This is an anouncement.

From today onwards, only readers with gmail accounts can post their comment or remark on the Desireable Thoughts section. If you've already registered and have an gmail account, then you may continue posting as usual.

Should you not yet have a gmail account, but wish to post comments and remarks as before on the Desireable Thoughts section, please go register yourself and start an account with gmail.

Now that you've followed this, here's a little eye candy reward!


Now that you've got gmail, the lady here looks so... satisfied.

The first CDP you can by, the Philips CD101.

I could still remember fondly of Philips and Sony's promise of "Perfect Sound Forever" when the Compact Disc, or CD was launched to much fanfare in the year 1982. How time flies, and in 2007, the CD celebrated it's 25th Anniversary.

I have noticed in certain used hifi clasifieds lately that certain older models of CDPs have been moving up in price. Example in point, I was browsing for my dream Marantz CD7 three years ago, and along the way bumped in to a Marantz CD10, I could have it for RM$1.2k. Today, I see the same model asking for RM$2k. Another example of that same period in time, Meridian 206 CDP was asking for RM$1.8k, today that same model is seen advertising for RM$2.3k. Another Marantz, the CD94MKII was then asking for RM$1.6k, I recently see one sold for RM$3.2k. Also a significant model like the Philips CD101 was just recently sold for RM3k plus to a collector.

So what makes a CDP a collectible classic?

a) It must have some form of significant time line marker for the product, like the above said Philips CD101, which was the 1st mass produced CDP you could buy in 1982.

b) It's technical spec must be of the right sort, mainly the transports must have the revered swing heads like the Philips CDM1 or 4 variety. Or the Teac VRDS series. Also considered equally important is the DAC chip. The right numbers to go for are of course the Philips TDA1541 variety or the TDA1547 or simply called DAC7 or Bitstream, depending on marketing speak.

The magical chip, Philips TDA1541 DAC operating in balance mode.

c) It must be reasonably rare of the kind. Some Marantz models like the CD & DA12 pair, where only 500 pairs was ever produced, and mostly are now in the hands of collectors and industry people(I'll come to this more later). Another example is that it's rare simply because at that time of product launch it was priced out of this world! Case in point is the Linn CD12, it's price was RM$60k when launched in 1999. The Denon DCD S1 is also another HOT model, rare because it was never sold outside Japan.

A rare find! Denon DCD S1.

d) Very naturally, being an audiophile product, it must not only sound good, but BENCH MARK GOOD!

So I will list a few here that I would personally consider a classic, however, I must admit that I am probably not the most authurotive figure on the subject matter.

Sony: Let's start with one of the co-developers of the format. The Sony 337 & 555ESD. These are the two more popular of then early Sony machines. They employ Sony KSxxx series transports and borrows the TDA1541 DAC chip from Philips. Inovation includes battleship build quality like double layered copper chassis and transparent military spec PCB boards(Sony 555ESD only). The sound is typically analytical Sony, with lots of details and full on gutsy bass.

Lil' Bro, Sony CDP-337 ESD.

Big Bro! Sony CDP-555 ESD, with transparent mill spec PCB!

JVC: The JVC1050 K2 CDP was considered state of the art at the time, because it uses the same K2 DAC chip developed in house by JVC to master XRCDs. I have not had the oppurtunity to audition one before, but it'll be interesting.

JVC 1050 K2.

Note K2 chip inside the JVC, on top right of pic.

Teac: The first Teac Esoteric player to feature the famed VRDS transport was the P700 and D700. It is considered a classic just so, because it started a trend where all future higher end models of Teac, from the VRDS10, 25SE to the current Esoteric X05 series incorporated the ultra stable transport with disc clamp built in.

Teac VRDS 25SE. All VRDS models are best used as transports only, to be mated with other DACs.

Naim: The CDS1 from Naim is a classic because it was the company's first digital product. It featured the all the right Philips parts, like a top mounted CDM1 swing head transport and the TDA1541 DAC chip. In typical Naim fashion, the later Naim CDs3, CD tray is a manual swing design, which is still in use for today's latest Naim products. The sound, however is typically olive Naim(which die hard flat earthers loved so much!).

Naim CDS1. Note, the tube funnels are not part of the package!
The Naim CDS3, note the Philips CDM transport mounted in to a swing tray? Just like today's Naim CD5X.

Meridian: How can we mention Naim without Meridian? The company's first CDP, the Meridian MCD Pro 888 was basically a Philips CD101 with a modified output stage and beefed up power supply. It showed the world that "Perfect Sound Forever" can be further perfected upon! For that, how can it not be a classic? In recent times, Merdian's CDPs got better and better, but still largely based loosely on the Philips parts bin list, like the Meridian CD206, which feature a box design, bolted together at the back, using Philips CDM1 transport and TDA1541 DAC chip. I would strongly speculate the current Meridian G808 CDP to be a classic in the making! However, only time would tell.

Meridian MCD PRO 888. Doesn't it look like a Philips CD101?

Meridian CD206, note the Philips CDM1 swing head transport, built in to tray?

Linn: There is only one Linn player that fits the classic bill. It's the Linn CD12. Built to rival the long lived Linn LP12 turn table in spirit. It was considered to be the closest to analog sound as CDPs get. Many whom heard it are convinced that the CD12 is as good as the LP12! Too bad it was too expensive(it was sold for RM$60k a pc then!), and only very few were sold. In fact Linn has discontinued the CD12 only to carry on with the LP12. What an irony and surely, a pity too! If only I can audition one for my self!

Sounds as good as the Linn LP12? The Linn CD12.

Marantz: There are many Marantz CDPs that surely qualifies as classic, but the top 3 would probably be starting with the CD94 & CD94 MKII. These babies are the most sought after in the used market as they are available and pretty cheap(even with today's high prices) comparitively to the next 2 models up. All the necesary goodies are there, like the heavyweight build quality, double layer chasis construction, the Philips CDM1 swing head transport and TDA1541 S1(specially matched tight tolerence DAC chips). It's also one of the earliest Marantz CDP to feature XLR balanced output(CD94 MKII only) You can say the CD94 MKII is the one box CD & DA12 econo combo!

The Marantz CD94 & CD94 MKII. Twins?

Next up is the Marantz CD7. It was considered to be significant as it was Marantz last hurrah! to CDP technology and Ken Ishiwata, the Marantz designer kept the best and last remaining TDA1541 S2 close tolerence matching DAC chips for this project. By then Philips had already stop production of the chips and Marantz only had enough to built 750 CD7s. The fully discreet and balance output stage of the CD7 deserves a special mention as it is a blue print for all future Marantz high designs, including the later Marantz SA1 and the current top of the line Marantz SA7. The magic of the the CD7's sound is however, deeply rooted in the DAC chip.

My beloved Marantz CD7, stripped for your viewing pleasure!

Lastly, probably, the most sought after Marantz CDp is the CD & DA12 combo pair. Only 500 of these combo pairs were ever built. It is said that till this day, Ken Ishiwata and the famed reviewer, Ken Kesler still uses the CD & DA12 combo for their daily music listening. They are very good friends of course and are in the same opinion that no modern CDP has beaten the Marantz combo for musicality. And that is really saying something about this player! Again, the transport in use is the Philips CDM1 and 2 pairs of TDA1541 S1 are employed in the DAC section.

Ken Ishiwata & Ken Kesler's CD machine! The Marantz CD & DA12.

Philips: How can we forget about the co-conspirator who brought us in to the digital music world? Of course, the Philips CD101 is an instant classic for being only the first of it's kind. The other notable Philips models are the CD850MKII which is the best bitstream DAC player ever built. Also need to mention the Philips CD960, which was then a top slot CDP, using CDM1 transport and TDA1541 DAC. Then of course there are the Philips cousins to their glamourous Marantz cousins, sans the audiophile jewelry bits and pieces! Like the Philips LHH1000 which is the bread & butter Marantz CD & DA12 combo! Another one to look out for is the Philips LHH800R, which is the Marantz CD11LE cousin! According to Stereo Sound Japan, both are breathtakingly good sounding!

The first Bitstream Philips 850 and 850 MKII.

Philips CD960, striped bare naked, just for you!

The poor cousins, Philips LHH1000.

Philips LHH800R.

Others worthy of mention:

DCS Elgar DAC, this is monumental in a sense that it was the first up sample 16bit data to 24/192 in the year 1996. Up sampling is now the common feature of today's CDPs. I heard this once in an super set up and it sounds sublime, in a sense that it doesn't sound like digital or analog!, it's just out of this world.

The DCS Elgar DAC, the first up sampler, way ahead of it's time!

Wadia 861SE, this model has been around since 2002, despite the arrival of a supposedly superior format SACD. In 2005 it got an SE moniker to signify certain internal changes, however, that precision VRDS tranport is still in used with in house propriety DAC. The sound is superbly detailed, if a little mechanically inclined.

Wadia 861SE with it's tongue sticking out!

Sonic Frontiers SFCD1, being one of the first high end design to incorporate a pair of 6922 tubes for output section. It also features an Ultra Jitterbug chip, said to eliminate jitter and has HDCD decoding! It a very sweet sounding player, as many of my friends have fallen in love with it.

Sonic Frontiers SFCD1, the first digital tubed delight?

Denon DCD2650/3650G, this is a player of battleship size, with equally big sound to boot! It was one of Denons first high end designs that trully overspecs every part except perhaps the sound?

The battleship Musashi? Denon DCD2650.

Arcam Alpha 5, this started off as an el'cheapo Philips TDA1541 and CDM4 swing head transport donor to DIY projects, as until recently, you could get a used unit for RM$500 of so. But I've seen them advertised lately for as much as RM$1k.

The Arcam Alpha 5, it's so light you gotta load it with a brick?

Marantz SA1 and Sony SCD1, hey! they are SACD spinners for sure, but they are also a time line product as being the first of their kind and they signal the end of the CD era. However they do play CDs too!

Marantz SA1.

Sony SCD1.

And lastly, who can forget the all time most popular CDP called the Marantz CD63 and all it's other monikers like MKII, SE and very special KI??? However they are too many around to be considered a classic.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and I would have probably missed a model or two, but hey! You can always share with me what you'd think of as a classic CDP.

[jessica elba]

"There has been a failure in the attempt to use specifications to characterize the subtleties of sonic performance. Amplifiers with similar measurements are not equal, and products with higher power, wider bandwidth, and lower distortion do not necessarily sound better."

"Historically, that amplifier offering the most power, or the lowest IM distortion, or the lowest THD, or the highest slew rate, or the lowest noise, has not become a classic or even been more than a modest success. For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective analysis would reconcile critical listeners' subjective experience with laboratory measurement. Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate.

"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment.

"Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.

"As in art, classic audio components are the results of individual efforts and reflect a coherent underlying philosophy. They make a subjective and an objective statement of quality which is meant to be appreciated. It is essential that the circuitry of an audio component reflects a philosophy which addresses the subjective nature of its performance first and foremost."

to those audiophiles like master ken who reads measurements like a text book, eat your heart out ;-)

to me, music is an emotional connection; you just can't measure music reproduction and high fidelity. it is an art as much as it is science. that's why i play tube amps and i don't read magazines that have loads of charts and technical diagrams like my secondary science text book ;-)

Over the past weeks I've noticed in scrutiny how people select/buy their car hi-fi largely based on looks alone. How can this be and how can people pre-judge based on appearance? Okay, it could be safe to say that an experienced buyer may be able to guess how a speaker will perform using paper vs. aluminium vs. pp cone midrange or metal vs. silk dome vs. glass tweeters. However upon closer inspection, some of us may have experienced or be suprised how smooth some metal dome tweeters can sound or how smooth sounding good silver cables can be .

Vendors are also smart in manipulating this by pointing out certain products are better than the other because of certain materials or construction being used (half of which are copycats and do not work as intended), which could be true if the person has done his comparisons but in many cases it is pure sales talk. Worst of all if he/she has not even tried or auditioned the product.

Did you know that we see things at 1,086 miles per second and we hear at 1,100 feet per second? Our culture is speeding up because it’s crafted a "seeing is best" mindset. We have television, internet, movies, the list goes on. If the visual world is communication, then is it based on visual alone? It seems to be heading in that direction, doesn't it?

If only we can transform into bats and use our sonar chirps or a dolphin with our sonar clicks, we can understand how to see with sound. In order to hear, truly hear, we must slow down to what seems like a baby crawl in comparison to the speed of light and our sight’s reflection.

Possibly feelings come into play in our selections, differing from male and female. What could be the speed of feeling? Is it faster or slower than light or faster or slower than hearing? And how is it being quantified or tested; measured by feet or by miles? No one really knows, yet can it be measured and if it was you, what would that be?

Feeling is instinctive and touch/smell is a sense. Could feeling be a sense as well? What is different between feeling and hearing? Is there a definition to its difference? Do you sit and watch television with a sense of touch or smell? Have we ever thought of hearing a television program by turning our backs to the telebox? Why not? Why not try it and feel this exact disconnect, this gap, that I'm talking about. Strain your ears to hear. Learn again what it means to hear and what brings sight and sound together?

We see a picture of a perfect 10 women, so beautiful that you want her or if you're a woman, want to be like her. You meet her in the streets one day and hear her voice. It squeaks as if you were running a chalk backwards across a blackboard. You can't wait to run and hide. The disconnect, the gap, was there. But gosh, darn it, she’s a 10, you say. In a split second from sight to sound, the desire to be like her to have her dropped, it wasn't the same.

What would change in your selection if you began really hearing, slowing down to 1,100 feet per second? What would you loose? or rather what would you gain? Would the gain be positive? All thoughts to think about, to mull over in our simple yet complicated little minds.

It should be encouraged to shift a little in your life and begin to give equal value to hearing if you can. To listening to the universal sounds, to what is far below the speed of light. Light that gives you the ability to see. But to begin to see with your ears. A phrase frequently used, "It's not what you say but how you say it". All our senses are on different parts of our rainbow. Don't loose sight of hearing. Practice differently today and tomorrow. Lie in bed and hear the surroundings, the walls. Hear the breeze whenever outdoors. Hear the trees and plants grow. Yes, you can once you learn to hear again. Hear your heart beating and learn how to discern between sight and sound. Close your eyes in the next meeting, what do you hear? What do you not?

It is unfortunate we are not babies, thus it takes a longer time for us to develop our brains to stimulate our listening capabilities. In hi-fi terms, learn how to critical listen. I'm not talking about putting yourself into listening fatigue but practicing how to enjoy music at a different level. Enjoy your sound system but not get engulfed in it. Listen to the music and picture what is behind it... that way we can bridge the listening gap between sight and sound.

of late, i have had some interesting debates with a couple of my audiophile buddies. they think that i am over protective of certain brands i like dearly, like magneplanar and audio research. i think they grossly under-estimated my broad-mindedness and overlooked one important thing, that these brands are the ones that i can afford at this present financial state. i have never said they are the best in the audio universe. if i were to make such foolish claim, i would be the laughing stock because hifi is the the most subjective hobby in the world.

were i a multi-millionaire, i would like to play everything and anything that my bank accounts permit me to. but still, i would like to retain my maggie and ARC in one of my many dedicated rooms. i don't need to explain to anyone why i adore the maggie so much and why i think maggie and ARC make the perfect match. if you need to ask, you would never understand. did you tell your missus about your first love, that pure, untainted and bittersweet once-in-a-lifetime experience? see, love is selfish.

many like to compare hifi to cars and i find the comparison perfectly apt. my maggie is like a bentley cruising down the boulevard, letting me enjoy the gentle caress of cool breeze and the finer things in life. but there is a flip side of me that yearns for the stark rawness, ultimate sensation and unadulterated energy of a ferrari throttling down the race track, and in that aspect, a full, top-of-the-line naim system (pre-2003 production) fulfills my needs nicely. oh, btw, i don't like the new generation of naim - too sissy and audiophile-approved.

the beauty of a naim system is i don't need to analyze the tonal balance, the layering or the imaging or anything that's anal retentive to a pure rock music lover. i would just let the pulsating pace and rhythm takes over my aural senses. many systems can do bass, humongous amount of bass, but for pop/rock music, especially stadium rock, naim rules ok. oh, i have been to many live concerts than the average joe.

i know i am close to opening a can of worms but i am too blase with the typical audiophile mud-slinging cat fights. my buddy argues - "can't one system fulfills all your needs?" to some, yes. to me, no. maybe that's why all the millionaires in town are keeping more than a few cars in their garage, to suit different applications, different moods, different roads or even different girlfriends :-) but there is bound to be one car that they drive more often that the others, and gentlemen, that's the car that they have the most emotional attachment with. most likely too, it is not the most expensive car.

my buddy further argues - "but your music is pop/rock, just how can a maggie satisfy you completely? is it because you have made the successful step to make the maggie sound good that you can't forgo the pride and glory of being praised by others? then you are not honest to yourself as you only enjoy your music partially". my answer to this is, yes, the maggie cannot play my REM, radiohead, U2 convincingly and that's why i am reserving a "virtual" room for my roksan (turntable) and naim system in the future. however, for 80% of my musical diet, especially for nocturnal listening, the maggie is perfect.

he further retorts - "not just maggie can deliver, there are many systems that can fulfill your tastes in both genres of music. you haven't tried all yet". sure, i think apogee (now defunct), mbl radial speakers can please me too but can i afford them? again, he misses the point - i buy what i can afford. but i have yet to listen to a speaker that has the delicacy of a planar/ribbon and the awesome PRaT of a naim. if you think otherwise, congratulations to you.

variety is the spice of life. even if were to become rich one day and could afford top-of-the-line naim, krell, mbl, goldmund, i will still cherish the countless magical moments that my maggie + ARC has given me all these intervening years.

every self-contented, self-fulfilling audiophile has similar story to tell.

the first cut is the deepest. just make sure that you have been "cut" at least once in your lifetime.