• 02-19-2004, 01:33 PM
    iBug
    Is it logical to buy a Sony CDP-XA7ES for around 1000$ brand new?
    I decided to buy a CD player as I'm using a 250 GBP Pioneer DV565-A universal player for everything. I decided that I can spend up to 1200 Euro (1500$). I found out that the only players in my country which are below that price are

    Rotel RCD-02 and RCD-1072
    Arcam Diva CD-73 CD-82 CD-92 (CD-92 is a little bit over 1500$ here but I may be able to get it)
    Marantz CD-17 for 1200 Euro.

    AND with a little surprise, I found a second hand BUT never used Sony CDPXA7ES for around 1000$. The owner bought and returned the Sony to buy a ultra high end Accuphase player. When, I don't know yet. The Sony is never used but it may be the product of 1994 or 1998. I'll ask my dealer.

    Now, I've read tons of reviews of you guys about Sony which were all made before 1998. So I guess that after 1998 nobody even cared about this product because it didn't make sense to spend 2000$ for a really old technology. My question is this: Is this Sony going to sound better than the ones I've listed there? For Rotel CD Players I've never read a really positive review anywhere. For that price, there are better players everyone says.

    The Arcam's however have received a lot of good reviews. CD-82 has a Dual 24 Bit Burr-Brown which is really expensive DAC and the CD-92 is ever more interestingly has a upsampler to 24-192 and has a really expensive filter and DAC. So, DACwise, I don't think the Sony has such a good DAC. Those DAC's didn't exist they Sony did that machine I guess. The Marantz is a greatly build (at least is looks so and it's heavy) machine but how it sounds, I don't know. I will audition all of these above at home but for a short time. An hour at most. The dealers here don't lend you the gear for a week or so. I may not get any sonic difference between them in that short time. But I guess I'll get the benefit after a long listening period when I buy one of them. So, which one is the most logical buy here? Please help. This will be the first high-end gear I am buying.

    My system consists of a pair of B&W 603 S3's, a Rotel RB-1070 Power combed with Rotel RC-03 Pre. My interconnects and speaker cables are Transparent. I never bought a mains cable yet.
  • 02-19-2004, 04:36 PM
    Geoffcin
    Go with a newer model
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iBug
    I decided to buy a CD player as I'm using a 250 GBP Pioneer DV565-A universal player for everything. I decided that I can spend up to 1200 Euro (1500$). I found out that the only players in my country which are below that price are

    Rotel RCD-02 and RCD-1072
    Arcam Diva CD-73 CD-82 CD-92 (CD-92 is a little bit over 1500$ here but I may be able to get it)
    Marantz CD-17 for 1200 Euro.

    AND with a little surprise, I found a second hand BUT never used Sony CDPXA7ES for around 1000$. The owner bought and returned the Sony to buy a ultra high end Accuphase player. When, I don't know yet. The Sony is never used but it may be the product of 1994 or 1998. I'll ask my dealer.

    Now, I've read tons of reviews of you guys about Sony which were all made before 1998. So I guess that after 1998 nobody even cared about this product because it didn't make sense to spend 2000$ for a really old technology. My question is this: Is this Sony going to sound better than the ones I've listed there? For Rotel CD Players I've never read a really positive review anywhere. For that price, there are better players everyone says.

    The Arcam's however have received a lot of good reviews. CD-82 has a Dual 24 Bit Burr-Brown which is really expensive DAC and the CD-92 is ever more interestingly has a upsampler to 24-192 and has a really expensive filter and DAC. So, DACwise, I don't think the Sony has such a good DAC. Those DAC's didn't exist they Sony did that machine I guess. The Marantz is a greatly build (at least is looks so and it's heavy) machine but how it sounds, I don't know. I will audition all of these above at home but for a short time. An hour at most. The dealers here don't lend you the gear for a week or so. I may not get any sonic difference between them in that short time. But I guess I'll get the benefit after a long listening period when I buy one of them. So, which one is the most logical buy here? Please help. This will be the first high-end gear I am buying.

    My system consists of a pair of B&W 603 S3's, a Rotel RB-1070 Power combed with Rotel RC-03 Pre. My interconnects and speaker cables are Transparent. I never bought a mains cable yet.

    I would stick to a newer model. The advancments made is just the last two years is amazing. If you go with the Arcam CD-92 you will have some of the most advanced CD technology on the planet. I went with the CD-72, and it's been a good investment for me.
  • 02-19-2004, 05:00 PM
    mtrycraft
    I am not sure if you indicated why you you need another CD player and one as expensive as you indicate?
    There is nothing to gain from such an expensive player that you cannot have with what you have, sonically that is. Maybe you have other pressing need than sound?
  • 02-20-2004, 01:43 AM
    iBug
    I won't buy probably if there is no big sonic difference than my Pioneer
    I didn't say I need one expensive CD player. I just didn't hear any of those expensive players in my home and I don't know how much difference they can make. I'm sure that the difference won't be like speakers but I want to try. People even pay 10000$ to a CD player. If there is a difference and I can hear it and if the difference is good, I will consider buying it.
  • 02-20-2004, 03:18 AM
    Geoffcin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iBug
    I didn't say I need one expensive CD player. I just didn't hear any of those expensive players in my home and I don't know how much difference they can make. I'm sure that the difference won't be like speakers but I want to try. People even pay 10000$ to a CD player. If there is a difference and I can hear it and if the difference is good, I will consider buying it.

    They way I look at it is that you evetually want to have components that are above a limiting factor for your total system. I heard a difference when I got my CD player, and that was enough for me to drop the extra $$$ for it. Yes people pay some really high prices for esoteric CD players, but once you get to a certain level the improvements are very small. My advise is as always; Listen for yourself!
  • 02-20-2004, 10:24 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iBug
    I didn't say I need one expensive CD player. I just didn't hear any of those expensive players in my home and I don't know how much difference they can make. I'm sure that the difference won't be like speakers but I want to try. People even pay 10000$ to a CD player. If there is a difference and I can hear it and if the difference is good, I will consider buying it.

    OK. In that case though, you need to do a proper comparison in which you are not biased one way or another caused by other than sonic qualities. You need to judge only the sound. To do that though you need to do a number of steps. You need to make sure that the two CD players are at the same level. You do this with a CD with test tones and meter. Then you need to have someone else swap the same music at random and you write down which player it is, A or B. You need to make sure you don't see or know which player was in play beforehand. You need to guess 15 correctly out of 20 trials. Of course the person doing the switching also needs to keep track so he can grade your guesses :)

    This is about a single blind test. Double would be better of course.

    Using two of the same CD, one in each player needs more tecnnical testing first. You need to make sure they are identical and not by name and band:) That would need to be determined by bit ripping and comparing. Then, you would have to synchronize it to a very close tolerance, milli seconds, or you will know one is ahead of the other and have a clue which one is playing.

    You cannot control you biase. It is subconscious, inconsistent, and unknowing when it is on or off.

    Good luck, or you may be spending needlessly.