Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 43 of 43
  1. #26
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The problem Audio Note has is that their equipment is designed to work in their systems - so how it does in other systems requires the buyer to figure out...and because their design is totally different than the vast majority of gear well --- it's not overly surprising people have issues with their DACs.

    The other thing to Note is that they have two 1.1X DAC's - the newer one is supposed to be a lot better which was reviewed in the current issue of UHF and is anything BUT rolled off...the old one was reviewed with lesser results in Hi-Fi CHoice and received 3 stars out of 5 which was viewed as solid but not exceptional because it's too different sounding. Personal; taste again.

    The measurements of the DAC is in UHF.
    I understand the compatibility issue and I Note that they have several complete systems to choose from. I'm sure the Dac itself is not rolled off but simply didn't mesh with the transport. The sound was indeed exceptional for most of the audible range but suffered in the high treble and lower bass.

    Any info on the CD2? Is it a non over sampling unit?

  3. #28
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    The CD 2 is a bit older but still around new. It is a blend of the DAC 1 and their transport but is fairly pricey - though cheaper than buying the two box set-up.

    I would not be totally surprised if it did slightly roll off the extremes because it does have a tube output stage...remember they are not going to sound like any other cd player because their designers basically think all other cd players are ****. You either buy into their sound or you don't. The only other player I can think of that would be similar and not using a tube is the Sugden Cd players because they use the same older Crown Dac and transport and one of the designers moved from AN to Sugden.

    There may be a new CD2.1 from these reviews at this site http://ecoustics.consumerreview.com/...x.aspx#reviews

    Yes this is the one soundhounds had and is the one i heard http://ecoustics.consumerreview.com/...x.aspx#reviews
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  4. #29
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    This was the review of the older CD 2 from What Hi FI You have to scroll down past the amps.
    http://www.audionote.co.uk/lev2.htm

  5. #30
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4

    Question ARCH - Please HELP! See my recent posting!

    [[SIZE=3]FONT=Times New Roman]Please check out my recent posting. I realize that you are in Canada but I was wondering if you would share with me, in detail, how you went about deciding on the C-A 640c CDP. You mentioned that the ARCAM sounded better but that it was not worth the additional expense. It has received mixed reviews (some say it colors the sound) but the DAC is interchangeable. The older C-A D500SE cdp had this DAC feature but there is no mention of it in the 540c or 640c ads. So I do not know if C-A did away with that flexibility feature in their newest models or not.
    Did you also evaluate the lesser and previous C-A, Arcam, Rotel, and NAD cdp models?
    Like the 540c, D500SE, CD72(T), etc.?

  6. #31
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1

    DACs

    Both the Arcam CD73T and Cambridge Audio use the same Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DAC. So if it is just down to the DAC, you're really paying an extra £150 for the Arcam just because you like the look of it better. The Arcam build quality is better, you get CD text and the ability to switch of the display (???) - but you got it to listen to right?

  7. #32
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Well, that settles it

    Quote Originally Posted by mark@blankmediauk.com
    Both the Arcam CD73T and Cambridge Audio use the same Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DAC. So if it is just down to the DAC, you're really paying an extra £150 for the Arcam just because you like the look of it better. The Arcam build quality is better, you get CD text and the ability to switch of the display (???) - but you got it to listen to right?
    I won't be buying the Arcam either, because I decided the Azur wasn't as good as my Sony SCDCE775. Though maybe a little sweeter on top, the Azur didn't have the detail or air of the Sony.

    BTW, the the successor to the Sony, above, is model, SCDCE595, which is only US$150. Or in Canada you can get an enhanced, ES version, SCDC2000ES, which is Cdn$700. And they play SACD too as well as being 5-disc changers! Seems like a no-brainer to me.

  8. #33
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Matches WHAT perfectly?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    ...And if you truly wanted to get a cd player with no jitter you would buy from Audio Note and basically nobody else...because their player has none, no oversampling no error correction of any kind because their clock perfectly matches and creates no errors. And even then reviewers gripe sometimes about the sound. ??
    RGA, what are you taking about? The presence or absence of error correction and oversampling have nothing directly do with jitter based on what I've heard. You'll need to explain these ascertions a bit further if I'm going to buy them.

    Nevertheless I totally agree that one should expect no differences from transports under normal circumstances.

  9. #34
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Oh, pleeez

    Quote Originally Posted by nickway
    ...
    Transports do not make a difference??? Thats not true, they make a huge difference! This is such a big subject that I do not have the time to type all the reasons.
    ...
    There's only two things a transport can do wrong:
    1. Drop bits
    2. Introduce jitter
    Droping bits is causes by (a) laser mistracking, (b) poor press quality of the CD. In principle, a better transport might be less subject to laser mistracking and/or miss few bits. In practice, laser mistracking is only caused by gross vibration or impact: not a problem in non-mobile equipment. Also in practice, the occassional missed bit, (usually due to minor disc mis-pressing), is compensated for by the DAC's error correction. If there are many bits missing, such as on a grossly mis-pressed CD or one that is damaged or filthy, no transport's pick-up can compensate.

    As RGA pointed out, good DACs will rebuffer the bit stream and re-clock it it so transport-introduced jitter is eliminated. Granted, a DAC in, for example, a low-cost A/V receiver might not do this.

  10. #35
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Sorry this is an older post and I never got back to it... I'm no digital designer - so I'll just post what Peter Q says about his DAC's:

    "Extensive research into the fundamental properties of the data stream itself have shown beyond doubt that regardless of the theoretical and measurable advantages of the signal manipulation employed in all currently available digital products, such as higher over sampling, noise shaping, re-clocking or jitter reduction. All these corrective measures greatly interfere with the critical time domain requirements of the signal, based as current theory is, on an assumption that music is similar to book keeping data which off course it is not.

    Music is a time continuum from start to end, which when broken is irreparably damaged and no amount of clever manipulation can ever restore it to its original time-frequency-amplitude duration or relationship, regardless of what the theorists may tell you.

    As a result we have developed a way of excluding or bypassing all of these corrective measures, to allow the conversion from digital to analogue to be done without any manipulation whatsoever. All we do is to reformat the data stream to allow the converter chip to be able to interpolate the in coming information properly.

    In other words, Audio Note DACs have no over sampling, no jitter reduction, no noise shaping and no re-clocking, they use the highest grade Analogue Devices AD1865, 18Bit stereo converter chip because we found this chip to be the best sounding available (yes, even better than the 20Bit versions!!), the digital power supply is an exceptionally low noise, shunt-type. Having removed all the digital filtering that is part of the over sampling, all filtering in AN DACs is done in the analogue domain where it appears to be easier to retain good wide band phase-frequency and dynamically coherent behaviour than in the digital domain."

    Is he right? Wrong? Well hearing it versus many other CD players - I can say if nothing else it sounds better for the replay of music than I have heard from the cd format. But then I am probably viewed as quitte biased - so one should hear for themselves - but that is true as always.

  11. #36
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    AN DACs have a dedicated following

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Sorry this is an older post and I never got back to it... I'm no digital designer - so I'll just post what Peter Q says about his DAC's:
    ....
    RGA, thanks for getting back on my post

    I'm no digital designer either, and so, especially given I've never heard the AN DACs, I'm in no position to dispute with Pope Peter. However other error-correcting, over- or up-sampling, and/or jitter-reducing designs also how their following too and work well by many accounts.

  12. #37
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Feanor

    The problem is simply that if you think about it most every manufacturer has some sort of unique claim to what is the best sound. I grow weary of reading technical arguements because engineers obviously are not agreeing on what the best sound is. Even those companies like Harman bring out entirely different speakers with their claimed one right approach but looking at the top new JBL with horns is quite different from Revel Infinity and the JBL TiK - and then Paradigm and Audio Note and B&W and VR and Thiel and ML and Quad and Magnepan and Vandersteen all have people who have engineering degrees and all create quite different products.

    Arguing over who is correct and who is not is a waste of time at the end of the day. Peter grdgingly bothered to even make cd playback devices simply because a lot of music was not being produced on vinyl. And his early players were not that great - that changed when he hired Andy Grove apparently.

    There is raging arguments of what is the best approach - But I can only go by what I hear. If it sounds better to me then I'm more apt to believe what AN is saying - it's a bit of human nature that is not the best thing to do all the time but at the end of the day if it's my money it's going to the guy who proves it to me. Theoretically, if I believe the anti Audio Note crowd - then the AN CD playback should be a complete and utter disaster area of reproduction - one little tap and the thing should skip(it doesn't) it should have a lot of burst errors which were very common on the early cd players in 1982 - it does not, it should be noisy - it isn't and on and on it goes. So if the anti-AN crowd is so horribly wrong on those things (and on SET amplifiers or at least AN SET amplifiers) I start to become very skeptical on everything else they claim about Audio Note. The same group that says it's impossible for the E to have more bass than the N801?

    One has to trust a bit in their ability to judge this stuff in rooms compared t their knowledge of music etc etc...I usually live my life in textbooks and research --- but I refuse to buy something that sounds worse simply because I'm told it's better. A basic Rotel CD player will measure virtually Identical to any sampling cd player at least identical in the way it should not be noticed in the audible spectrum...The AN's measure differently - some will say worse - so do SETs.

    It's a large reason I have dumped paying too close attention to spec sheets and measured response --- I'm about to spend a lot of money on a SET amp that I know measures less well than a host of amplifiers I could buy --- I could purchase a Bryston 3b and Bryston preamp for less money. That is a very difficult decision because I'm not loaded and the Bryston has the 20 year warranty, are separates which means flexibility, is way easier to sell, is built in Canada(and I like to buy here when I can) and is more likely to be around in 20 years given that AN is Peter Qvortrup and he's not the youngest guy in the world. Everything points to the Bryston...but at the end of the day the one thing that does not is the music reproduction. It perplexes people who know a helluva lot about engineering like Dick Olsher and Lynn Olsen - these guys are technically savy folk - and yet the worst amplifier in terms of measurements that Lynn owns is the best amp at reproducing music - and on an electrostat that is good at noticing difficiencies real fast.

    The audio note full system I have heard should be technically less accurate -- every fiber in me says so - so why is it not coming out that way when one listens? It's also frustrating that Audio Note has almost no real back-up for what the claim - I have recognised this all along - Peter simply says he's attacked so often in every quarter that putting techical arguments out there he'll just get attacked more...I mean how do you argue a case for SET amplification --- certainly not with the measurements the SS crowd likes because his amp is going to lose. On the other hand how do you convince anti-Audio Note people to be objective and give it a try. People like Skeptic rip him all the time never heard an audio note product but more than that has never heard a single SET amplifier.

    Bahhh - you go you listen you be fair to the companies and you hear what results. You either like it or you don't --- not everyone is going to.

  13. #38
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Admissions I have to make

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Feanor
    .... So if the anti-AN crowd is so horribly wrong on those things (and on SET amplifiers or at least AN SET amplifiers) I start to become very skeptical on everything else they claim about Audio Note.
    ....
    RGA,

    For a start I don't consider myself to be among the "anti-AN crowd": I hope you realized that. I've never directly denegrated an AN product.

    Maybe the main reason is that I have never heard any AN equipment. Nor any SET amplifier long enough to come to any judgement about it. So I'd like to keep an open mind, (and ear). I urge you to do the same. There are good reasons to the theories of other makers as well as their equipment. Like I've said though, there are time when you sound like AN = GREAT; not like AN = BAD (or grossly inferior anyway).

  14. #39
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I wasn;t saying you were anti-AN at all --- in fact I don't blame people who are anti-an without hearing them because their design is so off in left field that how can one not be skeptical -- I was.

    AN in it's ability to make me believe I'm listen to real music is the best I've ever heard at any price and I've even went to say that's it's not much of a horserace. I believe that because the result in room is so to my ear. I'd be crazy not to weight that heavily in my consideration - The Bryston example is about the pinnacle of sanely priced SS technology - in virtually every measurable way it is superior and the theory of box designs go to other speakers and certainly Cd player technology. All Peter really argues is that the measurements typically used isn't telling us the truth at least not the important bits. Yeah - of course skepticism. All SETS are not created equally either.

  15. #40
    Santa Claus
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    263
    DAC's are outdated.Just an update;I have the CA Azur 640cv1.I'm using the high quality DAC built inside this CD player.Furthermore,I'm using a AQ king cobra rca running from the CD player into the Creek21se headphone amp.Then using the Sennheiser hd 650 with cardas cable to plug into the amp.In my estimate it's a cheap alternative to spending much more on a needless DAC.Just my opinion.

  16. #41
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    96
    I am finding this thread intriguing as I am looking at upgrading my source, probably with either a Cambridge 640c or the Music Hall 25.2, but am also looking to replace my amp soon, looking at the same model lines. I keep going back and forth as to which to replace first, and these postings have me questioning how important the source is vs the amp. All thoughts are appreciated. If it matters, my speakers are paradigm studio 20s. Thanks

  17. #42
    Santa Claus
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    263

    Thumbs up

    Here you are Funnyhat.I looked up your speakers,I'm assuming they cost around $500.With that kind of purchuse your in it for the long haul.You have many options.CA, MH ,NAD etc..Then of course you have to consider speaker wire,interconnects and possibly power cords and power conditioners and the such.I also already directed you to a web site that carries CDP's and AMP's.I'm going to have to cut you loose now because with my set up I avoided amps and speakers.However,I'm sure some other people on this forum could carry you to the promise land.

  18. #43
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232

    73t

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Exactly how I percieved it. If people tell you that you cannot hear the difference between CD players, then they are not doing critical listening. The Arcam had the best sound that I've heard in a sub 1k CD player hands down. I've really only heard one player that was noticably better at all, (very slightly) and that was a >3k Meridian 508!

    Once you up in this league with your digital source you can sleep easy knowing that your getting all that you can from your CD's.
    Hi Geoffcin. I just ordered a 73T from my audio dealer. I did demo it but I'm always nervous with audio component purchases. I know how subjective this stuff is. The more I researched the 73T the more I came to the conclusion that if it's not the best $700 player it's dam close. I'm trying to not be unrealistic about how much better My system will sound with the 73T. I'm replacing a 14 year old Rotel CDP and I'm hopeful the arcam will be a big step up in overall performance.I have Rotel amp and pre-amp played through B&W 703's. The 703's are too bright with my existing configuration. I'm very curious to see how the 703's interact with the Arcam. They were a big investment and if the 73T improves their sound I'll be thrilled. I've already thought ahead and know at some point I could upgrade the 73T to the upsampling version with hardware change to further improve sound.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. DTS/DD vs. CD Audio quality-opinions?
    By kexodusc in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-10-2005, 05:55 AM
  2. Buzzing Cambridge Audio A500...
    By SpartanFan in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 06:47 AM
  3. Arcam or Quad Vs. Denon
    By DRPJE in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-15-2004, 07:04 PM
  4. New audio club in S.E. Michigan - hopefully
    By soundhd in forum General Audio
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-2004, 07:31 PM
  5. Audio Illusion
    By Swerd in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-06-2004, 07:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •