|
Post by André on Apr 27, 2024 10:14:33 GMT
You can get those DM30 cheap as Chips.
|
|
|
Post by Westie on Apr 27, 2024 11:20:24 GMT
I'm a huge fan of the Denon DCD-1015 which wasn't expensive (£320 when new) and better than the 600 and 800 models they had below it. The *sound* is un-molested, it's simple and I think lasers can be got still. I have the Technics micro-system now which will go in the kitchen ecentually, but I always wondered how good the Denon DM-30 would be as a CD/Tuner/Aux source and feeding an external power amp from its pre-out sockets. All subsequent ones lacked these outputs. I had a 1015 when I had a CDI. It was the only cheapie player I could tolerate. As you say, they are “unmolested”. Nice to use too. I’ve had some plate I really found hard to tolerate, especially the KI Signatures. I’m digressing here but I recall having a CD80 which was a lovely thing, but just so abrasive. I really wanted to love it but I’d have needed ear-muffs.
|
|
|
Post by Westie on Apr 27, 2024 11:22:01 GMT
A few CD Players ive been looking for JVC - XLV1 ROTEL - RCD870 ONKYO - DX5 XLV1 would get my vote although I’ve no idea what it would sound like. I doubt I’d care lol.
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Apr 27, 2024 16:56:24 GMT
I'm a huge fan of the Denon DCD-1015 which wasn't expensive (£320 when new) and better than the 600 and 800 models they had below it. The *sound* is un-molested, it's simple and I think lasers can be got still. I have the Technics micro-system now which will go in the kitchen ecentually, but I always wondered how good the Denon DM-30 would be as a CD/Tuner/Aux source and feeding an external power amp from its pre-out sockets. All subsequent ones lacked these outputs. I had a 1015 when I had a CDI. It was the only cheapie player I could tolerate. As you say, they are “unmolested”. Nice to use too. I’ve had some plate I really found hard to tolerate, especially the KI Signatures. I’m digressing here but I recall having a CD80 which was a lovely thing, but just so abrasive. I really wanted to love it but I’d have needed ear-muffs. CD80 was okay into a Quad 66/606/57 system I remember. I could suggest it was your speakers that *may* have been contributing to this - maybe? - all old hat now though
|
|
|
Post by Westie on Apr 27, 2024 18:43:55 GMT
It was with Spicas and the 4 A40s. They were sweet and very gentle up top. They never misbehaved with anything else so I stand by it being the CD80 to blame. But then I’ve found a lot of Marantz unbearable when others don’t seem to hear it. I thought the CD94 was harsh as hell too, and yet you hear all these descriptions of it being “analogue”.
|
|
|
Post by André on Apr 27, 2024 19:46:33 GMT
No matter what CDP i have owned they all sound shit on top end to me. Impossible for me to listen without tone controls.
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Apr 28, 2024 11:22:01 GMT
It was with Spicas and the 4 A40s. They were sweet and very gentle up top. They never misbehaved with anything else so I stand by it being the CD80 to blame. But then I’ve found a lot of Marantz unbearable when others don’t seem to hear it. I thought the CD94 was harsh as hell too, and yet you hear all these descriptions of it being “analogue”. My main machine is based on the heavy Philips chassis tailored for the Marantz 94 and the CD12 I believe. Sounded a bit thick and clogged via the stock RCA outs BUT, it seems that like so many TDA1541 based chipset machines, there's a lot of 'stuff' coming out of the RCAs apparently which some amps back then didn't seem to like.
Using cable ferrites on the RCA leads helped the RCA outs on mine 'sound' more like the transformer coupled balaned outs which I normally use. I wonder if this might have had something to so with it?
Modern digital sources do appear much cleaner at supersonic and rf frequencies than the old Philips multi-bit machines did and modern dacs are more or less immune to it as well, at least on paper.
|
|
|
Post by André on Apr 28, 2024 11:38:02 GMT
It was with Spicas and the 4 A40s. They were sweet and very gentle up top. They never misbehaved with anything else so I stand by it being the CD80 to blame. But then I’ve found a lot of Marantz unbearable when others don’t seem to hear it. I thought the CD94 was harsh as hell too, and yet you hear all these descriptions of it being “analogue”. My main machine is based on the heavy Philips chassis tailored for the Marantz 94 and the CD12 I believe. Sounded a bit thick and clogged via the stock RCA outs BUT, it seems that like so many TDA1541 based chipset machines, there's a lot of 'stuff' coming out of the RCAs apparently which some amps back then didn't seem to like.
Using cable ferrites on the RCA leads helped the RCA outs on mine 'sound' more like the transformer coupled balaned outs which I normally use. I wonder if this might have had something to so with it?
Modern digital sources do appear much cleaner at supersonic and rf frequencies than the old Philips multi-bit machines did and modern dacs are more or less immune to it as well, at least on paper.
Thats where the MISSION 'DAD7000' came in getting rid of the harsh 'CD104', no thickness issues tho! btw these used dual TDA 1540 chips. Tried the MISSION with & without the filter module fitted. Also modded it to none oversampling
|
|
|
Post by Westie on Apr 28, 2024 13:40:45 GMT
It was with Spicas and the 4 A40s. They were sweet and very gentle up top. They never misbehaved with anything else so I stand by it being the CD80 to blame. But then I’ve found a lot of Marantz unbearable when others don’t seem to hear it. I thought the CD94 was harsh as hell too, and yet you hear all these descriptions of it being “analogue”. My main machine is based on the heavy Philips chassis tailored for the Marantz 94 and the CD12 I believe. Sounded a bit thick and clogged via the stock RCA outs BUT, it seems that like so many TDA1541 based chipset machines, there's a lot of 'stuff' coming out of the RCAs apparently which some amps back then didn't seem to like.
Using cable ferrites on the RCA leads helped the RCA outs on mine 'sound' more like the transformer coupled balaned outs which I normally use. I wonder if this might have had something to so with it? Modern digital sources do appear much cleaner at supersonic and rf frequencies than the old Philips multi-bit machines did and modern dacs are more or less immune to it as well, at least on paper. I never thought of that as a factor. My experience of the 94 was mainly in the shop, but it was fierce even through a Quad 34/606 into Spendors. Maybe a shop’s electrics will be even more likely to provoke such nasties.
|
|