Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Cambridge Audio 840C...some thoughts and comparisons
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cambridge Audio 840C...some thoughts and comparisons - Page 2

post #16 of 56
^^^ for what reason would you need to add another cd player - just for comparison purposes?
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
^^^ for what reason would you need to add another cd player - just for comparison purposes?


....since when did you need a reason to buy hi-fi gear


I've just ordered an Azur 840c and i already have a Creek Evo and a Yamaha CDR-HD1500....dare say that the Creek will be put up for sale, along with the NAD C520BEE that's lying in my bedroom gathering dust.
post #18 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallen.angel View Post
I currently own McIntosh MCD201 and Rega Apollo. I am thinking to add another CD player in the $1,000 - $1,500 range to my systems. Does anyone have an idea of comparing these two to 840c? I am actually staisfied with Apollo given its price. Is 840c significantly better?
I was unable to make the direct comparison, but I asked my dealer that very question as he also carries Rega and has compared the 840C/Apollo/Saturn. He likes the 840C significantly more.
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjapixie View Post
I'm surprised the Opera's Dac is worse then the Juli@'s. I have the Juli@ on my desktop comp which I rarely use now as it's very noisy, and the 840c totally blows it away.
Aside from the very low-volume clicks coming from the Juli@ (which I'm sure is from a noisy power supply), it has a more natural sound and less distortion than the Opera's DAC -- and that's using crappy analog interconnects vs. my Cobalt Cable on the digital end. I can't imagine how much better it will be once my Cobalt interconnects and power cable arrives. But I bought those to use with the 840c when I get it. I could buy it now I suppose but then I wouldn't have money for rent and that would be a bad thing.
post #20 of 56
For those who may be curious... I remember reading on the Cambridge Azur PDF brochure that the Arctic line was their highest line of cables (at about $50 a pair) and their lower lines were the Atlantic and Pacific. Well it seems now they have an Azur Reference cable only available in 0.75m length (at about $100). I imagine it's what Cambridge uses for all their Azur product testing so it can't be bad.

CAMBRIDGE AUDIO AZUR-REF0.75M at Richer Sounds - HI-FI Separates, Home Cinema, Speakers, MP3 DVD Portables, Plasma LCD, etc.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets...ctlicensed.pdf
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post
^^^ for what reason would you need to add another cd player - just for comparison purposes?
I am building another system for my study room
post #22 of 56
I'm soon moving on to the WC Stax rig.
I find the older I get, the more I *need* the relaxation.
post #23 of 56
Sorry, but I fail to understand your bumping this thread. Did you ever decide for or against the Azur-840c???

Anyhow, I am presently enjoying what the Azur-740c brings to my system so much so, that I'm considering to upgrade to the 840c ... So, I am trying to gauge their differences, in terms of sonic qualitys to be expected between these two fine CDPs!

Should anyone chime in with new impressions furthering my understanding and expectations, I would be greatfull!
post #24 of 56

A slightly different experience

So a couple weekends ago I went to my favorite dealer, he carries the 840C. Listened on a system comprised of Modwright peamp, (newer model) Bryston amp, and KEF Reference speakers.

I listened to about 14-15 tracks with the Cambridge. I WAS very impressed, especially at the price, but came away feeling there was a very slight glare in the mids/lower highs. I also wasn't exactly sure of the soundstage and image placement within it. In some senses this player seemed a little more forward, and the balance of upfront to farther back instruments/voices seemed a little artificial (good depth, but placement of sounds within the space didn't seem 100% right all the time).

Also sitting in the room was a Primare CD31 player, lists for $800 more than the Cambridge.

Played the same music on that, maybe 2 songs less. No glare, more natural soundstage and imaging; more balanced sounding overall. It seemed at first to have a slightly laid back sound, but there was no losss of details, and the mids seemed more cohesive (especially in balance to the other frequencies).

So now, I'm not sure what I want. I am thinking of saving up to try a balanced headphone system, and wanted to start with source so it could go in my current system as well. I liked the nice flexibility of the 840C (usable as a DAC), and it really is a pretty great player. But I also wonder if I would be bothered longer term by what I heard.

I asked the dealer if the 840C was fully burned in, and he said they both were. He said he had heard at least one other person say something about the slight glare, too.

So has anyone else heard this kind of glare at all? Or think that the music is a bit more up front? I'm not sure if this is a case of not REALLY being burnt in, or if there is a tendancy for this sound....
post #25 of 56
Hey skullguise,

Thanks for those impressions of your audition.

I'm quite taken with the clarity,details and dynamics the 740c has brought to my system, and have been alternating the inclusion of my tube pre-amp (w/ 2ea. '66 BuggleBoys)into the mix and its removal. Still in its burn-in infancy of 120 hrs, so that process is still under development. But I can say, it has certainly settled in some, and the early sonic glare necessitating the tube pre for its removal (amongst other positive and additional audiophile traits), is now no longer necessary.

Not recognising the pre you mention, was it S.S. or tube based?

I don't think i would want anything any brighter though, even with the slight tint of warmth the Meier offers!

I do wonder now about cables for this fine tunning and of course, what the 840c would do to this tone which as i say is fine as is, but even anybit more so detailed I wouldn't trade for if it also came with an increase of glare. Which is something I'm not percieving at this point in the 740c 's maturity...
post #26 of 56
Re: Modwright preamp....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen View Post
Not recognising the pre you mention, was it S.S. or tube based?
Here's a link to an Enjoythemusic.com review, it's the Modwright SWL-9.0 SE; uses tubes. Very nice unit IMO, although I had only read about it before this audition.

EDIT: this was up at Fidelis in Derry, NH; I see you're somewhat local....
post #27 of 56
I agree w/ Skull on Primare. I had the 840C in my system, and although it was much better than its price, there was a noticeable sheen or glare in high-mids & treble which made the music sound too processed. In the end, my Playstation 1 outclassed 840C purely as CDP in my system & there was no reason to go for it (okay okay, you can insert your smart comments "here").

If it wasn't for setting up my analog front-end (which is going to end up costing me a LOT), I'd go for the Primare CD31. Definitely a better player than 840C in all respects. More dynamic and realistic. Less polite but more musical, and has a touch of that analog warmth or burnish. Yeah, it sucks that it has no digital-in like the 840C (which is its selling point), but if you need only a solid player w/o DAC capabilities, Primare is the way to go.
post #28 of 56
Interesting, in my system I notice absolutely no glare in any section of the frequency spectrum. This includes using it with a Headamp GSX which is ruthless in revealing upstream components. I also find it surprising as I am particularly sensitive to any stridency in that frequency area (I noticed a stridency in my stock K701's there that many other users did not hear). The transducers are ALO recabled K701's, and Headphile recabled K340's and DT880's, all balanced. Oh well, if we all heard the same thing this forum would be pretty dull.
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by selfdivider View Post
I agree w/ Skull on Primare. I had the 840C in my system, and although it was much better than its price, there was a noticeable sheen or glare in high-mids & treble which made the music sound too processed. In the end, my Playstation 1 outclassed 840C purely as CDP in my system & there was no reason to go for it (okay okay, you can insert your smart comments "here").

If it wasn't for setting up my analog front-end (which is going to end up costing me a LOT), I'd go for the Primare CD31. Definitely a better player than 840C in all respects. More dynamic and realistic. Less polite but more musical, and has a touch of that analog warmth or burnish. Yeah, it sucks that it has no digital-in like the 840C (which is its selling point), but if you need only a solid player w/o DAC capabilities, Primare is the way to go.
Wait, you thought the playstation one was a better CDP than the 840c?!
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by skullguise View Post
So has anyone else heard this kind of glare at all?
None here. I've found mine to be almost as neutral player as I've come across. Then again I don't A/B it much anymore and have certainly grown accustomed to it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Cambridge Audio 840C...some thoughts and comparisons