Sony CDP101 repair

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:


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

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?

** I do not have to explain audiophool bullshit to anyone.

If you believe in " IF it exists it MUST be audible " - you can go to hell.

There is a miniscule 11us time offset between L & R channels - Sony could easily have engineered it out but did not bother cos they KNEW it was NOT audible.



..... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2017 11:21 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?


** 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 !!

**You are correct. 5% mica types. The resistors are 1% tolerance.

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

**Funnily enough, the difference between those two values is pretty
close to 11uS. Those 5% caps are a bit of a problem though.

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

**It might instructive when you next pull your machine apart to check
out the values. I just checked the schematic and the supplement. Both
cite identical values for these components.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[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 !!

**You are correct. 5% mica types. The resistors are 1% tolerance.

** For a total of 6%.

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

**Funnily enough,

** TW only sees what he WANTS to see, and heasr what he WANTs to hear.

the difference between those two values is pretty
close to 11uS.

** 15k & 75pF = 1.12 uS

16k & 75pF = 1.20 uS.

Those 5% caps are a bit of a problem though.

** FFS, TW has no case at all since the 11uS offset ( exactly half a sampling period ) is NOT affected.


BTW:

For my interest, was it YOU who came up with this mad interpretation or did you find it floating free on the great world wide sewer ?



...... Phil

 

"All (?) other players used two DACs
(one for each channel) and the delay was not required. "

Using two DACs does not negate the need for a delay. However it is probably easier to implement in the digital domain, something you can't do with a single DAC.

 

"Something I am aware of that you didn't
bring up: Pre-emp/De-emp."

I did bring it up but only in the context of the playback quality - that is if there is an error in decoding.

The pre-enph and de-emph is not quite like Dolby. First of all it is either o or off, and it is designed to turn on and off transient free during playback. It is a command on the CD itself, there is no detection of level or spectral content like in Dolby or other noise reduction systems.

And actually it is not really for noise reduction. When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits and people complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective. This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless there are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine.

Then, when it came to totally digital sources they actually had to add noise, called dither, to make the low level HF sound right. They may use the pre-emph on that at low levels at all. But there was never any need for noise reduction because there is no noise. In fact, when they did the old AAD disks which were from the master tapes from back in the 1950s ad such, the tape hiss provided the dither and I think the quantization process actually removed some of that hiss without having any effect on the frequency reponse..

 

>"Answer:

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

Might hear it on headphones. Might.

 

[Phil Allison]

jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


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

The pre-enph and de-emph is not quite like Dolby. First of all it is either o or off, and it is designed to turn on and off transient free during playback. It is a command on the CD itself, there is no detection of level or spectral content like in Dolby or other noise reduction systems.

And actually it is not really for noise reduction.

** Fraid it is really.

When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits
and people complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective.
This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless
there are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine.

** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it.

When I got my Sony, I figured it lacked one feature - it did not reveal if de-emphasis was in use. One could hear tiny click from a relay inside so I added a red LED in parallel with the relay coil and fitted it in the display window.

Can't recall when I last saw it come on.



..... Phil

 

>"** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it. "

Well that seems to jibe with the Madman Muntz philosophy of design now.

Keep taking parts out until it doesn't work and put the last one back in.

A relay huh ? Can't say Ive ever seen that, or if I did I assumed it was just for muting.

 

[Pat]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:04:03 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

** Very few CDs in the past or now use pre-emphasis and some players do not accommodate it.

When I got my Sony, I figured it lacked one feature - it did not reveal if de-emphasis was in use. One could hear tiny click from a relay inside so I added a red LED in parallel with the relay coil and fitted it in the display window.

Can't recall when I last saw it come on.



.... Phil

Interesting subject. When I got my first CD player back in the day,
it had a de-emphasis indicator. I occassionally saw it on, but I
can't remember which CDs were being played at the time. That player
is now long gone and nothing I have owned since then has an indicator.
While I have a nice older stereo set up in the basement, most of my
listening these days is in the bedroom at night while falling asleep.
The bedroom player is a Sony Blu-ray player (BDP-S370). Is it likely
that it properly handles de-emphasis while playing old CDs?

Pat

 

jurb wrote: "And actually it is not really for noise reduction. When the source has low HF content it is not using enough bits and people
complained it sounded grainy or whatever, some such adjective. This was before CDs actually, it is built into all CD players, unless there
are some that are cheaper than even I can imagine. "


_______
So CD really DID emphasize compactness
over fidelity in the design stage! So much
that the sampling rate and bit depth were
'just adequate', especially at higher frequency
content where more waves fit between the
samples and represented by same available
bits.

So by boosting above, say, 10 or 12khz
those highs would take more advantage
of available bits, and then the de-emph on
the player is supposed to check TOC for
a pre-Emph flag and apply de-Emph, like
turning down a treble control with a
standardized curve, like RIAA on vinyl
records.

Some of my older CDs are kind of trebley,
not at all grainy, but top heavy. When I
turn my treble knob a little left of center,
it smooths out the whole sound. These
are same CDs that Exact Audio Copy
does not detect pre-emphasis on. So the
engineer probably didn't know how to flag
it in the TOC, or forgot, or flagged it
improperly. ???

 

[None]

< thekma @ dumbfuck.shortbus.edu > drooled in message
news:50d9d08e-dceb-47bc-8e7c-1ddf2529b61e@googlegroups.com...

So CD really DID emphasize compactness
over fidelity in the design stage!

So you're an idiot.

So much
that the sampling rate and bit depth were
'just adequate', especially at higher frequency
content where more waves fit between the
samples and represented by same available
bits.

You love to gibber about things you don’t understand, li'l buddy,

So by boosting above, say, 10 or 12khz
those highs would take more advantage
of available bits, and then the de-emph on
the player is supposed to check TOC for
a pre-Emph flag and apply de-Emph, like
turning down a treble control with a
standardized curve, like RIAA on vinyl
records.

Some of my older CDs are kind of trebley,
not at all grainy, but top heavy. When I
turn my treble knob a little left of center,
it smooths out the whole sound. These
are same CDs that Exact Audio Copy
does not detect pre-emphasis on. So the
engineer probably didn't know how to flag
it in the TOC, or forgot, or flagged it
improperly. ???

Or maybe your just flatulating about something you'll never
comprehend. DJKSH. FCKWAFA, KHD!

 

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:37:00 AM UTC-4, None wrote:

thekma @ dumbfuck.shortbus.edu > drooled in message
news:50d9d08e-dceb-47bc-8e7c-1ddf2529b61e@googlegroups.com...
So CD really DID emphasize compactness
over fidelity in the design stage!

So you're an idiot.

If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the CD offered really stood out.

 

[Phil Allison]

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

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

So you're an idiot.


If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's
agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious
improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble
and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the
mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl
discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the
CD offered really stood out.

** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.

FACT is :

Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list - so the proposed new system would have no possible sound quality shortcomings.

PLUS the usual benefit of PCM in being *infinitely* copyable without the slightest loss - a massive benefit the to recording industry.

PLUS being immune from wear and tear deterioration in normal use for decades.

PLUS being convenient to use and low cost to produce as stampings.


BTW:

Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.

One of millions of on the internet




...... Phil

 

Phil Allison wrote: "Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.

One of millions of on the internet

...... Phil "


Phil: Are you and 'None' related??
Sure seems that way!

Most of your points were valid, until
that last part I quoted.

 

_______
I think the best thing to do is to divide
the sampling rate of CDDA by the
lowest and highest frequencies it was
intended to cover:


44,100 samples / 20Hz = 2,205 samples
per cycle.

44,100/1kHz = 44.1 samples per cycle.

44,100/20kHz = *ONLY* 2.205 samples
per wave cycle at that frequency. So
even I could see where things might
get a little dicey, sonically, up above
15kHz or so. That, combined with 16bit
depth and potential for lower amplitude
events in that part of the spectrum.

 

[Phil Allison]

thekma...@gmail.com wrote:

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

I think the best thing to do is to divide
the sampling rate of CDDA by the
lowest and highest frequencies it was
intended to cover:


44,100 samples / 20Hz = 2,205 samples
per cycle.

44,100/1kHz = 44.1 samples per cycle.

44,100/20kHz = *ONLY* 2.205 samples
per wave cycle at that frequency. So
even I could see where things might
get a little dicey, sonically, up above
15kHz or so. That, combined with 16bit
depth and potential for lower amplitude
events in that part of the spectrum.

** Wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jurassic park has no creatures as pre-historic as you.

Wot a six toed fucking idiot.

Wonder if he plays a five string banjo and fancies pig's arses.

And I do not mean for dinner.





..... Phil

 

>"Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list"

Yup. As long as it fit in the standard car stereo opening in the dashboard of cars at the time.

I will agree they did the best they could. But if it was REAL good PCM at 48 KHz the disk would be too big.

 

[N_Cook]

On 31/05/2017 22:50, amdx wrote:

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

twice over the years I've seen insect silk blocking the optics of a CD
player , once was a complete cocoon, no insect found in either case,
just the evidence of thgem having taken up residence

 

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

ohg...@gmail.com wrote:

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


So you're an idiot.


If you think audio fidelity was high on the Compact Disc design team's
agenda you're quite delusional. The CD format offered a few obvious
improvements over vinyl: zero wow and flutter, no surface noise or rumble
and better dynamic range. Since most people at the time the CD hit the
mass market had a crappy turntable, crappy cartridge/needle, and vinyl
discs that weren't particularly well cared for, the improvements the
CD offered really stood out.



** Can't let that pile of idiotic bull shite go by.

FACT is :

Philips and Sony had FIDELITY at the top of their list - so the proposed new system would have no possible sound quality shortcomings.

Bullshit. If they really wanted true fidelity they would have had a much better sampling rate. This was clearly a mass market solution with a lot of advantages, except one. Folks with tin ears find CDs without flaws.

> PLUS the usual benefit of PCM in being *infinitely* copyable without the slightest loss - a massive benefit the to recording industry.

CDs could have a sampling rate in the hundreds and they'd still be infinitely copyable. The fact is Phil that any digital format is infinitely copyable. Nothing unique about that.


> PLUS being immune from wear and tear deterioration in normal use for decades.

Any digital format would do that, and that has nothing to do with fidelity, which was my point.

> PLUS being convenient to use and low cost to produce as stampings.

Yada yada yada.. has nothing to do with fidelity.

Obviously YOU are a complete, know nothing fuckwit.

One of millions of on the internet

I guess you don't own a mirror Phil. To be honest I thought the Wiki entry of "know-nothing fuckwit" would have a picture of you as an example.

And since you're off your meds again and throwing shit around as if this were your own kitchen, let me just say that in regards to your first post (which, as a gentleman -most of the time- I ignored), let me say that most decent people wouldn't live in a house infested with roaches. Around these parts, you can't even get a mortgage on property so infested. Try emptying your sink of bean cans and Spam containers once a week or so and have your trailer fumigated.

Remind me not to have dinner at your house...

 

[None]

< brain-damaged-fuck-head @ retards.org > puked up
news:519fd8b9-e567-477f-98ba-348f51553186@googlegroups.com...

Phil: Are you and 'None' related??
Sure seems that way!

You really are obsessed with your dumb fuck hallucination. Anyone who
calls you out for being the brain-damaged retard that you prove
yourself to be online, you have to pretend that that person is me.
You've done it dozens of times over the years, and every time, you end
up with shit all over you. And then you alternate if with telling
everyone that I'm a "bot" (obviously you have no idea what a bot is).

Most of your points were valid, until
that last part I quoted.

You alone are the equivalent of a million or so retarded passengers on
the short-bus. And you seem to be obsessed with your quest to prove
that every day. KDFHS . FCKWAFA. AKDFHUIN. SBR!