[Gmd]

I have recently considered upgrading my source to a NAD C451i (After I heard all the good comments about it here) from a Marantz CD5000. Would there be a noticable improvement in sound or do you believe I should save my money for something else? I will be connecting this to my ASL Mg Head OTL mkII with Outlaw Audio Interconnects. I will be listeing to it on my HD-600's with Equinox cables. I was considering the phillips DVD/SACD player but nothing I listen to is available in SACD so I decided to stick with redbook.

 

[blr]

I'd say save a bit more money and make a bigger upgrade step. The C541i will sound better than the Marantz but IMO the step is a bit too small to be worth it. If you save like $150 more you can jump to say CD6000KI which is even better.

 

[Guyferd]

I agree with blr. The improvement will not be that significant. You are better off saving your cash and upgrade to a whole lot better sounding eqpmnt in the future. I would recommend the cd6000KI or the heart cd6000.. I heard the heart cd6000 is very very nice!!

 

[screwdriver]

call upscale - they had a used marantz 6000 OSE that they are selling bit i dont know how much .

 

[blr]

The 6000 OSE is a great player. I have the pleasure to own one and have recommended it many times. Sound and build are exemplary for the price. True, the KI signature version is even better but it costs qute a bit more. The plain CD6000 is also good but as with C541i the upgraqde step might be too small, so I'd recommend CD6000OSE as a minimum and of course the KI if you're ready to part with the cash.

PS: mind that the 6000 OSE doesn't play CDRs it is fully CDRW compatible however

 

[omer]

Gmd, the Philips 963 is the way to go, if you don't get a Heart or Ah! product. SACD is beng HEAVILY supported by the major labels, as well as TONS of smaller labels. The 963 is also pretty good with redbook.
IMHO, NAD ain't what it used to be.

Sticking with your Marantz would be better.

 

[screwdriver]

there is a marantz 6000 ose for sale at audiogon for $325:

http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.p...600&class&3&4&

not mine , dont know the seller.

 

[lini]

screwdriver: New or used? For a used one, it would be fairly expensive - over here I only paid ~ 350 Euro (incl. 16 % vat) for it new!

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[screwdriver]

that one is used lini.

it is also very rare here in the USA i think.

 

[blr]

Quote:

Originally posted by omer Gmd, the Philips 963 is the way to go, if you don't get a Heart or Ah! product. SACD is beng HEAVILY supported by the major labels, as well as TONS of smaller labels. The 963 is also pretty good with redbook. IMHO, NAD ain't what it used to be. Sticking with your Marantz would be better.

I continue to fight against this standard recomendation of cheap DVD/CD/SACD players. First of all omer the redbook playback of the 963 is not at all that great. All the players discussed here sound much better with CDs. The 963 CD sound will not be an improvement over Marantz CD5000. It is a very competitive DVD-V player and a bit better with CDs than the average DVD player (usually horrible). I haven't heard it with SACDs. IMO, it was intended for film lovers that would like to play music occasionally through their home theater systems. For the SACD format being "HEAVILY supported" I'd like to see this support in the form of more rock SACD being mastered. The process is slow. Two years ago in these forums we believed that in two years there will be plenty of SACD/DVD-A discs. This didn't happen and there is no guarantee that in two years from now the situation will be much different. In the mean time CDs will be here for years to come. Also, a good CD player can still sound better than a bad universal player in SACD mode. Surround sound migh or might not be a bonus depending on the rest of the system and certainly not an issue for headphone listening. All that adds to point out that CD is still the way to go at least on a budget. Nothing wrong with SACD it's better than CD no question about it and there are some awesome machines to play it. However, given the Gmd's budget a good dedicated CD player is the way to go.
I don't know what do you mean by "NAD ain't what it used to be"
They still make very competitive gear at very low prices even though the competition is much tougher nowadays so don't expect to see something like the 3020. Not because they are worse today but because there are other manufacturers that copied the approach and as a result there is a competition which is a good thing.

 

[lini]

blr: Although I have neither heard the 963Sa nor compared it to the CD6000OSE, I'm not so sure. At least for some German audio magazines the 963SA fares equally good or even better than the CD6000OSE in redbook playback. So, I guess, it would be wise to compare...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[tom hankins]

Gmd, Why not take the money it would cost for the NAD and look for a used Creek CD43, or Planet2K, or any of a bunch of good players? Both these players are a very noticable jump up from either the 541i or the 6000ose players.

 

[blr]

Quote:

Originally posted by lini blr: Although I have neither heard the 963Sa nor compared it to the CD6000OSE, I'm not so sure. At least for some German audio magazines the 963SA fares equally good or even better than the CD6000OSE in redbook playback. So, I guess, it would be wise to compare... Greetings from Munich! Manfred / lini

I've heard it although not side by side and to me it was not in the same class. Perhaps with SACDs it will sound considerably bettr. I might be biased since I own CD6000OSE, but the 963 was not musical. Everything is there bass mids and treble but they simply don't blend to produce music. It all sounds mechanical. Moovie sound is very good though. Build quality of the 963 is good but not as good as CD6000 OSE as well.
In any case as I said the 6000 OSE is the absolute minimum in Gmd's case. The KI signature is better as is the above mentioned Rega player. If these can be found cheap secondhand it is a sensible choice.

 

[omer]

Personally, I think if someone was going to upgrade FROM a 5000, and wanted a worthwhile jump in performance, going to a 6000OSE would be negligeable (I used to own one). On the other hand, going to a hot rodded 6000, i/e, the Heart or the AH! product would make more sense, for around the same money.

Going to a Rega might not be a good idea depending on the amp being used. It'll sound really nice with Gmd's ASL, but the Rega doesn't the same type of midrange delivery as the Marantz-based players.
Gmd, if you can take your gear to dealers and try out differnt set-up on YOUR gear, that would be best.

 

[blr]

Quote:

Originally posted by omer Personally, I think if someone was going to upgrade FROM a 5000, and wanted a worthwhile jump in performance, going to a 6000OSE would be negligeable (I used to own one). On the other hand, going to a hot rodded 6000, i/e, the Heart or the AH! product would make more sense, for around the same money. Going to a Rega might not be a good idea depending on the amp being used. It'll sound really nice with Gmd's ASL, but the Rega doesn't the same type of midrange delivery as the Marantz-based players. Gmd, if you can take your gear to dealers and try out differnt set-up on YOUR gear, that would be best.

The OSE is a hot rodded 6000 and even more is the KI version.
Haven't heard the AH!, but since it's got a tube output stage I'd expect them to sound quite different. In Sweden the AH! is quite a bit more expensive than the OSE, closer to the KI. Also when I bought mine I could compare the 4000, 5000, 6000, 6000OSE, and 6000OSE KI.
I'd say the difference between the 5000 and 6000OSE is anything but negligeable and so it should be providing the the OSE costs 80% more. They have completely different layout output stages I think (not sure) even the DACs are different.
Anyway if you read my first post in this topic you will see that I recommended the 6000OSE KI. Now if you're tellin me that this is not an upgrade from 5000 I don't know what is.