My coloured view...
Hi Arne, I am a firm believer in the quality of single beam lasers mounted on swingarms ( that even accept 4 mm gaps on disks and play CDRW's as a bonus ! ). That's all I know and it is based on sonical properties and the error correcting capabilities.
The mechanics make this these transports so good. The fact that most are built in players with multibit TDA1541A helps
The electronics that accompany them are old too and newer chipsets should be better. We're talking about 1985 electronics here ! Recently I had the strange plan to sell my collection of CDM 1/4 based players and to start with something else for a change but comparing the oldies with newer Sony transports made me quickly change my plans.
I don't know if they can be controlled by newer chipsets or vice versa, I never looked into that because in my very coloured opinion the CDM 12.xx is inferior to any swingarm based transport Philips made. To me they smell and I don't want them. They have a shorter life and reliablity is lower than the CDM 1/4.xx. CDM 12.xx came in to the world because they were cheaper to manufacture, it had nothing to do with quality. Same goes for the decision to quit glass lenses for lasers: cost.
Sometimes I wonder if they are better than VRDS. Did a short test once with my old modded Marantz CD 65-II and a VRDS 10. Both had low jitter clocks. The Marantz sounded better. It's comparing pears with apples, I know but I liked it.
However, the risk of continuing with these old transports is of being looked up at as a
but nevertheless I'll stick with them. Most modern transports and players are heavy compromises between price and quality. At the time CDM 1/4 players were made production costs ( but also profit ) were higher and longevity was one of the demands seen in the context of the high price.
Conclusion: Philips had a very high standard when you look at the CDM series that are still very popular despite being obsolete for several years. TDA1541A has begun it's second youth...
Hi Arne, I am a firm believer in the quality of single beam lasers mounted on swingarms ( that even accept 4 mm gaps on disks and play CDRW's as a bonus ! ). That's all I know and it is based on sonical properties and the error correcting capabilities.
The mechanics make this these transports so good. The fact that most are built in players with multibit TDA1541A helps
The electronics that accompany them are old too and newer chipsets should be better. We're talking about 1985 electronics here ! Recently I had the strange plan to sell my collection of CDM 1/4 based players and to start with something else for a change but comparing the oldies with newer Sony transports made me quickly change my plans.
I don't know if they can be controlled by newer chipsets or vice versa, I never looked into that because in my very coloured opinion the CDM 12.xx is inferior to any swingarm based transport Philips made. To me they smell and I don't want them. They have a shorter life and reliablity is lower than the CDM 1/4.xx. CDM 12.xx came in to the world because they were cheaper to manufacture, it had nothing to do with quality. Same goes for the decision to quit glass lenses for lasers: cost.
Sometimes I wonder if they are better than VRDS. Did a short test once with my old modded Marantz CD 65-II and a VRDS 10. Both had low jitter clocks. The Marantz sounded better. It's comparing pears with apples, I know but I liked it.
However, the risk of continuing with these old transports is of being looked up at as a
but nevertheless I'll stick with them. Most modern transports and players are heavy compromises between price and quality. At the time CDM 1/4 players were made production costs ( but also profit ) were higher and longevity was one of the demands seen in the context of the high price.Conclusion: Philips had a very high standard when you look at the CDM series that are still very popular despite being obsolete for several years. TDA1541A has begun it's second youth...
I have had my last (?) "fight" with CDM 12.x
Having been thrugh some Philips-players, several Marantz, including CD-14, Sonic Frontiers, several MicroMega Stage / Drive...
-my fondness for the Sony lasers have grown.
(Denon DCD-1500 + Nakamichi CD-4).
Maybe I should investigate players with old Philips lasers...(have been overlooked).
Arne K
Having been thrugh some Philips-players, several Marantz, including CD-14, Sonic Frontiers, several MicroMega Stage / Drive...
-my fondness for the Sony lasers have grown.
(Denon DCD-1500 + Nakamichi CD-4).
Maybe I should investigate players with old Philips lasers...(have been overlooked).
Arne K
Re: My coloured view...
Jean Paul, since you're a big fan of CDM 1/4/9 mechanisms
What are the differences beween the 3? Are they all as good, or is one better that the 2 others?
jean-paul said:
Hi Arne, I am a firm believer in the quality of single beam lasers mounted on swingarms ( that even accept 4 mm gaps on disks and play CDRW's as a bonus ! ). That's all I know and it is based on sonical properties and the error correcting capabilities.
The mechanics make this these transports so good. The fact that most are built in players with multibit TDA1541A helps
The electronics that accompany them are old too and newer chipsets should be better. We're talking about 1985 electronics here ! Recently I had the strange plan to sell my collection of CDM 1/4 based players and to start with something else for a change but comparing the oldies with newer Sony transports made me quickly change my plans.
I don't know if they can be controlled by newer chipsets or vice versa, I never looked into that because in my very coloured opinion the CDM 12.xx is inferior to any swingarm based transport Philips made. To me they smell and I don't want them. They have a shorter life and reliablity is lower than the CDM 1/4.xx. CDM 12.xx came in to the world because they were cheaper to manufacture, it had nothing to do with quality. Same goes for the decision to quit glass lenses for lasers: cost.
Sometimes I wonder if they are better than VRDS. Did a short test once with my old modded Marantz CD 65-II and a VRDS 10. Both had low jitter clocks. The Marantz sounded better. It's comparing pears with apples, I know but I liked it.
However, the risk of continuing with these old transports is of being looked up at as a
Conclusion: Philips had a very high standard when you look at the CDM series that are still very popular despite being obsolete for several years. TDA1541A has begun it's second youth...
Jean Paul, since you're a big fan of CDM 1/4/9 mechanisms
What are the differences beween the 3? Are they all as good, or is one better that the 2 others?
Or try the 47 Labs PiTracer 
I've heard once that the data is the same for different transports (unless you have scratchy disks). I wonder, is it not possible to hide the transport characteristics by massive reclocking !?
These issues have spooked in my head for quite some time. If I have the time I'll have to do a little research...
Fedde
I've heard once that the data is the same for different transports (unless you have scratchy disks). I wonder, is it not possible to hide the transport characteristics by massive reclocking !?
These issues have spooked in my head for quite some time. If I have the time I'll have to do a little research...
Fedde
There's no substitute for swingarms...
Clock maybe ?
You asked about quality of CDM transports. When I am honest I have to say CDM9 is best, followed by CDM1 and 4. I'm not too fond of CDM2 and worse , the CDM 12.xx ( sad piece of plastic cheapness )
Problem is the implementation of CDM9 in most Philips cdplayers. The magnet clamp is too big and therefore the laser has to work harder then it should. Noise production is higher then normal in that case. Some brands use selfmade clamps to overcome this problem. There is also a problem with the orange gear that breaks after some time because of the grease that was used in the factory. CDM4 is free of those small problems and a more convenient choice. CDM1 is very good but very hard to find in case it fails. Impossible to find really.
Good info but what about the price ? A good CD80 can be found for 300 Euro.
Clock maybe ?
You asked about quality of CDM transports. When I am honest I have to say CDM9 is best, followed by CDM1 and 4. I'm not too fond of CDM2 and worse , the CDM 12.xx (
sad piece of plastic cheapness )Problem is the implementation of CDM9 in most Philips cdplayers. The magnet clamp is too big and therefore the laser has to work harder then it should. Noise production is higher then normal in that case. Some brands use selfmade clamps to overcome this problem. There is also a problem with the orange gear that breaks after some time because of the grease that was used in the factory. CDM4 is free of those small problems and a more convenient choice. CDM1 is very good but very hard to find in case it fails. Impossible to find really.
Good info but what about the price ? A good CD80 can be found for 300 Euro.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.