[Duc]

I am curently running a Marantz 63SE, made in '95. Sounds pretty damn good if you ask me, but I imagine that in 11 years the technology has gotten better. So one starts to explore options for 'comperable' CDP's...

Cambridge Audio offers the Azur 640C, their fist in the face of 'mainstream' audiophile CDP. Runs the Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DAC's, one for each channel.

Rotel runs the RCD-1072, HDCD decoding single disk player with a Burr-Brown PCM-1732 DAC

NAD C542 brings the Burr-Brown Sigma-Delta 24 bit DAC and HDCD decoding.

All run similar price tags, in the $500 neighborhood +/-
They also all have 'shining' reviews from someone or another

One I ask: Is there that much difference between 11 year old technology and what I can get now that would be 'inflation' comperable?

Two, What the bettter choice is. Seperate DAC's per channel or HDCD?

Three...? What would you do and why

 

[infinitesymphony]

Ultimately, only your ears, wallet, and aesthetic senses can decide if a new player is worth the cost.

Regarding HDCD, the difference is subtle and, like any recording, it also depends who mastered the album. Any mid-priced player that says it can decode HDCD probably has a separate chip (the now-discontinued Pacific Microsonics PMD-100) which has no bearing on how the DACs sound. For example, Denon's first HDCD player, the DCM-370, had the PMD-100 for HDCD decoding but only had an 18-bit DAC! HDCDs need 20-bit or higher DACs to decode the whole bitstream.

Regarding the cost of mid-priced CD players, many (myself included) find them prohibitively expensive. Sure, the build quality is great, the sound quality is nice, and they often look fancy, but today's value players are inching closer to mid-priced stuff. Brands like Pioneer and Panasonic use Burr-Brown DACs even in their lowest-end components.

If you feel the need to upgrade but aren't sure whether you'll hear the difference in sound quality, start with a value player. Though it won't sound quite as good as an expensive player, the quality should be close enough to judge whether or not you like the sound.

So:

1. Maybe.
2. Doesn't matter.
3. Try a cheaper player with Burr-Brown or Wolfson DACs, or consider using your CD63SE as a transport and buy an external DAC.

 

[ijrussell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc I am curently running a Marantz 63SE, made in '95. Sounds pretty damn good if you ask me, but I imagine that in 11 years the technology has gotten better. So one starts to explore options for 'comperable' CDP's... Cambridge Audio offers the Azur 640C, their fist in the face of 'mainstream' audiophile CDP. Runs the Wolfson WM8740 24-bit/192kHz DAC's, one for each channel. Rotel runs the RCD-1072, HDCD decoding single disk player with a Burr-Brown PCM-1732 DAC NAD C542 brings the Burr-Brown Sigma-Delta 24 bit DAC and HDCD decoding. All run similar price tags, in the $500 neighborhood +/- They also all have 'shining' reviews from someone or another One I ask: Is there that much difference between 11 year old technology and what I can get now that would be 'inflation' comperable? Two, What the bettter choice is. Seperate DAC's per channel or HDCD? Three...? What would you do and why

I have 3 Arcam Alpha 5+ CD players of about the same vintage as your Marantz. I have had them upgraded using better components. The sound quality available from these vintage players is astonishing. Why did i do this? I find most modern CD players, particularly cheaper ones to be very 'nice' sounding, that is detailed but bland. They tend to be more style over substance as that is what the consumer market wants. Technology has not got better in the last few years, in fact many like myself think that there have been significant retrograde steps. Transports in particular are nowhere near as good as the Phillips in your Marantz.

Unless you have or can get HDCD disks don't bother with it as it will be an extra chip that you will not use.

Upgrade your Marantz. There are many sites on the internet where you will find advice on what to change and on who could do the work. You will then have a player that you would need to spend silly money to significantly improve upon.

Ian

 

[hciman77]

I concur that good quaity is available cheaply nowadays. my main source is a $60 DVD player adn I personally cannot distinguish between it and my NAD C542 a $400+ CD player. Certainly when there is an modest external DAC they are identical to 20 decimal places (imo). YMMV and so on.

To IJRussell - I am a refugee from Coventry - I left in 1998, has it changed any - Does Mr Potato still ply is trade in the City centre?

 

[Duc]

^^^Thanks so far.

I have been actually been looking at the Cambridge Azur 640c. It gets "glowing" reviews, but after reading so many of them it sounds like a skipping record.

I don't know. How would you rate the CD Player in terms of importance in the setup.

There is a significant difference between lines of Headphones, but can one tell that much difference between CD Players or is it just snake oil?

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc but can one tell that much difference between CD Players or is it just snake oil?

I cannot generalize to all CD players and all listeners but within my range of experience differences between CD players (ranging from $60 to $750) are arguable - get a competent reliable source and buy more CDs.

This is of course just my opinion...and probably not what you wanted to hear.

There have only been a few verifiable and rigorously controlled AB tests that have shown any listeners capable of reliably discerning the difference between two sources when they do not know what is playing and many many examples where listeners could not tell the difference between very high ticket players and more modest players such as $80 multichangers or DVD players. Some audio pundits have connected Ipods or PCDPs to very high end rigs and demonstrated very high quality sound. I am unable to tell the difference between my DVD player and my NAD C542 and trust me I have tried and tried and tried to prove the NAD better. Since I cannot I am selling it.

Now my experience is limited to mid fi stuff (Rotel, Onix, NAD, Marantz, Denon) not the esoteric stuff, so I do not know if I would have the same conclusions with Wadias or Linns or whatever.


Enjoy the music

Peace and Love

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc I don't know. How would you rate the CD Player in terms of importance in the setup.

To a certain extent, the source is important. However, you'll find that most CD-playing equipment of relatively high quality has a similar sound. There are really only subtle variations that gear-listeners could detect. The main difference between current budget and high-end gear is in the construction of the box, transport mechanism, isolation, and dampening. In other words, you pay for build quality and reliability. Higher-end gear will also use more expensive components all around, like a beefier power supply, better capacitors, etc. These changes account for the "last 3%" audiophiles seek to gain (and why a lot of them have companies modify the equipment they already have, which is what ijrussell suggested).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc There is a significant difference between lines of Headphones, but can one tell that much difference between CD Players or is it just snake oil?

If your other equipment and your ears are good enough, you'll be able to tell the differences between players, though it's getting harder to tell. DACs are so good these days (in general) that the main differences between players are probably accounted for by how well they handle electricity. As you say, the most significant difference in playback is a change in headphones. Similarly, a speaker upgrade will change the sound much more than upgrading your source. Conversely, it's possible to make good speakers sound bad with a less-than-ideal source.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Transports in particular are nowhere near as good as the Phillips in your Marantz. Upgrade your Marantz.

Even if I buy your reasoning that some older transports are "better" than some new ones (i have no idea), given how important the DAC is vs. the transport in determing sound quality, the loss of quality that you might get from a newer transport is several times made up for by the superiority of circa 2006 DAC set over a 1995 DAC set.

I would say, get a newer CD player and have that modified. If you add an aftermarket clock to it, you can virtually eliminate any jitter issues from the transport.

 

[NightWoundsTime]

Don't just focus on the DAC either, the output stage is pretty important. This is where a cheap multi-format player falls short even if it's using the same Burr-Brown chip as a $500 entry level audiophile source.

As far as differences between digital sources, they do exist but they can be hard to hear. All I know is that I've heard a few that had truly holographic soundstage and amazing resolution, and they represented a lot more than the "last 3%". Ten times that, but for ten times the cost too.

 

[lini]

Duc: I'd recommend to get it modded, 'cause the 63SE is a very good candidate for that. I'd foremost suggest to get a better clock, and a better analogue output stage would also help a lot. Further steps would be better rca jacks, better feet and some additional damping. The sonic results such of a throughly modded Marantz might very well make the investment in an Accuphase seem questionable...

Greetings from Hannover!

Manfred / lini

 

[Duc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 This is of course just my opinion...and probably not what you wanted to hear.

eh, I'd rather have the truth than feel warm and fuzzy with a nice fat lie.


Anyone have any opinions on the AH! Njoe players. It too has good word of mouth and it has a tubed output stage.

!!B

 

[timind]

I believe the newer cdps are worth the investment. Had a NAD 541i and that got me hooked on HDCD. It was, IMO, a super player for the $$. Expect the 542 would be a slight improvement. In a completely different vein I think one of the best buys available now is one of the many used Sony DVP-9000ES machines being offered used. Or even better is a used Toshiba SD-9200 DVD player with DVD-audio and HDCD. Yep, I'm lovin HDCD, can ya tell.

 

[qaam]

I have no experience with CDPs in the $200-600 range, but I thought I weigh in on the value of a quality DAC.

I have a Quad CDP-99/2. Retails for $1300. When I first got it, I A-Bed it against lossless tracks on my laptop and iPod. Wow, the quality of music coming from the Quad blew my iPod/computer away (their sound is indistinguishable to my ears). The Quad hardily beat my computer in every aspect... soundstaging, dynamics, detail, etc. The music from my computer sounded like there was a wool blanket between my HD600s and my ears compared to that from the Quad.

To test if it was the transport or the DAC, I hooked my computer up to the DAC in my Quad using a toslink cable (the Quad has digital ins) and listened. Once again, clarity was restored to the music, and it sounded lifelike and beautiful. I personally can't tell any difference between using my computer as a source or the transport in the Quad... but the DAC makes a huge difference.

So, can using an iPod as a source sound good? Of course. My system sounds great with lossless tunes from an iPod. But, will it sound better with a quality source, especially a quality DAC? Yes.