recommendations for CD player

[frenchmon]

Again, Raj, thanks for the feedback.

Yeah Peabody goood advice.....(keep that mv60 for now, unless you were able to change tubes to KT120's they are simply outstanding tubes!) you will be impressed....very good advice!

[frenchmon]

good day mates!

just got back from a wonderful weekend ready to start the working week ahead tomorrow.
on Saturday night went to my usual night cafe for some excellent apple pie with a few coffees and there they were the awaesome trio, a small jazz trio well know in Melbourne to hit the night cafes after 8pm. we had guitar, bass, and percussions. the sound was aewsome in its most natural state and amplified to a certain degree only that was very pleasing to the ears, not overpowering at all like most live perfomances that are well over amplified to distortion...

they played everything from chris botti to luis armstrong, plus a bit of santana, and the glorious astrud gilberto. went on close to midnight and headed back home just after. turned on my system and let the ACT2 warm in nicely with the Quads, and my golly did we get a similar sound if at all a 90% soundstage to match with. listened all the way till 4am, and realized that my system has achieved the ability to play the real thing when called for. hence I thought to myself in that case why the hec am I trying to upgrade the CD player? so I have decided to keep my little Cayin vacuum tube cdp for all that it is worth and sit back any enjoy the music! plus there is nothing that I have yet to come across that beats the Cayin CD50T under 10 grand. the marantz reference - forget it folks it's out of my league. the guy in sydney (distributor for marantz ref) places only specialized orders with 50% down payment, current retail is $13 grand! that nearly double of what it sells in the USA.

therefore, I thought I'd lay off this search for a little while I start looking again towards end of year. thanks for all your suggestions and feedback it was a real insight to the world of marantz ref, lektor, & naim that I had not listened to yet. all sounded very good but were all way over 10 grand.
the time is now 11:47pm and about to hit the sack, I hear liz wright in the back ground or is she actually here... must be. till then have a good one you all!
& enjoy your music! cheers, RJ

Yeah for the price of gear over there...I dont blame you.

[Raj J]

Yes folks, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is the best for highend audio, so is Singapore (where I bought my c-j & maggie system back in 1999)
I remember back in 1992 just when I was a student in Chicago googling over the highend arena, thinking I cannot afford those systems...

During my summer breaks worked extra jobs, saved a decent amount of cash & got my very first "highend" system in 1995: Krell integrated amp 300i something... 150w/ch) and managed to buy nice pair of Martin Logan SL3's, cd player was a simple Sony ES somthing series, & cables/interconnects were all Audio Quest.

In total I paid something like 3 grand! and this was a used system back in 1995; carefully used in very condition. A similar system like that in Australia would cost three or four times the price.

Highend audio in Australia is EXPENSIVE! and to afford anything close to what you would find in the US, you have to be working your butt off and earing some big bucks to get to highend. But there is second hand gear as well, very hard to find though and very rare. That's why a majority of folks here have the budget for NAD, Rotel, Musical Fidelity, Sony, B&W, Cambridge Audio, Kef, Jamo, and the like - forget the higher end brands never heard of!

Then somewhere tucked away down an alley you will find an unassuming sign that reads "the audiophile" or "Sound Reference" or "The listening room good vibes" and you have to make an appointment to visit. Then when you do eventaully get to visit the place - Ah! there you will find c-j, quad, mac, mark levinson, audio research & wilson state-of-the-art gear that seems more familiar...
but the prices! holy sheeeet- you can buy a house or sports car vs a pair of speakers...

Like my wife always says "damit you've got 3 cars parked in the living room which we cannot use, it only plays tunes!" and we drive an old mitsubishi magna 1989 model; well I am enjoying the music better than driving some fancy car eh...?

The wifey never learns, but when they actually sit down and listen, oh! so that's what it does...
but for 60 grand!!!
Yes, no doubt Australia is a bloody rip off! anyway once you get there you will appreciate it much more and I look after my systems as they are brand new, so if & when I do need to sell or upgrade they will still have good value. Like my last pair of Maggies I sold MGIIIa made in 1986- not a single scratch on it, they were in mint condition and I even replaced both tweeters before parting with it; lucky owner!

Cheers! RJ

Oh! by the way just a quick note to mr. Peabody or c-j fans - I currently have an ET3 preamp running in the system (had to send off the ACT2 for a quick retube); the ET3 sounds fantastic! Also noted a very important thing - the ET3 did NOT match well with the KT120 tubes, it preferred the original 6550c on my MV60se. Compared to the ACT2 which "loved" the KT120 tubes and took the whole musical paradigm to another level, the ET3 just could not get off the ground. The sound was dull and boring and didn't have that cohesiveness. But when I placed in the 6550's the experience was astounding! Not as good as an Act 2 of course, but very very good indeed. Every musical passage was there, 3D soundstage, excellent micro detail, and nuances all there! Well capable of recreating the live impact as well. I highly recommend the ET3 and surprisingly this unit is not expensive in Australia, hooray! Retails for around $3000 brand new, hence US price would be much less... I would think.
It's worth checking out!

[Mr Peabody]

Coincidently I also had a 300i at one time, I then went to the 500i before finding my way to CJ. I used Dynaudio speakers though. I do like Martin Logan ESL's and wish I had room to try a pair with my CJ.

[Raj J]

Oh yes Peabody the Martin Logan's would have been wonderful with the c-j amps no doubt!

However, there was one problem with that design and other Martin Logan's using the ESL panel with a dynamic driver for bass - it wasn't coherent! The bass always seems to arrive after everything else was presented in the panel (mids/highs/mid bass), the ESL panel was jjust way too quick.

This is where Quads & maggies set in nicely becasue they are full range you can drive without having to use subs, unless you wanted that extra bottom end, which is really not required.

The original martin logan CLSIIz I had for about 6 months driven with a c-j premier 11A; (didn't last too long in tropical climates) sound was nice but like all Martin logans they were very fast, lightening quick and very thin, didn't have the bottom end or warmth that I was used to compared to Quads, maggies or the infinity Ren 90, which I later used as my last reference speaker along with the mgIIIa.

Just as I was about to migrate to Quad's, I did have the pleasure of listening to the Martin Logan full range ESL called the CLX, previously in Chicago the Statement E series - now that's more like it! The sound was unbelieveable and so was the price! you could actually buy a small cottage with that kind of money... because the entire amplificaiton (4 monoblocks) driving the system were all Pass Labs designs which were also similar priced to a few family sized cars...

The older series monoliths & downwards plus their newer ones like the summit, vantage, vista etc are all very good in the mids & highs, to me their bass is questionable. Don't get me wrong, they have improved a long way since their predecessors, but when you here a full range esoteric design such as a maggie, or Quad, or even Wilson or Sonus faber for that matter, then you begin to realize where the Martin Logan's fall short, and for the money spent you could really do better, plus even save a bit!

So don't worry, you haven't missed out on a whole lot, if you're keen you could pick up a carefully used pair of martin logans, there are many of them still out there looking for good owners. But to me the Quad's have always been the closest approach to the original sound when it comes to ESL's.
Cheers! RJ

[RGA]

Have a look at the King Sound Prince II - it's less than half the price of the likes of magnepan's 20.1 and Quad's 2905 - and it sounds better than both of them. It's about $6k. It's actually not priced high enough for some to take them seriously.

My fellow writer and panel guru owner of many of them Doug bought a set of Kings which are only $8k - but they're considerably larger.

http://www.dagogo.com/view-article.asp?harticle=513

Prince II http://www.avguide.com/review/king-s...tas-210?page=2

[Mr Peabody]

I have yet to hear Quad but get the impression they are really on the warm side. I like a speaker to be musical but not to sound slow or rolled off. In my current room I don't have enough room to do a panel justice.

[RGA]

I have yet to hear Quad but get the impression they are really on the warm side. I like a speaker to be musical but not to sound slow or rolled off. In my current room I don't have enough room to do a panel justice.

If you listen to any amplified music then there is no point in bothering in my opinion. If you must have them for whatever reason to me the ones to buy are the Magnepan 1.7 and the King Sound Prince or King. IME ESL sounds better than ribbons so at equal prices I take the ESL. Since there is no equal priced ESL for the 1.7 then the 1.7 makes sense.

One of the first speakers that interested me in high end audio was a Martin Logan panel - the holographic sound and open quick presentation is quite appealing. But the lack of drive and dynamics can't be ignored either and ultimately my analogy is that a panel speaker is like looking out the window of a home on the beach at a beautiful clear day - and the window is so clean that you can't tell your looking through a window. Awesome. A great box like the RA BOX or AN E is like being on the deck and you can feel the breeze and smell the ocean - but with that comes a little bit of dirt too. So be it - I want to feel and experience the thing and I'll take what the gives. At $1800 the 1.7 is outstanding - at $5-$8K IMO there is very stiff competition and at $15k I am not truly convinced by any of them.

Even at $1800 for the 1.7 the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 I would probably take. It has problems, what doesn't, but I can play more music at a satisfactory level of quality on the latter than the former. Certainly I can play the most recordings better on the latter since Lady Gaga alone probably sold more albums than the entire classical music catalog from every company on the planet combined. And while the 215 may have some resonances it also has more grunt in difficult passages. So you can "feel" that cello and that organ music. And the 215 is gigantic but then so are panels. Grante your audiophile friends won't be impressed by the name or the looks but...

[E-Stat]

I did have the pleasure of listening to the Martin Logan full range ESL called the CLX

Response down to only 55 hz is not exactly "full range" in my book. Since you note the system was driven by four amplifiers, a pair of subs were necessarily supplementing the bottom.

CLX specs

Using U-1s, I get measured in room response flat down to 30 hz with a slight rise continuing to 25 hz below which the response drops off sharply. And they are truly full range in that they use a single diaphragm for all frequencies as opposed to a two-way design crossed over at 360 hz using a mix of flat and curved panels which require yet a third driver to complete the picture. I find that a 90 degree radiation pattern provides a more natural image to these ears than does a 30 degree pattern. The sound field changes very little as you walk around the room. They do require, however, lots of power. Ideally, I would have about 3 db more.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, you reminded me of a big check mark I had in the Martin Logan cons column, the lack of being able to feel the music. When I auditioned a pair in my home some years back that was a strange feelling.

[harley .guy07]

If you listen to any amplified music then there is no point in bothering in my opinion. If you must have them for whatever reason to me the ones to buy are the Magnepan 1.7 and the King Sound Prince or King. IME ESL sounds better than ribbons so at equal prices I take the ESL. Since there is no equal priced ESL for the 1.7 then the 1.7 makes sense.

One of the first speakers that interested me in high end audio was a Martin Logan panel - the holographic sound and open quick presentation is quite appealing. But the lack of drive and dynamics can't be ignored either and ultimately my analogy is that a panel speaker is like looking out the window of a home on the beach at a beautiful clear day - and the window is so clean that you can't tell your looking through a window. Awesome. A great box like the RA BOX or AN E is like being on the deck and you can feel the breeze and smell the ocean - but with that comes a little bit of dirt too. So be it - I want to feel and experience the thing and I'll take what the gives. At $1800 the 1.7 is outstanding - at $5-$8K IMO there is very stiff competition and at $15k I am not truly convinced by any of them.

Even at $1800 for the 1.7 the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 I would probably take. It has problems, what doesn't, but I can play more music at a satisfactory level of quality on the latter than the former. Certainly I can play the most recordings better on the latter since Lady Gaga alone probably sold more albums than the entire classical music catalog from every company on the planet combined. And while the 215 may have some resonances it also has more grunt in difficult passages. So you can "feel" that cello and that organ music. And the 215 is gigantic but then so are panels. Grante your audiophile friends won't be impressed by the name or the looks but...

I do like the sound of some of the panel speakers I have heard but the lack of dynamic capability at least with the ones I have heard did bother me. If I am going to have a speaker that big in my room it better give me all the audio goodies that I could dream of and at the volume level I want to listen to and I don't crank my system like some of the younger guys do but I do occasionally rock out if the mood hits me and the last thing I want to do is have a speaker dynamically fall on its face in the middle of my rock out session or me have a constant fear of it happening during my listening sessions.

[RGA]

I do like the sound of some of the panel speakers I have heard but the lack of dynamic capability at least with the ones I have heard did bother me. If I am going to have a speaker that big in my room it better give me all the audio goodies that I could dream of and at the volume level I want to listen to and I don't crank my system like some of the younger guys do but I do occasionally rock out if the mood hits me and the last thing I want to do is have a speaker dynamically fall on its face in the middle of my rock out session or me have a constant fear of it happening during my listening sessions.

Harley - another point is that while I usually refer to dance trance and rock and thus it makes people think that I want a speaker that does those things well - and I do - I also feel that these speakers like the AN J and E, Harbeth M40 and 5 and RA box do ALL forms of classical music a LOT better as well. The most critical things for me are vocals and acoustic instruments - piano, cello etc. These instruments have body rich overtones and vibrancy. I think good panels sound better than a lot of boxed speakers - so I get their appeal.

Interestingly I was reading a review in Stereophile of a Harbeth monitor and the reviewer compared it to the 1.7 and I think he summed up the reason why the Harbeth sounds better.

I think Layman on audioasylum note the critical area of 100-200hz as being something to consider as well. I still would rank the 1.7 and King Sound right up there in their price classes because you always have to make a choice on which kind of presentation you're going to prefer. I liked the 1.7 a lot more than the dealer here who sells them and several customers who were listening to them. They had numerous gripes about the sound of them that I partly agree with but I kept noting the price and discussing the agility on transients. But ultimately to me dynamics are the lifeblood of any music regardless of genre or recording quality. And while transient attack is important so is decay to capture the body and richness of tonal shadings on acoustic instruments. I don't really get that sense from any panel that I have heard - not truly. But if dynamics and decay and tonal shadings are lower down the list and that holographic nature is what makes you believe in the presentation then king sound is pretty darn awesome and for not stupid money.

[tube fan]

I like the Audio Note speakers, but none of the Harbeths. The Harbeths are low sensitive speakers with mid bass humps. Lots of people love everything British. I am NOT one! Also dislike most of Linn's products! Over-priced for sure. They would NEVER win a blind listening test!

[Mr Peabody]

I heard the Harbeth monitor, can't remember the model but was in the upper to mid $3k range, I liked the overall sound but I did notice female vocals seemed deeper than any other speaker I heard the same recording on which would agree with the midbass hump. I also, found that an unforgiving flaw in a speaker that price. I do find some very good British gear, Naim and Arcam are a couple brands I find do consistently well. I haven't heard Linn speakers well enough to judge but some of their electronics I like.

[blackraven]

I've never found the Maggie 1.6's or 3.6's lacking in dynamics except when not paired with a proper amp and down stream equipment. Are they the last word in dynamics, no. But I would not say that they are lacking. Maggies are definetly more dependent on the quality of down stream components then most speakers IMO.

I also find them no where near Martin Logans in lacking warmth or soul if you will. The ML's definetly have a unique holographic, airey sound but the music sounds cold to me when I compared them straight up to Maggies at my local delear using and Ayres $10K CDP, amp and preamp.

[Raj J]

Thanks for the great advice guys, and the much spent learning experience I have had from all your posts.

There is one thing I would like to share and that is I have stopped looking for that ultimate CD player for now, until c-j comes up with something worth while. perhaps a DAC or something, because my little Cayin cdp is doing just fine. Another aspect I was planning to do is venture into vinyl once again.

Just over the weekend I spent nearly 7 hours listenting to music starting from 7pm up till around 3am. I had placed in a good truntable from a trusted mate. It was a simple unit from VPI belt driven system with a Quad phono stage - outstanding!
Reproduced from the c-j ACT2 pre and the KT120 tubes on the mv60se through the Quad 2905's - I have yet to hear that level of coherency, detail, tonal balance and the absolute sound. Simply natural to the core, nothing else. This is what the ACT2 is capable of on vinyl it is a total notch up from cd source according to Lew Johnson, and he is right!

This level of playblack off recorded music is yet to be experienced - no wonder I was up till 3am, I could NOT turn the dam thing off, it kept getting better & better every minute! I will probably get hold of a Turntable eventaully down the line. The ones I used before never sounded this good of such prestine quality, then again I never had this kind of system before either...

I have realized that I am not doing the system justice by using only CD as a source, obviously the LP is far greater in tonal textures and that full ambience of musical presentation, refinement to the original sound. Now I know why a majority of you out there still have your turntables, you can't go wrong!

Jeez, still learning here I guess; now I need to start thinking about some good names in turntables...
I thought a well built transport & DAC would get you there, and then comes along some VPI TT for under $4,000 and beats the hell out of every CD player I have listened to so far... what's going on?

Now this is definitely going to be a new chapter in my audio life!
Cheers, RJ

[RGA]

The VPI may beat every CD player - but there is a LOT of music over the last 3 decades that you can't get on vinyl - so if music matters more than the stereo - and it should - then you need a CD player. And if you need one you may as well get one that sounds closer to vinyl than anything else. There are not many really good CD players that are also affordable unfortunately.