A friend of my told me a couple months back that CEC introduced a new version of their top of the line transport. It was kind of strange as CEC was abandoning to manufacture TL0 for years, or it was at least what they were claiming. Then I thought that apparently the “success” of SACD and DVD-A is so huge that to continuing manufacturing the TL0 made sense for CEC. The original version of TL0 was replaced by TL0-II in 2001 I believe and it was a very positive step up. Now they introduced the TL0-X, that fact that reasonably picked my queasily. 

This morning a visitor of my site sent me a link to 6moons’ article that was published in November of 2005 by a gentleman named Linnman. I do not know who he is but I printed the review (do not like read form the screen, unless it is code) and was very enthusiastic to LEARN about the CEC TL0-X.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/cec/cec.html

After reading the Linnman’s article I realized that I not only did not satisfy my curiosity but instead I have more question then I had initially.  Linnman said: “This is by no means an in-depth review”. He was correct but it was not a review at all but just a public announcement that he bought the transport and that he had no events in his brain before or after he did it. At least he failed to indicate those brain events in his writing. I wonder how much the Linnman’s review would be changed in he would use a global replace function and substitute CEC TL0-X with any other CD transport? I do not this that it will be changed at all as in his  “review” there was NOTHIONG said about the actual CEC TL0 but rather about a generic “other transport”.  Furthermore, what was said in this “review” was inconsistent and self-contradicting.

Linnman complain that TL0-X has problems to present ambience information. For an individual who decided to write reviews it should be known that ambience suppression primary comes along with upper bass deficiency, would it be ether amplitude or harmonic. I wonder how a person who uses those thin and suffocated Kharma loudspeakers along with their insulting performance in mid-bass region decided to evaluate a performance of CD transport in upperbass? Did his Kharma sound with TL0-X in fact how it SHOULD SOUND: thin, slim, digital and non-ambienic? Then Mr, Linnman bring up that he prefers Zanden, but Zanden is well known as juts a “lower mid-range pusher” with no lower bass, no articulation, no HF, no transient no any other efforts in the areas where the TL0-II has absolutely no competition. In fact I personally feel that Linnman was wrong  even try to use TL0 with his playback as I have seen many time before, even more capable then Linnman’s playback installations, as the TL0 literally took those installations apart.

There is one more point. For a proper reproduction of upper bass it is necessary to couple it with room via the lower bass. In the lower bass TL0 has no competition but was Linnman able to use it? The Kharma speakers (with their idiotic hyper-excursion when their bass voice coils jump out of the magnetic linearity) should not be used for bass and should be high-passed. For the morons who do not understand and do not hear the Kharma’s upper-bass problems Kharma introduced a remedy: the Kharma active subwoofer. The purpose of this subwoofer is to mask out the distortions that Kharma main speakers produce, convincing listeners that a LF noise that they hear is in fact is Bass. (The idiots from Kharma meant to use their active subwoofer line-parallel with main amplifiers and they to “simplify” the task made the input impedance on their subwoofer… 5kOhm(!!!!). What could be better!)  As far as I concern Linnman should not be use TL0 with his playback and CEC TL1 or TL51X would be way better fit for his insulation. CEC TL1 has no lower bass and nicely overly-prominent upper bass, it is slow and fluent (would be a nice balance for the moronic ceramique drivers), and TL1 never go into any dangers territories where extra capacity from the rest playback would be required.

In the end, it was unfortunate that neither I nor anyone else learned about the TL0-X from this review. We have no idea why CEC introduced the new version. We have no idea why they return the optical out stage (as I am sure that anyone who uses this level would not go TOSLINK). We have no idea “how” and “if” the TL0-II’s problems were addressed in the TL0-X. I personally do not care bout the TL0-X and would not take it even if it was given to me as a gift: is not back and therefore for me all bids are off. However, purely educational, I would like to learn what was in the CEC’s mind when they did their new version, if they have anything in their minds beside that fact that it was “a time for a new model”. What I have unfortunately learned form the 6moon review  that Mr., Linnman did not have a lot in his mind when he wrote his “by no means an in-depth review” about the CEC TL0-X.

http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/cdplayer/tl0x/tl0x_e.html

If anyone could figure the details about the TL0-X form their Japanese site then please let me us/me know.

Well, for the sake of objectively I have to mention that I received an email from the guy who runs 6moons.com Srajan Ebaen, who informed me that in should be blamed myself in Moronity as the TL0-X’s was not a "review" but was listed as a "preview". I really did nit know what it would mean and where it was listed as a “preview”. Here was nothing in the article that would identify it as a “preview”. Then I spent some time navigating the Ebaen’s site (for a first time, as previously I visited it only as via the direct links) and confirm that Ebaen was correct.

TL0-x is listed in the “Preview” section. From the headed of the section:

“When shopping for new components, timing can be of the essence. Here you find previews of components prior to completed listening impressions. Think cliffhanger-style TV programming to whet your appetite for more. Once these reviews are finalized, they move into the "Current Reviews" gallery farther down the page.”

Well, it probably means that sometime in future, someone with more capable playback installation, the installation that would be able to handle TL0, would write something more sensible about this transport.  I look forwards to educate myself.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

An email from a visitor:

I own the CEC TL0x (since late 2005).  I had no choice in the matter, since the TL0 Mk. II was by then out of production.  As far as I can determine, there were several factors behind the decision to market a TL0x.  First, CEC celebrated its 50th anniversary, and the TL0x is therefore silver, as opposed to the black TL0 Mk. II.  Second, the maker of the laser pickup for the Mk. II had apparently stopped making this model. CEC was therefore forced to use another laser pickup model, and this meant two things:  (a) the CEC now reads CDRs, and (b) a new servo board was needed.  Third, there are apparently tweaks and changes to the suspension.  Like you, I don't (sonically) understand the decision to replace an ST output by an inferior TOSLINK output, but I guess this was simply a practical decision:  the ST interface hasn't exactly taken the digital world by storm since ten years ago, and the TOSLINK interface is much more common.  Anyway, I use the AES interface (XLO Limited Edition).  As far as I can judge, not being an owner of the Mk. II, the x version is the same otherwise, and (judging from your comments on the Mk. II's sound) sounds very much the same as the Mk. II"

From one of my replies: “…the level of TL0’s performance is higher then a capacity of an average high-end and therefore this transport will be hugely misunderstood in reviewing press.”

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

CEC TL-0 MKII vs. CEC TL-0X

I still wonder if MKII CEC TL-0 made its penetration to consumers and if are there any information about its advance over the CEC TL-0X model. I wonder who destitute the CEC in US? I kind of love the TL-0 a lot. I feel that it is the only know to me CD source that has a metronomes bolt in and the can actually truly accent musical rhythm. It would be interesting to know what CEC did in their MKII model.

At the time when I published my bitching bout the Linnmann's damn article at 6moons Srajan Ebaen informed me that I should not be so demanding as it was “preview” not a “review” and the full review of the CEC TL-0 MKII was coming. I never thought that there is a difference in Moronity between the 6moons’ preview and review…

Anyhow, almost 2 years later there is still not noise about the CEC TL-0 MKII and of courses there is not follow up “review” from Mr. Linnmann, not matter how damn would it be. I am still curios what the MKII of CEC TL-0X was all about…

A site’s visitor today send me a kink to:

http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/CEC/CEC%20TL-1X.html

He advised: “The output board in TL0 is exactly the same as TL1”. I wonder if anybody else tried it. I do not have a lot of credibility to the lampizator guy, he is are just DEYer who has very little sense of actions (in my view). So, it would be interesting to know a few more opinions.

I actually find this guy interesting compared to most of the watered-down, suck-up drivvel out there.

I have not read enough of his stuff to be able to pronounce on any bases for his "rankings", but it looks like he at least has some idea of what he is looking at and what he is listening to in the very isolated sense of sound, per se; ie, he at least appears to relate electronics to shaping sound to a particular, preconceived end.

Of course it's a quantum leap from there to facilitating music; but I admit that I have found some very useful information at sites like this, once I get to the point where I can "read past" the contexts/criteria established by the authors, themselves.

This takes me back to my "It Takes Balls to Shop" thread  http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3353, which dealt with navigating sites (and dealing with weird-os) like this.

But, Crossing the Pond for Samsonite....???


Best regards,
Paul S

I do not know the Lapmpizator but from what I have seen at his site I would not invest a lot into his assessment of sound.  Those people, like most of those audio-DIY people, do not any sonic objectives and their actions are just a series of endless differences and building up theories to about those differences. Their audio actions unseals have very little references any cultural listening and therefore they have little significance.  Saying that, I do not insist that Lapmpizator is wrong in case of CEC’s  SPDIF. However, I do not think that he has understanding or requirements to sound to interpret his own findings in context of everything else.  I might be mistaken but this the impression that I got.

The CEC TL1 is very soft sound player, Lapmpizator right about it. The CEC TL0 has the identical output board with the same way to take SPDIF out bit it has no signs of the TL1’s softener – it fact it is brutally-hard transport. It also has bass that nothing even remotely closed to TL1. So, this is why, although the “theories” of Mr. Lapmpizator might make senses but I do not know what it means in term of practical sound.

BTW, I would like to note that there are two other sources that work on TL0.

Reference Audio Mods from California claim that they “upgrade “ the TL0

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=CECMods&Category_Code=MODS&Product_Count=0

Those guys are a bit “out of range” as they do not do modifications that make sonic sense but they juts sell the “installed parts.” If tomorrow some another stupid tweaker company would sell dead rats’ testacies as an “audio  tweak” then the Reference Audio Mods will pile 43245 dead rats testacies in each upgraded transport.

Another source is in Russia – in St. Petersburg.

There is a company in there- SPB Sound that does some modifications. Here is the translated page:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fspbsound.narod.ru%2FSPbSound%2Fupgrade%2FCEC_TL0.html&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The images are clickable. I have no idea what they intend and end up with it sonically. However, it is good the their CEC TL0 can read any disks now. I would like to have this bug to be fixed on my TL0 as it is VERY capriccios  reader.

A site visitor took the Lapmpizator idea on and did what the Lapmpizator proposed.  He found that sonically Lapmpizied CEC  was “bit annoying and thin sounding” and the default configuration “produced sounds that are better defined in space.  Measurement-wise the Lapmpizator was “correct” BUT measured the unloaded output. What the CEC output was loaded then when it output a perfect square wave in it’s default configuration. So, it looks like it was very false alert.

It was semi predictable as CEC took some measures that suggest that they are not idiots. The put the clock right next to the output stage. I have some digital guys to explained to me the advance of this configuration in case the  transport is used with DACs that do not re-clock but read that samples from the SPIDIF line and tune slave itself to them (like my Bidat does).