Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

   splain??
   
   what are you driving at?  They (philips, magnavox, whoever) have an exellent
   design, but simply lack carying it out.  They use 4x oversampling with
   both digital and analog filtering.  With a few mods (as mentioned) it
   can sound as good as a NAK or Revox.  soon they will have twin D/A's (as
   mentioned before as well) and it whould sound better.  
   
   				dave
   				----

A Rosenberg by any other name...

I, for one, am perfectly happy that Phillips is doing what I agree is a lousy
job of marketing their CD players. If they had put them out under the Phillips
name they might have had more panache among audiophiles, but they would also
probably not have been available at good prices to people like Service 
Merchandise and Ace TV. I got mine for $197 at SM at a time when the only
thing comparable was the D-5 for ~$230. Now it is a lot cheaper and, from
reading this notes file, I'm not the only DEC person who likes it. Instead
of flaming about lousy marketing let's encourage it (present company
excepted, of course).

				Toungue planted firmly in cheek
				(but still enjoying my Magnavox CD player),

				Dick Rosenberg

	....on the subject of those Magnavoxes, has anyone had any
further experiences upgrading the 1040/2040?? Mark Kaepplein provided
some very useful information in a previous note (#179), but I haven't
heard anything since. Does anyone out there have any more details on
how to do this upgrade? 

Since you ask...  Here is an update:

First, Magnavox DOES use dual D/A converters.

Second, sometime, Magnavox players will use the new Signetics TDA1541
16 bit dual DAC instead of using two TDA1540 14 bit DACs.  This will
provide flatter response and the best S/N in the industry (along with
the Cambridge unit).  The 1041/2041/3041's arn't available yet, but
hopefully the service manual will be out soon so I can find out if
they use the new 16 bit DACs.

Thirdly, the passive components arond the DACs could use work.  The data
sheet says to use .5% metal film resistors in the current reference.  5%
suface mounts are used in the 1040.  The weighted decoupling caps should
be premium despite lack of mention in data sheet or what the application
engineer at Signetics said.  Phillips saw fit to make two of them mylar,
but the rest ceramic.  Beter would be polypropelenes, mica, or npo ceramics.

DON'T buy a 1040.  Buy the 2040 instead.  It is much easier to modify and
sounds marginally better out of the box.

Musical Concepts now has a supermod with these changes, plus premium, custom
parts in the anti-aliasing filter.  He didn't say anything, but I think he
even surprised himself with the sound quality he is getting out of CDs.
Some of the anti-digital flamage ate TAS is going to mellow after hearing
some of the new top-notch players in the works.

Mark

The really ironic part of it all is that they market the hardware under the
Magnavox name, but the software says Phillips!

Stereophile Mag gave the 1040 a very good rating in its current list of
recommended components.

Caldor has the Magnavox #2040 on sale for $179 (reg $249.99) till Dec 21
(sorry for the short notice)!

It has, among other features, a "State of the art laser beam pick up system"
Get 'em while their hot!
DDA

DDA ... Now that's progress!

The new FD2041's are finally out!  They have audible scan now.  They also
sound a little better and weigh 1/3 as much.

RE: .9

What caused the 2/3 weight reduction?  The FD2040 isn't that heavy to begin
with.

-- Ward

re .6

Stereophile gave it a rating based on what products they have actually LISTENED
TO. They haven't yet tried out the newer versions, which may or may not be
better. More interesting are the ones thay said to watch for. Some of them have
promise... 

The new magnavox is lighter because they, like many others have gone to
a plastic chassis.  Reportedly, it sounds better out of the box.  They
use much better capacitors in the anti-aliasing filter, better op-amps,
and better power supply decoupling.  The bad new is that there are lots of
surface mounted components.  The servo control logic has been ruduced to
a few chips and sits under the transport.  There is lots of room inside
the box now for lots of goodies like power supply regulators.

Forgive me if this has been hashed out elsewhere, but -

	All other things being equal, what's bad about surface-mounted
	components?

Thanks,
 Erik

It hasn't been hashed out before.

Exotic audio equipment tries to use the best, lowest noise components available.
Non-inductive metal film resistors, teflon, polypropelene, or polystyrene
capacitors, and if necessary low ESR/DA electrolytic capacitors.

Most SMC capacitors are ceramic.  These add audible distortion.

SMCs make boards very small, so there is no room to put big film caps in.

Read Picking Capacitors by Walt Jung and Dick Marsh in Audio, Feb. and March
of 1980 (I made a copy at the Framingham library).

Mark

The development project I am on is currently involved in SMT.  We have
found some things which apply to audio.

There is a definite limit to our choice of passive components for SMT. The
capacitors are mostly polyester or ceramic (not the best choice for audio).
Resistors can be had in Mfilm but I think they are ferrous metal. The good
news here is there are no leads to deal with so steel and other ferrous
leads are not a problem.

Active components (transistors, diodes and ICs) are packaged with higher
copper content leads than the thru hole equivilants, which contain hard
alloys to allow machine insertion without damage. SMT automated 
assembly is refered to as 'onsertion' , due to reduced risk of lead damage
there is no need for the harder alloy. The copper content increase was done
mainly to increase heat disipation from the otherwise smaller package,
but the audio benefit is improved conductivity.

PCB etch runs are typically shorter, owing to the smaller components and
tighter spacing allowed by SMT so lead inductance is lessened. The main
problem with SMT PCB design and audio applications is resisting the temptation
to space etch runs extremely close together, this can lead to increased signal
coupling across adjacent etch runs.

Once the limited capacitor selection problem is overcome (right now a designer
could combine thru hole capacitors and SMT if he chose to do so) SMT is an
excellent migration path for quality audio equipment.  
  
Walt                                                          

RE: .13

The bottom line seems to be, there is no problem with SMT, all other things
being equal, **but**, all other things are *not* equal.  Some of the components
cruical to the best audio sound reduction are either not available in surface-
mount form or are unfeasible to do in that form.  The situation is analogous
to IC amplifiers vs. discrete component amps (or tube amps, for that matter).

--PSW

That should be "... best audio sound reproduction...", not "reduction." 
Sorry.

--PSW

I read the article in EDN.  Philips is really big on SMT.

The place in the Magnavox player where those damn things hurt the most is
the capacitors as filters on the 10 active bits on the DACs.  The smaller
1040 uses 2 mylar caps and 8 ceramic SMCs.  Where the engineers had more
bord space on the 2040 player, they used 5 mylar caps and 5 ceramics.
The better caps went on the higher order bits.  The top 4 bits on the DACs
are some sort of "passive" current division network and don't need caps.

On the 1040, these SMC capacitors are under the DACs on the foil side.
The 2040 has lots of ground etch underneath the DACs.  Both have a ground
plane on the top of the board.  Musical Concepts replaces the ceramics
with small micas.

There is a lot of discussion on capacitor quality vs. sound in this note.
Without getting into a lot of techno..... here is how most 'experts' group
capacitors for audio:

No Good;        OK;                  Good;

Ceramic	        Polyester(Mylar)     Polypropylene
Tantalum                             Polystyrene
Mica                                 Teflon
Aluminum
                                    
There are certainly exceptions to these groupings. There are some ceramics 
which are better than some polypropylenes. 

The point is well taken regarding SMT capacitor availability and audio. A
further note is worth mentioning: SMT will tend to stifle folks like me who
like to finish the work started by some designer. Replacement of components
on a SMT PCB by the hobbyist is damn difficult. Upgrading components (say
from a SMT ceramic the size of a pepper corn to a thru hole polypropylene
the size of a AA battery) becomes nearly impossible.

Walt 

Has anyone ever demonstrated that even golden ears can hear
passive components in a blindfold listening test?

It's true that, say, unbiased tantalum capacitors will contribute
small amounts of distortion.  In a contrived test that was not representative
of normal use of such capacitors, Jung showed that a few tenths of a
percent of low order (non spikey as in crossover distortion) distortion
was measurable, and I reproduced his tests at home at the time.

However his tests do not represent normal use of capacitors in audio
circuits - there the distortion is several orders of magnitude lower.
Further, the distortion is easy to measure - it's classical harmonic
distortion - and would show in any normal equipment quality control
evaluation.  My complaint, and reason for removing electrolytics, is that
they can be slightly leaky and make controls noisy.

Noisy resistors were mentioned.  You may keep in mind that *all* resistors
at room temperature contribute thermal noise, this noise will persist
even when you switch to an exotic metal film resistor.  Only when a
resistor carries substantial DC current, does it contribute excess noise
(the figure of merit is called 'noise index').  And know that in a CD
player with a nominal 2 volt RMS output level, that the thermal noise
of resistors in the output path is several orders of magnitude lower than
the least significant bit quantizaiton noise, so why worry so much over
the resisitors?

Would you take someone seriously if they claimed a substantial
improvement in accuracy by merely switching to double precision in the
final stage of some lenghty calculation when all the initial data
processing was done in single precision?

- Jim

I will admit that I have not done listening tests on resistors, but I have
on capacitors.  If there is one way to get that sterile, transistoritis
sound on any component (especially CD), it is with electrolytic capacitors
in the signal path.

Could you explain what you have against perfectly fine 10% DA electrolytics?
What do you mean by leaky?  What's wrong with that?
Why would the type of capacitor make a control noisy?  And not music?

There is a 3.4V DC offset in the Magnavox before the blocking cap.

Re: .20

Hey Roth.

If you believe this is all bunk, why are you reading and 'contributing' to
this notes file ?

Obviously, if all components sound the same to you, then you have found your
level. I hope it is satisfactory.

Walt

I used to beleive the utmost care was necesary in the signal path
and worked very hard modifying my equipment and experimenting, but
have had my ego battered by participating in some careful blindfold
listening tests conducted at the AES and the Boston Audio Society.
Those tests were definitely conducted correctly, I feel, and have
made my listening a lot more objective.

The real advantage of high quality components is the longevity and
consistent performance over time.  In fact, a design engineer from
Mark Levinson effectively said this at a BAS meeting once.  Out of the
box, cheap resistors, etc, will be fine, but over the years, have a higher
likelyhood of becoming intermittent, for example.  Unless you plan on
thwowing away your equipment every year or so, those expensive premium
parts will pay for themselves - this is the prevailing opinion among
engineers who actually design equipment.

I've tried the experiments with capacitors, opamps, etc, and really don't
hear the differences, provided the circuits were otherwise working
properly.  And you *must* check that they are, before substiting parts,
since if you fix an unrelated problem in the process the conclusions won't
be worthwhile.

- jim

re .22

I don't see this kind of response as particularly helpful, since the question
asked for evidence rather than simply expressing skepticism. There's a fine line
between theory and reality, and there's definitely a level where actual
improvements start to sink into the "grass" (using a radar term). There are
clearly both genuine improvements to be had from some of the more esoteric
audiophile products, but there is equally clearly a fair amount of snake oil. If
you'll buy it, there's somebody willing to sell it to you. The only way to
distinguish between the two is to be a skeptic, and demand proof of claims. If a
certain kind of capacitor produces distortion (easy enough to believe), what is
the nature of the distortion (i.e. what order, can you see it on a scope, and
can you actually hear it in a double-blind test)? 

Trying to keep the analysis in this file (as well as AUDIO) on an even keel
definitely qualifies as "contributing".

Re: .24

Listen I am not looking to start a war, however, just because there is not
a meter which correctly defines the ears sensitivities to impurities does
not mean that they are any less real or audible.   I became involved in
one of those double blind tests (some of the controversy was written up
in TAA and TAS) along with Dr. Greenhill, and Mr. Lipshitz.  I too was
unable to distinguish differences within the structured test. However I was
personally stressed by and during the test by the pressure to get it done
tonite. I also found the ABX box used subtracted significantly from Dr.
Greenhills system - of course this was subjective since no one wanted to
AB the ABX and I was allowed about 5 minutes listening to his system prior
to the ABX installation. I came away with a healthy belief that Ab'rs are
sincere folks that havent yet sorted out the electrical and psycological
parameters necessary for a meaningful controlled test. In the meantime I
will continue to experiment (the urge strikes less often nowadays) with
sound using long, private sessions. When I find an improvement, I will try
to identify some reason why it sounds better (yea to me, but Im not going
to invite 80,000 people over to convince them), but even if I dont, it will
not change a thing. If I dont see an improvement (like litz interconnects,
they sound just like Radio Shack interconnects to me) I will just set it aside
for now. Maybe there is no improvement with this or perhaps my system still
has the ability to mask it or perhaps the idea has merit but the execution
needs work - someday Ill find the answer.

Walt

RE: .24
See the December 1985 and January 1986 issues of HiFi News and Record Review.
December shows capacitor measurements, and January has listening tests.

The listening tests were curious.  People could hear differences only with
some music on some capacitor locations.  The reviewer who was very familiar
with the two capacitors sound, was able to get 14/16 trials correct in
his double blind test.

HFN&RR is a good mag.  Out of Town News in Harvard square carries it and
other UK stereo magazines, besides Stereophile.  Out of Town sells many
copies of HFN&RR.

The Magnavox FD2040/1 is available from Consumers Catalog Showrooms at 
their regular price of $178.84. It shows a list price of $249.95.

        /s/     Bob

Re the HFN&RR article mentioned in .26...

	"Rigorous argument from inapplicable assumptions produces the
	 world's most durable nonsense."

Once again, tests under unrealistic operating conditions are made, and the
results extrapolated to all sorts of wild conclusions about sound quality.
The listening tests there were certainly not conclusive...

Now, if you take a pair of preamp stages, one coupled with a very high quality
film capacitor, and one with the cheapest aluminum electrolytic, and feed
the DIFFERENCE signal between the stages thru your stereo, so as to hear
only the pollution caused by the electrolytic, all that can be heard is
a very, faint, lowfrequency murmer...  we would *rejoice* to have such
low surface noise on an LP!!  Substitute a tantalum cap (still on their
harsh, bad sound hitlist) , and you hear *nothing*, not even the rustle
of the emperors clothing.

Given the masking effect of the main signal, by which all successful noise
reduciton systems operate, one can only conclude that even the humble
electrolytic is perceptually harmless; to have a big safety margin, a
better quality tantalum would be recommended.

You must realise how very small these effects really are in context.  This
components hype is just the same as any advertising hype about this year's
new laser mechanism, or ECC code, or whatever...

I'm not saying we should all have equipment merely at the least upper bound of
what's necessary for great sound (though the CD sample rate and quantization
fits this).  It's simply fascinating to tweak circuits to perfection!
But it's persuit of state of art for art's sake, and not really necessary,
even for a very fussy listener.

I'll be glad to provide copies of the HFN&RR articles, and a sketch of the
kind of circuit you can use to hear for yourself the magnitude of these
effects.  The differential comparison idea under normal operating conditions
as a test of amplifiers is a technique from a mid '70's AES paper by
Gerald Stanly of Crown, and it's still the most meaningful test there
is.  Perhaps I'll throw together a circuit and lend it to local Massachusetts
audio hackers so they can hear it... it could also show the equivalence
of an $80 interconnect cable :-), and a small capacitor :-(

- Jim

How about using the circuit that was in John Curl's letter to HFN&RR a
few months ago?

Are they similar?  I have lots of confidence in Crown.  They make some of
the best PA amplifiers for church halls and heavy metal concerts.

I sent a check to BAS a while ago and have heard nothing.  Are they still
active?  People have told me that its not worthwhile joining - none of
them can hear.  Any of it true?

Jim, what is wrong with the test data Martin Colloms presented in December?
Why do you prefer a different circuit?

I don't like getting on you case, but I am really frustrated with Julian
Hirsh'es.  Finally here are some scientific measurements to support all
the anecdotal and double-blind testimony -- and you put it down.  Capacitor
sound has been known for 7+ years now.  All the best studios modify their
equipment.  When does the consumer accept the facts?  I have to go back and
read my Thomas Kuhn to see.

Re: .28

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I haven't seen John Curl's circuit, but can design analog circuitry just
as well as he can, and don't need lessons from him; he's no magician.

I could easily repeat the Carver challange using a Crown amp if I felt
like it, as could any knowledgeable analog designer.

- Jim

An interesting point about the listening test in SR mentioned a while
back;  CD players have a deemphasis circuit which can be switched into
the playback chain by a logic signal on the disc.  On music, it is
normally IN, but is switched OUT selectively on test signals such as
the impulse used at one stage of the listening test.

They showed swept response tests and did level matching, but did they
check for the effect of the deemphasis on levels?  This could account for
some differences heard on pulses, and not music.

I don't know offhand the characteristics of the deemphasis.

- Jim

	I beleive that the people who buy the expensive audio gear do
	so for one simple reason, because it IS expensive.

Ken....

Re: .33      More likely.....they can (or think they can) afford it.

A few weeks back there was an interesting chart stuck in Newsweek.

It showed how Madison Ave. marketing viewed the American Public.

Essentially, 80% were externally motivated (ie they cared what other people
thought of them and purchased accordingly).  The rest were either internally
motivated, or didn't count (society's drop outs who don't have money anyway).

Guess whom Mad. Ave. targets.

The point about advertising/external influence in .-1 is well taken...

But, is it really so different to read (and believe) what's written in
The Absolute Sound than to believe Julian Hirsch et al, or for that
matter, to believe what's written in professional journals?

- Jim

I was commenting on .33, which indeed is true for many, but not all
customers of high-end equipment.  Yet there is a population with too much
money who want the best cars, wines, stereo, clothes, art, houses, watch etc.
without enjoying the investment of time to discover what suits their needs.

Mid-fi audio manufacturers have other status conscious targets.  Those who
want the latest equipment (even if only the faceplate changed), and those
who want the most features or best specs.  The status minded doesn't care
about sound quality.  The epitomy of this marketing in action is in the
rack systems that are selling like hot cakes.  Big fancy-looking speakers,
lots of seperate boxes, lots of flashing lights, no having to choose
components, low price, awful sound.  Cheaper and flashier than the equivelent
from Revox, B&O, or McIntosh.

On the different subject of believing everything you read, I agree with you
wholeheartedly.  Absolute Sound usually owns up to its mistakes, and they
are going to have to do it again when they hear a good CD player.

Julian Hirsh is another matter entirely.  He is a priest of a religion.
The followers chant "Of course this ____ (speaker, receiver, tape deck, CD
player, turntable, amp, preamp, cartridge) sounds good!  Look at the specs!"
and "Yes, all amps/CD players et al must sound the same, I can't hear any
differences."

CBS Publications is not full of dummies.  They publish Stereo Review for
Julian Hirsh followers, and publish Audio for the non-followers.  They
make money either way.  Who knows, maybie the writers at SR really can
hear.  Its still their job to promote the dogma, so they do it.

Closedmindedness and unwillingness to experiment are two things that bug
me.  Saying that "I can't hear any difference, so none must exist" rules
out any possibility that other people might hear a difference and there may
even be one.  God and UFO's might exist.  Accupuncture and holistic medicine
might work.  Why close the door instead of waiting for more evidence?
(jj's posting in last night's net.audio got me thinking about this.)

Speaking about more evidence, talking with Musical Concepts about their
capacitor changes in Hafler amps, I learned about some distortion SPECTRUM
measurements a customer made.  The guy used some fancy HP test equipment
to measure distortion on his amp before sending it for modifications,
and then tested it afterwards.  THD changed little, except at high volume
where the modified amp was better, probably due to the bigger power supply
decoupling capacitors on the first two stages.  However, the stock amp
had a big distortion peak at about 1khz, while the modified amp had relatively
constant distortion products.

Re .-1

	Your comment about unwillingness to experiment (directed at me,
I guess) seems unwarrented.

	When you modified your Magnavox CD player, did you compare it to
an unmodified player (after matching levels and checking that you didn't
simply alter the frequency response, since these linear changes will
readily mask any more subtle effects)?

	I think not.  I'd wager that you have not yet built a test
circuit to AB an inexpensive electrolytic capacitor to a high quality
film capacitor with equal low frequency time constant, and attempted
to identify which is which blindfolded.

	Every audio hobbyist prefers his/her latest design tweak.  But
to be honest with yourself you have to play a game of matching levels and
comparing the sound to see if the change is really audible or not.  You
have to eliminate preconceived notions from the test, by seeing if you can
*really* tell which component is playing.

	I've done such tests, (at least with preamps and amps).  It was
very dissapointing at first to find my elegant wideband preamp circuit
no longer identifiable when I did not let myself know which one was
playing, even though this preamp sounded vastly better when I first began
using it...

- Jim

re: 2041

where is consumer catalog showroom?  can't find it in any boston area
phone books that I have.

One cd feature summary I saw said that the 2041 had "optional" remote
control.  Can anyone comment on this?  Is is available at extra cost
or?

--ed

RE: .38

Only the very last paragraph was directed at you, where measurements were
later discovered to support audible differences, time and time again.

The comment on experimentation was kind of directed at the US in general
where do-it-yourself seems to be disappearing.  Doing it yourself no
longer seems to have the status it used to.

Would you care to explain how changing a DC blocking capacitor changes
the frequency response, other than low frequency attenuation?  Gosh,
electrolytics are nearly perfect capacitors for low, audio frequencies.

Dissappointed with you fancy pre-amp?  Try some good capacitors!

Is this a note about the fantastic attributes of Magnavox players and how to 
maximize them or a (worthwhile) discussion of capacitors and other components?

Why not take pity on the poor shnook who comes along in six months and reads 
this note expecting to find information on Magnavox; or worse the guy who 
wants to find out what people know about capacitors and doesn't look here due 
to the title??

					Bruce

>Why not take pity on the poor shnook who comes along in six months and reads 
>this note expecting to find information on Magnavox; or worse the guy who 
>wants to find out what people know about capacitors and doesn't look here due 
>to the title??

Ahhh, come on!  We all know that the conversion to VAXnotes has practically
negated the difference between NOTES and REPLIES!  Each reply has a title now,
to enable recursive discussion of topics and eat up less disk space by confusing
users so much that they don't know what note they're reading or what's being
discussed!

This is the first day I have accessed this file.  I found Mark's comments very
useful, and they match my own philosophy.  I don't yet own a CD player, and will
probably wait until CD prices themselves come down.  I figure that accessing
this file NOW will give me a year's worth of information to go on when I make
my decision.  Same with VIDEO; I have accessed that file several months to a
year before when I plan to purchase my first TV.  I've been burned too many
times to let impatience get the better of me.

Magnavox is a good brand.  People forget it is really two companies.  One
has to distinguish between the product lines.  Not all companies are good
at everything they do.  Magnavox is going to be the best buy because it's
a primary source instead of a secondary source, and is less prone to go for
the flashing lights to sell the product.


				Mark

    Could someone please summarize the differences among the models:
    
    	1040
    	1041
    	2040
    	2041
    
    ?
    
    I've seen a lot of discussion about these, but I still don't know
    which is "the" one to buy.  I've looked at the 1040 adn 1041 at
    Service Merchandise.  Of the two, the 1040 seems much more solidly
    built.  The 1041, on the other hand,  has the word "index" on its
    front panel, although I couldn't find anyone who could tell me if
    it had indexing or not.
    
    Thanks.
    -pd

    OK.  The 1040 and 2040 are older models with cast alloy chassis,
    metal disk transport, and are no longer available.  The 2040 was
    wider and had a headphone jack.
    
    The 1041 and 2041 superceded them.  They have index point addressing
    and audible fast forward and reverse which the previous players
    lacked.  Now construction is nearly all plastic, but they sound
    a little better because of better design and parts inside.  Again
    the 1041 is narrower than the 2041, and lacks headphone jack and
    some buttons.  Both are in the neighborhood of $169-$188.
    
    So, forget the 1040 and 2040, they are gone (and cost Philips alot
    to make).  The new Magnavox 650 will probably be out around May.
    Besides dual 16-bit 4x oversampled DACs, it will have a memory to
    store "programs" for many of your disks and recall it after making
    like a serial number from the CD's header information.
    
    The current 2041 and 1041 have digital and analog filtering, Dual
    digital to analog converters using quadruple oversampling.
    
    Mark
    

Subj:	Save $25 on Magnavox 2041 CD player with ATT Opportunity Credits

After getting my spring issue of the AT&T Opportunity Calling catalog
and seeing my credits pile up even more, I remembered that in the winter
catalog they offered $25 off Magnavox FD2041SL Compact Disk players.

Back then 2041s wern't to be found, but now they go on sale for $169.
So here is a great way to finally consume some of those credits towards
one of the best sounding CD players on the market!

Here are the details:  Offer good through MARCH 31, 1986.  Send ATT
a recipt with the model and serial number on it.  Offer only good on
the FD2041SL and the recipt must be dated.  The catalog offer number is
1094085, saves you $25 and costs 25 credits.  ATT Oportunity Calling's
information number is 1-800-992-0992.

I performed the DC blocking capacitor modification on another player a
couple weeks ago.  We had an unmodified player present for comparison.
The benifits were unmistakable:  tighter bass, cleaner midrange, awesome
increase in detail, and extended treble.  Cymbals kept on going and going
instead of dying out almost immediately.  Cost: $10-$20.

So, here is a great way to get a great CD player for few dollars and
use up some of those damn credits (for those of use who are still ATT
customers :-) )!

Mark Kaepplein

    re .-1
    Mark, we've all read your tale of modifying the old 1040.  How about
    a simple step-by-step account of the "DC-blocking capacitor" mod
    to the 2041 for those of us who are ignorant of such things?
    Something like: "Take the cover off the player.  See those two big
    round things?  Unsolder them and put in these new ones you just
    bought from _______ (fill in the blank)."
    
    Carl
    

    I'll second the request for a few more specifics on the simple Magnavox
    mods (2040, in my case).  I'm pretty handy with a soldering iron,
    having built MANY kits over the years, but my knowledge of electronic
    theory is minimal (e.g., "capacitor" I know, "DC-blocking capacitor"
    is Greek).
    
    -- Ward (software engineer)

    OK, here it for the 1041/2041:
    
    Remove the 5 #10 torx screws and remove the cover.  Note vacuous
    	space inside and single circuit board.
    Remove 3(?) screws holding down board and two holding down heat
    	sink and one holding audio jacks to rear panel.  Unfasten
    	as many snap-in wire connectors as necessary to be able to
    	turn board over and get at underside.
    Notice the two closest 8-pin integrated circuits to the rear of
    	the board.  The two 100uf electrolytic capacitors that you want
    	to replace are located between the two ICs.
    On the IC (NJM4560D) nearer to the centerline (on the long axis),
    	the electrolytic is near pin 2.
    On the IC (LM833N) closer to the side of the board, the 100uf
    	electrolytic is the second capacitor over towards the center
    	of the board.  It is about in line with pins 5-8 on the IC,
    	since that IC is aligned with the short axis of the board.
    
    To double check, follow the outputs on pin 7 of the two LM833N
    op-amps which will feedback, but also pass through the DC blocking
    capacitors that you want to replace.
                       8 7 6 5
    		       +-----+
                       )     |	Pins on an IC (top view), sometimes
                       +-----+    there is a dot near pin 1.
                       1 2 3 4
                        
    Now that you have found the nasty capacitors, what do you do about
    them?  There are three options:
    
    1.  Replace them with a piece of copper wire (like a resistor lead).
    	This is better than any capacitor, BUT your CD player is now
    	"DC coupled" and passes 0.8V of DC offset (bad, ought to be
    	0.0V) to the audio and headphone outputs.  Unless both your
    	amp and preamp/receiver/integrated amp are "DC coupled" then
    	you can get away with this.  This will be true for 99.999%
    	of people, and the other .001%'s owners will know that they
    	can't DC couple the CD player.
    
    2.  Replace the electrolytics with some 10-20uf, low voltage (ie
    	50v) metalized polypropelene or metalized polycarbonate film
    	capacitor.  The problem is size.  The polypropelene will be
    	about the size of your thumb, and the polycarbonate about the
    	size of your pinki.  There isn't really anyplace to mount the
    	caps, so they are hanging up in the air supported by the leads
    	which are putting stress on the board etches (not good).  You
    	may be able to use silicone sealant to glue them together and/or
    	glue them down to something (messy).
    
    	Another problem is finding suitable capacitors.  Musical Concepts
    	might sell you the pair for $20, but they are not really in
    	the capacitor bussiness and its kind of an annoyance for them.
    	Ph: 314-831-1822 2-5PM EST.
    
    3.	Leave the electrolytics in and paralell them with a small film
    	capacitor tacked on the underside of the board.  Use something
    	like a .1uf metalized polypropelene (50-100v) capacitor which
    	are much easier to find (even Siderial and Wondercap will do)
    
    Notes:  1 and 2 sound best, and 3 will have a bit more midrange
    distortion.  Metalized polypropelene are slightly better than
    metalized polycarbonate.
    
    The improvements are: tighter bass, more detail, less midrange "grit".
    However, they will probably be obscured in most systems.  If the
    same attention to capacitors was not given in your amp and preamp,
    then details are obscured the same way that they are in the CD player.
    I want to give that caveat before someone takes a risk screwing
    with their player and might not hear any difference.  The equipment
    I've used when hearing differences include: DB systems preamp, APT
    preamp, heavily modified Hafler preamp, recent Hafler DH500 & DH220
    amps, and a heavily modified Hafler DH500 amp, using fairly good
    speakers (Infinities, Clements, M&K), Monster Cable speaker wires,
    and just plain interconnects.  It was NOT possible to hear differences
    when using the same set-up, but substituting a Hafler DH-100 preamp.
    
    Chances are that differences will be obscured on 90% of all receivers
    and integrated amplifiers also.  Exceptions MIGHT be on Onkyo, NAD,
    Harmon Kardon, Revox, Tandberg, and Rotel (only guessing).  This
    is why I didn't want to really push the mods and suggested the reading
    material in my article (note 179).  Even after this initial
    modification, this won't be a "musical" player the way a $1000
    turntable in a $3000+ system would be.  The sound is still cool
    and a bit harsh.  More extensive modification will cure that.
    
    
    2040 directions:  The capacitors are 22uf electrolytics and the
    ICs are NE5532Ns.  
    
    +---------------------------------------------------
    |            --||--     +-+
    |                       IC|
    |      +--+             +-+
    |     Relay
    |      +--+
    |              +-+
                   IC|
           --||--  +-+

    That's where they are.  Getting at the board underside is a little
    bit more time consuming.  Picture is from schematic, I've never
    been inside a 2040.
    
    OK guys?
    
    Mark Kaepplein (AMBER::KAEPPLEIN)
    
    Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

    Sigh.  Last night I bought the last 2041 that Consumer's had in
    stock.  But, they have a 2040 left!  Good news for those who want
    a sturdier (but not quite as good sounding) machine and arn't
    interested in the $25 rebate from ATT.

    RE: 223.45
    
    The Magnavox FD2041BK is also ok for the $25 rebate.  Include the
    warranty card with the sales slip to ATT.
    
    Mark

    For those of us who signed-on with Sprint, how does the ATT opportunity
    calling work?  I guess the bottom line is, does everyone in ATT
    land get points (and on what basis).  Also, if I buy the unit, can
    my in-laws send in for the rebate?
    
    Any other gotchas?
    
    Thanks, Roger
    

    If you spend >$15/month, every dollar you spend on long distance
    gets you one point.  Its like some of the credit card deals.
    
    Yes, I suppose someone else could send it in for you.  The waranty
    might be under their name though!  Offer ends March 31.
    
    I havn't sent mine in yet, so I can't say how it turned out.

    I just called AT&T and discovered that the offer on the Magnavox
    FD2041SL machine ($25 rebate check in return for your original receipt,
    model #, serial # and catalog order #--use #1094085 for order #
    since there is a new catalog out) is still valid until May 31, not
    March 31.  Happy bargain hunting!
    
    By the way, I live in Marlboro, with easy access to Framingham/Natick.
     Where is the cheapest discount source for Magnavox machines?

    Service Merchandise in Natick (on Speen St between Rt. 9 and Rt
    30).
    
    					Dick Rosenberg

    So whats a 1051 from Magnavox? Thats all I can find at the Haverill
    SM. Ed
    

    I think it is a fairly new model.  Basicly, a 1041 with remote control.

    I see the new high-end Magnavox (CDB650 ?) is out -- 16 bit
    4x oversampling, etc. etc.
    
    Does anyone know what the schedule is for the "no-frills"
    versions, and where they might be available in the Eastern
    Mass / Southern NH area ?
    
    dq
    

    The Magnavox models are: CDB650, CDB560, CDB460, CDB360.
    The nofrills one is the 460 and the only difference between it and
    the 560 is one comes with a remote.  The 360 in a small cabnet similar
    to the older 1051 and has no remote.  So those are your less expensive
    models.  To find one you should try calling Harvey's Sound in Manchester
    or Cambridge.
    
    I posted a note recently in the Audio file about a 460.  I'll extract
    it and enter it as the next note.
    
    Kenney
    

                   <<< PUBLIC$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]AUDIO.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The Emperor's New Audio >-
================================================================================
Note 809.33                   To CD or not CD.....?                     33 of 41
DSSDEV::CHAN                                         16 lines   9-FEB-1987 21:10
                          -< Oh, no.  Not Magnavox. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last September my brother asked my recommendation for a CD player
    that didn't have a lot of bells and wistles but sounded good for
    the money.  I recommended the Magnavox CD460.  I had mentioned to
    him that Magnavox had problems the 1041, 1051, 2041 series of players
    with the transport.  Well, last night, after 5 months of use, he
    called me up to tell me his CD player is now skipping.  He called
    up Phillips to find that the closest service station is far enough
    away that he has to mail it if he wants to get it fixed.
    
    Well, I thought that Magnavox had the skipping problem fixed in
    the new model.  But them again, maybe they didn't.  Mike, given
    that you haven't taken home a player yet, maybe you might take a
    look at the NEC deck just one more time.  Of course this is only
    based on one player, so maybe it was just a lemon.
    
    Kenney

    I might as well add that from an audio quality standpoint, these
    machines are practically identical.  Same cheap plastic transport.
    Same 2x16bits x4 DAC, same error correction, same anti-imaging filter/
    line amp.  The 650 has an additional filter (which doesn't sound
    good).
    
    Ones I know of have a digital output jack.  This may be valuable
    in the future for subcode output or a fancy D-to-A converter (ala
    Sony's).  Also, machines without remote may have a remote jack (
    like the 2041).
    
    Essentially all you get for more money are features.

    Three weeks ago, Q Audio in Cambridge had the CD460, CD560, and
    CD650 in stock, at , if i remember correctly, $259, $289, and
    $429.
    
    I had to return the first 560 due to a servo problem out of the
    box.  Second unit is currently working fine.
    
    --gerry bell
    

    I got a catalog from (I believe the name is) Stereo Discounters
    which lists the CDB-460 for $149, CDB-560 for $199, and the
    CDB-650 for $349 (with a $50 savings bond or somesuch as rebate).
    
    They also add a flat 5.5% for shipping/handling.
    
    dq

    re: .62
    
    Could you post the name and address of the catalog you mentioned.
    The CDB-460 modified by Musical Concepts is supposed to be,one of,
    the best sounding CD player available.

    Re:  .62, .63
    
    Stereo Discounters
    Electronic World, Inc.
    6730 Santa Barbara Court
    Baltimore, MD  21227
    
    Orders and Quotes:  (800) 638-3920  M-F 8:30am - 10 pm
                                        Sat 9:00am - 5 pm
                                        Sun 11:00am - 5 pm  EST
    
    Customer Service:   (800) 342-3205  M-F 9 - 5
    
    Charge cards: Visa, M/C, Amex, Diners, Choice
    
    Shipping/Handling/Insurance:  5.5%
    
    Product with initial defect (10 days) can be returned, after that
    manufacturer's warranty applies.
                                                 
    I am looking at their Spring 1987 catalog.
    
    Page 4:  Magnavox CDB-460   $149.00
    
    Page 5:  Magnaxox CDB-650   $349.00 w/ $50 savings bond
    
    Page 7:  Magnavox CDB-560   $198.00
    
    By the way, I'd be interested in the Musical Concepts mods --
    both their charges and what they do (with an eye toward DIY).
    Any information?
    
    dq

    re: .64
    
    Note 680 in this conference deals with Musical Concepts.
    
    Their address is
    
    	Musical Concepts
    	1 Patterson Plaza
    	Florissant, MO 63031
    
    If you would like to talk to one of their engineers call between
    (1 and 5 pm CST or) 2 and 6 EST.
    
    	(314)831-1822

    The June issue of Audio has an article by Walt Jung about the
    Magnavox 650/560/465/460 series, as well as what he describes
    as a 45-minute upgrade (which involves replacing and rebiasing
    a couple of op amps).
    
    He makes some observations, as well, about Magnavox's improving
    their component quality with each generation, and is very
    complimentary about the products.
    
    "Now on sale at newsstands everywhere", or at least at the Paper
    Store in Maynard.
    
    dq