New CD player please ? no fatigue thankyou

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello all.

Gee I thought auditioning the Cambridge Audio 840C was going to help complete my
puzzle of getting my dream source player. Upscaling with options to use it as a DAC,
sound very tempting.

Some posts I've read suggest that this player is fatiguing. Grrrrrr...

I have a playstation 3 original which can play SACD. I can tell you all it is allright. I was
told the CD player in it is not that great. Hmmmm.

I guess it would be too much to ask if any of you can suggest a 'non-fatiguing' CD
player. If it can also play SACD then bonus.

Features I'm seeking...

1. Semi decent remote (can't be that hard)
2. XLR out (gives me more options later)
3. Single disc only (not multi CD tray or cartridge)

I basically audtioned the following :

1. NAD Master Series (quite good, the CD player has nothing on the SACD)
2. Cambridge Audio 840C - tried it on both through speakers and headphones, both
sound excellent, most impressive
3. Raysonic CD128 - quite good, looks impressive (too many lights though)

I'm rather short for choice, which was mainly why I waited so many years to upgrade
my amp.

Your thoughts please

[nightflier]

Well, I have an Audio Refinement CD Complete that so far has few equals. It's no longer current (and I bought mine used), but YBA, the parent company, makes excellent players and they would qualify as non-fatiguing. The YC201 CD Player was sold by Audio Advisor for a while, but is now only available through Audio Plus (http://www.audioplusservices.com/ourbrands.html). It's in the same price range as the CA-840c, but you could probably find a used one for much less.

Just curious, can you expand on your eval of the NAD Master series compared to the 840c? Both were players I was considering.

[Mr Peabody]

I was also going to ask what the problem was with the NAD that was a player that came to mind. www.musicdirect.com was also running a special on the Marantz reference SACD player which might fit your bill. It is only 2 channel though.

[JohnMichael]

My vote is for the Marantz SA 8001, I have not heard the new SA 8003. I listen to mine for hours without fatigue. Detailed without aggression and neutral but very slightly warm. Most discs are listneable and the excellent ones are incredible. A good player for all generations of discs.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi all.

Your responses have all been great.

Yeah it's a bit of a problem as I have a bit of a shortage of choices in Western
Australia.

I will make a list thanks to your recommendations and audition them if I can.

I have considered setting up a unit as a music server, then I'd be able to make playlists, which will save me the CD spinning/laser skip issues, plus the server option will keep my CD collection lasting much longer.

Still the only SACD PC card on the market sell for 8K.

I would seriously have to compare my PC/sound card with a CD source. Uncompressed
format technicially should be the near the same quality as the CD itself.

If I can limit the number of inputs I need I will have more options when considering a
new Pre Amp.

Yeah it's frustrating, as you can see I give myself more 'different options' in terms of
set up, but still have limited options in terms of brands and models of components.

I seriously do not like the idea of getting up from my couch every 2 songs to change
CDs to thoroughly enjoy them. The playlist option I can escape in pure relaxation
listening to x-tracks. To be fair the PC sound card playback is quite reasonable.
Music does sound better on my PS3.

[blackraven]

I would consider a DAC like the Monarchy or PSAudio digilink III. They tend to have a warmer sound and have XLR. I would not hesitate to go with the 840c unless you have a brighter sounding system. It has much better detail, resolution, transparency and sound stage than the Marantz 8001 and 8003. The 840c's remote is excellent compared to the Marantz units. I had all three CDP's. If you can live without the XLR, the 740c is very similar in sound to the 840c with the same build quality and same remote.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi Blackraven, thanks for the advice.

As I recall it was yourself who did purchase a 840C then posted months later selling
the unit. From my point of view it feels rather strange regarding advice of a unit one has
also sold. However better to of used it than someone who hasn't. Well I did hear
this player with my old Yam RX-V1300 wired as a pre-amp, the new Xindak power amps
that I will be getting in a few weeks, and great pairs of speakers, at the shop.

I'm almost convinced to get that, but I won't be happy if I find it fatiguging.

I'll have to see if any WA stores stock Digital Link. I like the 840C's capibility to upscale
to 24bit/384ktz.

I have been provided the option of a music server which would save the frustration of
getting off my couch after listening to 2 tracks, just to change CDs. The music server
with a remote would be the ideal situatation.

Will have to see how much they cost, how they perform and which ones can I get here
in Western Australia.

[blackraven]

Ozzie, I regret selling my 840c. The unit does lean a little to the bright side. On most music it was fine but on certain music, mainly rock and blue's it could be a little fatiguing with my equipment. I should have kept it and used it as a transport for my hybrid DAC when listening to bright recordings. I miss the really pristine cymbals and resolution of the unit.
I'll probably buy a used 740c or 840c again in the future to compliment my system.
Over all I'm happy with my hybrid DAC which sounds good with all music.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi br, cheers for the recommendation.

Well I raised the potential point of fatigue of the 840C to the salesman, he said it depends
on the amp, and with the Xindaks it will handle/compensate for anything bright. There is a
return policy which is good. Alturnatively I could bring a few CDs there and play them for
40 mins straight there then find out then. After all the only thing that will be different will be
the speakers. My Dyns would be the very last component which would add to anything
fatiguing. The main reason I can keep on playing music at times.

The 840C would solve my lack of DAC problems. I will easily fill up the 2 inputs. If only
there were 4, I wouldn't have to get a 2-channel pre-amp haha.

I'd still like to consider a music server option due to the practicality and remote control
so I don't have to get up every 2 tracks, change CDs etc.

[luvtolisten]

I'd still like to consider a music server option due to the practicality and remote control
so I don't have to get up every 2 tracks, change CDs etc.[/QUOTE]


Hi,
If you should go that route, (with a music server), I would be interested to know which you go with and why. I an ignorant, when it comes to music servers, and don't know much about them. But I do completely understand your comment about having to get of the couch every 2 songs. It would sure make it a lot more relaxing.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Precisely, personally speaking I luvtolisten to my music at home :p

The playlist option is great, you can set up for example a 100 track one, loop it if you
want, and never needing to get off the couch, unless it catches on fire. All the great
work of relaxing you by listening to 2 tracks is undone every time you get off the couch.

Just how much better is listening directly from the CD player ? Not much if you can
retain lossless format of the same tracks on the server. That will requite 10x as much
more space than mp3 or other compressed formats. If your hi fi is decent enough
you can definately hear the difference between mp3 and CD (assuming the CD is a good
recording).

Who's to say I won't go with both options ? It's not a cost effective one. I have to
at least audition the server and find out how it performs.

I have way too many CDs to not consider a server.

[Mr Peabody]

Ozzie, were you going to stick an outboard DAC onto the server? This would optimize playback. It would be interesting to use the 840 to see if there were any difference in sound to you.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi MrP.

Well it sounds like I'm going to get the 840C no matter what. Problem is it's 2x the price
of a proper music server. I could stick to my PC, but it has no remote. Certain brands of
PC do because Universal remotes can include the remote codes (like serverin HP or DELL
PCs).

Although the Creative Soundlabs sound cards are quite good I see they have released a
"Creative Wireless Receiver". It connects via RCA so yeah not so Audio phile kind of
connects. It emphasises iPod and to be honest they are very good value for money, the
one thing Apple has got right marketwise. This receiver goes for $200.

Something about the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer sounds to be that it colours in the music.

Does that mean DACs pretty much function the same way ? Do they not take away
the authenticity of the original music away ? It's implying one's equipment is just not
good enough to play the source.

To answer my own question, I took a look at DACs, there are various ways that they
function, a form of DAC is the conversion of one sound format to another i.e. cd to mp3.
The common and main solution is "oversampling", however this now opens a new debate
because the newer technology "upsampling" is prefered by some, and not by others.
The 840C is an upsampler.

Typical me, every time I search for 1 answer, I find 2 more questions :confused:

I don't know it looks a little flimsy, maybe I've been conditioned such that if it cannot
overheat and is not too heavy to pick up then it cannot be top notch :lol:

I will open a new thread regarding recommended music servers.

[luvtolisten]

Precisely, personally speaking I luvtolisten to my music at home :p

The playlist option is great, you can set up for example a 100 track one, loop it if you
want, and never needing to get off the couch, unless it catches on fire. All the great
work of relaxing you by listening to 2 tracks is undone every time you get off the couch.

Just how much better is listening directly from the CD player ? Not much if you can
retain lossless format of the same tracks on the server. That will requite 10x as much
more space than mp3 or other compressed formats. If your hi fi is decent enough
you can definately hear the difference between mp3 and CD (assuming the CD is a good
recording).

Who's to say I won't go with both options ? It's not a cost effective one. I have to
at least audition the server and find out how it performs.

I have way too many CDs to not consider a server.


Yes, I agree, the play option is great. I have been playing around with ITunes. Like you, I also have a number of CD's (600-700). A number of them only have one or two songs I like. I have uploaded them all. At first I was using the Windows Vista Media Player, with lossless, but it was burning up my memory like crazy. That's why I switched to Itunes. But being new, I didn't realize Itunes had lossless too, until I got down to the last 50 CD's or so. I don't know why, but even with the lossless, Itunes doesn't seem to use near as much memory as the Window's program. Could it be all the art work is stored on their server?

My system isn't great, but I'm happy with it. I have a HP intel dual core, 4G ram, 500G PC,
A Sony DVD player (about 4 years old), I run them both thru a Cambridge Audio DAC Magic. My receiver is a NAD T754. My speakers are Athena F2's, (floor standing).Paradigm Titians and Wharfedale EVO 10's (on stands). I have a HSU STF-2 sub. The Athena's I use mostly for home theater, I have a small living room and they can be a bit overwhelming sometimes for music. I like both the Paradigms and Wharfedales,for music, they each have their own sound and it's nice to switch between the two, just to hear the same piece a little differently. But yes I can hear the difference between CD's and mp3, although on my system anyway, it's not like night and day. The DAC really helps to improve the sound, and neutralize the difference between the two,somewhat. I play CD's when that's all I'm doing is listening. But there are times when I'm willing to make a trade off, when I'm tired,and use my PC as a source. I can create a playlist on my PC in less than 5 minutes, that will play for hours. I do believe, (and this is just my opinion) the Audio Industry is heading that way. I live in Rochester NY, and I have noticed just the past year, the CD sections in stores are shrinking. The local Kmart near me,no longer has a CD section. I am hoping if it does go that way, maybe there will be more attention paid to fill that gap between CD's and mp3's.

[Auricauricle]

Excuse me for hopping on board with this, but I have seriously been considering a dedicated CD player. Recently an available CAL Tercet has been offered very reasonably; without disrupting this thread, can somebody tell me this is a poor decision? This is, of course, not an SACD; but I know CAL is solid and think it should be a nice compromise. Any thoughts? Thanks.

[contrapunctus]

Excuse me for hopping on board with this, but I have seriously been considering a dedicated CD player. Recently an available CAL Tercet has been offered very reasonably; without disrupting this thread, can somebody tell me this is a poor decision? This is, of course, not an SACD; but I know CAL is solid and think it should be a nice compromise. Any thoughts? Thanks.


Why compromise when you don't have to? My CD player (a lovely Proceed Madrigal) recently died ... and I faced the same sorts of issues. I was thinking of a Mark Levinson 390S second-hand ... and, ultimately, what I came to realise ... is that I would end up spending a huge bucket of money and still be stuck with 44kHz 16 bit sound. All that money spent, and no substantial improvement.
So, after lots of umming and ahhing ... I went for one of the brand new Marantz SACD players - the SA-8003 which gets a glowing review at:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/cd-players-recorders/marantz-sa8003-456022/review

and has a USB input on the front (to make you look cool and uber). It's a great CD player ... and I have a huge CD collection ... but now that I have heard the SACD difference ... pfffffffffffft ......... I hardly buy CDs anymore - I only want new SACD discs - preferably DSD stuff or at least 96 kHz 24 bit recordings. On a good recording, the sound difference is astonishing: the clarity, the naturalness, the dynamic range. It has completely re-invigorated my interest in sound, in music, in recordings ... actually been very exciting. I haven't been so excited about music since the CD came out.

My brother ... who has gone completely iTunes with fancy uber premium D/A converters etc (but alas his content is all standard CD redbook quality) ... popped in to listen to my SACD set-up. Dubious and sceptical, twas he. With my Marantz, you can force the machine to play the same disc from either the redbook CD layer, or from the SACD layer, and compare the sound. My brother takes the controls, has a listen ... a puzzled look crosses his face: Says he: "So much better . ..why would you listen to anything else?" Exact.

[Auricauricle]

contrapunctus: Your note echoes many of the others I've read around these parts, extolling the virtues of SACD. I have little doubt that they are very nice, but I am not ready to make such an investment. I think a judiciously considered CD player should satisfy my needs until that time arrives. So, is this lunge worthwhile, or should I consider a DAC (Monarchy, e.g.)...?

[OzzieAudiophile]

I can safely say no player is created equal.

I've auditioned some very nice CD/SACD in one players, but the better ones cost much
more money, like the McIntosh ones. They really can put a CD/SACD player together.

The NAD players are very good for the price range, you can understand why they
have won many awards.

The Cambridge Audio, I said this before the 740 and 840 are very good players. The 840
as a 24/384Ktz DAC which you can connect up to 2 components either via RCA or
Optical, which makes the overall unit most flexible. A majority of DACs don't go beyond
20/192Ktz, and some articles suggest that some companies claim to upscale to 24 bit
bit the circuitory does not actually support 24, and scales in reality to 20 bit.

Ear of the beholder using one's owned CDs is the best judge of character I'd say, so far
I've been very impressed.

2k, 2.5k, or more seems to be heading towards the higher-end type of CD and/or SACD
players. Unfortunately some of the flaws one finds is after owning them and playing after
the player has been run-in.

[contrapunctus]

contrapunctus: Your note echoes many of the others I've read around these parts, extolling the virtues of SACD. I have little doubt that they are very nice, but I am not ready to make such an investment....

The Marantz SA-8003 ... you can prob pick up a new one for around US$899 (RRP $999, I think). Very highly regarded in reviews ...

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/cd-players-recorders/marantz-sa8003-456022/review

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0109/marantz_sa8003.htm

That's a lot less than the kind of $$$$$$$$ some people are talking about for standard standalone CD players.
And if you are willing to live without the USB port, I think the SA7003 is a lot less.

Cheers

[Auricauricle]

Um, this place gives it a price of about $1600.00....

http://www.qualifi.com.au/index.jsp?referrer=1056&section=brands&page=product_detail&product=146854

Now, what was that again?

[Mr Peabody]

Auric, how much is the CAL? I heard one of their players once and aside an Arcam, the Arcam shamed it pretty bad. The CAL was a more expensive unit. I think CAL goes for a certain warm type of sound or "analog" where the Arcam was very detailed and dazzling. What is your budget? I'm still a dinosaur as well using a stand alone player. When using a SACD player such as the 8003 I'm sure SACD may sound better than the red book on the same player but I'd put my T+A red book against an 8003 SACD any day. Of course, if it was even close the 8003 is much cheaper. But then again SACD pales in it's catalog and I don't need another format to collect. I think a lot of the recent SACD hype is from those who would like to see it stay alive.

I wish Ajani or Feanor would wander onto this thread they are very knowledgeable in the music server and Lossless. Theoretically, Lossless is just that, lossless, and shouldn't be any difference from that and CD because nothing is lost. MP3 is a different animal, it can be varying bit rates which heavily impact your sound quality and something Kex turned me onto is using the "variable bit rate" setting where the mp3 file more efficiently uses space. The non-variable may use a bit for silence or some other useless content where "variable" makes every bit count. The smaller mp3 files are so bad sounding sometimes a song will sound remixed or like some completely other version. Getting up to 320 kb sounds tolerable on a mp3 player and headphones but still pretty bad when hooked to a good stereo. MSSTL also uses a music server. He is big into putting his vinyl onto the server. From what many of these guys say the music server can be done and sound pretty good. Maybe a separate thread is a good idea with a title on "music server help".

Ozzie, as you stated DAC's are taking on different forms due to the music server and mp3 craze but basically a DAC is just a digital to analog converter same as found in any CD player or HT receiver as far as that goes. It will not alter the music any more than a CD player would, it's just breaking down a player into separate components. The things I have found effect sound is the clocking and jitter control, the analog circuitry and the filtering. I believe the filtering is where the manufacturers are really putting their signature on the music.

[contrapunctus]

Um, this place gives it a price of about $1600.00....

http://www.qualifi.com.au/index.jsp?referrer=1056&section=brands&page=product_detail&product=146854



Ahh - the place you have quoted is a hi-fi store in Australia, in Australian dollars for the cheaper model SA7003. I don't think the SA7003 is actually available in the US ...

The RRP US price for the new SA8003 is US$999:

http://us.marantz.com/Products/2592.asp

But, you can find it for less. I bought mine for about US$800 through ebay - brand new. I am guessing you will find a dealer in the US who will part with one for around US$899.

[contrapunctus]

When using a SACD player such as the 8003 I'm sure SACD may sound better than the red book on the same player but I'd put my T+A red book against an 8003 SACD any day. Of course, if it was even close the 8003 is much cheaper. But then again SACD pales in it's catalog.

I saw the t+a machine when I was visiting the Adelphi Hi-fi shopping centre in Singapore a few months ago (that's a whole shopping mall filled entirely with hi-fi specialist dealers ... amazing fun for an afternoon). And, although I didn't listen to it, the t+a model I saw was certainly one of the sexiest looking machines I have ever seen. You know - the kind of thing that makes one subconsciously salivate. Very yum.

> But then again SACD pales in it's catalog.

Well, that's just not true. SACD nests CD: so you get to play everything that's on CD & and your existing collection, plus, on top, the almost 6000 titles now available in hi-rez on SACD. That's about 40 times more hi-rez content than available on all other hi-rez formats combined (downloads, DVD-A or w/e). And, if you look at what's happening with the kings of the audiophile market, standalone CD players are being dropped, and replaced with SACD units. Krell no longer make a standalone CD player - gone - moved to SACD. Mark Levinson no longer make a CD player - they've moved to SACD with the new 512. SACD may be small compared to the whole music market, but if you are talking hi-rez, it is the undisputed king.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Yes contra, must agree with you on that one. SACD definately is on top or at least near
on top of the list.

I have quite a few SACDs and they all outperform the best recorded CDs I've got.
I would have easily over 1000 CDs. You can also get "Enhanced CD", DVD-Audio, etc,

Since I have a Playstation-3, it can play SACDs, plays them excellent. Mind you, I do
have good quality cables and speakers, so that obviously helps. So frustrating that
nearly everything I own, I'd like on SACD, but that will never happen. With the increasingly
number of more SACD players coming out, the SACD collection will increase.

The most likely ones that will be next are old classics from the 70s, 80s, and 90's as
opposed to new top40 ones (out of the non-classical genre).

I am sold on that SACD classical ones are obviously worth the money but I do not
wish to clog 90% of my SACD collection with that genre. As much of a classical fan
I claim to be, I could not sit forever and listen to only that. I will be most selective on
what I buy from this genre.

[Feanor]

...
I wish Ajani or Feanor would wander onto this thread they are very knowledgeable in the music server and Lossless. Theoretically, Lossless is just that, lossless, and shouldn't be any difference from that and CD because nothing is lost. MP3 is a different animal, it can be varying bit rates which heavily impact your sound quality and something Kex turned me onto is using the "variable bit rate" setting where the mp3 file more efficiently uses space. The non-variable may use a bit for silence or some other useless content where "variable" makes every bit count. The smaller mp3 files are so bad sounding sometimes a song will sound remixed or like some completely other version. Getting up to 320 kb sounds tolerable on a mp3 player and headphones but still pretty bad when hooked to a good stereo.
...

Well, lossless is a lot like Zip with which there is no loss of information. Simplistically speaking, redundant 1 or 0 are eliminated in such away that they can be reconstucted for use. Lossless formats, such as FLAC or ALAC, are do the same except optimized for encoding and decoding music in particular.

Use Foobar2000 and 'Kernel Streaming' on my WinXP computer I get bit-perfect playback. You might know that HDCD encoding employes the "least significant bit" to activate on HDCD decoders in CDPs or DACs so equiped. So my DAC's HDCD indicator lights when play back HDCD content encoded to FLAC or ALAC -- a reliable indicator that these formats can be encoded and decoded bit-perfectly.

MP3 or non-loss formats such as M4A (Apple iTunes) or WMA (Windows Media Audio) are "lossy" formats. The analogy here is to .JPEG or similar picture formats that loose information during encoding. If you encode to these formats, e.g. 320 kbps, or "extreme" quality variable bit rate in MP3, you'll get music that sounds indistiguishable from CD on mediocre equipment most of the time. But what you won't be able to do is reconstruct the original CD content which you can, if you want to, say, to burn a CD.

Bear in mind that encoding & decoding a lossless format like FLAC takes less processing power than a lossy format like MP3.

Related to this, some purists claim that non-compress sound file formats such as WAV or AIFF formats sound better on playback than lossless. Maybe so, but not because they are getting the bits more perfectly, 'cause they aren't. It might have to do with less jitter -- a thing that depends on a lot of variables -- or it might be their imaginations.

In any case, with the low cost of data storage today, any enthusiast/audiophile would be out of his/her mind to rip to anything but a lossless format.

[luvtolisten]

Well, lossless is a lot like Zip with which there is no loss of information. Simplistically speaking, redundant 1 or 0 are eliminated in such away that they can be reconstucted for use. Lossless formats, such as FLAC or ALAC, are do the same except optimized for encoding and decoding music in particular.

Use Foobar2000 and 'Kernel Streaming' on my WinXP computer I get bit-perfect playback. You might know that HDCD encoding employes the "least significant bit" to activate on HDCD decoders in CDPs or DACs so equiped. So my DAC's HDCD indicator lights when play back HDCD content encoded to FLAC or ALAC -- a reliable indicator that these formats can be encoded and decoded bit-perfectly.

MP3 or non-loss formats such as M4A (Apple iTunes) or WMA (Windows Media Audio) are "lossy" formats. The analogy here is to .JPEG or similar picture formats that loose information during encoding. If you encode to these formats, e.g. 320 kbps, or "extreme" quality variable bit rate in MP3, you'll get music that sounds indistiguishable from CD on mediocre equipment most of the time. But what you won't be able to do is reconstruct the original CD content which you can, if you want to, say, to burn a CD.

Bear in mind that encoding & decoding a lossless format like FLAC takes less processing power than a lossy format like MP3.

Related to this, some purists claim that non-compress sound file formats such as WAV or AIFF formats sound better on playback than lossless. Maybe so, but not because they are getting the bits more perfectly, 'cause they aren't. It might have to do with less jitter -- a thing that depends on a lot of variables -- or it might be their imaginations.

In any case, with the low cost of data storage today, any enthusiast/audiophile would be out of his/her mind to rip to anything but a lossless format.

Please excuse my ignorance, this all new to me. Can Foobar 2000 be used with Itunes on Vista as well? Should I be going that route? What would you recommend? Thanks!

[Auricauricle]

Guys, this is turning into a very good thread: I think that, in voicing my misgivings and regret over the expense involved in SACD acquisition, my voice is one of many who simply want the best product for the least expenditure. The CAL in question is $200.00, and is not the only unit I have eye-balled. Another ad I have seriously given thought to is a nice micromega 4, which to my recollection is a very pleasant sounding player and has the advantage of being upgradable and is supported by a company that is still extant. As you know from my comments in the previous ear-training exercise, my apparatus is not as refined as some of y'alls. I may well enjoy the SACD format very much, but I think that going with a good quality player with improved D/A conversion may suit my purposes well....

[Mr Peabody]

Auric, for $200.00 you'd better grab it. Even with an older DAC I think you'd enjoy the improvement. CAL may not be at the top of my list for new purchase but a good player and at a good price I wouldn't hesitate to grab one. Be sure to post if you jump and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello forgive my ignorance, please provide examples of CALs or $200 ones for that
matter.

As for setting up a PC server who store lossless format music, that may be the way to go,
still if it were me, I'd want a good remote control. Such convenience is important.

The way this thread is going I may not end up getting an 840C DAC afterall haha.
Hmmm the 24/384 upscale sounds go tempting, and I have said this more than enough
times, the playback is absolutely devine. Too much to ask for such a unit with an in built
TB hard drive ?

[Feanor]

Please excuse my ignorance, this all new to me. Can Foobar 2000 be used with Itunes on Vista as well? Should I be going that route? What would you recommend? Thanks!

Luv,

Yes, Foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) will play all Apple formats on a WinXP or Vista, (not Mac or Linux). In fact Foobar will play virtually any format, and it will parse CUE files for single songs where multiple songs (or movements) are recorded in a single file. What Foobar will not do is let you manage you iPod contents; for this you need iTunes or some other program with this capability.

I like Foobar for a few of reasons:

It's free.
It can produce bit-perfect output using appropriate plug-ins. This is something iTunes can't do running on Windows.
Its interface is highly configurable. The ability to tune lists and searches is important to me as a classical music listener.There are other music players that offer most, all, or more than Foobar. A popular one at the moment is J.River Media Jukebox (http://www.mediajukebox.com/) which is also free. Perhaps I'll give it a try one of these days -- I'd love to dump iTunes which I still use to manage my iPod.

[luvtolisten]

Luv,

Yes, Foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) will play all Apple formats on a WinXP or Vista, (not Mac or Linux). In fact Foobar will play virtually any format, and it will parse CUE files for single songs where multiple songs (or movements) are recorded in a single file. What Foobar will not do is let you manage you iPod contents; for this you need iTunes or some other program with this capability.

I like Foobar for a few of reasons:

It's free.
It can produce bit-perfect output using appropriate plug-ins. This is something iTunes can't do running on Windows.
Its interface is highly configurable. The ability to tune lists and searches is important to me as a classical music listener.There are other music players that offer most, all, or more than Foobar. A popular one at the moment is J.River Media Jukebox (http://www.mediajukebox.com/) which is also free. Perhaps I'll give it a try one of these days -- I'd love to dump iTunes which I still use to manage my iPod.

Hi Feanor, thanks for responding back. I use iTunes, for me it's more user friendly. I don't have a iPod, I use iTunes as a music server, playing it thru my DAC to my stereo. The question I have is, are both these (thank you for the links by the way) programs, just for playback, or for ripping CD's too? I have ripped 600 CD's to Itunes, would there be any benefit to rip them again using the new software vs. the Itunes software?

[luvtolisten]

As for setting up a PC server who store lossless format music, that may be the way to go,
still if it were me, I'd want a good remote control. Such convenience is important.

HI Ozzie,
That's what I did, although I have the Dac Magic, not the 840C.. I was fortunate enough when I bought my Samsung 40" TV it had a monitor port. So I ran a cable to it,from my PC, as well as one to my DAC,(about 20ft,both in my living room) and use a wireless mouse to compliment my reciever remote.

The way this thread is going I may not end up getting an 840C DAC afterall haha.
Hmmm the 24/384 upscale sounds go tempting, and I have said this more than enough
times, the playback is absolutely devine. Too much to ask for such a unit with an in built
TB hard drive ?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you're on the fence. The 4 inputs is a nice feature. Plug in you PC, or your cable/satellite box (for the music channels). Maybe an older 5 disc changer.

[Mr Peabody]

Ozzie,

http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/406olive/

http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-media-servers/music-servers/escient-fireball-se-80-music-server.html

There are stand alone component servers out there, Cambridge had the 640H, Yamaha had one for awhile and even the likes of McIntosh, some are no longer built which leads one to wonder why, was it not accepted well, do people dismiss them to just use their computer or were there issues, it seems like the best offerings are from those who just concentrate on the one product. I've seen a couple sold through music, as in instrument, stores but I can't remember the brands. A computer would be a lot easier to expand than a proprietary piece of hi fi gear. There are also servers from Sonos and other companies into multiroom systems.

This isn't my forte but I thought I'd try to add something :)

[Feanor]

Hi Feanor, thanks for responding back. I use iTunes, for me it's more user friendly. I don't have a iPod, I use iTunes as a music server, playing it thru my DAC to my stereo. The question I have is, are both these (thank you for the links by the way) programs, just for playback, or for ripping CD's too? I have ripped 600 CD's to Itunes, would there be any benefit to rip them again using the new software vs. the Itunes software?

Rerip? Yuck! In the first place, did you rip to Apple Lossless or to a "lossy" format? If to a lossy format, more fool you: rerip those suckers!! Otherwise I wouldn't rush out and rerip all my CDs, but might be worth a try starting with any problem files, that is, ones that don't play or have glitches. Did you use iTune's error correction selecton when ripping?

Yes, Foobar2000 will rip as will J.River. But I've never used Foobar for ripping. I have using iTunes, EAC, and dBpoweramp. I recommend dBpoweramp Reference edition, ($36), with its 'secure' modes that are more likely to copy bit-perfectly from the CD. If you have a badly scratched disc, EAC is probably your best bet, but dBpoweramp is much slicker and easier to use, plus it pulls tag information from multiple sources.

If you happen to need to convert files from Apple format to some other, or if you want to create highly compress, lossy format to fit on a mobile device, convert (i.e. created converted copies) your lossless files using dBpoweramp rather than reripping -- much, much faster

[Auricauricle]

Hello forgive my ignorance, please provide examples of CALs or $200 ones for that matter.

Oz: I was lucky to find this deal on Audiogon. You can probably still find the posting there (audiogon.com) under the CD transports; it is the Tercet mk iii. This was a pretty expensive player in its day, and I would not have been able to indulge myself then. Now, as increasing numbers of inexpensive CD-only players are being made available, I can play around a bit. I auditioned CALs years ago and was very favorably impressed with their lucid and relaxed sound, so I am excited with this purchase. I'll report on its sound and performance when it arrives.

Now, if I can just find a way of introducing it to the wife without getting evicerated...

[Mr Peabody]

Sneak it into the conversation as pillow talk just after having great sex. Assuming..... occasionally....... this does happen :)

[Auricauricle]

Thought I'd introduce it as a space heater....I hear these CALs get pretty hot. Good suggestion though, Mr. P. Should be in Mo or Tue. I can't stand it....

[Mr Peabody]

I'm excited for you. Hope all goes well.

[Auricauricle]

I'm excited for you. Hope all goes well.

Thank you. Ever since my Meridian 200 died, I've been in mourning. This should rekindle some of the embers.

[Auricauricle]

Well, the Tercet arrived this afternoon...So far she seems a bit tempermental: The door reopens after it has been reintroduced into the player: I must hold it gently in place for it to remain shut. Discs are not being read for information, which means,so far, no music is being played. The manual suggests that the presence of condensation may be affecting things, so I am letting the player warm up. As to the first problem, there is mention that the "lock shaft is locked" and may need to be "pulled up to unlock". I don't know where or what a "lock shaft" is, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere....Any clues?

[Mr Peabody]

Boy, I hope those problems aren't the reason the player was only 2 bills. I'm not familiar with players having that type of lock accept for very old, first few generations had a long screw that had to be removed from the bottom of the unit.

Can you email the former owner or CAL? Hope all is well.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks, Mr. P: I wonder about the "screw", too, but the Installation Procedure states: "turn unit on side and pull locking pin located in the recess under drive to outermost position to release laser and disc loading tray. (Note: When shipping unit, tilt chassis onto rear side and push locking pin in.)" Seems to me, if the pin were a screw, they would say so....I'll keep you guys up to date as these things get sorted out.

[luvtolisten]

Rerip? Yuck! In the first place, did you rip to Apple Lossless or to a "lossy" format? If to a lossy format, more fool you: rerip those suckers!! Otherwise I wouldn't rush out and rerip all my CDs, but might be worth a try starting with any problem files, that is, ones that don't play or have glitches. Did you use iTune's error correction selecton when ripping?

Yes, Foobar2000 will rip as will J.River. But I've never used Foobar for ripping. I have using iTunes, EAC, and dBpoweramp. I recommend dBpoweramp Reference edition, ($36), with its 'secure' modes that are more likely to copy bit-perfectly from the CD. If you have a badly scratched disc, EAC is probably your best bet, but dBpoweramp is much slicker and easier to use, plus it pulls tag information from multiple sources.

If you happen to need to convert files from Apple format to some other, or if you want to create highly compress, lossy format to fit on a mobile device, convert (i.e. created converted copies) your lossless files using dBpoweramp rather than reripping -- much, much faster

Hi Feanor, thanks again for getting back. Well, I'm still on the learning curve, but the first 500 cds I ripped I used iTunes ACC encoding. Then by reading this and other forums I found that Lossless or AIFF was the way to go. (That turned out to be a really heated debate on one of the other forums.) I did use " correction error" on all the CD's. I just happened to be looking around in iTunes, and noticed if I right click on one of the songs, it gives me the option to convert to Apple Lossless, which only takes a couple of seconds. So I'm hoping this will be a solution. I really don't want to rerip all those CD's.

Thanks for the tips on the software as well. If you think I need to rerip the CD's again, dBpoweramp will have earned it's money just for the time saver it would be. Not bad for a software price. Enough left over for a 12 pack to get me thru it.

[audio amateur]

If you've ripped them in a 'lossy' format, converting them to a lossless one will not make them lossless.

[luvtolisten]

If you've ripped them in a 'lossy' format, converting them to a lossless one will not make them lossless.

To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!" I'm not sure what ACC is exactly, which is what I ripped 90% of CD's in. I'm going to have to educate myself more, which is what I should have done in the first place before I started. But I had just bought the PC and DAC and couldn't wait to play with my new toys. Thanks, AA for the feedback. Looks like I'll be buying the software Feanor recommended. I didn't mind ripping them the first time, sure won't be as much fun the second time .

[audio amateur]

To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!" I'm not sure what ACC is exactly, which is what I ripped 90% of CD's in. I'm going to have to educate myself more, which is what I should have done in the first place before I started. But I had just bought the PC and DAC and couldn't wait to play with my new toys. Thanks, AA for the feedback. Looks like I'll be buying the software Feanor recommended. I didn't mind ripping them the first time, sure won't be as much fun the second time .
I believe AAC is a lossy codec by Apple. An mp3 equivalent, albeit a little better from what I've heard.

You're welcome

[Ajani]

As for setting up a PC server who store lossless format music, that may be the way to go,
still if it were me, I'd want a good remote control. Such convenience is important.

You have a lot of options for adding a remote to your PC server. Two good options are:

1) Buy a streaming music player (such as Squeezebox or Sonos). They have their own remotes and will access all the music stored on your computer.

OR

2) Use iTunes as your media player and buy an iPod Touch or iPhone (either will allow you to control iTunes on your computer). You could also add an appleTV or airport express if you don't want to run cables from your computer to your stereo...

[Ajani]

To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!" I'm not sure what ACC is exactly, which is what I ripped 90% of CD's in. I'm going to have to educate myself more, which is what I should have done in the first place before I started. But I had just bought the PC and DAC and couldn't wait to play with my new toys. Thanks, AA for the feedback. Looks like I'll be buying the software Feanor recommended. I didn't mind ripping them the first time, sure won't be as much fun the second time .

The default encoding for iTunes is AAC (which is better than MP3 for the record). Apple Lossless (or any lossless) is better than AAC, but how much better depends on the individual recordings and the quality of the equipment you're listening to the music on. I'd suggest ripping a few of your favourite albums over in Apple Lossless and then comparing them to the original AAC rips.... If the difference is significant enough then you can dedicate your energy to re-ripping your entire collection asap... If not, then you can either re-rip at your own leisure or not at all...

[OzzieAudiophile]

Thankyou for the options everyone.

I'll take the sonos heavily on board. The iTunes, hmmm never been quite impressed
considering it's not actual CD quality, but is very good however.

Unfortunately I am one who has a system that can bring out the difference between
mp3 (or other compressed formats) and listening through a CD. CD music is just on
an entirely new level.

I've tested software that can convert to FLAC, to some of the higher specced formats,
and frequencies, still my system can pick up even the minor detailed difference when
playing the same track on CD.

I won't go for a mutidisc player, because I had one of those, and you simply cannot beat
quality with a single tray CD player.

My personal listening experience comparing listening through a PC, or PS3 playlist, as
opposed to a CD/SACD, the CD is at least 5 times better, and the SACD is at least
twice as better as the CD.

I am more convinced I will get both still, a Sonos, or equivalent server, and a higher
end form of CD player with a in build DAC. The Cambridge Audio 840C sounds like a
good option. I still have a few months before I end up getting a new source. Next two
months is to finish paying off my new power amp.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello.

When I looked at the Cary CD 306 SACD Professional Version component, I think I had to
pick up my eyes off the floor because they popped out of my sockets.

Digital Sample Rates (Fs): 44.1, 96, 192, 384, 512 or 768kHz sample rates for CD playback to the analog audio outputs, 44.1, 96 or 192kHz Fs for digital inputs

What ? :mad2:

Like I'm every going to find a unit like that in WA :cryin:

VIC and NSW only. Still, can't hurt to ask how much the unit would cost. Could it
justify twice or three times the price of a Cambridge Audio 840C ?

Please somebody tell me they have experienced both units and can provide some
feedback :P

[luvtolisten]

The default encoding for iTunes is AAC (which is better than MP3 for the record). Apple Lossless (or any lossless) is better than AAC, but how much better depends on the individual recordings and the quality of the equipment you're listening to the music on. I'd suggest ripping a few of your favourite albums over in Apple Lossless and then comparing them to the original AAC rips.... If the difference is significant enough then you can dedicate your energy to re-ripping your entire collection asap... If not, then you can either re-rip at your own leisure or not at all...

Thank you Feanor, AA, and Ajani for your input and helping to educate me. Ajani, that is an excellent suggestion and one I intend to follow. Now I don't know which is worse, finding out that I can't tell the difference on my system (it's an ok system,but not as nice as the rest of you folks have), or having to rerip CD's. Reripping CD's doesn't sound so bad now:13: I may sound like I'm whining, but honestly I'm not. I am eager to learn and love this stuff and do appreciate all of you for taking the time to share your knowledge and enlightening me.

[Mr Peabody]

Auric didn't post today, I hope he got his unit running and just spending some time enjoying the music.

[luvtolisten]

Well, the Tercet arrived this afternoon...So far she seems a bit tempermental: The door reopens after it has been reintroduced into the player: I must hold it gently in place for it to remain shut. Discs are not being read for information, which means,so far, no music is being played. The manual suggests that the presence of condensation may be affecting things, so I am letting the player warm up. As to the first problem, there is mention that the "lock shaft is locked" and may need to be "pulled up to unlock". I don't know where or what a "lock shaft" is, and there seems to be no mention of it elsewhere....Any clues?

The not reading part sounds like a laser problem (maybe a dirty laser lens?). Hopefully the laser wasn't disconnected or damaged in shipping. Sometimes the rpm speed of the disc is slow, but that's uncommon.

[Auricauricle]

Sorry if I left anyone in the lurch around here....

Over the past couple of days, I have been in the process of tearing the interconnects out of the receiver, rearranging the gear and reconnecting everything to make room and accomodation for the new arrival. Time constraints forbid my ability to publish much now; a more lengthy review will be posted as time permits.

Suffice it to say, the CAL is in fine fettle. The "locking" mechanism was simply a slightly projecting device found on the bottom of the unit. It has been a long while since I have seen the doo-dad, and while I pondered and fumed, I gave it a decisive tug. Voila! (D-oh!)

So thanks, guys, for your guidance and support....The baby's home and already she's cranking up. So far, she sounds very, very good; for $200.00 smackers, let's just say pretty damn good, at that!

Cheers!

Oh, yeah: There'll be stogies and single malt for those who wish to attend: The door is open for you; just bring yourself and a favorite disc. The rest is "on the house".

[Mr Peabody]

Good deal, glad to hear all is well.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi all.

After reading the last several posts on my thread, I too will be expecting a new Xindak
Power amp monoblocks over the next 2 to 3 weeks. They haven't arrived yet, part of me
cannot wait, chasing up lately. They have to be shipped from a different part of
Australia.

I "may" need to upgrade my cables, but I am not working with more than 1 metre
lengths. That means XLR may not be necessary when I get a replacement CD player.
I have read all the feedback on this site (all 14 reviews) of the Cambridge Audio 840 C,
no one can really hear much of a noticable difference between balanced and unbalanced.

Just simply eager to try out my favourite CDs through the new amp, at the store the
difference was extreme. It will appear as if someone has removed my hands from my
ears.

I may end up using my PS3 as an equivalent music server as the playback is reasonable.

Oh another spanner into the works, I played once again the Dire Straights 20th
Anniversary release of Brothers in Arms. I compared the CD and SACD layers of the
same tracks. The SACD layer sounds incredibly much better.

:thumbsup:

[Auricauricle]

Review of the Tercet now on the Blog....

[Mr Peabody]

blog, what blog, we don't need no stinking blog!

[Auricauricle]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... ;)

[Auricauricle]

So, this morning, I found myself looking at an Entech 245.2. Never seen the thing before, but from what I see in the few postings here and there on the Web, it is a 24 bit DAC. At around 175 smackers, I'm thinking about jumping. From what I have read on Stereophile, the Entechs are well made, reasonably affordable and very good performers. Any thoughts, anyone?

[Mr Peabody]

No, I just got a musicdirect newsletter and they have what you need. It's a PS Audio transport and DAC that retail for about $3k each. The transport has a touch screen and apparently some type of storage unit because they say you actually never listen to the actual CD. There were links for more detail but I wasn't extremely interested except for what they already told me. Oh, Auric, if you are interested in picking up this dynamic duo PS Audio is offering a trade up program, give them your current rig and they will give you a discount. You'll have to check www.amusicdirect.com for details.

I also saw Conrad Johnson has a CD/SACD player out I will have to get more info on. I wouldn't leave my T+A but I'm curious to see the unit.

I'm not familiar with Entech. $175 is as cheap as most entry level players it would be interesting to see how good this unit is.

[Auricauricle]

So, not to be stupid, the CAL is 18 bit....Would the Entech, by definition boost the signal to 24 bit resolution?

[Mr Peabody]

Don't get caught up in sales buzz words or specs, just because a player is 24 bit does not mean it will sound better than one with 18 bit. Generally, an older high end CD player will still out perform a lower end unit with the latest technology. The digital processing is just one step, there's a lot that goes into the analog stage and filtering technology that also makes the sound. In addition, a lower bit but more expensive player may put more into the digital section like better clocking and buffering, or more to the point handle their fewer bits with better care. As I said, this is a general statement because a lot will depend on the brand of player and how old the higher end one is. It could come down to a trade off of listenability vs amount of detail. An older player may present cymbals with a certain realism and nonabrasive manner where a newer player may give more detail from the disc but the cymbals may be brash. Then one would have to make a decision on what is the most important attribute he wants from his player/system.

So I wouldn't bet the farm that the Entech would sound any better than your CAL.

[Auricauricle]

This is good advice, and I will certainly give it some thought. The CAL is quite impressive--I have commented about it in the Review Section of this site, if anyone is interested--and I wonder if the best course is to lay low for now....Still, mighty tempting!

[Feanor]

So, not to be stupid, the CAL is 18 bit....Would the Entech, by definition boost the signal to 24 bit resolution?

That is, without knowing the Entech specifically, the fact that a DAC says "24/192" only means necessarily that it can decode an incoming 24/192 signal, not that it upsamples say a 16/44.1 to 24/192 or any higher resolution than the input. If a DAC does upsample, the blurb will usually mention that quite specifically.

[Auricauricle]

Thanks: This is an important distinction to make and, admittedly, one that I completely zoned on when I was goin' through all this....Why don't you and the regs start a thread to describe DAC's etc...? Folks like me don't know sheep about 'em, but don't have a clue!

[luvtolisten]

Thanks: This is an important distinction to make and, admittedly, one that I completely zoned on when I was goin' through all this....Why don't you and the regs start a thread to describe DAC's etc...? Folks like me don't know sheep about 'em, but don't have a clue!

I second that. I think it would be really cool. I only know enough to be dangerous. I would like to know what justifies the cost between a $400 and $1,000 DAC. which DAC's have a certain sound (do emphasize highs, mids or lows?). I'd like to hear from owners and why they bought the one they did. What percentage should you spend on a DAC relative to your system?

[Mr Peabody]

The difference between price points would basically be the same principles as any other piece of hi fi gear, better parts, build quality and design. Sometimes it's worth it and some times not. For instance, if a plastic case sounds the same as an aluminum case I wouldn't pay $500.00 more just to have the aluminum. I'm not caught up on looks. Sometimes you will pay a bit more for a certain feature, like a DAC with upsampling may cost more than one without, or if the DAC can accept SACD (DSD) digital signals. Sometimes we even have to pay more for a name, like a Levinson or Krell will demand more than a lesser known brand. On the other hand, the resale value of a Levinson or Krell will hold better as well.

When listening you have to learn to evaluate and determine what is important to you or impresses you. I like to listen for realism, does a sax sound like a sax, do the cymbals hold and fade naturally etc. Tonal quality has become a pet peeve of mine and made me a bit of a snob in that area. Nothing annoys me more now than to have a pair of headphones or have to listen to something where things sound nasally, or unnatural. Another area I like to evaluate is the frequency response, will the unit provide the lowest of octaves and go up to the highest registers. Not only that but are the bass lines clear, are they free of tubbiness and blurr. Do the instruments sound the way you think one would or does it sound like a sound effect. I mean you know a sax is a sax even on a clock radio but when you hear one on good hi fi gear and you are provided the tonal textures a sax should have it's a different story and those who realize that are those who will appreciate and value their gear. Then there's presentation, do you like to feel as if the band is in your room, or would you like to feel as if you are in a venue? Better digital playback will allow you audible cues. You should be able to hear the difference between recordings as to spacial area, some may seem to have more reverb than others, some may be quite damped, almost dead sounding, some seem to have a live feel to them, some are more intimate than others and this can be heard. Some gear can present the music in a way that you can get a sense of front to back space opposed to just having everything laid across one plain of sound stage. Sometimes you can even get a feeling as if the instruments move. Gear of this quality can also pose a problem as a bad recording will certainly be noticed. Something else I've noticed and it may be more of a total system thing and this is what I call "pace". I really don't think many people even "audiophiles" pick up on. I'm not talking pitch. I really don't know what makes this difference. Here's what I'm talking about, my Krell gear presented music in what I'd consider a neutral/midrange pace, sort of like Spock on Star Trek not much feeling. In contrast my Conrad Johnson doesn't sound slower but it seems to give the music more of a soul or tempo. Like on Krell a good Motown song is technically correct but on CJ it makes you more want to snap your finger or tap a toe if this makes sense. It's like a good actor knows when to pause and add dramatic emphasis I guess. I've taken my CD's and listened to Rotel systems and that gear is pleasant but it made the music sound tired or more laid back. Many people have Rotel but I haven't seen any one comment on noticing this. The difference is there. If you can't hear a difference in pace between Rotel or let's say Arcam, which is the fastest presentation I've ever heard then this may be something only certain people are in tune with, I just don't know. All I know is I can certainly tell.

I'd recommend going into a "true" high end shop and hanging out, get a feel of what this level of gear can do. Then you have a bit of a reference and can find the closest to what you want that fits your budget. This could be dangerous though to your budget if you become smitten as I did. This may sound odd but I owned Krell gear at the time but one day at the hi fi shop I listened to a $25k Krell preamp/CD player combo into 250 watt monoblocks driving a high series of Dynaudio. This was one of the best sounding systems I've ever heard, not the most expensive, there had to be some special synergy and the system must have fit the room perfect. Any way something about that listening experience made me understand my more modest Krell gear better. It was like something clicked and I all the sudden understood what it was trying to do.

I also do not buy into this theory that if you listen close or critical that we some how can't enjoy the music. I feel it's just the opposite. I mean as you listen, relaxing, how much effort does it take your brain to tell you if you are enjoying it or for you to pick up on the characteristics I mentioned above? I mean it's like saying you have to concentrate to tell yourself that you don't like liver.

I don't mean to say that one can't enjoy a modest system and only very expensive gear can do the things that I have been describing. I don't think you will ever hear this level of detail from a receiver but I know you will pick it up on such gear as NAD or Arcam, maybe others, I haven't heard nearly all the products on the market. You listen and tell me. I don't know what prompted this out poor of hi fi according to Peabody but I will stop myself for now.

[Auricauricle]

There is no question to the fact that, cost considerations aside, the enjoyment of high-fidelity music listening takes into consideration all the things you speak of, Mr. P. Whether those pertain to realism, tonal quality, frequency response, presentation or "pace" (nice term, that), the enjoyment of these things is an acquired skill that comes from careful listening to actual sources and using that template to compare the sounds emanating from our speakers and to our brains. The canny audiophile is aware of the nuances of sound that not only distinguish an oboe from an english horn, say, but also playback of an instrument that is presented adequately and that which is presented in startlingly realism. To most folks, who have been conditioned by mediocre equipment and only casual acquaintance with instruments, the search for good sound is an inconsequential one; yet, to the audiophile, the search is, sometimes, never ending.

To us, knowing the difference between what is "great" and what is "phenomenal" inspires us to look for solutions that drive us to spend much time and resources--sometimes even as we know that what we has satisfied us still. Having lived with and loved music all my life, I have a fairly keen sense of what sounds right and what doesn't. I can articulate fairly well why one CD player's performance is only adequate and why another's sounds much, much better (I think). More importantly, I can tell what I like, and while I may not have the vocabulary or even the knowledge many here have, that knowledge has served me well so far.

Like many around here, however, I am not very pecuniarily able to justify spending much on certain things. I must look for bargains here and there, and look for ways to find the sound I love without much extravagance. I like the hunt, for I have learned that while I can easily spend a small fortune on very beautifully performing gear, I can spend a fraction of the amount on gear that is still pleasing. I have no doubt that some will snub my purchases, but so far I like what I hear and that is good enough. Later, as resources avail themselves or as my ears become tired, adjustments will be made. But that is later....

I will still call upon you and everyone else here to help me along the way. I am not so smug to think that I know as much as you, and I respect your counsel very highly. In this forum, I have found like-minded lovers of music, who drink as I drink, the sounds coming from their stereos and gear like rare wine. I hope that I have not presented myself as anything but such a person, and when I bid you to give me your counsel I will await your reply with eager and avid anticipation.

[Mr Peabody]

Auric, do you do HT with your receiver? If you only do 2 channel let me know if you ever want to upgrade your amp I think I have something that might fit your bill.

[Auricauricle]

Yes, I do....The system is 2.1, thank you very much! (Newcastle R-525)

[Scatley]

It's been quite some time since I've had a dedicated CD player and I'm now looking to rectify that. I'm currently using a Sony Blu-ray player (BDP-S550) for my CD play back but I am firmly of the opinion that you can't beat a dedicated source. The 2 players I've been thinking about will give you all a rough idea of the budget I'm playing with.

*Yamaha CD700 (I've had my heart set on this one but read an average review today from
What HiFi)
*Marantz CD5003

Reading nice things about Arcam & Cambridge but they're creeping up $'s.

Any feedback (particularly on the Yamaha) or other suggestions most appreciated.

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Current Equipment:

Sony BDP-S550 B/R Player
Yamaha RX-V3900 Receiver
Krix Pheonix (Main Speakers)
Jamo Centre 200
Jamo Surround 300
Yamaha YST-SW300 Sub Woofer
LG 42" Plasma Panel

Still to upgrade/acquire:

Plasma/LCD 50" 1080P
CD Player
Sub Woofer (additional, sick of moving my current one around the room!)
Headphones (Current Sennheiser HD445, want something closed with more bass)

[OzzieAudiophile]

Auricauricle : thankyou for your profound response.

A bit of a history lesson, I haven't done many upgrades in my 20+ years of listening to
music (on a system that I own), however the upgrades have been significant, and
towards the next level.

I spent at least 6 months, 30 shops, auditioned many brands, prices ranges just to find
a speaker upgrade. What I originally planned for the same brand yes, but the next
series up, filled in the missing void I had all those years. I was trained in how to listen
to music, how to pick up the subtleties that were always there, but all those years I
simply never noticed before.

Even trial and error you'd be suprised what you'll find, something you never realized
existed before, comes into your world and you respond where has this been all your
life ?

Since I got my power amp 2 days ago, I've simply been drunk on music. I feel dazed,
chilled out, cloud nine really. I cannot wait to take my system to the next level, get
a better source.


Scatley : I would audition as many components as you can, your own ears will help
you decide what would be a worthwhile addition to your system. I was always impressed
with the Cambridge Audio 740C then 840. Ok if it happens to be out of your price range.
One thing you must also consider, what you're looking for, just how long would you
be satisfied with it ? Do you see yourself keeping it for 2 years ? or less ? Or 3 ?
Maybe if you see the more expensive option is something you would keep for at least
5 years, maybe it's a worthwhile investment.

I purcahsed my Dyn Audio Contours for the last 5 years, and it was clearly the strongest
component in my system, until 2 days ago. I'm nearly convinced I'll never have to buy
another pair of fronts for at least another 5, or another power amp for another 5.
I must now build the rest of my system to those standards, it's not a cheap upgrade
path, but every 5 years is easier to budget for than every 2 to 3.

I have no idea what your budget is, or if the more expensive options are way beyond
what you can afford, nothing wrong with waiting either. I waited more than 7 years to
upgrade my amp, it was worth the wait after being tempted many times.

[OzzieAudiophile]

I believe the Cambridge Audio 840C sounds like a winner. It has an inbuild DAC for 2
inputs. In a way I could set it up like a pre-amp. It is fully balanced so I would need to
get a pair of balanced cables.

Trouble is, do this ?

A. Set up the CA-840C as a pre-amp ? and hook that up directly to my
Xindak monoblocks, then my yamaha receiver into the input of the 840C ?

Or

B. do I plug in the 840C into the receiver and my other 2 components into the inputs of
the 840C ?

If I opt for option B, then I won't have to buy Balanced cables.

I have the following sources :

1. PS3 as a CD/DVD, and Blu Ray player (highest quality cables in this unit - Optical
for sound, my receiver does not support HDMI)

2. PC (my PC and some of my music can play through the soundblaster sound card)

3. Pioneer DVR (which has my Foxtel satellite cable tv) - connects via RCA

Advice would be highly appreciated :)

P.S. I am still considering worthy cable upgrades.

[Mr Peabody]

Ozzie don't do either if I'm understanding what you are saying. If the 840 has an input it is a digital input and you can not hook your receiver into that. I have heard of some receivers or processors having a digital out but you'd be basically making a loop if this is your intention.

If your receiver is one that has the "bypass" or "music direct" feature as many Yamaha receiver do, then just run your 840 into the receiver using analog cables and run it "direct" to bypass all the receiver's internal processing.

To use the 840 as a preamp you would have to make some kind of provision for two preamps, your receiver and your 840. If wanting to use the 840 direct to amp then you'd have to unhook the 840 and plug the receiver back into them when watching a movie. Your best and simplest method would be just to hook the 840 into the receiver. It's great if it has XLR but unless your receiver will accept them you are out of luck.

Scatley, if you can afford an entry level Arcam I feel they would prove to be a better player than any on your list. Many here have used and seem to like the 5003 pretty well. If you aren't opposed to used you may be able to find a good deal on an Arcam at Audiogon.com Just to be sure we are on the same page, you do know to get any benefit from an upgraded CD player you will use the analog outs? If going to your receiver with a digital hook up you will hear none to very little difference because you are still using the receiver's internal DAC.