What do u think about this CD Player??

[VintageTurntable]

It's a KENWOOD 5 Disc Carousel CD Changer with a gold headphone jack Model # DP-R6070 appears to be TOTL. The best CDP I have ever owned & heard. What do you think? It has all kinds of features on it. I even have the original KENWOOD Remote Control for it.

[pixelthis]

It's a KENWOOD 5 Disc Carousel CD Changer with a gold headphone jack Model # DP-R6070 appears to be TOTL. The best CDP I have ever owned & heard. What do you think? It has all kinds of features on it. I even have the original KENWOOD Remote Control for it.

SAW it in your gallery.
Whats to think about?
A old, used CD player that was at best midlevel when new.
Kenwood was a serious company, then in an effort to surrive went mass market.
The quality of their equipment depends on when it was made, the earlier the better,
basically.
BTW most of those "five disc" changers are mass produced by third parties to the spec
of a paticular customer, your CD changer was probably made alongside a Technics,
JVC, etc, with certain features added at Kenwoods request.
For instance, a RCA five disc at RADIO SHACK once had the identical faceplate of
a YAMAHA five disc that I used to own.
Most of these generic players are quite good, however.:1:

[bobsticks]

Pix's reply is generally accurate but if it's givin' you the goods then God bless...

...I'm more interested in that Tandberg Reel-To-Reel, betcha get some beautiful sounds out of that assuming it's still operational.

[VintageTurntable]

Yep the Tandberg R2R is in mint or even better condition works like new.

[VintageTurntable]

What do u think about Kenwood in general? CD Changers are nice. I wouldn't say Mid Level only the more exspensive ones have gold Headphone Jacks & fully loaded with features. I have a 1970's KENWOOD Stereo Receiver KR-4070 really impressed with it!!

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah, the Kenwood changer is mid level at best. If it's the best you've heard you need to get out more. Gold headphone jack and features mean nothing to sound quality. With that being said Kenwood has made some good players. In CD infancy they made a DP-1100 that I thought was awesome. Not very reliable but when working had a nice analog sound which was rare then. I owned a DP-3300d which was light years beyond Kenwood's typical consumer gear. The 3300 was only 16 bit and ran circles around their new top of the line 20 bit. The 3300 being a couple years old at that time.

[dakatabg]

What do u think about Kenwood in general? CD Changers are nice. I wouldn't say Mid Level only the more exspensive ones have gold Headphone Jacks & fully loaded with features. I have a 1970's KENWOOD Stereo Receiver KR-4070 really impressed with it!!


In the 80's Kenwood was making very good stuff and slowly with the time they started going down and down. They have very nice power amplifiers and preamps. I own a lot of Kenwood gears and I am very happy with them! The KR-4070 is rated 40wpc.

[poppachubby]

I'm personally a vintage CDP fan. In general most people believe that older CDPs should be bound for the dump...not so. I have limited experience with Kenwood CDPs, although I have high opinions about their older amps and such. My Basic C1 will be with me in the grave.

If you want to check out some excellent vintage CDPs, look no further than Philips/Marantz/Magnavox. My $6 thrift store Magnavox can give many a CDP a run for the money in terms of detail and presentation. I have pitted it against a couple of NAD Bee players and a couple of older Rotel players, it held it's own without issue.

Anyhow, if you're enjoying your Kenwood, that's what counts. There's more fidelity available with the digital format, so visit a hifi shop and check some gear out. But again, if the Kenny does it for you, let them suck lemons!!

[markw]

If all it took to impress you was a gold headphone jack, you're in for a rude awakening.

Times change. Kenwoods were great in the 70's. So were Scott, Fisher, and KLH.

Lurk and learn.

[rob_a]

It's hit or miss. You had really good and really expensive players made back in the 80's and early 90's or you had bad (like my old Sony 5 disk changer from the early 90's, what a piece of cr@p that thing was). I have learned to look past all the pretty stuff and look for what's under the hood. But im not knocking Kenwood or your player. Their stuff used to be good and lasted. Not so much now adays.:frown5:

[VintageTurntable]

That not all it took to impress me the features. My CDP has features not currently on Todays CDP'S like Time Display,Edit,Check.

[markw]

That not all it took to impress me the features. My CDP has features not currently on Todays CDP'S like Time Display,Edit,Check.And these enhance the sound how?

[JoeE SP9]

That not all it took to impress me the features. My CDP has features not currently on Todays CDP'S like Time Display,Edit,Check.

Who cares about about time display? Does it sound better than my modified Marantz CD-63SE or Yamaha DVD-S1800, both using digital out to an MSB Full Nelson DAC? I think not.

If your CDP has a digital out you might want to try a stand alone DAC. It will most likely give you better sound while allowing you to keep that really important display.:cornut:

[Mr Peabody]

Sound quality aside, Kenwood did know how to make a time display. My 3300 would count the song time and disc time both forward and backward. Probably not so important today but came in handy back when I used cassette. Oh, and the track display looked like a calendar, especially with one of those discs with 16 or more tracks that nearly filled up the 20 numbers. I think with the impression that some how the display effects sound manufacturers have gotten away from so much information in the display. Or, maybe some one asked one day, "do we really need all of that?". :)

[RGA]

There's many things vintage that can be very good but CD players frankly have improved dramatically. I realized this in the DAC domain recently when I connected up the Grant Fidelity Tube DAC 09 to my mid 1990's Cambridge Audio (entry level high end) single disc player. The Tube Dac is $300 and other Chinese companies for a time were selling them for $150(with suspect warranty but still). Bottom line - it destroys the Cambridge (Which was $800 at the time).

Even within the same company progression can be staggering. I am currently reviewing a new one box player from Audio Note which beats up their older more expensive series 3.1 which I didn't think could really happen.

If the Kenwood has a digital output you could add an external DAC to try out (borrow one from a dealer for a weekend) and then you can hear for yourself that a good new DAC or CD player will probably beat the best ~1990 players. Of course there were plenty of players from that era that had uber built transports - but the DAC (the guts of the thing) have been improved.

[poppachubby]

There's many things vintage that can be very good but CD players frankly have improved dramatically. I realized this in the DAC domain recently when I connected up the Grant Fidelity Tube DAC 09 to my mid 1990's Cambridge Audio (entry level high end) single disc player. The Tube Dac is $300 and other Chinese companies for a time were selling them for $150(with suspect warranty but still). Bottom line - it destroys the Cambridge (Which was $800 at the time).

Even within the same company progression can be staggering. I am currently reviewing a new one box player from Audio Note which beats up their older more expensive series 3.1 which I didn't think could really happen.

If the Kenwood has a digital output you could add an external DAC to try out (borrow one from a dealer for a weekend) and then you can hear for yourself that a good new DAC or CD player will probably beat the best ~1990 players. Of course there were plenty of players from that era that had uber built transports - but the DAC (the guts of the thing) have been improved.


All this talk of beating and besting...are we talking about RBCD here? Sure there have been wondrous improvements, so that means that what came before is now no good?

I'll be watching for your 3.1 at the thrifts Rich.

[RGA]

This is RBCD I am referring to. Oddly, in the case of AN cd replay they are one of the only makers who actually make the original CD player initial design - they just make it a lot better. The first cd players were zero times oversampling no filters but had serious problems (largely because the makers cheaped out). Then came a series of error corrections and ways to "smooth" out the sound via oversampling, error correction (which is essentially a type of feedback) and adding filters that would hack off all sound above 22khz and their effects on frequencies that may ripple off those frequencies in the audible spectrum.

I don't own an AN cd player - frankly I am envious of people who don't hear the vast improvements in this digital replay that I hear, because they can generally afford the stuff they like while I can't afford most of the stuff that I think is at an elite level and never will. Though I can get somewhere in the ballpark on my budget I suppose - eventually.

[poppachubby]

I don't own an AN cd player - frankly I am envious of people who don't hear the vast improvements in this digital replay that I hear, because they can generally afford the stuff they like while I can't afford most of the stuff that I think is at an elite level and never will. Though I can get somewhere in the ballpark on my budget I suppose - eventually.

I'll give you this, I am not passionate about digital. Hearing the new Marantz SACD has raised my interest quite a bit. Obviously hi-rez is the way of the future for digital. In this format I hear some of the qualities that analog posesses, and I like.

RBCD? Vintage player will do me fine. You aren't alone in your opinions, I get flack from everyone on this topic. Of course, visit Audio Karma and I am worshipped as a vintage CDP god.

I do have limits, and tastes, with regard to what I think is a good sounding, older player. I would certainly pass on the majority.

[thekid]

I'll give you this, I am not passionate about digital. Hearing the new Marantz SACD has raised my interest quite a bit. Obviously hi-rez is the way of the future for digital. In this format I hear some of the qualities that analog posesses, and I like.

RBCD? Vintage player will do me fine. You aren't alone in your opinions, I get flack from everyone on this topic. Of course, visit Audio Karma and I am worshipped as a vintage CDP god.

I do have limits, and tastes, with regard to what I think is a good sounding, older player. I would certainly pass on the majority.

Don't worry Pops I will stand with you regarding older CDP's. My two Denon's (1500 and 1800) can hang with many of the newer players out there today.

The OP's Kenwood dates from around 97-98 so it is not like it is from the stone age. As mentioned in a couple of threads the R3080 that I have which is a few steps down from the unit that the OP asked about is a decent player. Not in the league of the 2 Kenwood CDP's that Mr. P mentioned but it listenable.

[Mr Peabody]

We should not speak in such a wide scope, vintage versus new, it depends on the player. A good player will always be a good player within reason and entry level will always be entry level new or vintage. For instance, an Arcam Alpha 9 is getting long in the tooth but you'd still have to pay a good price to find something better. Of course, retail was $1500.00 or so. So if you can pick up any of these gems at a good price it's better than a new player up to a certain point. Another thing about vintage the lasers and certain other parts of these players only last so long, so a CDP is not like an amp or good speaker that will last for 25 years. I'd say if you have one last ten you are doing good.

[thekid]

We should not speak in such a wide scope, vintage versus new, it depends on the player. A good player will always be a good player within reason and entry level will always be entry level new or vintage. For instance, an Arcam Alpha 9 is getting long in the tooth but you'd still have to pay a good price to find something better. Of course, retail was $1500.00 or so. So if you can pick up any of these gems at a good price it's better than a new player up to a certain point. Another thing about vintage the lasers and certain other parts of these players only last so long, so a CDP is not like an amp or good speaker that will last for 25 years. I'd say if you have one last ten you are doing good.

Agreed. Despite the quality of sound you often are living on borrowed time regarding the laser on older CDP's......

[hifitommy]

a sony dvd player capable of sacd will make RBCDs sound better than most others and certainly for the money. there are numerous VERY affordable sonys that are available that will fit that bill. the marantz 6001 also is affordable and sounds VG and also does dvda.

CERTAIN vintage units sound pretty good, like the original magnavox player i got at Target for $140 back in the day. it stood head and shoulders above the technic players of the day. it images, its clear, and has good depth without harshness.

some of the philips/magnavox units with digital out can be paired with an outboard d/a for good results if more money.

[RGA]

I'll give you this, I am not passionate about digital. Hearing the new Marantz SACD has raised my interest quite a bit. Obviously hi-rez is the way of the future for digital. In this format I hear some of the qualities that analog posesses, and I like.

RBCD? Vintage player will do me fine. You aren't alone in your opinions, I get flack from everyone on this topic. Of course, visit Audio Karma and I am worshipped as a vintage CDP god.

I do have limits, and tastes, with regard to what I think is a good sounding, older player. I would certainly pass on the majority.

In some respects I consider myself a vintage guy - a new vintage guy. If you look at my system it is largely made up of pieces that are ALL vintage. My turntable is an Audio Note so it is new - but it is based on the SystemDek IIS with a new upgraded motor and dual motors instead of one - but it is arguable that it is a hot rodded Systemdek (a vintage turntable).

The speakers are AN J but they are basically hotrodded Snell Type J's which were designed by the famous acoustician and opera house designer L.L. Berankek in 1940 - that's vintage just revamped.

The amp is a SE tube - I don't know if we can call that vintage but the OTO was designed by Guy Adams the creator of Voyd Turntables in the early 1990. Anything tube in some sense at least has vintage leanings.

And AN's digital uses a 1543 16 bit DAC and an 1865 chip in their top of the line which are positively as old school as it gets for cd players. Right back to the basics.

Shows are fun and highly informative - but actually get a SACD to play with in your house along with the an Audio Note or Zanden cd player. I bet your view will change. I also think you'll find that the Marantz/Paradigm stuff won't hold up. In 20-30 minute session where one room plays exciting music and the other plays Muzak can give a very different impression of what is truly going on.

Take my comments on some rooms - if they had played better music with a pulse my reaction may have been different. Avalon speakers at $47,000 sounded pretty boring to me - I mean REALLY boring but they get some high raves so I put a rather diplomatic comment on the room. I didn't get on them too much because I've never heard them before and the music selection would bore the dead. The next show I will bring my own collection and really push the envelope and drive gear hard. Unfortunately for Avalon - they could in fact be "amazing" loudspeakers with tremendous thunder and nuance but they were certainly the antithesis of exciting.

[poppachubby]

CERTAIN vintage units sound pretty good, like the original magnavox player i got at Target for $140 back in the day. it stood head and shoulders above the technic players of the day. it images, its clear, and has good depth without harshness.

some of the philips/magnavox units with digital out can be paired with an outboard d/a for good results if more money.


aaaahhhhhhhh...music to my ears. My Magnavox CDB-482 has a great overall sound and is hugely detailed. I am quite content with it. I think alot of people have a hard time getting their heads around that fact.

My goal, if you must know, is hopefully a Philips CD 960 / Mission XX-xx / Marantz CD-84/94....modified with a tube circuit and NOS ability.

[poppachubby]

And AN's digital uses a 1543 16 bit DAC and an 1865 chip in their top of the line which are positively as old school as it gets for cd players. Right back to the basics.


Indeed Rich, our tastes are similar. My Magnavox uses a 1543 with 4 times over sampling. I use a NOS 1543 for my comps digital output. It's truly a wonderful chip.

[RGA]

We should not speak in such a wide scope, vintage versus new, it depends on the player. A good player will always be a good player within reason and entry level will always be entry level new or vintage. For instance, an Arcam Alpha 9 is getting long in the tooth but you'd still have to pay a good price to find something better. Of course, retail was $1500.00 or so. So if you can pick up any of these gems at a good price it's better than a new player up to a certain point. Another thing about vintage the lasers and certain other parts of these players only last so long, so a CDP is not like an amp or good speaker that will last for 25 years. I'd say if you have one last ten you are doing good.

That's a good point. Consumer Reports claimed that the average life of all CD players is 7 years not including DOA. So of course some players will die in 8 months and some will last 20 years. You never really know but if you are buying used I would be leary on buy a cd player over about 3-4 years unless it has a very robust transport. My Cambridge Audio CD 6 while a budget player uses the DiscMagic transport mechanism from their separates package. The player is something like 13 years old and runs perfectly. I have been through 4 dvd players in that time and an LD machine that all got less use. And I bought a closeout demo unit that was "on" all day in day out for a couple of years getting heavy use

If money is the thing - I would buy a relatively cheap cd player and spend the most money on an an external DAC. The External DAC has no moving parts should last as long or longer than amplifiers. Then if you don't spend much on a cd player then if they break down every 3 years it's not breaking the bank.

I paid something like $200 for a Sony 300 disc changer - add a DAC you get all the features under the sun and the sound quality of the DAC. While transports make a difference at these prices the money is better spent on the DAC. You can Arcam and Cambridge DAC's for dirt cheap on the used market. In fact Arcam is a bit of a goldmine on the used market. You could pick up Delta 290P power amps for about $200 and they're very nice power amps - you could buy two and run them as monoblocks. Add a 290 integrated and flip the internal switch and you can run it is a preamp. Maybe pick up an older Rega Planet cd player and use it as a transport (they were quite good) and a CA or Arcam dac and you could probably do all of this for $800-$1000 - not too shabby at all.

[RGA]

Indeed Rich, our tastes are similar. My Magnavox uses a 1543 with 4 times over sampling. I use a NOS 1543 for my comps digital output. It's truly a wonderful chip.

I think it's pretty telling how good that chip is when it is in current $3k+ cd players - there is clearly something to them because it actually costs Audio Note more to get these chips in bulk than it would to buy the newest varieties.

[poppachubby]

I think it's pretty telling how good that chip is when it is in current $3k+ cd players - there is clearly something to them because it actually costs Audio Note more to get these chips in bulk than it would to buy the newest varieties.

I have annoyed everyone here enough with my Philips TDA flagwaving. This was the point I ws speaking to in the vintage v modern CDP debate. Sure, the applications are far more advanced now, but I still believe that in general terms, my Magnavox can outplay many lower level CDPs of today. Some of the new NAD players are appalingly harsh IMO, but they aren't the only guilty party.

Today I hooked up my PS2 to my 1543 NOS dac. This inputs to my H/T system. Every cliche regarding this chip came apparent...

[3LB]

My $6 thrift store Magnavox can give many a CDP a run for the money in terms of detail and presentation. I have pitted it against a couple of NAD Bee players and a couple of older Rotel players, it held it's own without issue.
an inconvenient truth for a lot of audiophiles. Truth is, not many people discern the difference twix any price level of CDP when they can't see the brand name.


Anyhow, if you're enjoying your Kenwood, that's what counts. There's more fidelity available with the digital format, so visit a hifi shop and check some gear out. But again, if the Kenny does it for you, let them suck lemons!!
true dat, mon. Like Pixel said, its prolly a rebranded item, but big whoop, if it works, it works.

[pixelthis]

an inconvenient truth for a lot of audiophiles. Truth is, not many people discern the difference twix any price level of CDP when they can't see the brand name.

true dat, mon. Like Pixel said, its prolly a rebranded item, but big whoop, if it works, it works.

(daylight come and me wanna go home):1:

[pixelthis]

ARGUING about CD players has always been fun, in spite of the fact that you can't tell
a dimes' worth of diff between them.
But the argument is especially irrelevant today, what with the CD format nearing its end, with the lifespan of a fruitfly.
So which CD player do you want to sit around and collect dust?
WHICH WILL FILL WITH THE MOST CEMENT and make the best boat anchor?:1:

[hifitommy]

yer funny...looking since you said THAT. get yourself to a doctor for an ear cleaning ASAP.

really pix, you make yourself look foolish when you say stupid things like that. WHAT kind of electronics do you have? it must be LO-FI ir midfi at best. with low end equipment the diffs are fairly obscure.

when you wash the glass, you can see through it better. as you go up the ladder, the electronics get cleaner.

the magnavox may be old and cheap, but it wasnt lo-fi. mine tromped my friend's technics player with BASH technology (great bass i WILL say). the imaging and clarity of the magnavox was a large contrast.

music just sounded more like music with the mag vs the technics. if you go to the sony 5400, you make a chasm from the gap in quality. i enjoy most of that leap with affordable units. it seems the sacd capability enables much better sound from RBCD.

please gain some real experience before embarrassing yourself again.

[poppachubby]

Indeed pix, your position is too extreme. The Magnavox, and anything else containing a TDA 1543 will NOT sound like anything else. Those chips, with minimal filtering, have a rich and wonderful sound to them. A quick comparison reveals a HUGE difference with almost anything you put next to it.

[E-Stat]

But the argument is especially irrelevant today, what with the CD format nearing its end
Only when you limit the discussion to transports. I find that a Pioneer Elite changer does a good enough job of performing those duties in the vintage system. Music servers still require a DAC and an analog stage to drive amplifiers. It is there where I find the largest audible differences. Indeed, newer isn't necessarily better. I use a 15 year old Manley (http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/labDSD.html) that uses an 18 bit DAC and a triode tube output (in lieu of twenty-five cent op amps) with analog gain controls that drives the Threshold amp directly - obviating the need for yet another stage (preamp) in the signal path. Simple can be better.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/f27.jpg

rw

[hifitommy]

i wouldnt hesitate to use tht manley. i fondly remember my firiend's cal sigma. tremendous imaging.

boy, i hope CD doesnt go away as fast as LP has. oh WAIT, vinyl is still with us. hmmmm, you dont SUPPOSE there will be a rbcd renaissance?