Hi Guido,
Very correct! I have to be more precise. The complete mechanics and direct servo electronics makes the CDM for me. Incorporating other electronics on the PCB that comes with a CDM is making this definition a bit fuzzy. But inadequate electronics can be improved. A reason I prefer CDM1.
Now Jitter is something that makes indeed the difference. It already starts with a proper definition. And it gets even worse if you think about how to measure it. If you have a disc with jitter problems you will recognise it in the error flag readout as well when the jitter gets to high.(youre experience as well) Yes, Then you will see differences between CDM's as you are on the edge regarding datarecognition. But as long as you have a normal disc (99.9%) and the data is normally error corrected all CDM's are equal.
I wrote a report about jitter and jittermeasurements a long time ago (AR-46-243 (ORL Lab)). May be you can dig it up. It gives a nice historical overview regarding jitter. It is interesting to see that CD Red book updates are concerned with Jitter. Jitter became even more important for the Orange book. You can see the specification is more strict there.
As for a company every penny counts there is room for improvement by enthusiast DIY-ers. But again do not expect more result than you realy can. I have the impression that often a proper care of CD's brings more than some improvements.
Ward
Very correct! I have to be more precise. The complete mechanics and direct servo electronics makes the CDM for me. Incorporating other electronics on the PCB that comes with a CDM is making this definition a bit fuzzy. But inadequate electronics can be improved. A reason I prefer CDM1.
Now Jitter is something that makes indeed the difference. It already starts with a proper definition. And it gets even worse if you think about how to measure it. If you have a disc with jitter problems you will recognise it in the error flag readout as well when the jitter gets to high.(youre experience as well) Yes, Then you will see differences between CDM's as you are on the edge regarding datarecognition. But as long as you have a normal disc (99.9%) and the data is normally error corrected all CDM's are equal.
I wrote a report about jitter and jittermeasurements a long time ago (AR-46-243 (ORL Lab)). May be you can dig it up. It gives a nice historical overview regarding jitter. It is interesting to see that CD Red book updates are concerned with Jitter. Jitter became even more important for the Orange book. You can see the specification is more strict there.
As for a company every penny counts there is room for improvement by enthusiast DIY-ers. But again do not expect more result than you realy can. I have the impression that often a proper care of CD's brings more than some improvements.
Ward
Wadia versus TEAC!
Hi guys,
This is just the reason I now have a TEAC VRDS 25X and the P-700 Transport.
I first had the Marantz CD80, after that, the CD72 SE than the Wadia 8/15 combination.
The reason I sell the Wadia is cause the TEAC VRDS 25X and the P-700 sounds (after modifying the units)mutch better than the Wadia set.
The wadia's had something funny.
I took ones the lid of both the 8 and the 15 and foundout that the sound was less precise.
After that, I took the case off and the only thing that still was connected to the pcb's and the transport was the back plate (2mm thick).
Well the sound was really bad, just like a cheap CDP and no pin pointing no bass no nothing.
So these guys really did sonething to get really rich, they made a tramendus case of 15mm thick aluminum and fixed a new 50Watt transformer in it.
Everything else was TEAC, and I can tell cause I have the P-500 transport service manual and had the Wadia 8 it's just the same thing.
I had the wadia 20 transport (from a friend) for clock mods. and the transport in the Wadia 20 is the same as the transport in a VRDS 25X. The sound of a TEAC is just about the best transport I've ever used. I had the CDM1 and the 4, have listen to te CDM9 and the Pro, but non of them where able to reach the top in my set.
I hope this is an eye opener for you guys.
Best regards,
Audiofanatic
Hi guys,
This is just the reason I now have a TEAC VRDS 25X and the P-700 Transport.
I first had the Marantz CD80, after that, the CD72 SE than the Wadia 8/15 combination.
The reason I sell the Wadia is cause the TEAC VRDS 25X and the P-700 sounds (after modifying the units)mutch better than the Wadia set.
The wadia's had something funny.
I took ones the lid of both the 8 and the 15 and foundout that the sound was less precise.
After that, I took the case off and the only thing that still was connected to the pcb's and the transport was the back plate (2mm thick).
Well the sound was really bad, just like a cheap CDP and no pin pointing no bass no nothing.
So these guys really did sonething to get really rich, they made a tramendus case of 15mm thick aluminum and fixed a new 50Watt transformer in it.
Everything else was TEAC, and I can tell cause I have the P-500 transport service manual and had the Wadia 8 it's just the same thing.
I had the wadia 20 transport (from a friend) for clock mods. and the transport in the Wadia 20 is the same as the transport in a VRDS 25X. The sound of a TEAC is just about the best transport I've ever used. I had the CDM1 and the 4, have listen to te CDM9 and the Pro, but non of them where able to reach the top in my set.
I hope this is an eye opener for you guys.
Best regards,
Audiofanatic
Don't know VRDS 25 but VRDS 10 "looses" from CD80. I have seen quite a few VRDS 10 but though they look fine and well built they even sounded worse than my old CDM Philips/Marantz cdplayers. Both were modded with low jitter clocks.
But I always compared them with their internal DAC's. I wanted to have one myself and the first thought that came up was to make a new DAC board that could be fitted instead of the DAC 7 board. Nowadays I am just content with old CDM's....
I want to add that cdplayers ( when used as a transport ) can sound very different because of the used SPDIF transformer. The standard ones don't do any justice to the cdplayers. It is better to fit good transformers to both the cdplayers and then do a test.
For example the well built Akai CD93 had a very bad one and it never sounded right on a external DAC. Philips/Marantz are famous for the lousy SPDIF transformers they use and can't seriously be compared to cdplayers that have a decent transformer ( or one of a less worse kind ).
Apples and pears ....
But I always compared them with their internal DAC's. I wanted to have one myself and the first thought that came up was to make a new DAC board that could be fitted instead of the DAC 7 board. Nowadays I am just content with old CDM's....
I want to add that cdplayers ( when used as a transport ) can sound very different because of the used SPDIF transformer. The standard ones don't do any justice to the cdplayers. It is better to fit good transformers to both the cdplayers and then do a test.
For example the well built Akai CD93 had a very bad one and it never sounded right on a external DAC. Philips/Marantz are famous for the lousy SPDIF transformers they use and can't seriously be compared to cdplayers that have a decent transformer ( or one of a less worse kind ).
Apples and pears ....
Hello Audiofanatic,
What you noticed with the Wadia might be caused by interference of the HF signal. The HF signal coming from the CDM is very sensitive. For test for "video CD" we used a modified CDM1 with a HF amplifier on the flexible print! The good HF signal From a CDM can be perfectly ruined by interference of hum or clock-signals. I have seen a very high end brand "reference" CD player with a lousy CD-HF making the overall performance not better as a discman.
Ward
What you noticed with the Wadia might be caused by interference of the HF signal. The HF signal coming from the CDM is very sensitive. For test for "video CD" we used a modified CDM1 with a HF amplifier on the flexible print! The good HF signal From a CDM can be perfectly ruined by interference of hum or clock-signals. I have seen a very high end brand "reference" CD player with a lousy CD-HF making the overall performance not better as a discman.
Ward
Interesting discussion! I recently had a discussion with somebody about jitter. The person stated that you want to generate the clock from the cd (pits).
I wonder if that's true. I think that it would be better to reclock everything and assume that all the intervals between the data words (eg. 16-bit) are equal. Is that a valid assumption for the CD format !? In that case I would not see the need for an expensive transport, only for a *really* well decoupled reclocking circuit (and DAC!) and a superb clock. Preferrably multi-stage to reduce dependency on the input signals!
Fedde
I wonder if that's true. I think that it would be better to reclock everything and assume that all the intervals between the data words (eg. 16-bit) are equal. Is that a valid assumption for the CD format !? In that case I would not see the need for an expensive transport, only for a *really* well decoupled reclocking circuit (and DAC!) and a superb clock. Preferrably multi-stage to reduce dependency on the input signals!
Fedde
About transports...
I been so lucky that I have tried some fairly good transports, like MicroMega, Sonic Frontiers, and cheaper ones, and a lot of "mainstream" CD-players.
From Denon, Sony, Rega, Vincent, Nakamichi, Philips, Marantz, Technics, Pioneer, and some less known names.
By far, the old swing-arm models from Philips(Marantz,Arcam,Rotel), is my favorite.
And now, my preffered transport is a Marantz CD-16, (CDM4,36) and even that transport was improved by filling all hollow rooms in the plastic that holds the laser&transport with hot-melt-glue.
(Be careful with the hot-melt, I almost destroyed a cheaper CD-player when all things plastic started to deform).
I also found this transport very sensitive to the clock/X-tal accuracy, even more than my second favorite, my Yamaha CDX-993
Arne K
I been so lucky that I have tried some fairly good transports, like MicroMega, Sonic Frontiers, and cheaper ones, and a lot of "mainstream" CD-players.
From Denon, Sony, Rega, Vincent, Nakamichi, Philips, Marantz, Technics, Pioneer, and some less known names.
By far, the old swing-arm models from Philips(Marantz,Arcam,Rotel), is my favorite.
And now, my preffered transport is a Marantz CD-16, (CDM4,36) and even that transport was improved by filling all hollow rooms in the plastic that holds the laser&transport with hot-melt-glue.
(Be careful with the hot-melt, I almost destroyed a cheaper CD-player when all things plastic started to deform).
I also found this transport very sensitive to the clock/X-tal accuracy, even more than my second favorite, my Yamaha CDX-993
Arne K
Jean-Paul reacted on my rather blunt statement that I had stopped tinkering with the mechanical and optical aspects of cd mechanisms.So,I will elaborate somewhat.on this topic.
The only discernible tendency I could identify in all those years of tweaking was a correlation between players that benefitted from it and those that had a short lifespan; it was roughly the same group!
Electronic modifications on cdm1 transports however, is a subject where I have witnessed some reliable results.(I didn't do them myself mind you)Reading the replies by Edum,Guido &Ward I tend to the conclusion that my decision of some years ago has saved me lots of spare time.
However,if someone can produce some mechanical tweak wich can be reproduced with 4/5 reliability I'll be following him.I do love tweaking!
martijn
The only discernible tendency I could identify in all those years of tweaking was a correlation between players that benefitted from it and those that had a short lifespan; it was roughly the same group!
Electronic modifications on cdm1 transports however, is a subject where I have witnessed some reliable results.(I didn't do them myself mind you)Reading the replies by Edum,Guido &Ward I tend to the conclusion that my decision of some years ago has saved me lots of spare time.
However,if someone can produce some mechanical tweak wich can be reproduced with 4/5 reliability I'll be following him.I do love tweaking!
martijn
fezz said:
totally agree - I have taken a used Cambridge Audio D500 ($250 on ebay) and have taken damping and isolation to the max. Recently I compared it to a relatively new Wadia 301 a friend brought over, and, well, I prefer mine...
It took just a few bucks in materials to convert this relatively average single disk player to a pretty awesome sounding unit:
http://didnt.doit.wisc.edu/audio/cdp/cdp.html
Hi guys,
Am new to the forum and would like to ask how true is this advertisment for a CD transport-only comoany that claims it can extract the digital streams more comletely than any other mechanism in mass consumer CD players? Forgot the brand but the claim stuck to my mind as a good justifcation for geting a stratospherically priced CD transport-only player. Is it? Thanks
Am new to the forum and would like to ask how true is this advertisment for a CD transport-only comoany that claims it can extract the digital streams more comletely than any other mechanism in mass consumer CD players? Forgot the brand but the claim stuck to my mind as a good justifcation for geting a stratospherically priced CD transport-only player. Is it? Thanks
av_phile said:
I'm not sure what product you are referring to but there are probably cheaper ways to get the same results. My CP player is nothing special, so it has trouble with poorly pressed CDs, but once I use EAC on the computer, and re-burn those "perfect" overlap-read extracted files to a CDR at 1X speed, I can get a very noticable improvement from the very same playback device.
This tells me that my player has trouble extracting the proper information on some CDs, but works much more reliable with a well burned CD (it doesn't sound very well once the burn speed increases).
Hi-end CD transports probably are better in reading the correct information off marginal quality master CDs, but for me it's simply cheaper to do the proper dupe on the computer. I guess the transport you saw may do what EAC does on a CD-ROM drive (read at constant CD speed to a memory buffer and do multiple overlapping reads to make sure the data was read accurately). Done fast enough on a modern high speed mechanism, this probably can be done in real-time without needing to read the entire CD into memory first.
I think the much easier solution is to go straight to a PC =-based playback mechanism, where the CD is stored after EAC extraction on a hard drive in wav format (with much better error correction than redbook audio will ever have), and then played back through an audiophile grade sound card to an external reclocking DAC.
This whole PC-based playback idea has very high potential. To do it right, somebody just has to spend a few months tweaking and testing components.
I'm pretty sure I'll be doing some basic tests in the coming months, just to learn about the best way to build such a system. One thing is for sure - even with the fanciest parts I can think of right now, I can build a hard drive based playback computer for a lot less than some of these high-end transports sell for. With fancy parts i mean $300 fan-less power supplies, heat-pipe cooling for every single component in the chassis. Just check out this announced product for a totally silent PC:
http://www.teschke.de/heatpipes/Neues/Gehause/Zalman/zalman.html
It only takes something like this, an IDE RAID controller, a stack of 250GB drives, and a high end audio card, plextor CD mechanism, and a few other items, and you can build a pretty killer sounding system with enough capacity to hold 2000 CDs in uncompressed format.
I don't even want to get into the possibilities of running crossovers and room correction on the computer before even sending the data out to the DAC(s)
Peter
Thanks Peter, a very enlightening repsonse.
I use a NERO to burn into a CDR some compilations I've been making from a number of WAV files I have in my hard drive. I recently got hold of the EAC software and it seems to do a decent job except that in some problematic CDs which to my ears sounded OK, had difficulty correcting as it is taking forever to read on my Sony CD Writer as well as a TEAC CDROM. Is this natural for problematic discs to take forever to read be EAC? I use a Pentium 4 1GHz clone with 256 RAM.
I have a few more questions: I have refrained from using MP4 or WMP files which are lossy compressed files as they may degrade the sound of the originals. So I wanted to extract the CD titles the way they were encoded. Are WAV files the same as the CD files? heard they use lossless copression, but what gives?
When using the equalization function of the NERO software, am I altering the signals in the digital domain? I would hope so.
Lastly, I am using a pre-owned Yamaha CDX-1000 as a transport only player and route the digital out to a DENON AVD2020 pre/pro. But lately, the player would fail to read, skips, until I give it a hard knock at the top of its chassis. Any maintenance I need to do to correct this, other than bringing it to the shop? Thanks.
I use a NERO to burn into a CDR some compilations I've been making from a number of WAV files I have in my hard drive. I recently got hold of the EAC software and it seems to do a decent job except that in some problematic CDs which to my ears sounded OK, had difficulty correcting as it is taking forever to read on my Sony CD Writer as well as a TEAC CDROM. Is this natural for problematic discs to take forever to read be EAC? I use a Pentium 4 1GHz clone with 256 RAM.
I have a few more questions: I have refrained from using MP4 or WMP files which are lossy compressed files as they may degrade the sound of the originals. So I wanted to extract the CD titles the way they were encoded. Are WAV files the same as the CD files? heard they use lossless copression, but what gives?
When using the equalization function of the NERO software, am I altering the signals in the digital domain? I would hope so.
Lastly, I am using a pre-owned Yamaha CDX-1000 as a transport only player and route the digital out to a DENON AVD2020 pre/pro. But lately, the player would fail to read, skips, until I give it a hard knock at the top of its chassis. Any maintenance I need to do to correct this, other than bringing it to the shop? Thanks.
EDUM
Since you have worked for Philips I would like to aks you something.
Which Philips CD player models have the best CD mechanisms ?
I mean something cheaper as the CDM pro.
It would be interesting to know a few models someone could buy cheap and use the laser-mechanism and electronics to make a DIY Transport.
Since you have worked for Philips I would like to aks you something.
Which Philips CD player models have the best CD mechanisms ?
I mean something cheaper as the CDM pro.
It would be interesting to know a few models someone could buy cheap and use the laser-mechanism and electronics to make a DIY Transport.
I prefer the old cdm0 and cdm1 mechanisms for their outstanding playability. You can get CD100/200/300 series players for little money in on-line auctions. The hard part is to replace/ update everything after the servo electronics. Anyone give it a try?
I remember that the old CDROM drives made by Philips for DIGITAL were CD101's with an extra cabinet mounted under it. If you could get such a unit it would provide a stylish solution and give you plenty of space for new electronics.
I woul like to comment on pburke. You find a copy of a CD playing (sounding) better as the original. Interesting finding. Before jumping to a conclusion however it is worthwhile to check what happens exactly on a CD and a CDR. After all you will not get better data than originally stored on the CD...
Ward
I remember that the old CDROM drives made by Philips for DIGITAL were CD101's with an extra cabinet mounted under it. If you could get such a unit it would provide a stylish solution and give you plenty of space for new electronics.
I woul like to comment on pburke. You find a copy of a CD playing (sounding) better as the original. Interesting finding. Before jumping to a conclusion however it is worthwhile to check what happens exactly on a CD and a CDR. After all you will not get better data than originally stored on the CD...
Ward
This whole PC-based playback idea has very high potential. To do it right, somebody just has to spend a few months tweaking and testing components.
With fancy parts i mean $300 fan-less power supplies, heat-pipe cooling for every single component in the chassis. Just check out this announced product for a totally silent PC:
http://www.teschke.de/heatpipes/Neues/Gehause/Zalman/zalman.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a beast; I bet this will costs as much as a high end system. The heat sinks alone will cost a lot.
Seriously, it is not easy to build lo noise PCs; heat pipes also make 'boiling evaporisation' noises.
I cannot understand why the elctronic geniuses who design processors do not dissipate heat into the often large surface area cases; you just need to build up height and invert the pcb.
With fancy parts i mean $300 fan-less power supplies, heat-pipe cooling for every single component in the chassis. Just check out this announced product for a totally silent PC:
http://www.teschke.de/heatpipes/Neues/Gehause/Zalman/zalman.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a beast; I bet this will costs as much as a high end system. The heat sinks alone will cost a lot.
Seriously, it is not easy to build lo noise PCs; heat pipes also make 'boiling evaporisation' noises.
I cannot understand why the elctronic geniuses who design processors do not dissipate heat into the often large surface area cases; you just need to build up height and invert the pcb.
CD transport
I work at Philips. My colleague was at a congress with the transport designers. They all agreed that the CDM 1 was the best transport Philips ever made.
So if you cab find a Philips CD 960 or Marantz CD95, 80, 12
you have definitely a very good transport.
I did a test with a Wadia 16 (TEAC ). With my CD 80 as transport it is better.
I made it heavier with sheets of lead.
I work at Philips. My colleague was at a congress with the transport designers. They all agreed that the CDM 1 was the best transport Philips ever made.
So if you cab find a Philips CD 960 or Marantz CD95, 80, 12
you have definitely a very good transport.
I did a test with a Wadia 16 (TEAC ). With my CD 80 as transport it is better.
I made it heavier with sheets of lead.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.