CLASSIC PHILIPS AND MARANTZ CD PLAYER COMPARISON
The Philips players:
Philips CD104
1983. CDM-1 transport, TDA1540 DAC. Entire chassis is made of cast zinc and it is very heavy for such a small player (7 kilo). Its dac can only output 14 bits but despite this (and probably thanks to the oversampling, invented to make up for the bit loss) it nevertheless sounds very refined. The 104 is never less than smooth, warm and musical which benefits badly recorded cd's enormously. Compared to better players it does lack drive, slam, detail and speed.
Philips CD100
1983. CDM-0 or CDM-1 transport, TDA1540 DAC. The first commercial cdplayer ever. The CD100 was the simplest Philips player at the time. A little later there were also the CD202 and CD303. Sadly I couldn't listen to the CD100 in this group test because it has stopped working. I have heard him longer ago in a friend's setup and I suspect that it sounds a lot like the CD104 that I did listen to in the context of this test.
Philips CD150
1985. CDM-2 transport, TDA1540 DAC. Has exactly the same dimensions as the CD104 but has been produced in a low cost fashion, meaning that almost everything that was cast zinc or metal in the 104 is now plastic. Even the transport is mainly from plastic! The sound is sadly likewise: synthetic and plasticky. For me this player performs way below par and it will be excluded from further comparisons.
Philips CD304MKII
Around 1986. CDM-1 transport, TDA1541 DAC. Sounds like a hot-rodded CD104, is in fact more akin to a CD304, now with a better interface and all of the 16 bits. Newprice around 800 euro. Compared to the CD104 sounds a lot fuller and more dynamic but the midrange has a certain shoutiness and although the 304 is nicely enthusiastic and has lots of drive (especially in the bass, call it PRAT) it als sound less relaxed and less smooth than the other players in this test.
Philips CD880
1988. CDM-1 Mk2 transport, TDA1541S1 DAC. Soundwise completely different from the 304MKII: much airier, more spacious, more subtle, more refined, more transparent yet lacking the 304MKII's all out drive and slam. The 880 is always well-behaved. You could feel that the is 880 too refined for its own good but when judged on its merits it is simply almost unbeatable. Using its digital output into the DCS combo, it produced extremely refined audiophile results, beaten only by the CD94MKII.
Philips CD880 USA
1988. CDM-1 Mk2 transport, TDA1541S1 DAC. 110 volt-version of the 880 Europe, used here with an extra step-down transformer. This extra transformer is most likely the cause of this model's very different sonic signature compared to the 880 Europe. The USA version sounds smoother, fuller and more fluid but at the expense of some openness and airyness. You could call the USA version more cozy and the Europe version more precise.
Philips CD960
1987. CDM-1 transport, TDA1541 DAC. According to many, this is the best Philips of its time. Newprice approx 1000 euro. Inside it has many similarities with the marantz CD94MKII and also sounds pretty similar, but there are differences. It is less subtle and has less transparency than the CD94MKII but it does sound a little more lively. In fact: it sounds a lot like the CD94 (MK1) which is internally identical. Note: this CD960 has an upgraded DAC-chip: from TDA1541 to TDA1541 silver crown. The CD94MKII has dual silver crown dacs.
Marantz CD94MKII
1986. New around 1300 euro in europe. CDM-1 transport (special selection), 2x TDA1541s1 DAC. The CD94 (MKI) could be seen as a CD960 in a more beautiful housing. Internally these two players are almost indistinguishable. The CD94MKII has two TDA1541S1 on an additional dac board instead of the single TDA1541S1 in the older player. The CD94MKII sounds like a good combination of the CD304MKII and CD880. It has the 304's big bass and drive, and the 880's subtlety, refinement and airyness but is even more refined, if not airier than the 880. The 94MKII is however even more fluid and liquid. No matter how it is used: as a transport or a player, it is the most liquid player I've ever heard, and that's including Meridian, Audiomeca and CEC.
The players using their built in dacs and analog outputs compared to each other and in comparison to the reference DAC:
Kramer AV switcher on top of the cd304
CD150, CD104, CD880
CD94MKII and CD960
Part of the test setup
Audiomeca Mephisto II transport
Audiomeca Enkianthus DAC
Part of the test setup
The rack holding the dCSses and Audiomeca transport
De set waarin de CD880 zich als transport moet bewijzen:
This is essentially the same machine as the Philips CD960, but with a double DAC chip of better quality and a specially selected CDM1 transport.
CD94MKII, compared to the CD880 using analog outputs
I was a bit scared to try because you just never know. Who knows: perhaps the CD94 sounded less than the CD880... The latter was already a surprise for its super airy presentation, after having used Wadia's and Audiomecas and others. But the CD94 just adds to the CD880's qualities by being both more detailed and more supple. More silky too. The 94's bass is fuller and reminds of the CD304MKII but is tighter and less rough. Good results!
CD94MKII as transport, digitally to the DCS combo, compared to the CD880
Surprisingly, the same results go for the CD94MKII, either used as transport or as integrated player. The CDM1 is apparently responsible for a large portion of the magic. The CD94MKII, used as a transport, shows the same improvements over de CD880 used as a transport: better resolution, better focus, more fine detail, more attack, more decay, tighter bass and more drive. In absolute terms, The CD94MKII+DCS combo is less dynamic and propulsive than the Audiomeca combo, but in musical terms it is so very seductive that my heart still chooses the CDM1-based setup.
More about the best players:
Marantz CD94MKII:
Track selection (and track skip, too) is behind a flap
The CD960 is basically the same machine on the inside as the Marantz CD94 (not MKII) and not surprisingly its sound character is comparable.
CD960, compared to the CD94MKII and CD880
The CD960 is almost (perhaps even completely) identical on the inside to the Marantz CD94 (not MKII) and not surprisingly its character is comparable. The 960 also sounds more like the CD94MKII than the other players here, with the exception of the CD85 which was reviewed later. The 960, 880, 94MKII and 85 share a similar higher resolution sound than the other players in this review while maintaining a super-smooth and very refined treble as well as very good transparency. The 960 sounds a lot like the CD94 but falls short on dynamics, speed and transparency. This is something the 880 does better, but that one lacks the fullness of bass that both the 960 and 94(MKI and MKII) manage. The 960 is also slightly less refined, a little more rough so to say, than the other TDA1541 players here. In a sense, it sounds slightly like the TDA1540 players, which in itself isn't bad at all, just so long you don't expect CD94MKII-like transparency.
CD960 as transport, coaxial digitally to the DCS combo, compared to the CD880 and the CD94MKII.
Used as a transport, the CD960 falls inbetween the CD880 and CD94MKII: fuller, faster, more royal and with more drive than the CD880, but less open and airy. Compared to the CD94MKII tonally very similar, but slower, less fresh, less smooth and less detailed and refined. These differences turned out quite a bit smaller than when comparing the analog outputs though and may well be audible only in a very transparent setup.
Now that the players have been compared using their analog outputs, it's time for them to be used as transports and to see how well they keep up with a reference CEC transport.
Philips CD960:
These oldies perform way beyond expectation!
The Marantz players:
Marantz CD52MKII (Special edition)
CDM4 transport. Bitstream player. In spite of its SE sticker, this player didn't sound special at all. It is certainly no bad player and it has some of the qualities common to most CDM-1 based players, but overall it was clearly inferior to the CD94MKII, sounding more bland, less dynamic and a bit slow and thick. It is not part of further comparisons. In retrospect, after hearing the Philips CD850, the two may actually have comparable character, but the 850 is definitely faster and fresher.
Marantz CD40
CDM4 transport, TDA1541 DACOn the picture the CD40 is the middle one, with the open drawer. This player, too, has the CDM-4 transport but is otherwise built more lightweight. It sounds more rough; less refined, less coherent and flatter than the CD94MKII and isn't further reviewed.
In this extensive comparison you can read all about various classic Philips and Marantz cd players, compared to each other as well as to a reference CEC transport and reference dCS digital components. The players are used both in an intergrated manner and as a transport, feeding an external DAC.
All players were compared under identical circumstances, well-warmed up and run in, powered with the same phase, using the same powercords when possible, positioned in the same audiorack, with the same interlinks etc. They were originally compared in this setup and it was in this setup that they had to compete with established high end reference components such as dCS Delius/Purcell, Audiomeca Mephisto 2/Enkianthus and CEC TL1-x. In the following years after the initial review was written, more and more players were added. These later additions were reviewed in this setup.
A small disclaimer is probably in order as the age of these players varies and some of them are even 20 years old at the time of review. Even though I have listened to more than one player for many models, some players may have been worn out slightly, which can have had an affect on the sound quality. Therefore the results may not be entirely objective for all models.
Left: CD880 US and CD880 Europe: the only difference lies in the power supply, yet their sound is very different, perhaps due to wear. Top right: Philips CD104 on the inside: the electronics may be outdated but the transport is still tip top!
Marantz CD80
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1990. New around 900 euro in europe. CDM-1MKII transport. TDA1541S1 DAC. Used as an integrated player, the CD80 was a slight disappointment. It has a smooth sound and is very gentle but it is also a bit bland (pastel rather than full colour) and it lacks physicality and drive. Even the CD880 is much fuller in the bass and has much better dynamics. Used as a transport though, it sounds pretty good, much less blandness, more drive and better focus. Used this way, it reminds me of the CD94MKII but with less power and drive.
Three years after the review above was written, after moving house and having quite a different system, I have bought a Marantz CD80. Little later I also came across a Marantz CD74 and CD85. Because I also still have the Philips CD880 around, I thought it nice to compare these players to each other, as well as to try them as a transport into one of my current reference DACs. To see the current setup in detail, go here.
Marantz CD16 Exclusive
1993. CDM-4 transport, TDA1547 Bitstream DAC. This player doesn't really belong in this review because I didn't review it at the same time. Nevertheless, I have a very good memory of how it sounded compared to the Audiomeca and Wadia players I had at the time. In retrospect, it sounded a lot like the CD94MKII, especially when used as a transport, although the CD94MKII has more rhythmic drive. When using the analog outputs, the CD94MKII would have won by a large margin, the 16 sounding less driven, less defined and less colourful.
Until now all assessments were made with the players using their analogue outputs and only compared to each other. Now it's time to compare them to the reference equipment, by itself, as integrated players.
The Marantz CD94MKII is my reference CDM1-equipped player. It has almost all that an audiophile could wish for with its best qualities being an utterly relaxed presentation with enourmous soundstage, a rich tonality and a velvelty smooth, almost creamy character. On top of this it has the most fluid, most airy treble I've hard a cd player produce. The only points where it scores less well are focus, tightness and slam. It is not the most obviously detailed player around but neither does it sound detail-deprived. In fact you'll never miss any detail until you start comparing it to much better and more expensive equipment. But even when compared with DCS dacs, the CD94MKII sometimes still manages to sound more colourful, more convincing and more "human" with its own built-in dac and output stage. Even though the DCS equipment has much better focus and resolution, the CD94MKII still sounds more analogue to me with a more expansive soundstage and a more gentle presentation. The best thing about the CD94MKII is that it will never sound aggresive or shouty yet it manages this without sounding overly smooth, undynamic or slow.
The CD880 en CD960 are the best Philips players for me because they sound most fluid, subtle and spacious and by doing so appeal to my sense of "analogueness". Compared to the Audiomeca reference setup, the Philips players sound more fluid, more spacious, more airy and altogether more "analogue". Their most obvious flaws include bass drive and slam. They can be a little to reticent. The Philips players work best when playing relaxed music such as jazz fusion or soul. More complex music shows the players' shortcomings in terms of fine detail, dynamics and focus and they can start to sound a little too laid back. Compared to the 960, the 880 is more airy and subtle, but the 960 is warmer and fuller and has bigger bass. The 960 also sounds more like the CD94MKII although the latter is more refined and articulates better.
The CD880-USA Is the exact same player as the CD880 but works on 110 volts instead of 220 volts and so needs an external converter. It may well be because of this extra transformer that it sounds fuller, bigger and smoother than the regular 880. But it also looses some drive and dynamics and so becomes a little too soft sometimes.
The CD304MKII has what the 880 lacks: big bass and lots of drive and dynamic slam. PRAT is someting this player knows about. But the 304MKII doesn't have the 880's smoothness, its treble airyness or its detail and transparency. In fact, the 304MKII sounds pretty grainy and somewhat "rough 'n ready".
The CD104 at first hearing sounds immensely rich and relaxed and it's like loudness is always on. It is much more fluid and refined than the 304MKII but this smooth presentation really covers up its lack of detail, focus and dynamics. But even though this clearly isn't the best player of the bunch, its extreme smoothness makes it a perfect player for badly recorded cd's. From memory, it sounds a bit like the Marantz CD80 albeit with much less transparency and resolution.
The CD105 is a simplified CD104 with lots and lots of plastic on the inside. Even the transport is part plastic. Not surprisingly the sound is also synthetic: thin, lacking colour and substance and really its only good quality is the treble which is still airy and fluid. But overall this is a very mediocre player.
POWER
All players showed sensitive to the position in the (serial wired-) extensionblock. The first position was most powerful and dynamic, so good for the CD880 but bad for the CD304MKII. The further away from the inlet, the more relaxed the sound became. Naturally I experimented with this and listened to every player with its powercable in its relative best position.
Normally my highend equipment sounds very nice in the main extensionblock (also serial-wired), after the Jeff Rowland Synergy preamp which is powered with a Harmonic Tech Pro ACII powercord. This smooths down subsequently connected components and for my Levinsons, DCSses and other components this is beneficial. But for the Philipses, and Marantzes alike, this proved too much. These players are already so relaxed that they need pole position in the extensionblock. The only exception was the CD304MKII which was a little rough around the edges and this player benefitted from being somewhere in the middle of the extensionblock.
INTERLINKS
Interlinks are usually very important, especially with my usual highend gear. The Philipses and Marantzes however, don't need super highend cables. They are already refined and smooth and if anything benefit from more lively sounding cables. I found that stock cables (the ones you get for free in the box) tend to sound very nice when combined with these old players. Specialty interlinks such as Cardas and Transparent proved too much and made for too much of a good thing when combined with the already very luxurious sounding oldies. I also tried a more affordable Cardas cable - the Quadlink. And although this cable made for better definition and transparency, it also made the sound drier and more analytical. In the end I chose to just use stock cables for this test.
Fast forward 3 years
Later addition to the original review - July 2011
Marantz CD74
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1984. CDM-1 transport, TDA1540 DAC. No digital outputs. The CD74 sounds solid, with a full bass and a creamy smoothness. But it's definitely less refined and airy than most other players in this test and can be a bit rough. Despite this, it communicates emotion like few others. Internally it looks somewhat like a Philips CD304MKII (The CD74 uses the 14bit TDA1540 and the CD304 uses the 16bit TDA1541. The CD74 is from the same generation as the CD104/304 (MKI) but has a pressed steel chassis instead of cast zinc and in fact not a single board in common with the Philips players. It does sound a bit like it, but better. It has the same kind of solidity and drive but with a smoother presentation and a more refined treble.
Marantz CD85
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1989. CDM-1MKII transport, TDA1541S1 DAC. Used as an integrated player, the CD85 sounds splendid, reminding me even more of the Marantz CD94MKII than the CD80 does. It is much more weighty and colourful than the Philips CD880, yet it loses none of its speed and drive like the CD80 does on its analogue outputs. Used as a transport with its coaxial digital output into the Mark Levinson no.360S DAC, the CD85 sounds spectacular, just like the CD94MKII did.
THE ORIGINAL 2008 REVIEW
A more detailed comparsison of the CD11LE, CD12LE, CD74, CD85, CD80 Marantz players that are added later can be found at the bottom of this review. For now, let's move on to the original review.
Philips CD104
Some of the Philips players
As integrated player - analogue outputs
CD80
The CD80 is a fine enough player, but it sounds softer and less authentic than the CD85 and has a somewhat synthetic signature. Bass is blurry and lacks drive and the treble can also be overly smooth. Because of this it often fails to stir the soul. During the first review the CD880 was one of my favourites, but its bass was thin and lacked drive. Well, put up against the Marantz CD80, it had plenty drive! The Philips sounded much more lively, more physical, fuller in tonality and with much, much better bass. Not only was its bass fuller and more forceful, it also articulated better. The CD880 is much more speedy, lively and transparent. But the CD80 has more colour and creamy smoothness and produces a more "pleasant" sound. It is just very relaxing and with some really badly produced cd's on occasion the Marantz even managed to sound more engaging and emotional than my reference Levinson no.390S.
CD74
The CD74 is a rare player. I had never seen one until recently. It looks exactly like the CD84 but there are some differences. for one, the CD84 has remote control. Furthermore, the most recent version of the CD84, most likely only the MKII version, has the TDA1541 dac for full 16 bits. Upon swithcing on the CD74 I was expecting a super-creamy sound but was slightly disappointed in that respect. Its insides look somewhat like that of the Philips CD304MKII* and indeed it also sounds a bit like that player with respect to all out slam and drive. In fact, the CD74 also has the same drive and speed as the CD304MLKII; a sense of momentum that many other players in this test lack. But it has better treble and is way smoother and refined than the CD304MKII. Ultimately though it still lacks subtlety and air compared to the newer players here. It is a bit coarse but makes up for this with unbridled enthusiasm and a real sense of drive and raw emotion.
*to be more exact: The CD74 probably resembles the CD304 more, as it shares many similarities designwise but I didn't have that player around for comparison.
CD85
Much, much better than the other two players, the CD85 reminds me of the fabulous CD94MKII with good speed and drive, fine dynamics as well as super-refined and utterly smooth and fluid treble. Bass is full and fast enough but can be a little soft. The CD85 easily beats the CD80 with the latter sounding confused and blurry in comparison. Also, the CD85 sounds much more authentic and real, showing the CD80 to have a somewhat synthetic signature.
As a transport - digital coaxial outputs into the Levinson 360S DAC
CD80
Used as a transport, the CD80 achieves much better results, now freed from most of the blur in the bass and the overall vagueness. It now has more drive and much better transparency. Used this way the CD80 sounds ever-pleasant, never harsh or agressive and the result is a relaxing, pleasing sound. There's nothing much wrong with it but the CD80 does still lack some power and drive. It is also somehow still just a little synthetic. But that is only really evident after comparing it to the CD85.
CD85
Used as a transport, the differences become even more pronounced, the CD85 now sounding very much like the CD94MKII. From memory, it sounds almost identical to the CD94MKII when used as a transport. Dynamic, well focused, colourful, transparent, airy and with that ever-present super-fluid treble. It's that my Levinson 390S CD player is away for repairs but I think that a direct comparison still wouldn't put the CD85 to shame. Sure, the integrated Levinson would beat the CD85-Levinson DAC combination but if I were to use the Levinson player as a transport the cards may well go to the CD85.
From top to bottom: Marantz CD85, CD74 and CD80
Marantz CD80 and Philips CD880
READ ALSO:
External site with extensive info on Classic Philips and Marantz components
Until now the players were used as integrated players, with their built-in dacs and analog outputs. Comparing them to reference equipment this way is unfair but still the CD880, 960 and CD94MKII were able to produce excellent results. But what would happen if you only use them as transports, taking the digital signal coaxially into the reference dacs?
CD304MKII, CD880, CD960 and CD94MKII as a transport
Naturally I used all players that are equipped with a digital output as a transport in combination with all available DACs. And as it turns out, all CDM1 equipped players have a similar recognisable character although they definitely don't all sound alike. What's more: the differences are so large indeed that you can easily distinguish them in a blind test. How can this be? Well, partially this is probably because of differences in how the servo is incorporated (CDM1 was issued with at least three different servo boards). Also, the power supply has a large influence, even though the transformers themselves are very similar, still the remainder of the power supply (rectification, filtering, regulation etc) differs from player to player. Lastly, the state of the player also has to be taken into account as some of these players are over 20 years old now. Still, there are definite similarities and patterns to be discovered but more on that more below.
All CDM1 transports (CDM1mkII too) sound alike in the way that they all present a super-fluid, almost creamy sound with utterly silky treble. While displaying all these attributes, some players sounded more dynamic and thinner while others sounded more harmonically ripe and full-colour.
The CD304MKII (CDM1) portrayed the same character no matter the connection method: analog or digital. It has most drive and slam of all players here but is also most rough around the edges. Its sound can be ragged, the treble a little coarse and lacking refinement. Also it has less transparency than the other players in this test. As a transport I even found these aspects to grow worse than when using it as an integrated player with its analog outputs.
CD94MKII, CD880 and CD960 all sound very nice as a transport, with the 880 being most airy and refined but lacking real power, fulness and slam. The 880 has similar qualities when used analog or digitally, but it is most relaxed and ethereal when using its built in dac. When used as a transport it turns into the second best transport I have heard with very fine slam and dynamics while remaining utterly fluid and refined. The 960 sounds a lot like the CD94MKII on the aspects of colour and bass fullness but the 960 is more mellow and relaxed and can sometimes be too much zen. Also, it lacks the 94MKI's low level resolution, especially when used with its analog outputs. When used as a transport, the 960 is fine, but I'd rate it below the 880. Sure, it shows the 880 a thing or two about harmonic ripeness but it's just not that engaging except for cd's that are supposed to sound very smooth. The CD94MKII is my reference when used as a transport. Used this way it is so exceptionally good that only the CEC TL1x belt-driven cd transport could beat it. But not by a large margin! The CD94MKII's digital output doesn't overly shout: "I'm a CDM1 transport" but instead shows massive dynamic behaviour and excellent timing, in addition to the usual CDM1 strengths such as treble fluidity and overall musicality. Used with its analog outputs, the CD94MKII reverts to the familiar TDA1541 sound, which is smooth, creamy, relaxed, mellow, slightly vague'n blurry... but still the best of this group and highly emotionally enjoyable!
The players were combined with all dacs that were present but turned out to work best with the DCS equipment
The combination with the Audiomeca dac wasn't the best one: technically the match was excellent, but emotionally I felt it was undercut when compared to the combination with the DCS stack. This is the unpredictable nature of audio. Sometimes a match works out; sometimes not. In case of the Audiomeca I believe that it is more than average sensible to jitter. While the Audiomeca showed excellent dynamics and slam when combined with any of the CDM1 transports, the DCS combo managed to sound more coherent and much more nuanced. It didn't really rock but emotionally it worked better than with Audiomeca. There was a kind of synergy going on that highlighted the CDM1's inherent qualities. The DCS combo did nothing to help the slightly lacking dynamics and drive of some of the players but added to the fluidity, creamyness, gentle smoothness to create an altogether almost analog sound that reminded me of listening to lp. This was a very well-mannered sound. Very civilised and un-digital. But also lacking a little in character, but that's attributable to the DCS as it turned out later when I decided to swap them for Mark Levinson. But that's a whole different story for another article. This slight lack of character, by the way, wasn't present when the players were used with their built in dacs, on the contrary! But then you miss out on transparency, resolution etc.
After this I rushed to see what the Audiomeca Mephisto II transport could add to this, instead of the CD880, CD960 and CD94MKII
Well, that was a disappointment really. Even though the Mephisto II is supposed to be at the pinnacle of cd drive technology and indeed, technically, it was superior, with much better slam and drive, somehow it was less fluid, less, glowing, less open and airy in the treble and sounded just... uninspiring! The unforced and utterly natural, all flowing CDM1 presentation had been treded for a completely boxed-in and boring presentation. How could this be? It happens more often that one aspect of sound discludes another. For example: extreme fluidity prevents ultimate dynamics, and vice versa. Of course there are exceptions but very often it is true. The only instance where the Audiomeca improved upon the various Philipses and Marantzes was when playing rock music or music that is very flat dynamically and its basically rhythm-driven. But when it comes to harmonic rightness, there is no beating the CDM1. The Audiomeca transport on the other hand sounded very nice when combined with its stablemate the Enkianthus dac. Why? Synergy? Less susceptibility to jitter? Who knows.
Naturally the DCS equipment squeezes out more resolution and transparency, better layering and such, but still, the CD880, CD960 en CD94MKII never disappoint and in fact, sometimes manage to evoke more emotion than the DCS combo. The DCS combo is technically superior but somehow is less accomplished at conveying emotion than these old Philips and Marantz players.
Fast forward another month
Later addition to the original review - August 2011
Marantz CD12 LE system (CD12/DA12)
While translating this review into English, and while my Mark Levinson no.390S cd player is away for repairs, I got the CDM1 vibe again and decided it was time to check out the former best Marantz could produce: the CD12 and DA12 combo. I won't go through the lengthy comparisons like I did for the other players above but will try to keep it condensed instead. After all, this review is already getting a bit long...
The CD12 LE (CD12/DA12) is a separate transport/dac combo. Inside are the familiar CDM1 and TDA1541S1 dac, but this time divided over two chassis and with the empty space inside dedicated to making everything more elaborate: a much larger power supply being the most obvious difference. Of course, the connection between the two is by spdif, either optical Toslink of coaxial. I'd always advocate using an integrated player as this almost inevitably results in better coherence and drive while maintaining a relaxed nature. Going via spdif usually means either keeping warmth and smoothness but losing some transient attack and/or PRAT or keeping PRAT but losing some glow and harmonic ripeness in the process. Of course there are exceptions, but thus far I have found that integrated players simply do better - as long as their dacs are up to the job. Somehow, the spdif connection between the CD12 and DA12 doesn't seem to incur the effects described above. The two components sound like one - never agressive, always harmonically right.
Used as a unit, the core sound is reminiscent of that of the Philips CD960 and Marantz CD94 (MK1) in that the sound is extremely creamy and relaxed and harmonically very pleasing. But also in terms of PRAT the CD12 sounds like the players above, as it sometimes sounds too rose-tinted and a little too zen. Switch to using the CD12 transport into any of the present dacs (the Levinson no.360s being the current favorite) and much of its inherent character remains unaltered. But there is much better transparency and low level detail, bass retains the fullness but becomes more nimble and articulate. Treble was and still is absolutely state of the art, having body and fluidity at the same time. The whole effect is of a very analog nature. Sound images are ripe and full yet highly detailed. The CD12 LE combo is already an emotion-machine but in combination with a state of the art dac, the whole is elevated to communicational als emotional levels that are extremely difficult to obtain with modern transports. There's only one downside to the CD12 LE whether used as a combo or as a standalone transport: the overall sound can be somewhat down key and lacking apparent speed and drive. PRAT apparently just isn't its strong suit. Just like with the CD960 and CD94MK1. Therefore it is essential to find the best matching interlinks and give the CD12 first position in the power extensionblock. Beware though: listening to the CD12 can spoil you for other players. Switch to the CD880, CD85, CD80 or any other lesser player and it is painfully evident that they lack harmonic ripeness and in comparison sound empty and gray. Of course that's exaggerating things a little because any CDM1-equipped player already sounds a lot fuller than most modern cd-rom based transport. But stilll, there's something to the CD12... I fear a little for the return of my Levinson. It may be better for PRAT and speed but will it be just as harmonically pleasing?
update 31 october 2011
The Levinson 390s is back from repairs with all new capacitors. It plays faultlessly again, but it seems some of its emotion has tossed out together with its old caps. Sure, this is essentially now partly a new player and it has to be run in again, but in all fairness, it has been switched on for more than a month now and I have to wonder how much of its smoothness was due to the old capacitors' age. Still, I also feel that the CD12 is just so very organic, so smooth and creamy and harmonically complete that even my favorite Levinson 390s cannot keep up, new capacitors or not. That is, unless you start listening to other aspects than tonality. The Levinson is much more dynamic and has much better bass (faster, more articulate and more tuneful while still full and deep). Also, while the CD12 (connected to the Levinson 360S dac) can fill the room with sound widthwise, the 390s cd player also fills the room towards the listener and is more involving, with better reach-out-and-grab imaging.
update 8 december 2011
After running a cheap cd player on repeat into the Levinson 390s' coaxial input for several weeks, finally the player seems to come along. At last it is smooth and fluid again. Whether or not it is entirely back to its old shape I can't tell for sure because I have been spoiled by the CD12 and CD11 in matters fluidity. But emotionally at least, the 390S is back and I would say that it is almost on a par with the best Marantzes here, but if you can forget about soundstaging, bass solidity, rhythmic drive and articulation and are all for relaxation, smoothness and liquid treble, the Marantzes still win. Don't assume however that the Levinson is technical or clinical, it isn't, certainly not when it is well run in.
Marantz CD12 LE system
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1988. New estimated 4000 euro in europe. CDM-1 transport, TDA1541S1 DAC. Ultimate incarnation of the CDM1 and TDA1541S1. This combo excells in presenting music in an utterly smooth, creamy, harmonically ripe manner yet manages to have excellent soundstaging and very fine detailing. Its treble is state of the art. The CD12 used as a transport into a more modern DAC is almost unbeatable, only the CD94MKII challenging it for its better dynamic slam and PRAT but the CD94MKII sounds a lot emptier and more gray in comparison and it cannot match the CD12's organic fullness.
Marantz CD11 LE
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1991. New 4100 euro in europe. CDM-4MD (aluminium) transport, 2x TDA1547 DAC, Dual differential, FET-buffered, transformer balanced XLR outputs. Followup to the less-than-well received original CD11, which itself was the successor of the CD12. The CD11 and CD11LE don't differ on the outside, sporting model "CD11" on both front panels. The differences lie on the inside, where Ken Ishiwate made some component swaps: SAA7310 instead of SAA7210; SM5803AP instead of SAA7321; 2x TDA1547 DAC.
Update 6 november 2011
Marantz CD11LE
I'm not generally a fan of bitstream conversion, but here it has evidently been implemented in a special way. The CD94MKII is more dramatic and more dynamic, but it can't match the CD11LE's low level resolution and overall more highend sound.
Although the CD11 is the CD12's successor, it sounds entirely different. The older player still manages to sound more colourful, more creamy and more harmonically complete. But where the CD12 can sound slow or undynamic and often a bit too ripe in the bass, the CD11 has a nice upbeat sound that's also very involving.
The CD11 was followed by the CD15 which looks very much alike on the inside although large parts are covered by copper plates and I haven't had this player so I can't comment on its sound. Although the CD11LE shares many similarities with the CD16, I find the CD11LE to sound much more upbeat, with better articulation through the bass. Detailing and transparency is quite good while keeping that familiar smoothness and treble air that I have become to love so much about these classic swing arm players. The CD11LE is better with rhythms and percussion while the CD12 is better with slower music and voices. I'd rate both the CD12LE and the CD11LE as the best Marantzes I've heard yet, both having their specific strong sides and both being emotionally highly involving.
Versus Mark Levinson 390S
Bottom line for Levinson versus Marantz: there's nothing that can top the CD12 (used as a transport) in terms of organic, harmonic ripeness and fullness of tone. It is just so very "analog" that way. But its downside is in the bass, which is slower and less articulate than can be. Rhythmic music is less well served by this and it is with more upbeat music that the Levinson is the better player, having better PRAT and involvement. The CD11LE is a new favorite. It threads a fine line between articulation, low level detailing and overall technical excellence on the one hand and smoothness, fulness of tone and fluidity on the other hand. The CD11LE is just very well balanced. The Levinson is more impressive, more 3D, dynamically more expressive while avoiding harshness or sterility. But compared to ultra-rich sounding players such as these Marantzes, it sounds somewhat dry. To put this into perspective: the Levinson sounds much, much smoother, more colourful and tonally richer than my previous Wadia 861.
Ultimately I cannot choose and luckily I don't have to. I just keep all players around, alternating between them, depending on which CD I play and what mood I'm in. I know, I'm just a lucky bastard that way.
Marantz CD84
Added in 2011 after the extensive review was written - only included in some overall comparisons
1984. CDM-1 transport, TDA1540 DAC. No digital outputs. The CD84 sounds noting like its close stable mate the CD74. Where the CD74 is a little rough but highly dynamic, upbeat and lively, the CD84 is much smoother but also slow, thick in the bass, undynamic and sleepy. In order to fix the CD74's transport problem (it sometimes hangs for a few seconds, then resumes) I swapped DAC boards between CD74 and CD84 and found that the sound signature moved along, while accidentally solving the transport problem! See this article for more info.
Philips CD624
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1991. CDM-4/19 transport, SAA7323 Bitstream DAC. Whether or not it is due to the swing-arm mech inside or not, even though this was originally a cheap player, just like the other swing-arm mech-equipped players this one sounds ultra fluid, super supple and ever-so refined. It does lack colour, bass drive and overall fullness. It is quite thin and sounds a bit synthetic with some music. The CD850 could be regarded as a better CD624 but it's not just better: it shreds the CD624 to pieces!
Philips CD473
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1988. New around 400 euro. CDM-4/11 ("composite" read plastic) transport, TDA1541 DAC. Like the CD624, this one is almost 100% plastic. You got to admire the extent to which the manufacture goes in order to keep the price low, while maintaining what is basically a fine sound. The CD473 isn't the best Philips there was, but it doesn't sound as synthetic as the CD150 did. Like all swing-arm/TDA1541 equipped players, it sounds full and smooth in the bass, creamy in the midrange and fluid in treble. Yet it is a bit fat and full and lacks the CD94MKII's precision and refinement and the CD84's unbridled enthusiasm. Not the best, but not bad at all.
Philips CD850
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1991, CDM4/19, 2x SAA7321GP. Even though internally this is sort of a better CD624, with same build but more components, this one really surprised me with its super creamy-smooth-luscious midrange and super-silky treble. Bass is big and deep and the soundstage is XXL. This is luxuriousness like I only know it from the CD94, and this is in stock form - no mods! Despite its smoothness and almost loudness-like character, it is very detailed and well-paced. It just never shouts and doesn't do agression, ever.
Philips CD951
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1994. 700 euro new. CDM-9/65 transport, TDA1547 Bitstream DAC. Top of this Philips range at the time, priced accordingly. Inside there's plenty of space but there's a nicely laid out, large circuit board packed exclusively with full size discrete components, no SMD, although the output devices are opamps. By default this player has some tweaks such as damping pads in various places, a power filter and a soft damping ring for the crystal oscillator. This player sounds very confident and upbeat, while retaining all the refinement, fluidity and airyness that I always associate with swing arm mechanisms. It has deep, quick, articulate bass but doesn't have all the colour or full character of the best players here and can sometimes sound a little bit too controlled/accurate, rendering it a less emotional listen.
Update 23 feb 2012
An interesting sidestep
Nakamichi CDP2
versus
Philips CD732
Marantz CD11LE
Meridian 506.24
Besides Philips and Marantz there were plenty other players that used the TDA1541 DAC but most of them were quickly forgotten. The Nakamichi CDP2 is one of them. There are a few remarks on some forums but that's it. Sure it is a collectors item, but generally people don't think much of this player soundwise. It's that a friend came over carrying it in, otherwise I also wouldn't have given it a second thought. He also brought a CDM12-equipped Philips CD732 bitstream player. The players were compared to my reference (in classic cd player terms) Marantz CD11LE, as well as to the once again resident Meridian 506.24.
The Nak may have the holy TDA1541 on board but it has a cheap looking Japanese linear mechanism, which looks to be a Sony. In spite of this, it produces a rich and full sound. This is a very soothing sound, reminding me of the CD94MKII in stock form, but even more creamy and at the same time more modern sounding. A wonderful combination. The Nak isn't the most transparent or detailed though and it is easily beaten by even the simplest Philips on these aspects. But what counts (in my book) is musicality and on that terrain it is a winner. The player just sounds very enjoyable and is easy to listen to.
Compared to the Marantz CD11LE the Nak sounds a bit wooly and slow, and also a lot less transparent. But however luxurious and smooth the CD11LE may be, the Nak beats in in that aspect. Mind you: the CD11LE is my reference for all classic Marantzes so that is a fair achievement! Still, it depends on the recording which of the players sounds best. Sometimes it is the CD11LE, sometimes the CDP2.
Compared to the Philips CD12 equipped CD732... well, that's a weird comparison because these are two extremely different players. The CD732 is fast, open, dynamic, foot tapping, but threadbare and a but gray. So, no comparison really.
Compared to the Meridian 506.24 (also CDM12/VAM1202 variant-equipped) it is a different story. The Meridian is also firmly in the smooth, creamy, richly saturated camp but even though it has similarities to the Nak, it beats that one on all accounts: it is more detailed, has better soundstaging and focus and sounds more harmonically correct, it just sounds more complete. Still, they make similar music and I'd almost call the 506.24 a better Nakamichi CDP2.
Philips CD732
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1993. CDM-12.1 transport, Bitstream DAC (version TBC). Not even half-filled on the inside, with a simple transport and even simpler output stage, still this player sounds mightily entertaining. It isn't the smoothest or most colourful around, nor does it have the swing-arm-typical fluidity and refinement in the treble, but it makes up for this with a full and rhythmic bass and unbridled enthusiasm while avoiding to sound synthetic.
Philips CD732 with modifications: after the owner replaced many capacitors inside, the soundstage grew enormously, also layering and focus within the soundstage was all of a sudden almost on a par with the Levinson 390S, and even thouugh it didn't become a CD850, it also did gain some colour. Not the most emotional/dreamy player here, but with or without these mods, this is the neutral player to beat.
Amongst these high end digital components, there are still 2 classic cd players in the racks, with good reason: even in the company of the CEC super transport and dcs converters they aren't entirely beaten. What's more: the have some special qualities that are rare in digital these days.
Especially the Marantz CD94MKII is very seductive: already very good when used as an integrated player (without external DA converter), but almost unbeatable when used as a transport.
Christiaan Punter
CONCLUSION:
People who love a rich, natural, creamy-smooth and fluid soud and are not concerned with the most sharply-etched details or most "impressive" sound, could very well be very happy with some of these players. No matter that they're over 20 years old; most still play without any problems. What's more: I've not encountered a single player that doesn't play CD-R's. Not only are the best of these players unbelievably "analog" sounding; the CD94MKII in particular, when used as a transport into a highend dac such as the Levinson 360S, DCS Delius/Purcell or Audiomeca Enkianthus, is simply almost unbeatable. I found that only the CEC TL1-x beat it. And at what cost!
After the CD94MKII, I found the Philips CD880 very nice, as well as the Marantz CD85. The 880 has super transparency, and an airiness and fluidity through the treble that even challenges the CD94MKII sometimes, although the 94MKII is again smoother and overall better integrated and coherent, not to mention that it has better drive and bass than the 880. The CD85 surprised me though. Lauded by many to be a mediocre player at best, I found it to deliver much of what the CD94MKII offered. But that's from memory. Judging from memory, I'd say that the CD85 has similar bass, drive and dynamics but falls short in the treble, where the CD94MKII I think was better. But what I didn't expect was that the CD85 beat the CD80 on all fronts. Also, when used as a transport, the CD85 offered everything I remember the CD94MKII capable of.
Next, the Philips CD960 is very nice too. It sounds a lot like the Marantz CD94 (not MKII) and it should as it is basically the same machine. Do take note: the CD960 can sound a little over-smooth and over-relaxed. The same is true of the CD12/DA12, even when used as a transport. It is as if the CD94, CD960 and CD12 are cut from the same cloth which is a very nice, very smooth and absolutely grain-free delivery but one that can be too much of a good thing. If you want more speed and drive, go for the CD880 or better still, the CD94MKII. The CD94MKII doesn't have the CD12's super creamy smoothness and harmonic ripeness but it is much more dynamic and lively.
Incidentally, the DA12 is very, very nice when combined with a computer source: it's almost like it instills almost as much CDM1-ness as the transports themselves... In the end: CDM1 and TDA1541 obviously do some things very, very well.
Lastly, the CD11LE deserves a special note. Together with the CD12LE it is one of my favorites, bettering the CD94MKII's analog output by quite a large margin. The only thing that could be considered missing from the CD11LE is the bass fullness and drive of the CD94MKII or the ultra rich and organic tone of the CD12LE.
ps: this review will be continuously updated, whenever I have obtained yet another Marantz or Philips classic, so please visit back every now and then!
Even in this superlative setup the Marantz and Philips classics still perform very well and actually compete strongly on several aspects, even when compared directly to the Levinson and Wadia players.
Top to bottom:
Philips CD732
Nakamichi CDP2
Marantz CD11LE
Meridian 506.24
Philips CD614
Added in 2012 after the extensive review was written - not included in overall comparisons
1991. New around 300 euro. CDM-4/19 ("composite" read plastic) transport, Dual TDA1543 DAC, which is somewhat like a miniature TDA1541. Again here is a 99% plastic super-lightweight player but it packs a swing arm mechanism and makes surprisingly refined sounds. In fact, this player sounds so very fine that I can listen to it all day without feeling like I'm missing anything other than the bass, which is decidedly thin and lacks power and punch. Apart from the thin bass and being somewhat less than lifelike, this is a very fluid and delicately detailed player. It can also easily be upgraded by sticking Vibraflex vibration reduction sheets anywhere where there's space and disconnecting the headphone output. This makes the player sound fuller, more dynamic and more solid and you will love its sound, until you start comparing to dearer models such as the CD94MKII and the CD11LE. Soundwise (with mods), despite multibit dac, I'd place it closer to the CD624, CD951 and partially the CD11 than the CD94 and all other older multibit players. It's a real nice balance of the classic sound and a more modern sound, of subtlety and musicality. Especially with damping pads applied, IEC inlet installed and headphones disconnected it sounds much more solid and colourful and really becomes THE cheap player to have.
Loading
Find out all about classic and current Jeff Rowland equipment
Streaming, USB, Firewire,
Computer Audio
Current and Classic CD players, Cables, Accessories and more
Galleries, timelines & interiors of fascinating classic equipment
Info, Tips, Tricks and Insights
How to optimise your system
 DEF.jpg)