Older Cd Players vs. new ones

I can definitely generalize about reliability of the newer players, Mrtennis.

As someone who is the importer of a line of CD players, I know what the numbers are. For 2007, 75%+ of the players I brought in were defective in that the Sony transport assembly (laser head, ribbon cable, servo board) either failed to read a disc or had some drawer malady within the first year of operation. Fortunately, we switched to a different Sony plant to get the part from, and the problem seems to have been solved.

But, if you think it's just a function of this company, it's not. Just about all of the high-end audio companies use these same Sony parts, which I obviously consider the achilles heel of the entire hobby. Most players today are simply that Sony transport, a nice case, decent or better power supply, and an output section of the same level as the power supply. To call the part that actually interfaces with the disc junk would be a compliment.

My first CD player, a Pioneer PD5100 that I paid $99 for in 1997 has never failed to operate perfectly. Unfortunately, the days of most of us using this sort of player are long gone in favor of today's offerings by the niche companies that serve us. It used to be gigantic companies with the necessary R&D, testing, and development funding to build a CD player the right way ruled. No more.

I'll genearlize again, and say that in my opinion, the Pioneer does not sound nearly as good as today's offereings, but a functioning CD player always sounds better than one that doesn't work.

If I were in the market, I'd either buy a high-end player that doesn't use the typical Sony transport assembly, or buy something like the $99 Samsung universal I picked up at Best Buy, and spend my money on pairing it with a real good sounding DAC.

Interestingly, I just picked up a copy of Stereophile from 1986 on ebay and it has a shootout between cd vs. vinyl. It concludes that cd is vastly superior to the best vinyl available at the time. This is close to first generation cd they are talking about. So how can I now believe that new cd players are much better than older cd players when we keep hearing how horrible cd was back then from this same publication?

I have an Andromeda (Simaudio). It has the 1704uk chips as does my older Simaudio Eclipse. Andromeda is more dynamic. Eclipse still sounds very good. Andromeda increases dynamics, detail, residual grunge, and improves balance. Units reliable, expensive though. Pilips transport.

I also have Linn Karik Numerik. It sounds good too. 1994 vintage. I think it has the 1702 chipset. Less detail, dynamics, still has orchestral layering. I need to sell the Karik Numerik sometime. I think it is superior to current players above $1000. (It cost over $5000 originally).

When I replaced a 20 year old JVC CD player (still worked, made in Japan c1988, $300) with a Cambridge 640c (made in China 2008, $750), the improvement was not overwhelming. The CA was definitely better in every way, but not the leap I expected.

I think the reality is that while technology has raced ahead, build quality of the moving parts (transport, laser etc) has gone backwards with the move from away from Japanese precision to Chinese mass production.

While I don't pretend to have the depth of experience or knowledge of dacs and transports recently I came across a Yamaha CD-1. I believe a cdp is more than super dacs and processing power. That's only a small part of the whole. 
Having had a few CD players in my time I can attest to this cdp sweetness and clean play back without the sterilization that some have. 
Taken to the extreme look at today's cheap blue ray players. The CD spins so fast one can feel the vibration throughout the plastic housing. 
There's something to be said about adding mass to a cdp and separation of components. 
So maybe one day I'll have a shootout between this and Yamaha CD S3000 but for now I'm thoroughly happy with this gear. 
Cheers.