It's from about 1996. I think it cost £450, and was £100 more than the RCD 970 which was more popular and got better reviews in What HiFi and HiFi Choice.
The reason I ask is I've always wanted to buy one as I have a 970 and want to compare them. The used different DAC implementation architecture but the same chassis:
RCD970:
Phillips CDM-9 laser mechanism
TDA-1305 Continuous calibration DAC chipset - 16 times oversampling filter for 20-bit resolution followed by upsampling to the equivalent of 96-time oversampling. Signal then turned into a 5-bit PDM signal
RCD975:
Phillips CDM-9 laser mechanism
Dual differential time-aligned continuous calibration DAC chips. each D/C simultaneously processes both the positive and an inverted version of the same signal. The resulting analogue signals are then compared to each other, any conversion errors appear as differences in the two signals, which can then be cancelled out.
I got these descriptions from the Rotel website where they still have the old brochure: https://www.rotel.com/sites/default/files/product/infosheets/RCD970 Brochure.pdf
Incidentally the 950 and 970 appear to be pretty much the same in terms of DAC implementation, but the 950 didn't use the CDM-9 laser mechanism and didn't have a toroidal transformer and a few other components were probably less select.
The Rotel RCD975 sounds interesting though - did any other CD players of DACs do things that way?
The reason I ask is I've always wanted to buy one as I have a 970 and want to compare them. The used different DAC implementation architecture but the same chassis:
RCD970:
Phillips CDM-9 laser mechanism
TDA-1305 Continuous calibration DAC chipset - 16 times oversampling filter for 20-bit resolution followed by upsampling to the equivalent of 96-time oversampling. Signal then turned into a 5-bit PDM signal
RCD975:
Phillips CDM-9 laser mechanism
Dual differential time-aligned continuous calibration DAC chips. each D/C simultaneously processes both the positive and an inverted version of the same signal. The resulting analogue signals are then compared to each other, any conversion errors appear as differences in the two signals, which can then be cancelled out.
I got these descriptions from the Rotel website where they still have the old brochure: https://www.rotel.com/sites/default/files/product/infosheets/RCD970 Brochure.pdf
Incidentally the 950 and 970 appear to be pretty much the same in terms of DAC implementation, but the 950 didn't use the CDM-9 laser mechanism and didn't have a toroidal transformer and a few other components were probably less select.
The Rotel RCD975 sounds interesting though - did any other CD players of DACs do things that way?
Not quite what you are asking but @Mayday has a RCD971 with 2 x PCM63P & PMD100. It really looks a superb player inside. He can tell you how it sounds. The PCM63P is an excellent chip.
The 970 and 975 have the mighty Philips CDM-9 transport.
Interesting that Rotel tried very different designs for the DAC stage. A huge list of players and their DAC chips here.
The 970 and 975 have the mighty Philips CDM-9 transport.
Interesting that Rotel tried very different designs for the DAC stage. A huge list of players and their DAC chips here.
I had one until the gear driving the drawer opening and closing stripped. The gear was made of bubble gum. I ordered a new gear and cost a fortune in shipping cost. Less than 6 moths later the same happened. Not a Rotel design flaw but Phillips. Anyway I replaced the gear again and sold the CD player after ripping all my music to HDD. It did sound excellent to me but had nothing really to compare it with, nor any reason too do so.
I lost a big part of my library due to Media Monkey screwing with and cocked up a lot of songs some parts just disappearing and some songs written into others, an almighty mess. I since dumped my paid version of Media Monkey and bought a Wadia6 CD player. Whether the Wadia6 sounded better or worse than the Rotel I have no idea. I thought it should because it was far more expensive.
The Wadia6 is also now sitting collecting dust as my wife thought it a good idea buying me a Topping as a present and now she would come and check on me unexpectedly whether I am still using the Topping. I dare not change it, but what the heck the Topping sounds fine.
I lost a big part of my library due to Media Monkey screwing with and cocked up a lot of songs some parts just disappearing and some songs written into others, an almighty mess. I since dumped my paid version of Media Monkey and bought a Wadia6 CD player. Whether the Wadia6 sounded better or worse than the Rotel I have no idea. I thought it should because it was far more expensive.
The Wadia6 is also now sitting collecting dust as my wife thought it a good idea buying me a Topping as a present and now she would come and check on me unexpectedly whether I am still using the Topping. I dare not change it, but what the heck the Topping sounds fine.
I replaced the gear on my 970 about 17 years ago. It needs replaced again. The "mighty" Phillips CDM9 transport is a PITA. But you can get the gears pretty cheap these days, I'm going to get one from AliExpress. Hopefully they use a better plastic.
Looking at their SM-s - I would not invest time in either of them.
Analogue output first stage opamps incorporated in DAC-s...
Analogue output first stage opamps incorporated in DAC-s...
People in the net say that it is a problem. Personally I cannot confirm or deny since I have taken their advice and never purchased a device outputting analogue signal from an opamp integrated in a dac.
So test yourself and find out - for me personally it is a process stopper - a dac is a dac and analogue stage is an analogue stage.
Perhaps it isnt ideal but then it's from the old days, it's an old DAC chip. I doubt it's audible but who knows.
A lot of players from "old days" are built with dacs and analogue stages separated. Up to you if you want to find out the difference...
Damn, thought it was a good one, read they were sought after, probably because they keep failing! Is it a Sony transport that is better? The old original playstation was being used by DIYers a while ago as a player.
There will be no audible difference. In any case I asked someone else who said, "If you want the advantages of switched capacitor filters (i.e. much reduced jitter sensitivity), it's kind of hard to avoid. "
It's the drawer mechanism that keeps failing. I have no idea what the best transport it.
I reserve the right to stay on opposing opinion.
Did a listening test quite some years ago swapping about a dozen of different opamps on a single cd player. I heard the difference, which does not mean that others hear them.
Well that does not mean that you actually heard a difference. It's impossible to do a proper listening test when you have to power off to swap op-amps. Also if it wasn't a blind test you leave yourself completely open to placebo and confirmation bias etc.
And you deleted the part I said after the part you quoted.
Well, ballsy statement to say what I actually heard or did not hear.
I did not delete anything from your post, I only quoted the part that was relevant for my reply.
