NONURD

Well thanks for the replies. I should clarify a couple of points raised with KIWI. This thread started out with questions about the sound quality of vintage cd players compared to more modern players like DVD/CD players (most of us accumulated different models due to HD/HDMI upgrades). For me 99% of the SQ of a player relates to its DAC so it has to be hooked up via RCA in order to output an analogue signal. Same for any modern player with digital-outs you are comparing it to. Both players must be tested with the same Amp. Using the digital-out on one player and RCA-out on the other invalidates the comparison. Digital-out bypasses the player's DAC, sending the signal to the Amp which then converts it to analogue using its own DAC. The SQ of a player is irrelevant if it isn't producing analogue output. That point got a bit lost bc the context shifted from comparing players to comparing player/amp combo's. There is plenty of 'real world' evidence that cd/dvd players sound the same if they are hooked up digitally as transports acting as disc readers only. Maybe one player will jump or skip more at higher volumes. But if you have an older Amp with no digital input then the SQ of the player's analogue output (its DAC) is important and noticeable. My cd/dvd combo players sound better (analogue out) than most older dedicated cd players. Well at least I realize that now, since this thread started. I would only get an older carousel player for its convenience as a 5cd changer - optical out gives it more flexibility. I hope it sounds better (analogue out) connected to my analogue Amp ... better than my recently acquired Sony CDP-397 piece of crap. Otherwise I'd hook it up via optical to my Yamaha/Pioneer receivers, then the SQ won't matter. So thanks for the feedback on the carousels Kiwi. I'm going to try for a cdp-ce345 or similar.

Kiwi, i don't know if you know this but there is a site called Dynamic Range DB here at: https://dr.loudness-war.info/ It gives you an artist/album search and lists the dynamic range ratings for the songs and the album average. It is a FANTASTIC reference and I can so far confirm its accuracy for rating the good Vinyl & CD recordings over the bad ones. I have checked my own cd's on this site and sure enough the flatter even pitiful sounding recordings in my collection have the lower ratings on this site. Your setup is more than good enough to notice better source reproductions - this is what you are noticing. The quality of the recording mastering etc has far more potential impact on SQ than your equipment. I decided to return crap commercial cd albums for refunds after listening to them on my cheap car stereo. I don't need to play them at home to confirm - they sound worse on better equipment. This is why some equipment reviewers recommend certain reference cd's to test/compare players/amps/speakers. I have some of these cd's in my collection so I tagged them for this purpose. Google "Top Audiophile Tracks For Testing Equipment" The "Best of" compilations are usually the worst. I rarely buy CD's on-line UNLESS from Discogs at https://www.discogs.com/ because their listings give you audiophile quality data on the recordings. You can't get this info from looking at the cd jacket. You don't even see ADD, AAD, DDD stamped on cd's anymore or any mastering info. So if I walk into a Virgin Music store and find what I want, I'll lookup the cd reference on the discogs site (on my phone ) and on Dynamic Range DB. Sometimes you can't tell but at least I can return a crap CD to Virgin - as I have many times (like a re-release of Counting Crows- films of ghosts - many versions of this one). So far every album I have purchased from Discogs is true to its description. Knowing what to look for with respect to re-releases and remastering of older music is the trick. Drew

1. Kiwi still waiting for you to confirm the exact model number of your Sony carousel especially now you appraised the SQ. You know I was looking at the CDP-CE345. 2. As for the SQ of the yamaha combo. You said "Listening to the same music (PFloyd CD) on the Yamaha setup gives a much broader and deeper soundstage etc...". You also said "the CD player has a very crisp and accurate output, and that the internal DAC in the amp is very good, as is the clarity of the amps output". I take it you are referring to the Yamaha CD player in the above comments? My experience is the speakers make the biggest difference and then the Amp and its DAC. If the speakers are average then you won't notice much if any difference between Amps - unless its a flat sounding or overly bright receiver compared to a dedicated amplifier. As for comparing cd players hooked up as mere transports into different amps/receivers I place very little faith on the cd player having any influence on SQ. But KIWI, your Sony cdp has RCA only - your Yamaha has digital out. And you indicated you had the Yamaha cdp hooked up via optical into your yamaha amp/receiver. Unless you hook up both players via RCA into the same Amp you can't compare their SQ (in my mind). I'm only trying to workout the SQ of your Sony carousel because I'm looking at the same vintage - and you have the perfect opportunity to compare apples with apples. But its good to know you found the changer mechanism/pickup was fairly reliable. By the way - You didn't mention which Yammie amp/receiver you have. On a side note this may sound DUMB but unless any multi-channel receiver can clearly confirm "Analogue" on its display I won't trust that the RCA output from my CD player is reaching my speakers unmolested by local DAC/DSP. On earlier receivers its not rocket science to confirm analogue mode if the display is buggered or misleading. But on modern receivers you can stuff around with defaults and reassign inputs and lose track of things - even RCA connections can be set/assigned for auto up-conversion of PCM into multichannel output. I read some receivers can detect if only 2 front speakers are attached and down-convert a signal back to stereo (not typical behavior for RCA connections). Pressing Pure-Direct or Stereo on your receiver has nothing to do with by-passing DSP.

GOODAY KIWI, Your right about that... i did notice this with One sony carousel I was looking at. I saw one listed without opt-in (RCA only on the back pic of the unit) and other units listed on ebay WITH optical-in (clearly visible on the photos. I messaged the guy with the RCA-only unit - said his specs indicated optical-in but not true in the pics. He obviously copied-in the specs from a website. BUT YOURS HAS A DUMMY OPTICAL PLUG. Def worth knowing since I'm looking at a ce345 or similar. Thanks for that. Drew

kiwilistener 1999 SONY CDP-345 carousel (1999)?? I think you mean CDP-CE345 (2000)?. There's also a CDP-C345 but that's 1994. The the service&owners manuals show an OPTICAL OUT for the CE345 but you say its RCA only? The listings on ebay also show the optical out. I came close to buying a CE345 ($140 AUD) until I saw some marantz changers (circa 2000) for around $200 and that sort of got me thinking if it was worth the extra for the Marantz given the good reviews on SQ - if it really is that much better. haven't made up my mind. SQ is important bc one of my Amps is dac-less. Funny how the Dynamic Range for the 2000 CE345 (93-94db) is a step backwards from the 1994 CDP-C345 (98db) ....go figure. It also employs the KSS-213BA which can be a much dearer replacement than the earlier more common KSS-240. If yours is the CE345 - or whatever it is - I'd be keen to know more about the sound quality (RCA-OUT) with zero Amp DSP. Also you say your 2010 Yamaha CDP-697 carousel "when connected via optical out" blows away your other players. Tell me more. It sounds like you hear a BIG difference in SQ between players used as 'transport only'. I'm up for a CDP-697 if that's the case. Not a fan of multi-channel receivers for stereo quality but I know Onkyo's WRAT can produce decent stereo (your TX-SR576 165 Watt is rated 80w RMS - I think its 50W into 8ohm). Some of the Onkyo's used Wolfson Dacs. Here's an interesting question: How much audible difference does the circuitry make between a cheap player and an expensive player (acting as transports only)? Let's say they both employ the same laser pickup unit - as many of them do. And let's leave aside the issue of how isolated the player is from SPL - i.e. assume no vibration-induced resonance in the listening environment) . Any armed Opinions ? I haven't noticed ANY difference between various players acting as mere transports (external dac). Plugged into dedicated stereo amps or receivers. Some players pick up more vibration or resonance at higher volumes (jumping, skipping etc) but as transports at lower bass/volumes - no difference in performance into the same DAC. Some people say you won't notice the subtle difference unless you have very expensive gear ....some respected reviewers say TOTAL BS to that. cheers devils advocate

Wow! thanks guys. That's what i was after. A great education in the context of me groping for a perspective on what makes a decent dedicated (vintage) cd player. Or, why my Sony CDP-397 sounds like crap . I feel spoilt by the pics but can def see the difference with the more elaborate circuitry, and those cap arrays! That looks like a massive coil in the NAIM CD3 - surely that's not a toroidal transformer in a cd player? Just for laughs, check out the internals in my glorious player (2 pics attached). What a piece of over-engineered technology!. A veritable POS! As you roll forward into the mid 90's you start to see more empty cases (at the cheaper end obviously) with all that glorious circuity of the early 80's reduced to a single board behind the switches, single chips replacing multiple IC's. I think Sony were leaders in this trend. Then the cases shrunk. Much like every modern DVD player I've pulled apart. With manufacturers saving production costs and volume retailers moving a cheaper product I guess it wasn't in their interest to lament the decline in SQ on the cheaper players like mine. I've noticed how the narrative in the commercial reviews shifted from "poor to average sound" to "great sound" with the caveat 'based on price'. Looking at circuity in players like the ones you guys have posted on this thread, I have to marvel at how my DVD players sound as good as they do - despite their internal vacuum. But if it was a full bodied sound I wouldn't be looking for a dedicated cdp in the first place. Bugger the vintage stuff at the prices they want - I can't justify that - i'd have anxiety about ageing components in anything too dear. I'll keep my eye out for a used Cambridge or a good price on something new with an analogue-weighted sound. ===============================================================================

OK thanks guys for the replies. I think I prefer to go with what SonicArt and others are saying about my Sony cdp-397 being a cheapish- to-crap player i.e. a bad example for a SQ comparison with my DVD players. That makes it easy to write off. Some of you seem to be saying the SQ of DVD players is superior to all but the best of vintage cd players. That means I should invest in an external DAC or a late model Yamaha or Denon cd player if I want better than DVD SQ. But I'm still having trouble moving on from this player. There are a lot of misleading generalizations on audio forums about how even the cheapest cd players are superior to DVD players (like the late 80's/early 90's players from sony, technics etc). I wouldn't know what to believe. But this crap sounding 397 shares its DAC combination (CXD2561, CXD2560M) with 16 other Sony players incl C87ES, C90ES, C77ES, C715. Some of these have good reviews on SQ. The 397 also shares one of its DACS (cxd2560m) with at least 4 of the CDP-X-ES series from that era. What if it just needs a replacement part or maybe a little upgrading? The problem is no specific reviews of the CDP-397. I bought it out of curiosity based on generalizations ....now I feel encouraged to forget about it ... based on generalizations. Would it be worthwhile replacing any components on the board? Given the sound test in my original post would anyone have some suggestions here? Keep in mind I don't have an oscilloscope or any equip other than a Multi-meter and a soldering iron.... and the service manual schematics. thanks All for your feedback.

Does your DVD player outperform your dedicated vintage CD player? I'm keen to hear from other members with a similar experience or anyone with an informed opinion. I'm new to stereonet so go easy on me if I'm expecting too much here by way of feedback. Maybe no-one will chime in anyway. [PS: I tried to submit this topic under the section on digital output and DACS but the page wouldn't let me select that option]. I recently bought a vintage Sony CDP-397 (1992-3) to compare to my DVD players. I did not have hopes of brilliant CD sound or anything special but I was profoundly disappointed. I don't know if I was expecting too much from a vintage CD player compared to a more modern DVD/BluRay player. But I was expecting a dedicated CD Player with decent specs to perform as well, if not better than, a cheap DVD player. I will set out my testing/comparisons below. I bought the CDP-397 to see if I can better the SQ from my Denon DVD-1720 or my Sony Blueray BDP-S1100 for standard CD playback. I think I paid about $130 inc delivery on ebay - not a lot of dosh really if I can turn it into a successful project with a soldering iron. It works and seems to be in good cosmetic (near new) condition. I was hoping for an improved sound from this player - I mean, analogue PCM output via RCA into either of my amplifiers - without further digital processing. The 397 has no digital out. My denon DVD-1720 (by no means a high quality Denon) sounds better with RCA out. My Sony BD lacks RCA but sounds better set to PCM output via coax. My Kenwood Amp used for testing is RCA input only. My Yamaha RX-V793 is often hooked up to my denon by both RCA and optical. Whichever connection/amp/speaker combo I use the CDP-397 sucks. It's almost as if Sony have filtered out the bright/detailed/forward sound I was expecting. I can deal with a bright sounding cd player - all the sony's I have owned before had a decent sound-stage. I have owned a Sony Carousel from the 90's and a sony single back in the late 80's. My first impression of the CDP-397 was a flatter not-so-lively, not-so-dynamic sound compared to what I was expecting. The Bass is there, but slightly less defined compared to my DVD players, and I have a set of very punchy towers (a tight 37hz+). I noticed a very subtle HF fuzziness whenever the player converted a track with high treble cymbals. It renders a very subtle and barely discernible treble halo (like a hazy resonance) that trails off the high notes - I didn't go looking for it - I just heard it with the tweeters at ear level... definitely an artifact and it bugged me. There was no real hiss at any point including the silent sections of the tracks. So I unhooked the 397 from my Kenwood, connected it to my bright sounding Yamaha, hooked up my bright sounding Auditones and retested it. Artifact confirmed. Turning up the treble from flat only served to wash out more clarity in the upper range. The cdp-397 is probably not as bad as it sounds to me after an hour of listening and comparing - because when you focus on these things they become exaggerated. But not imagined. So I ask, should a dedicated CD player without defects sound better than a cheap modern DVD player? Maybe component age is the problem here (given the annoying HF artifact) - maybe an IC filter issue? Capacitors? Comments anyone? Sure, the Denon DVD/Sony BD players are rated 24bit/96khz & 24/192 respectively. But this adds nothing to the SQ of a standard CD recorded with limited 16bit/44khz resolution. The average CD also has a maximum Dynamic Range at around 96db, I think that's right. I don't believe the architecture of more modern DVD players is any advantage either. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. The Denon's Dynamic Range is 98db, SNR = 115 (Sony BD player is similar). The old CDP-397 is also 98db (SNR=100). There's nothing in these specs alone that should make any real difference in sound quality (for standard CD playback). Am I wrong? Are the DACs and circuitry IN A DVD PLAYER superior for standard cd reproduction? I'll need some convincing that they are. I fully expected the 1992 Sony to sound better, but it doesn't. It uses a KSS-240A pickup and yes it jumps badly from vibration (e.g. Bass) - I half expected it would. Usually a sign the laser is weakening or needs alignment? But this should have no effect on sound quality - a laser either reads or it doesn't. (BTW, I can't even make The Denon DVD-1720 jump, nor the Bluray player). The CDP-397 has 10 IC's listed below. Some of these are DACs, others are Filters and maybe some are OPAMPS that I can't identify - I don't have the expertise to work out what every chip does from its layout in the schematics. 2 of the DACs are well regarded and common to other Sony models in this era, and feature in more expensive brands. Of course its the implementation not just the DAC that makes a good sounding player. These DACs are CXD-2561BM C-PULSE, and CXD2560M from the list below. There's nothing in the service manual indicating how many DACs are used in this Sony. DAC + Filtering in the same chip was less common in the early 90's and there's a fair number of separate IC's in this unit. If anyone is familiar with the component chips listed below your comments in terms of their 'sound quality' would be welcomed: LIST OF IC'S - CDP-397: uPD75216AGF-661-3BE GP1U52XB M5293L RC4556M-A LA5601 CXD2500AQ CXD2560M CXD2561BM RC4558M (x2) Any comments about the overall sound quality of this unit would be appreciated. I really want to know if this CD player should be performing as good as my DVD players and why/why not. Or maybe I need to upgrade my expectations? ===============================================================