing themselves out of the market. They have a strong will to fail.

When the KSS-150A first appeared we thought it was complete garbage. They replaced that iffy head with the KSS-210A which made the transport more reliable. The KSS-240 was introduced to eliminate some adjustments due to the poor quality of service. The new current heads run on a servo to automatically "tune" the adjustments to the CD in play. This assures good average performance. Never great but never really bad. 'Till it breaks.

The best transports were the early NEC units. Lovely things. They were always higher quality than Philips stuff. These days I am happy when I see a KSS-210A/240A/151A based unit. This I can set up well.

-Chris
__________________
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" my Wife
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Extreme DAC 1543 kit from Hifidiy.net Bgt Digital Source 32 14th March 2014 10:20 AM
hifidiy.net hongrn Chip Amps 11 19th December 2011 03:23 PM
HiFiDIY's LM4780 ppchiu Chip Amps 9 20th September 2008 09:29 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2