Conference hips::uk_audioo

    
    I was in Laskys a while ago, and they had the Philips CD160 (which was
    one of the best budget players when it was introduced a  couple of
    years ago, when it sold for �199 or so) for something like �149 or
    �139. This is a "stunted" size player though. I think there are
    some reasonable machines available in the 150-200 bracket. 
    
    Trevor

    Converting from Dutch money, I'd think the Sony CDP-110 would fit
    in your price bracket. Over here it goes for f600 or thereabouts,
    making it somewhat under �200. I compared it to my own Denon 1500,
    and it wasn't that great a difference soundwise. Only a bit less
    bass (same sound level: soundtrack Koyaanisqatsi played on the Denon
    managed to get the cupboard vibrating, Sony didn't)(this wasn't
    my place, I don't like vibrating cupboards, and as a result don't
    have them). The Sony had a very faint hoarse quality to the sound,
    compared to the Denon, but on it's own is quite pleasing to listen to.
    It is also built using REAL metal, whereas the Philips is produced from
    some plastic-lookalike-cardboard. Philips' electronics are OK, but
    they should spend more time (and money) making the box they put
    it into. 
    
    I have so far not made any direct comparison between my Denon and
    a Philips, or the Sony and a Philips, so I can't comment on that.
    
    
    						- Rik -

	On the same lines as the base note, can someone tell me what there
	is to look out for in a CD player?

	Whilst I have an idea about other types of Hi-fi, I have yet to look
	into CD players and would appreciate knowing whether 16 bit 4-times
	oversampling etc. etc. really is going to be earth-shatteringly 
	worthwhile in anything other than an anechoic chamber.

	What do you get for spending big pennies?

	Or is it still largely down to personal preference in the end?

	
	Thanks,

	Clint

    Some generalisations.......
    
    				Sound		Facilities
    
    Sub-180 pounds		Rubbish		Irrelevant
    180-250   "			Passable	Minimal
    250-600   "			Better		A few more
    600-1000  "			The same	More gizmos
    1000+     "			Good		The same
    
    For a given price, more gizmos means less sound. If good sound 
    (and I mean "good" in the hifi sense, not just "better than a rack
    turntable") is important to you as well as facilities like remote
    control and programming, you need to start looking at 600+ pounds.
    
    Facilities which affect the sound quality include seperate DACs
    for left and right, "X" times-oversampling (the size of X is no
    guarantee of good sound), special chassis construction and seperate dc 
    supplies for digital and analogue circuits. The presence or absence of 
    these things is no measure of how good the thing will sound, although
    when properly executed they do help. How do you tell? Listen before
    you buy, and trust your ears; remember many (but not all) of the bells 
    and whistles on CD players are there as marketing aids, and are
    totally irrelevant to good sound.
    
    Whether you buy into the 2nd., 3rd., or 4th. bands above will be
    determined by not only your budget but the rest of your system.
    If you have a good system already but can only afford the 2nd. level,
    my advice is to wait until you can stretch higher, otherwise you
    could be disappointed and suffer "upgrade itch". The converse doesn't
    necessarily hold, though; a very good player in a modest (so long
    as it's competent in hifi terms) system could sound well beyond your 
    expectations, but even 2nd. level player could sound pleasing.
    Remember, garbage in, garbage out.
    
    Avoid the cheapest models like the plague, unless you want all your
    tooth fillings to be removed ultrasonically; these models constitute
    the biggest confidence trick ever perpetrated on the recorded music
    buying public.
    
    Dave

    
    The difficulty with waiting until you can afford the 'best' is that
    in the meantime you'll continue increasing your record collection.
    
    Depending on how much of a purist you are (and who's to define 'pure'?)
    you might want to consider purchasing the best (by your ears) CD player
    you can afford *now*. This'll give you a chance to start building
    up a CD library straightaway and give you some experience of the
    pros and cons of the medium before investing significant sums of
    money.
    
    I wouldn't worry too much about the price bands in .-1 but Dave
    is right to suggest that a lot of the gizmo's have zero effect on
    sound quality and you may want to consider carefully how important
    these features are to you.
    
    cheers
    alf
                                                          

    AIWA's �250 model (??770) has good sound and many gizmo's. Some
    portable players, available around the �150-200 mark have good quality
    output.
    
    Most people cannot tell the difference between the output of most CD
    players, in my experience. The difference in the end is the gizmo's,
    digital output,  remote control, shuffle play, multi-disk,
    programmable. SOme even remember individual disks and play the tracks
    in the same selection as last time. 
    
    A

re .4

>    				Sound		Facilities
>    
>    Sub-180 pounds		Rubbish		Irrelevant
>    180-250   "		Passable	Minimal
>    250-600   "		Better		A few more

I'm no audiophile & can only report the evidence of my own ears. From hearing a
variety of cheap CD players both separates & in integral systems I can only say
that the above is not my experience . The sound quality of even the cheapest CD
player is streets ahead of any other sound source apart from VHF radio (& �1000
record deck/cartridges). The clarity, frequency response & lack of
hiss/snap/crackle&pop to my ears sounds fantastic. 

I intend to buy a CD player in the near future and shall be looking in the
sub-180 pound category if not the sub-100 pound category. I might not get what
a hi-fi buff would regard as perfect sound but it will be good enough for me. I
would hate for anyone to be put off buying a CD because they feel that they
must spend inordinate amounts of cash to attain some sonic Nirvana. 

Nigel

>    Most people cannot tell the difference between the output of most CD
>    players, in my experience. The difference in the end is the gizmo's,
>    digital output,  remote control, shuffle play, multi-disk,
>    programmable...
    
    I'm not sure if this is true. When I was looking I went round a
    few shops and tried to compare. I didn't have much luck. Ranges
    in each shop seemed to be small and, maybe I picked a bad time,
    I couldn't seem to find someone willing to invest the time in me
    as a potential buyer. In addition, trying to audition over the ambient
    noise in  the shops made it very difficult.
    
    Happily, I happened to be in Singapore on holiday about the same
    time and there I found no-end of product and salesman eager to satisfy.
    (A number of them even rewired their switching consoles for my benefit
    while I waited!) Under these conditions, I could certainly tell
    the difference between various players (even at the budget end!)
    and I chose my Denon on this basis.
    
    If you can find a good dealer with good listening facilities and
    decently wide product range, use him.
    
    cheers
    alf
    

    
    I can't help but feel that Mr. Barker here is being delibarately
    controversial. I happen to agree with Dave to an extent, and that
    nothing comes for free.
    
    Mark (happy to pay more for something better)

    If anyone wants a second hand player to get started. I've got a
    Philips CD104B (one of the first 'second generation' players)
    that I'm thinking of selling
    
    Offers... say around 100?
    
    Dave
      
    

    re .7...
    
    Then all I can add is that you must either have had experience of
    some pretty grotty records/players, or had an ineffective demo.
    I've heard 200-pounds record players outperforming 500-pounds CD
    players, care of records and CD longevity not withstanding.
    
    Personally, I feel my 35 quid Walkman-FM with it's batteries half
    flat and a home recorded tape will outperform a sub 100 pounds (new 
    price) CD player. But then you and I probably expect different things.
    
    C'est la vie.
    
    Dave

    I agree with Dave that you basically get what you pay for - and
    fully agree that at the cheaper end of the market the players really
    do not come up with the goods.  However I've detected a distinct
    anti-cd bias in this note so reckon I ought to put the CD plug in
    coz I really do think they are worthwhile!  There are very many
    advantages from both ergonomic AND sound quality in getting CDs
    and players.  
    
    I'll leave the following notes to argue!!!
    
    (Ian an EX LINN owner!!!)

re .9

	Mr Jeffery is correct in his assumption that I aimed to be a little
provocative in .7

	What I was attempting to counter was the idea that one must spend
thousands of pounds in order to get acceptable quality. Of course the more you
spend the better it is but the price/performance graph for hi-fi gear is an
exponential curve. 

	Almost all audio equipment nowadays provides perfectly decent quality
of reproduction. That is not to say that it is the best available. If I
compare the Dansette that I started listening to records on >20 years ago with 
the �150 midi system that my young sister owns, the difference is immense and
the cost in real terms is much less. 

	The base note asked for the cheapest CD player available in order to 
start building up a collection of disks. Surely this noter has the correct 
priorities. Incidentally that cheapest CD player I have seen was about 89 
pounds for a portable on special offer.

Nigel

re .11
    
>    Personally, I feel my 35 quid Walkman-FM with it's batteries half
>    flat and a home recorded tape will outperform a sub 100 pounds (new 
>    price) CD player. But then you and I probably expect different things.

Presumably this is an example of the improvements that I can look forward to if
I use PWB's metal foils. 

Nigel

re .last...
"Presumably this is an example of the improvements that I can look forward to if
I use PWB's metal foils."
    
    *Only* if you tie a reef knot in the headphone cable!:-)
    
    Seriously though, I take your point, and that made earlier, that
    getting the cheapest CD player would allow someone to build a
    collection. It's just that the bottom-end ones I've heard would
    actually put me off increasing my collection, rather than invite
    me to indulge myself, whereas spending the cost of just 10 CDs
    more would get a player that will give lasting pleasure even in
    a modest system.
    
    Perhaps I'm confusing "cheap" with "cost-effective".

    Dave

    Take the following with a pinch of salt, as I read it in a magazine.
    
    Hypothesis: given two cheap CD players, the one with a remote control
    will sound better than the one without. Reason being, the manufacturer
    had to to beef up the power supply for the one with the remote,
    and beefier power supplies contribute to better sound.
    
    Sound plausible? 
    
    Who knows, all I can say is that I could have all enjoyment of a
    passage of music totally ruined when I had to drag myself out of an
    easy chair and retrieve a needle from its "ker-plunk"ing passage round
    the lead-out groove on a manual record deck, so maybe musical enjoyment is
    more than a search for the ultimate sound...
         
    half-seriously,
    		Scott 

	Cheapest CD players that I've seen

�79	Fidelity CD202 (midi sized)
�89	Goodmans GCD500S (midi size)
�99	TEAC PD-135 (rack size)
�119	Fisher AD815 (rack size) remote control

All from Richer Sounds who have many other bargain prices on players.

Nigel

    Do any of those cheapies have a headphone jack? I need an office
    player..

Re .19

>    Do any of those cheapies have a headphone jack? I need an office
>    player..

Don't know. I was quoting from an advertisment in What Hi-Fi. It would be
worthwhile to give them a bell. They do free mail order with Securicor delivery 
now. The number for their mail order branch is 061-480-1700.

I can thoroughly recommend Richer Sounds for really good prices and service. No 
demonstrations though. I have been to their London branch (01-403-1201) which 
is slightly more spacious then a phone box but stacked to the ceiling with 
cheap (price not necessarily quality) hi-fi gear. I see from their advertisment 
that they also promise the cheapest TDK tapes in the country and 79 strand 
speaker cable at 30p metre.

Nigel

    I would also recommend Richer Sounds, although probably not for
    a record player. I think I would only buy a tuner, an amp or Speakers
    from them. I would certainly think twice about buying a cheap
    CD-player, rather than a cheap amp or speakers.
    
    For cheap end of line stuff, you can't beat them.
    
    Mark.
    
    P.S. Absolute Sound & Video in Basingstoke, are a Top Tape dealer,
    and they can usually match the Richer prices. They are also much
    friendlier.

    I purchased a 4X 16 bit Phillips (Magnavox) CDB-473 for about $250
    and have been very happy with it (I'm a Linn owner; it ain't a Linn
    but it's not bad).  I leave it on all the time - found it took about
    two weeks to get the channel balance correct (capacitors forming?)
    
    It has a remote with volume control so it could be the heart of
    a CD-only straight in to the power amp system.  I think it's
    being discontinued now, yearly model change, so they might be 
    on offer?
    
    I'm assssuming that the model number is the same and you can
    figure the exchange rate.
    
    Bill
    

	The current issue of 'Which' the journal of the Consumers Association 
has a review of a number of CD players. I'll bring it in next week and enter 
what they thought the best buy was.

	The really interesting point was that they tested them all through very 
high quality hi-fi equipment (no details) and their expert panel couldn't 
distinguish between them in terms of sound quality. They could tell that some 
players sounded _different_ but not better or worse. The conclusion was that 
you bought them on the features e.g. remote, shuffle play etc

	The only model I do remember is Lasky's own brand with remote control 
for �120. Sounds like pretty good value.

	Incidentally I have read separately that all this business of 2x & 4x 
oversampling is a load of old rubbish. That there is a theoretical advantage 
but no discernable difference in real life, but then again who said Hi-Fi had 
anything to do with real life.

Nigel

    re .23....
    
    I read that article. It is the most misleading piece of nonsense
    ever published about hifi equipment. I suppose some people choose
    hifi on the same basis as a washing machine, but not I. As a member
    of the CA and a subscriber to "Which?" I planned to write in and
    complain, but I have the feeling that those who perpetrated this
    rubbish wouldn't care anyway.
    
    But then maybe I'm wierd. Please type it in if you have the time,
    it's a classic example of how *not* to select hifi.
    
    Dave

For my sins, I got 3 months free Which?, and then forgot to cancel it,
had a bit of trouble, stopping them taking my money from me. They had
a review of CD players in that, and I must admit I was taken aback with
the lack of thoroughness in their tests. It sort of puts me off the rest
of their tests like on Cars, and Washing Machines etc.

Annoys me in the same way that the "Q" article on HiFi annoyed me.

Mark.

    I don't think Which? is aimed at the hifi buff, but more the man in the
    street who fancies a CD player - you know, the type that doesn't
    actually LISTEN to it at all. I didn't find the article that
    outrageous; it seemed quite fair. Bottom line is: if you take a special
    interest in hifi (surely it is "fi" and "infi"?), you will not look to
    Which? to help you choose a CD player; the sort of people who *would*
    look in Which? for CD player advice are the sort of people the article
    was aimed at...
    
    Keith

    re .26...
    
    Oh, I agree. But this is one reason why why "real hifi" is perceived
    as something for a well-heeled enthusiast minority, not as a means
    of enjoying music at home for anyone. Magazines like Which? and
    the hifi industry through the "traditional" hifi mags are just
    preaching to the converted, and are as bad as each other.
    
    IMO, hifi is more than just something to buy instead of a home computer
    or video, and it's more than the technology.
    
    Dave

    Hi Dave,
    
    You just gotta do it...
    

    What does IMO stand for?
    

    Regards,
    Rob.

    re .28...
    
    In My Opinion...
    

re .7

>>    				Sound		Facilities
>>    
>>    Sub-180 pounds		Rubbish		Irrelevant
>>    180-250   "		Passable	Minimal
>>    250-600   "		Better		A few more

>I intend to buy a CD player in the near future and shall be looking in the
>sub-180 pound category if not the sub-100 pound category. I might not get what
>a hi-fi buff would regard as perfect sound but it will be good enough for me. I

I thought that I'd revisit this note now that I've gone digital. My 'in the
near future' turned out to be over a year. I did indeed buy a player in the
sub-100 pound category, a bit of a cheat though as it was a second hand Marantz
CD65. 

The sound is absolutely magnificent and replacing some of my old/lost LPs with 
CDs I am noticing vast improvements in quality. I particularly noticed this
with Quicksilver Messenger Service's 'Happy Trails'. This is a record that I
have heard & known inside out since it was first released over 20 years ago. I
now have a previously unheard clarity that its really startling, fret whine and
amplifier hum can be distinctly heard (maybe not an advantage) the vastly
improved dynamic range adds enormously to listening enjoyment. I am literally
hearing this as never before. 

I can't fault the player and would heartily recommend it to anyone.

Nigel

    The CD65 was THE cd player at one time (according to What Hi-Fi).

    A friend nearly brought a new one for �140 from a mail order place
    to go with his Girlfriend's portable radio cassette!  Talk about
    the weakest link in a system!

    Glad to hear you are pleased.
    Rob.

    re last....
    
    >>"The CD65 was THE cd player at one time (according to What Hi-Fi).

    >>A friend nearly brought a new one for �140 from a mail order place
    >>to go with his Girlfriend's portable radio cassette!  Talk about
    >>the weakest link in a system!"
    
    Which do you mean? The CD player or the portable radio cassette?
    
    ;-) ;-)
    
    Dave

    I've had (let's see) three CD players. The first was part of a Philips
    midi system; worked fine, few features, good sound.
    
    My second was a shop display Technics SP777 (hmmm... I think), but it
    was plagued by jumping around tracks. I think being on display had that
    effect on it.
    
    The third, and current, is another Technics, SP 477 (again, must check
    the number). That was around �200.
    
    In terms of sound, I couldn't tell the different between the Philips
    system and the Technics. I went for the Technics simply because of the
    features... I'm still trying to understand how different M.A.S.H. is
    (Multi-A*-Shaping) to the alternatives!
    
    Pete.