ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Hi there,
In this thread:
http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/6822/61257.aspx#61257
There is a tv - and there is a BV
I tend to agree with Peter on the 5500 (6500/7000) if we are talking about specs and techs.However, soundvise I would prefer the Beogram CD X or CD50 any day. They are just so warm and voluminous.
Martin
I agree with Martin, and I have a firm preference for old mellifluous (some would say "fluffy") CD players like the Philips CD100 and 104.
Even a Sony CDP-101 charms me!
The 5500 is very good too, but brighter, less "analogue".
Jacques
The CD5500 has the best D/A converter - the TDA1541A and also has the brushless motor. As usual with B&O, the bean counters despecced the motor for the CD6500 and 7000. I can't tell the difference between any of these by the way!!
On sound quality, the CDX certainly sounds more analogue - it uses the 14bit TDA1540 DAC and does sound very good. It suffers at the very top end in comparison with the 5500 and indeed more modern CD players - I took it to compare with some modern CD players and it held its head up with anything up to £1500. The Naim CD555, which costs some telephone number, was audibly better! I can understand people liking this deck but as with records, it is probably distortion that we like!!
Peter
THANKS!
Is there any special thing to look for when byuing the 5500?
Does a list of the DACs used in the Bang & Olufsen CD players exist?
Greetings Millemissen
blah-blah and photographs as needed
Hi Orava - and thanks!
does that mean that the 5500, the 6500 and the CDX2 have identical DACs? - It seems so!
The 2 x by the CDX - does that mean that it had one for each channel?
---
And how about the CD7000?
How about the CD3500/4500 and the newer ones?
Does anyone have information on them?
I currently use the CD4500 with which I am quite content. But I have no idea which DAC is in it - and I do not have the guts to open it up ;-(
Yes CDX has one each channel. I think CD7k is like 5500, 6500... Correct if I am wrong.
CDX2 vs X500... I guess not identical, X500 has more B&O in it, designvise.
4500 has 1541 (again ?) Maybe I open one I have in que.
Interestingly, things are not that straightforward! B&O seemed to have a slight scatter gun approach to the DACs and you will sometimes find that the TDA1541A appear in CD players which are supposed to have the lesser TDA1541 and vice versa!
The CD5500 is very much a designed by B&O CD player with the CDX being a clone of a Philips and even made in the Philips factory in the Netherlands. The CDX2 again was really a Philips machine along with the CD3300 sister machine. The really interesting one was the CD50 which was largely a Aiwa machine but it varied massively between models with almost everyonr being subtley different! Makes the service manual interesting anyway! It also had the amusing characteristic that it only had one Burr Brown DAC, of extremely high quality which was single channel. There was a switching mechanism so it alternated rapidly between the two channels. Sounds good but not a very reliable machine in my experience.
The 4500 is not quite as complicated as the CD5500 - which has a very elegant electronic design - but is a fine sounding machine. Some do have TDA1541As in - I talked to Tim Jarman about this and he has found a variety of DACs in most machines. The CD5500 always seems to have the A model though there is talk of some having the fabled P model which is a selected version of the A. Mine has an A!!
Before this goes much further, I can't tell one TDA1541 machine from another whether A or not! Nothing to lose sleep over!
The CD50 was actually an Aiwa clone Peter!
http://vintage-audio-laser.com/Aiwa-DX-1200
Mea culpa! Always get that wrong!!
Peter: The 4500 is not quite as complicated as the CD5500 - which has a very elegant electronic design - but is a fine sounding machine. Some do have TDA1541As in - I talked to Tim Jarman about this and he has found a variety of DACs in most machines. The CD5500 always seems to have the A model though there is talk of some having the fabled P model which is a selected version of the A. Mine has an A!! Before this goes much further, I can't tell one TDA1541 machine from another whether A or not! Nothing to lose sleep over!
That means that you (or rather I) would have to open the CD4500 to be sure..
..however I might - according to your last line - rather let it hang on the wall - and listen to some cd's 💿
Thanks again for your expertice.
A very sensible decision! I have opened most of mine over the years just for curiosity - the 4500 was not nearly as easy to see as the 5500!
The CD50 sound very well as it has a "Burr Brown" DAC. A well known sophisticated name till today.
Often used in Denon CD and DVD players.
I quite liked the sound from a CD50 when I had one a few years back. Would have one again, but the boxy shape really only works as part of a 5000 stacking system.
CDX is probably my favourite (I have two) and they look good as stand-alone units.
They are also pretty bullet proof once the solder joints are attended to. I too have one I use with my 1960s 5000 system!
Peter: They are also pretty bullet proof once the solder joints are attended to. I too have one I use with my 1960s 5000 system!
Me too - exactly what I use one of mine for :)
This discussion does lead to the question - what does best mean? The answer would seem to be that it depends on what one is looking for.
From a testing and figures point of view, the CD5500 is the best - it also sounds very good. However use it outside a Datalink B&O system and it is very basic!
From a stand alone and analogue sound quality point of view, the CDX takes some beating despite it being based around a Philips CD104, the first widely available CD player! Nice touch sensitive controls and a bullet proof laser.
The CD50 is actually more usable as a stand alone than the 5500 but only with the rare remote kit. It is also the least reliable of the B&O CD players though it is at least 16bit!
The 4500 is nice and compact and very pretty - also not bad as a stand alone though still lacking remote in that role.
Will all of these mentioned play cdRs?
All of mine do, even first gen players!
My 4500 does (but no RW's).
! The 'missing' remote with the 4500 as a standalone CD-player would not bother me, since I am an album listener. Play, Stop and Step is all I need !
MM
As they have not been mentioned I guess the CD players in the more modern products like BS2300 & BS9000 are out of the question?
My B&O products: Beosound 9000, Beosound 2300, Beosound Century, Beolab 8000, Beolab 6000, Beolab 4000 x2, Beolab 3500, Beolab 2000, Beolab 10, Beolink Active x2, Beotime, Beo5 x2, Beo4, A9 keyring x2, LC2 dimmer x6 and growing....
They are not CD players but are essentially music centres. They actually in some cases are much the same - the early 9500 is very similar to a CD4500. The later Ouverture etc were Bitstream players - the 2300 and 2500 used the TDA1541 DAC.
I currently use my CD6500 as it is part of the full system and renovated by Martin. It sounds very nice indeed.
I still got my CDX but it has not been in use for some years I would say. It does work though.
Peter: They are not CD players but are essentially music centres. They actually in some cases are much the same - the early 9500 is very similar to a CD4500. The later Ouverture etc were Bitstream players - the 2300 and 2500 used the TDA1541 DAC.
(Check my product list below... )
Peter: This discussion does lead to the question - what does best mean? The answer would seem to be that it depends on what one is looking for.
Best means...?
So, if we can group players in "digital sounding", "analog sounding", "warm", "cold" ect.... Doesn't that mean that none of them sounds natural, i.e. sounding like real musicants in a way you can't tell it is player?
No sound produced by axially vibrating cardboard funnels will sound like real musicians anyways.
I completely agree with Dillen....
....but still we are listening to those damn disc's
I think this is about finding the best i.e. the (B&O) CD player that suits us best, our rooms, our personal presferences...
And 'a little help from our friends' finding out which one isn't bad at all.
Millemissen
Yes, I also enjoy music immensely, wouldn't be without it.
However, I don't care much for nice figures on the specs sheets and beautifully stampedcompany logos on the ICs, I care more for pleasant sound to my ears.That's what matters to me, anyways.I understand that some audiophiles see this in a completely different view.Each to their liking.16-bit players should in theory sound better and cleaner than 14-bit ones but to myears that just doesn't seem to be the case.I find the sterile sound of the newer Beocenters awful and I'm almost relieved whenI switch it off whereas I can let a CDX play all day in my repairshop withoutany "listening fatigue".
And I also like to use loudness.
Dillen: No sound produced by axially vibrating cardboard funnels will sound like real musicians anyways. Martin
Yes, thats the point.
And should we expand this to "high-res" conversattion? Is "best" there also more or less a matter of preference?
As I said in another going-in-circles, sterile thread, it is the music that matters. But listening to cat skin-peeling speakers - and music for that matter - is really painful for me too. Nightclubs anyone? Yuck!
I enjoy those old CD players, just like Martin, because they sound so relaxed and fluid. No questions asked, just music flowing.
Personally I would suggest the modification I have introduced. My daughter plays the piano, cello and trumpet ( and allegedly the guitar, though evidence for this is sparce) and my wife plays the tenor sax. Exposure to this and the nearby location of the Sage in Gateshead makes one realise that music systems do lack quite a lot. But my car lacks quite a lot as well but I still like playing with it! (New seat belt last week end - still have the triple webers to fit!) It is actually not a very good car in many ways but I get great pleasure (at times!) from it. My B&O used to fill a similar hole though I have been drifting a bit in latter years. Mainly listen to the radio if honest but still get pleasure from the interface, which is largely what B&O has done best.
It all really depends on the situation.
If I am pleasantly sitting in a restaurant with my wife and music is playing, I don't care about the speakers and more (as long as I like the music played).
In the kitchen cooking, I can listen to anything (if it is radio, Spotify, mp3 files, or, or - again as long as I like the music) on my CX100.
But if I am sitting listening on my main speakers (or the headphones) I do care for the quality of the gear.
I even sometimes prefer a highres source to a CD - and I certainly do not use 'loudness'
This is why I was interested in hearing which B&O CD player 'is the best'.
After all it is curiousity that makes life interesting!
Orava: Peter: This discussion does lead to the question - what does best mean? The answer would seem to be that it depends on what one is looking for. Best means...? So, if we can group players in "digital sounding", "analog sounding", "warm", "cold" ect.... Doesn't that mean that none of them sounds natural, i.e. sounding like real musicants in a way you can't tell it is player?
Dillen is of course absolutely right, no recorded and reproduced music sounds like the real thing, as even the occasional attendance at a concert will easily reveal. It can be a wonderful facsimile though, but what defines best?
This question was always at the heart of the interminable LP vs. CD debates, LP lovers arguing that LPs sounded more "real" and CD aficionados pointing out CDs are more accurate. In the case of which is more accurate there is a simple test, which sounds more like the master? Universally, CDs have been found, when well executed, to be sonically transparent as a recording delivery medium, that is they sound identical to the masters when compared in controlled listening tests. And that's what you really want, you want the way your delivery mechanism for music sounds to preserve the intent of the recording engineer. Granted some of them suck, but good ones put great care into their work.
Now, which sounds more "real" means which, to your ears, reproduces that ephemeral feeling of live music better? That's completely a matter of personal preference, subject to many influences, real and imagined, and as preference unassailable. The problem always arises because people will insist that it's not preference, but this or that approach is obviously more "accurate" when it usually isn't. Essentially you are selecting a set of distortions to the master that to your ears makes up for the limitations of recording techniques and technology and sounds better, more realistic, to you.
This all gets way philosophical as well as technical and as such means these kinds of arguments will go on forever.
As for which CD player sounds best, same thing, realism or preference vs. accuracy, if there is even a difference at all. Personally, even if they sounded the same I'd probably pick the older top loading players as they are much sexier to my eyes. And given how many poorly recorded CDs there are, and particularly so back in the early days do CD, a player that sounds more "polite" and such would not be a bad choice.
This is one reason I want to repair my 1st gen Magnavox/Philips top loading player. My memory of it is that it sounded harsh and bright, and I'd love to hear it again and compare it with a more modern player to see if that's still what I'd think. And, does it sound different than tha B&O players based on it, and if so why?
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
just a small Question.. when I play music on my oppo so of course its digitally with its HDMI up to BV8-40 and which will say that I use my television DAC. but when Im then using my Beogram Cd7000 then its Analog and I have noticed a lot more bass when I use cd7000 then when I use my OPPO-103.
but is there eny one that knows what dac there is ind the cd7000? Is it Burr-Brown?
TDA1541A - the CD7000 is very similar to the 5500 - slightly different motor but otherwise the same. I think there is actually a digital out on the 7000 so you can send it to an external DAC and compare the difference!
Peter: TDA1541A - the CD7000 is very similar to the 5500 - slightly different motor but otherwise the same. I think there is actually a digital out on the 7000 so you can send it to an external DAC and compare the difference!
Doesn't the 5500 also have a digital out??
Ban boring signatures!
Yes. I don't think the CDX does though - will look when I get in! The digital out means you can use the CD player simply as a transport and 'upgrade' the DAC. Don't think you can get an external 14 bit DAC these days though!
The Philips top-loader won't disappoint you. It sounds like a Beogram CDX!
No digital outputs there by the way!