Sony CDP101 repair

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2017 4:18 AM, Dave Platt wrote:

In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98-8095-cae6430fec09@googlegroups.com>,
thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

**Indeed. That little trick was used by Mobile Fidelity back in the
early 1980s. I found some of their limited edition, heavy duty, virgin
vinyl, very expensive LPs, unlistenable. I recall the damage MF did to
my favourite female artist - Crystal Gayle, on her seminal LP, Don't It
Make My Brown Eyes Blue. The bog-standard LP was a glorious thing. The
MF was something else entirely and a good deal more expensive too. I
never purchased another MF product. Well, except my UHQR Pink Floyd -
Dark Side Of The Moon. It is still unopened and the last figure I saw
was about US$1,500.00. A nice return on my 25 Bucks.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[bitrex]

On 05/30/2017 02:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



.... Phil

It would look great with my Onkyo TX-2500 mk II receiver in my "retro
stereo corner."

Give ya one fiddy for it.

 

[amdx]

On 5/30/2017 1:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Hi,

I bought one of the above immediately they appeared on sale in Sydney - in fact I pre-ordered it. For the first week, I had no CDs to put in it !!

With a few minor repairs, it has been working perfectly for 34 years and nowadays getting only occasional use.

Yesterday, I popped a CD in the drawer and it spat it back - so I tried a couple more with the same result.

Fearing the worst, I opened the machine and found some cockroach droppings in the drawer and near the laser assembly. Not much, just a bit.

While doubting this could stop a CDP101 completely, I nevertheless decided to give it a thorough clean up. Took about 15 minutes with a damp cloth, brush & WD40 and finally a dry cloth.

Popped the same CDs back in and it plays them perfectly.

I reckon there must have been a bit of dead cocky on the lens.



.... Phil

I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!

Mikek

 

"Is there something I don't know
about CD players"

As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially.

There are a few things most people don't know about CDs. First of all that they could be quadrophonic. It was never involved, no quad CDs were made and no quad CD players were made.

Also the digital compression scheme used was necessary to make the CD small enough to facilitate in dash CD players in cars of the time, which generally had a predetermined space for the stereo. (that is also why they are not 48 KHz)This facilitated aftermarket stereos and has been changed in more recent cars. The strive to make it non standard so that they have a captive market on the stereos.

And the LASER beam is not a beam at all, it is conical shape. this means that on the bottom surface of the CD where all the scratches and dirt are, the pickup of the signal does not depend on a teeny tiny area.

On a stamped CD, the pits are not darkened at all. They cancel the light out by being Âź wavelength of light deeper. There is no mask nor pigment involved, unlike burned CDs.

In the beginning of stamping CDs in the US, Teelarc could not produce a defect free disk. They had to get engineers from overseas to figure out what they were doing wrong. So much for "America number one ?".

All obsolete. Now DVDs are obsolete. Now bluray is obsolete. They got a holographic disk now that holds so much more data that nobody can use it. Thatis the only reason it is not on shelves. Also, do you really want your entire library of movies and whatever on one disk ? Scratch that.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2017 4:43 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/06/2017 4:18 AM, Dave Platt wrote:
In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98-8095-cae6430fec09@googlegroups.com>,
thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".



**Indeed. That little trick was used by Mobile Fidelity back in the
early 1980s. I found some of their limited edition, heavy duty, virgin
vinyl, very expensive LPs, unlistenable. I recall the damage MF did to
my favourite female artist - Crystal Gayle, on her seminal LP, Don't It
Make My Brown Eyes Blue. The bog-standard LP was a glorious thing. The
MF was something else entirely and a good deal more expensive too. I
never purchased another MF product. Well, except my UHQR Pink Floyd -
Dark Side Of The Moon. It is still unopened and the last figure I saw
was about US$1,500.00. A nice return on my 25 Bucks.

**Scratch that. Looks like my DSOTM UHQR LP is now worth a little North
of 2 Grand. Gotta be happy with that. Factory sealed, still has the
guarantee label stuck to it.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation, and for not cowing to
the sudden dip in S/N ratio in this
thread.

 

jurb wrote: "As been pointed out, the channels are read sequentially. "

On early machines such as the
CDP101. Trevor did mention
that subsequent models began
incorporating DACs for each
channel.


Something I am aware of that you didn't
bring up: Pre-emp/De-emp. Some
CDs were mastered with a rising high-
end frequency response, and a
corresponding attenuation in the player.
Sort of a "Dolby NR" for CDs I guess?

Nothing I ripped even in EAC flags
the pre-emp, even though the vast
majority of my CD collection are from
the era when pre-emphasis was most
likely to be used. I would have to load
the WAVs ripped from every CD in my
collection into a DAW and run a spectro
on it to see if it looked unusually top-
heavy, suggesting emphasis. Can't
always tell by ear.

 

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98-8095-cae6430fec09@googlegroups.com>,
thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

 

Dave Platt wrote: "And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with". "


As was the case with this customer's version
of the Wonder CD I was playing in the store.
Needless to say, I convinced him to buy the
unremastered orignal!

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 01/06/17 10:37, Phil Allison wrote:

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

--------------------------
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation,


** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.

Maybe. Interesting related story: I built a stereo sonar,
using a 40KHz transmitter with two receivers 5cm each side.
The aim was to resolve the angle of the response echo.
Because the receiver circuits detected a response passing
a threshold, and because the receivers would be still
resonating from the transmit pulse, the echo could arrive
either in or out of phase, so the threshold was passed a
cycle earlier or later. 40KHz acoustic wavelength is 7mm,
so there was a 10 degree sawtooth uncertainty in the angle
of the received signal. A time delay of one cycle is 25us.

The only way around this is to not use thresholding, but
to digitize each receiver's waveform and compute the
departure from normal ring-down caused by a reflected
signal.

Since our ears use relative phase to locate signals, I'd
think that a high frequency phase shift (at say 4KHz)
would very likely affect the stereo imaging.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Michael Black]

On Wed, 31 May 2017, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98-8095-cae6430fec09@googlegroups.com>,
thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

But Happy Trails was recorded live, though probably some later
"tampering", so one might assume the recording equipment wasn't as great
as in the studio.

ON the other hand, I gather early CDs weren't mastered quite write for the
new medium. I don't know whether it applies here, I have the record, but
don't have it on CD.

Michael

 

[Phil Allison]

Dave Platt wrote:

-----------------

As I recall: in some CD players (mostly very old ones?), there's only
a single DAC, which is shared between the two channels. The "left"
and "right" samples are converted back to analog at slightly different
times, in alternating sequence. The analog voltage coming out from
the DAC is then fed to a pair of sample-and-hold circuits, one per
channel, and these then feed the (low-pass) analog reconstruction filters.

As a result of this, there's a slight phase delay (equal to the actual
DAC conversion time, or half of the nominal sample rate for the stereo
signal) introduced between the two channels. This would tend to
"pull" the perceived stereo image slightly to one side, since our
ear/brain systems are sensitive to a signal's inter-aural arrival
times as well as to inter-aural amplitude differences.

** You need to apply some common sense before making such conclusions.

What does such a tiny delay amount to in distance ?

Answer:

your head being offset by 1.7mm from exact centre of a pair of speakers.


You are employing the worst of audiophool non-think which holds that IF it exists it MUST be audible.

Bollocks.


..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------

**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

amdx wrote:

-------------

I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!

** That is a nasty and pretty rare fault.

I've had to do the same only twice ever.

Few techs would even think of it.


.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

--------------------------

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au "


Thanks, Trevor W, for that cogent
explanation,

** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.




...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2017 10:32 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------




**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).


** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.

**If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different value
resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I presume you are
suggesting that there is a measurable difference, but that difference is
inaudible?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2017 10:35 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

amdx wrote:

-------------




I still have a Magnavox (NAP) FD 1040 that I bought in 1984, not quite
as old as yours.
I used it for years and then it quit working, I couldn't locate the
problem. I worked for an NAP authorized service center at the time and
even calling tech support didn't lead to a repair.
So I sent it to the NAP factory service center for repair. They had it
for well over a month and returned it saying they could not fix the problem.
I mentioned the situation to one of our other techs, he said, "let
me take a look at it" he put a wire through all the
vias and resoldered them.
He gave me back a working CD Player!



** That is a nasty and pretty rare fault.

I've had to do the same only twice ever.

Few techs would even think of it.


.... Phil

**Not really. The Magnavox was identical the early Philips/Marantz units
and was built in Belgium. Those whacky Belgians could have learned a
great deal from Sony about how to make decent PCBs. The lasers were
great, but the PCBs were poorly assembled.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:28:14 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017, etpm@whidbey.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 11:18:36 -0700, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

In article <67e9586e-848b-4a98-8095-cae6430fec09@googlegroups.com>,
thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting anecdote: I had an Aiwa bookshelf
system set up in the store and playing a Stevie
Wonder CD. A guy came over and started playing
with it, listening to different tracks etc. He said it
sounded great, and he bought it.


Next day, he came in, saying he had the "same
disc" at home, but that the system did not sound
nearly as good as when he played with it in the
store. Since he said he had the disc, I asked him
to bring his in next time he visited.


The next week he came in with the CD, and I
compared it to the copy in my inventory: His was
a REMASTER....

And, some remasters are dreadful. Not infrequently the remastering
engineer has been of the "louder is better" school, and the remastered
disc suffers from serious signal compression and (more than
occasionally) actual clipping. The dynamic range of the remaster is
often poorer than that of the original CD.

The spectral balance will also often be "played with".

Years ago when Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon came out on CD I
bought a copy and was amazed at how much better it sounded than the
vinyl. Then Happy Trails by Quicksilver Messenger Service came out on
CD and I was anticipating a much better sounding copy. Nope. It
sounded just as bad as my vinyl and reel to reel copies. I guess the
master tapes done by Pink Floyd were much better than the ones that
held Quicksilver's music.
Eric

But Happy Trails was recorded live, though probably some later
"tampering", so one might assume the recording equipment wasn't as great
as in the studio.

ON the other hand, I gather early CDs weren't mastered quite write for the
new medium. I don't know whether it applies here, I have the record, but
don't have it on CD.

Michael

All my recordings of Happy trails were obviously made from the same
master tapes. I can hear the exact same noise in the same places on
them all. In fact, the CD almost sounds like it was recorded from the
LP I have. I saw Quicksilver live in San Jose way back when. It was a
great venue and a great concert. And I was listening to Who Do You
Love just a couple days ago which made me think of the difference in
the quality of the recordings.
Eric

 

Phil Allison: "
** ROTFL !!

TW is spewing his usual audiophool nonsense while a know nothing idiot is lapping it up.


...... Phil "


Then why don't you explain what
was done?

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------

**It did with the CDP-101, because only one DAC was used and shared
between left and right channels. All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. For the record, I
just checked the schematic of the 701. The 701 used two DACs. One for
each channel. It does not use a delay on one OP amp. Both OP amp
feedback resistors are 15k, paralleled by a 75pF cap. This likely
contributes to the difference in sound quality noted by many listeners
(including me).


** More TW audiophool nonsense.

There is no audible difference and the 15k resistor business is an
obvious red herring.

Just do a tiny bit of math on those numbers.


**If there is no audible difference, why did Sony use different value
resistors in the 101 and the same values in the 701? I presume you are
suggesting that there is a measurable difference, but that difference is
inaudible?

** FFS TW, do the math on those values.

Find the -3dB frequencies and see how far above the audio band they are and that there is almost no difference in using 15k or 16k - the caps are only 5% types !!

PLUS the fact that it is having NO effect on the 11uS offset.

I reckon it's a bloody typo in the parts list.




...... Phil