- Joined
- Apr 12, 2004
- Posts
- 8,216
- Likes
- 817
Intro
In the <$1K bracket, Arcam's DiVA CD73 and Cambridge Audio's Azur 640C V2 are two of the finest CDPs in the market, as both have received critical acclaim, awards, and a general acknowledgement as being among the best in their class. Make no mistake, both of these CDPs were extremely impressive while they were in my system, simultaneously for 6 months (and the Arcam by itself longer, at almost a year). But rather than try to review them individually, this is instead a comparison! And not just a comparison, but a true two-way fight! I wanted to know - between the two CDPs, was one clearly better than the other? Would a victor emerge?
And why not pit them against each other? The two are both British-made, directly compete against each other at their market price ($749 for the Arcam, $649 for the Cambridge), and even use the same DAC, Wolfson's WM8740. True, merely using the same DAC doesn't mean they sound the same, but a point worth noting regardless.
Read on to find out how the two CDPs traded blows!
Equipment Used
Power cords:
- Black Sand Violet Z1
- Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference
- Signal Cable Magic Power Digital Reference
- Iron Lung Jellyfish
- stock 18 AWG IEC (2)
Interconnects:
- Audioquest Python
- Signal Cable Silver Resolution Analog w/ Eichmann silver bullets
- Signal Cable Analog Two (triple gold-plated)
Amplifiers:
- HeadAmp GS-X
- HeadAmp GS-1 w/o DACT stepped attenuator
- HeadAmp Gilmore Lite v2 w/ DPS
- Single Power Extreme
- Cayin HA-1A
- DIY Millett Hybrid
Headphones:
- AKG K701
- AKG K601
- Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000
- Beyerdynamic 2006 DT880
- Grado SR225
Speakers (for evaluating bass):
- Yamaha YST-MS50 (computer multimedia)
Comparison Sources:
- Arcam FMJ CD33
- NAD T533
- CEC CD3300
- Onkyo CS-V720
Evaluation CDs
Alison Krauss - Now That I've Found You
Howard Shore - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [OST]
Jewel - Spirit, 0304
Kevin Kern - Imagination's Light
Massive Attack - Blue Lines, Mezzanine
Neotropic - Mr. Brubaker's Strawberry Alarm Clock
Norah Jones - Not Too Late
Orbital - Middle of Nowhere
Peter Kater - Inner Works
Porcupine Tree - Deadwing
Portishead - Portishead
Secret Garden - White Stones
The Crystal Method - Vegas
Round 1 - Specs & Features - Winner: Tie
(click pics for larger versions)
- The Arcam and Cambridge both use the Wolfson WM8740 as DAC - the Cambridge uses two, one for each channel, while the Arcam uses only one.
- In its favor though, the Arcam has a modular design around the DAC, enabling it to be upgraded, all the way up to the CD192's.
- The Arcam reads CD-Text while the Cambridge does not.
- The Cambridge has a very fast-loading tray that opens and closes in less than a half-second. The Arcam's tray takes about 1 full second to open and close.
- The Cambridge takes about a half-second to read CDs. The Arcam takes about 1 full second to read CDs.
- Both CDPs worked fine with mix CDs that I assembled onto Fuji Taiyo-Yuden CD-Rs.
- The Arcam has two pairs of analog outputs enabling it to be used with two amplifiers simultaneously.
- Both CDPs include Coaxial and Optical digital outputs.
- Both CDPs offer three-way dimmer settings on the LED panel. However, due to a backlight on the Cambridge's panel, it's much more intrusive at night than the Arcam.
- Neither CDP emitted audible noise (electrical or otherwise) through the HeadAmp GS-1 when at rest, even on their stock power cords.
- Both CDPs are available in either silver or black.
Round 2 - Aesthetics - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
Aesthetics of any piece of electronics is a subjective area, especially given the broad array of visual designs that come from all around the world. That said, both CDPs have a distinct look that make them look like they mean business. The Cambridge has a definite metallic look to it in its anodized chassis and the sleek edges make it look almost futuristic too. A cool sleek look, though I mark it down for this simply because it's a bit too futuristic looking and IMO its styling is on the unnecessarily extravagant side.
The Arcam, on the other hand, is a much more conservative-looking machine. For starters, the green LED panel makes it look like a machine from the 90s, and the plain styling gives it an unassuming look, as if it would fit in right at home alongside any number of other hi-fi separates. It's a look that doesn't call attention to itself, which IMO makes for a much better aesthetic.
Round 3 - Handling & Operation - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
Both CDPs have good solid construction, make no mistake about that. But there's no question the Cambridge easily beats the Arcam - the anodized chassis simply feels tougher, and it's a heavier unit too, making it heftier. The chassis exudes confidence and when handling, it feels like it can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. Operation-wise, the Cambridge is also smoother, as the tray opens and closes much faster, and it reads discs quickly too. All the buttons are clearly labeled and respond with a satisfying click. And then there's the back panel, which even has the analog line outputs labeled upside-down for convenience.
While the Cambridge has a more unwieldy-shaped remote control that's unnecessarily heavy from the battery compartment (when loaded), it is a bit more intuitive to figure out than the Arcam's remote control. Not that the Arcam's remote control is bad, it's just not quite as easily figured out.
Round 4 - Out-of-Box Experience - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
The Arcam CDP comes in a boring traditional box labeled with the Arcam name, with your standard manual, warranty card, power cord, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Cambridge Audio, on the other hand, deserves kudos for doing something unique to the box - it's actually a carrying box as it has a convenient handle on top so you can easily tote it around. Everything still fits in the box ok, but with the handle, it's much easier to deal with and you really can take it with you! It's also a more compact box, and the styrofoam inserts also have "receptacles" for both the remote control and the AC power cord so nothing can shuffle about inside as it's carried.
Round 5 - Frequency Response (Technical Merit Only) - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
- Bass
There's no contest here, the Cambridge drives lower and deeper in the low regions than the Arcam. The extension goes well beyond the scale of the Audio-Technica AD2000, with a power and authority that has to be heard to be believed. It has just the right amount of quantity and weight that it doesn't sound overblown yet it can easily handle low, thunderous booms and rolls, so it doesn't sound too controlled.
The Arcam, in comparison, sounds like it has some roll-off here, near the range of 30 Hz or so, or slightly lower. Its bass just doesn't sound as authoritative as the Cambridge.
- Mid-range
In terms of transparency to the recording, the Cambridge is the more honest machine, allowing the mid-range to emerge largely uncolored. It's much flatter than the Arcam in this area, making it sound more neutral, but at a cost - it also sounds clinical and cold. And this is absolutely fine, as long as we're going off the basis that a component should be adding no coloration of its own - the Cambridge is a superb achievement of this ideal. What it delivers is a clean, tightly managed, high-focus mid-range that allows everything to be heard with no distractions. Hence, from a purely technical point of view, the Cambridge is the easy winner, as it simply gives a better window into the sound of the recording. It's too bad this makes it sound dead and lifeless though.
Contrasting with this is the Arcam's sound, which clearly imparts a warm, lively sound on the recording and doesn't have as clean and polished of a sound. That however is not intended to take anything away from its mid-range though, as it's still a great mid-range that lends itself to expressiveness and emotion, it just makes the Arcam less suitable as a "reference monitor."
- Treble
Treble on the Cambridge leans highly towards being bright. There's a definite emphasis, and when it's paired with silver interconnects, it's outright piercing with a very noticeable, and very bad harshness that's almost metallic. That however doesn't make the treble entirely bad - the Cambridge has better precision and articulation than the Arcam, helping it scrape up marginally more detail, and it also has a swifter attack too, that really makes the tiny details stick out more.
The Arcam isn't as detailed, nor quite as extended, but it does have a more musical treble in that it's not harsh but almost as well-extended and refined. And it doesn't have the Cambridge's harsh tendencies either when paired with silver interconnects.
Round 6 - Sonic Performance - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
- Attack & Decay
Both CDPs have very good attack, as they're well able to track and grab onto every sound, no matter how high or low, or how fast or slow, that nothing ever sounds incomplete. From cymbal impacts to other percussion strikes, to mid-bass impacts and bass lines, it's all there. The Arcam sounds more effortless though, as it never sounds like it's working to get the leading edges, whereas the Cambridge gives a slight impression that it is.
Decay, on the other hand, does better on the Arcam than it does the Cambridge. Trailing edges are allowed more delay and sound fuller on the Arcam, whereas the Cambridge tends to cut things a bit short - not by too much, but still noticeable against the Arcam. The wahhhh of cymbals, for example, simply sounds too cut-off on it.
- Dynamics
No contest here. The Arcam knocks the Cambridge out of the ring on dynamics with a one-two punch. While both are definite "dynamic" sounding players, the Arcam is simply better at this. When the music gets loud, it lets the volume go through unrestrained (but within control). Loud sounds LOUD. And when the music gets soft and quiet, so does the Arcam - it's here where its range becomes so clear compared to the Cambridge. The Cambridge does not do a great job at reproducing quietness - it's as if it always has a volume preset on that prevents it from getting truly low-key and soft, to capture the genuine sense of a piano's soft harmony, or a guitar's soft strumming, or a violin's distant melody, or a singer's soft words. The Arcam gets all of these effortlessly - quiet passages simply sound genuinely quiet as they should, as parts like almost-whispered vocals have a rare kind of subtlety.
- PRAT
Depending on your perception of PRAT, this is a close tie between the two CDPs. The Cambridge has a brasher, more forward attitude that makes it great for any kind of music with a solid beat. It has a great insistence that pushes the music along in an almost groove-tastic way, with a fast mid-bass impact that moves from one note to the next like a spring. Not slow at all - a very fast, rhythmic sound to it.
The Arcam doesn't really have PRAT in the typical definition of the term, but it does have a warm mid-range along with a good clean mid-bass that makes it sound more musical and involving. Less rhythmic, but a warmer, more lively and engaging sound.
- Soundstage
Another clear win for the Arcam in this aspect, it just has MORE. The Cambridge doesn't provide much air and space (there is some though), and it gives a very fronted image too, with almost no perceptible depth. It has nice width, but it's all on a virtually flat canvas.
The Arcam, on the other hand, has a soundstage that's as if it's on a true stage, with clear width and depth, that you can actually hear into space and along a z-axis. Very good spatials overall, with a striking sense of air all around, with plenty of breathing room around instruments. No constriction, just a free flow of air. With the right interconnects and/or power cord, the soundstage of the Arcam can be improved further allowing you to hear even more depth, and which instruments and voices are in front or behind others.
- Overall
The two CDPs are almost even in sonic performance overall with the Arcam edging out the Cambridge with more musicality but the Cambridge taking the lead (barely) in technical merit again, but ultimately this is a win in the Arcam's favor, due to its more enjoyable sound. It's smooth & fluid, detailed without being over-detailed, swings wider dynamics, is more involving and musical, and it scopes out more soundstage width and depth.
Round 7 - Amplifier Responsiveness & Synergy - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
The unique sound of each CDP initially made it seem like one would be more ideal with the tube amps and the other more ideal with solid-state amps, and indeed, I found this to be the case. The Cambridge is better with tubes, as solid-state tends to bring out its worst qualities - namely, the harsh treble, overall lack of soundstage, and short decay. However, the Cambridge's harsh treble can be mostly tamed simply by using copper interconnects, as it almost entirely disappeared with both the Audioquest Python and Signal Cable Analog Two, so that can't be faulted to solid-state amps in general. That said, whether using either silver or copper interconnects, tubes are simply a better match for the Cambridge, as they soften its edges and help add life to what otherwise is a dead and boring sound. In this aspect this makes the Cambridge the winner, as it's simply more responsive to the type of amp that it pairs better with.
And there's the Arcam, which really doesn't need the tonal colorations that tube amps provide, as it's colored on its own and very enjoyable that way. What it really benefits more from is an amp that doesn't get in the way of the sound, and in that aspect, it synergizes very well with the HeadAmp/Gilmore sound in particular, which to my ears is one of the most transparent in existence. The HeadAmp GS-1 specifically is a great partner for it, as it provides a clear window into the sound of the Arcam without going beyond its scale, whereas the GS-X is even clearer, but audibly well beyond its scale.
Round 8 - Aftermarket AC Power Cord Responsiveness - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
The Cambridge didn't respond very differently to the aftermarket power cords I tried on it. Then again, maybe I was using the wrong power cords for it. In any case, there were some subtle improvements in articulation and soundstage, but nothing as much as the Arcam.
The Arcam improved incrementally more with the power cords I tried on it. The Iron Lung Jellyfish did seem to improve its articulation more and added an extra degree of blackness to the background - minor, and a very subtle effect, but still noticeable. The rest of the power cords, the Black Sand Violet Z1 and Signal Cable Magic Power Digital Reference & Silver Res Reference, did more than just increase the blackness, they also improved what was already great about the Arcam. There were increases in soundstage clarity (more delineation around the instruments and walls, more audible acoustics), soundstage depth (even more precision in 3D placement of instruments and voices), overall focus (less "blur" of instrument positioning), and bass clarity (higher tactility, more texture). In short, the Arcam responded to the difference of the power cords more than the Cambridge. My favorite power cord on the Arcam was and still is the Black Sand Violet Z1, but Signal Cable's Silver Res Reference is a great one too and nearly as good. An easy win for the Arcam here.
Round 9 - Price/Value - Winner: Tie
At $750 and $650 respectively, the Arcam and Cambridge are both on the low-end scale in the world of CDPs. For those just getting into CDPs, both of these probably look really expensive, but when you consider the full price range of CDPs, these two are really just drops in the bucket.
That said, having now heard two CDPs superior to both of them (Arcam FMJ CD33 and Audio Aero's 2005 Prima 24/192), I can unequivocally say that ultimately both of them are excellent values at their prices. An approximate price tag of $700 either way nets a lot of sonic goodness that really boils down to your sonic preferences. Both deliver awfully good sound for the money, even at their market price. Of course it's very possible to sweeten the deal by buying used.
Conclusion
Taking out the two tie rounds, the Cambridge is out on top at four rounds while the Arcam emerged victorious on only three! Instant victor to the Cambridge, right? Not so fast.
True, the Cambridge did beat the Arcam on more rounds, for good reason. It's an excellent CDP in many ways and its acclaim is not unfounded. Every time I listened to it, I discovered something new from my CD collection. That in itself says a lot about it. It's a fantastic-sounding machine, and you'd be hard-pressed to find something significantly better in the <$1K bracket.
That said, I'll give the Cambridge the winner's rights on this match-up, it's only fair since it won more rounds. Lest that paint the wrong picture though, I do have to say that between the two, the Arcam was my major preference. It simply made sweeter music and made me love my CDs the more I listened to them. And if the goal of a source component is to make you enjoy your music, then the Arcam succeeded, with flying colors.
[size=xx-small]Post #4,000[/size]
In the <$1K bracket, Arcam's DiVA CD73 and Cambridge Audio's Azur 640C V2 are two of the finest CDPs in the market, as both have received critical acclaim, awards, and a general acknowledgement as being among the best in their class. Make no mistake, both of these CDPs were extremely impressive while they were in my system, simultaneously for 6 months (and the Arcam by itself longer, at almost a year). But rather than try to review them individually, this is instead a comparison! And not just a comparison, but a true two-way fight! I wanted to know - between the two CDPs, was one clearly better than the other? Would a victor emerge?
And why not pit them against each other? The two are both British-made, directly compete against each other at their market price ($749 for the Arcam, $649 for the Cambridge), and even use the same DAC, Wolfson's WM8740. True, merely using the same DAC doesn't mean they sound the same, but a point worth noting regardless.
Read on to find out how the two CDPs traded blows!
Equipment Used
Power cords:
- Black Sand Violet Z1
- Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference
- Signal Cable Magic Power Digital Reference
- Iron Lung Jellyfish
- stock 18 AWG IEC (2)
Interconnects:
- Audioquest Python
- Signal Cable Silver Resolution Analog w/ Eichmann silver bullets
- Signal Cable Analog Two (triple gold-plated)
Amplifiers:
- HeadAmp GS-X
- HeadAmp GS-1 w/o DACT stepped attenuator
- HeadAmp Gilmore Lite v2 w/ DPS
- Single Power Extreme
- Cayin HA-1A
- DIY Millett Hybrid
Headphones:
- AKG K701
- AKG K601
- Audio-Technica ATH-AD2000
- Beyerdynamic 2006 DT880
- Grado SR225
Speakers (for evaluating bass):
- Yamaha YST-MS50 (computer multimedia)
Comparison Sources:
- Arcam FMJ CD33
- NAD T533
- CEC CD3300
- Onkyo CS-V720
Evaluation CDs
Alison Krauss - Now That I've Found You
Howard Shore - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King [OST]
Jewel - Spirit, 0304
Kevin Kern - Imagination's Light
Massive Attack - Blue Lines, Mezzanine
Neotropic - Mr. Brubaker's Strawberry Alarm Clock
Norah Jones - Not Too Late
Orbital - Middle of Nowhere
Peter Kater - Inner Works
Porcupine Tree - Deadwing
Portishead - Portishead
Secret Garden - White Stones
The Crystal Method - Vegas
Round 1 - Specs & Features - Winner: Tie
(click pics for larger versions)
- The Arcam and Cambridge both use the Wolfson WM8740 as DAC - the Cambridge uses two, one for each channel, while the Arcam uses only one.
- In its favor though, the Arcam has a modular design around the DAC, enabling it to be upgraded, all the way up to the CD192's.
- The Arcam reads CD-Text while the Cambridge does not.
- The Cambridge has a very fast-loading tray that opens and closes in less than a half-second. The Arcam's tray takes about 1 full second to open and close.
- The Cambridge takes about a half-second to read CDs. The Arcam takes about 1 full second to read CDs.
- Both CDPs worked fine with mix CDs that I assembled onto Fuji Taiyo-Yuden CD-Rs.
- The Arcam has two pairs of analog outputs enabling it to be used with two amplifiers simultaneously.
- Both CDPs include Coaxial and Optical digital outputs.
- Both CDPs offer three-way dimmer settings on the LED panel. However, due to a backlight on the Cambridge's panel, it's much more intrusive at night than the Arcam.
- Neither CDP emitted audible noise (electrical or otherwise) through the HeadAmp GS-1 when at rest, even on their stock power cords.
- Both CDPs are available in either silver or black.
Round 2 - Aesthetics - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
Aesthetics of any piece of electronics is a subjective area, especially given the broad array of visual designs that come from all around the world. That said, both CDPs have a distinct look that make them look like they mean business. The Cambridge has a definite metallic look to it in its anodized chassis and the sleek edges make it look almost futuristic too. A cool sleek look, though I mark it down for this simply because it's a bit too futuristic looking and IMO its styling is on the unnecessarily extravagant side.
The Arcam, on the other hand, is a much more conservative-looking machine. For starters, the green LED panel makes it look like a machine from the 90s, and the plain styling gives it an unassuming look, as if it would fit in right at home alongside any number of other hi-fi separates. It's a look that doesn't call attention to itself, which IMO makes for a much better aesthetic.
Round 3 - Handling & Operation - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
Both CDPs have good solid construction, make no mistake about that. But there's no question the Cambridge easily beats the Arcam - the anodized chassis simply feels tougher, and it's a heavier unit too, making it heftier. The chassis exudes confidence and when handling, it feels like it can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. Operation-wise, the Cambridge is also smoother, as the tray opens and closes much faster, and it reads discs quickly too. All the buttons are clearly labeled and respond with a satisfying click. And then there's the back panel, which even has the analog line outputs labeled upside-down for convenience.
While the Cambridge has a more unwieldy-shaped remote control that's unnecessarily heavy from the battery compartment (when loaded), it is a bit more intuitive to figure out than the Arcam's remote control. Not that the Arcam's remote control is bad, it's just not quite as easily figured out.
Round 4 - Out-of-Box Experience - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
The Arcam CDP comes in a boring traditional box labeled with the Arcam name, with your standard manual, warranty card, power cord, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Cambridge Audio, on the other hand, deserves kudos for doing something unique to the box - it's actually a carrying box as it has a convenient handle on top so you can easily tote it around. Everything still fits in the box ok, but with the handle, it's much easier to deal with and you really can take it with you! It's also a more compact box, and the styrofoam inserts also have "receptacles" for both the remote control and the AC power cord so nothing can shuffle about inside as it's carried.
Round 5 - Frequency Response (Technical Merit Only) - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
- Bass
There's no contest here, the Cambridge drives lower and deeper in the low regions than the Arcam. The extension goes well beyond the scale of the Audio-Technica AD2000, with a power and authority that has to be heard to be believed. It has just the right amount of quantity and weight that it doesn't sound overblown yet it can easily handle low, thunderous booms and rolls, so it doesn't sound too controlled.
The Arcam, in comparison, sounds like it has some roll-off here, near the range of 30 Hz or so, or slightly lower. Its bass just doesn't sound as authoritative as the Cambridge.
- Mid-range
In terms of transparency to the recording, the Cambridge is the more honest machine, allowing the mid-range to emerge largely uncolored. It's much flatter than the Arcam in this area, making it sound more neutral, but at a cost - it also sounds clinical and cold. And this is absolutely fine, as long as we're going off the basis that a component should be adding no coloration of its own - the Cambridge is a superb achievement of this ideal. What it delivers is a clean, tightly managed, high-focus mid-range that allows everything to be heard with no distractions. Hence, from a purely technical point of view, the Cambridge is the easy winner, as it simply gives a better window into the sound of the recording. It's too bad this makes it sound dead and lifeless though.
Contrasting with this is the Arcam's sound, which clearly imparts a warm, lively sound on the recording and doesn't have as clean and polished of a sound. That however is not intended to take anything away from its mid-range though, as it's still a great mid-range that lends itself to expressiveness and emotion, it just makes the Arcam less suitable as a "reference monitor."
- Treble
Treble on the Cambridge leans highly towards being bright. There's a definite emphasis, and when it's paired with silver interconnects, it's outright piercing with a very noticeable, and very bad harshness that's almost metallic. That however doesn't make the treble entirely bad - the Cambridge has better precision and articulation than the Arcam, helping it scrape up marginally more detail, and it also has a swifter attack too, that really makes the tiny details stick out more.
The Arcam isn't as detailed, nor quite as extended, but it does have a more musical treble in that it's not harsh but almost as well-extended and refined. And it doesn't have the Cambridge's harsh tendencies either when paired with silver interconnects.
Round 6 - Sonic Performance - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
- Attack & Decay
Both CDPs have very good attack, as they're well able to track and grab onto every sound, no matter how high or low, or how fast or slow, that nothing ever sounds incomplete. From cymbal impacts to other percussion strikes, to mid-bass impacts and bass lines, it's all there. The Arcam sounds more effortless though, as it never sounds like it's working to get the leading edges, whereas the Cambridge gives a slight impression that it is.
Decay, on the other hand, does better on the Arcam than it does the Cambridge. Trailing edges are allowed more delay and sound fuller on the Arcam, whereas the Cambridge tends to cut things a bit short - not by too much, but still noticeable against the Arcam. The wahhhh of cymbals, for example, simply sounds too cut-off on it.
- Dynamics
No contest here. The Arcam knocks the Cambridge out of the ring on dynamics with a one-two punch. While both are definite "dynamic" sounding players, the Arcam is simply better at this. When the music gets loud, it lets the volume go through unrestrained (but within control). Loud sounds LOUD. And when the music gets soft and quiet, so does the Arcam - it's here where its range becomes so clear compared to the Cambridge. The Cambridge does not do a great job at reproducing quietness - it's as if it always has a volume preset on that prevents it from getting truly low-key and soft, to capture the genuine sense of a piano's soft harmony, or a guitar's soft strumming, or a violin's distant melody, or a singer's soft words. The Arcam gets all of these effortlessly - quiet passages simply sound genuinely quiet as they should, as parts like almost-whispered vocals have a rare kind of subtlety.
- PRAT
Depending on your perception of PRAT, this is a close tie between the two CDPs. The Cambridge has a brasher, more forward attitude that makes it great for any kind of music with a solid beat. It has a great insistence that pushes the music along in an almost groove-tastic way, with a fast mid-bass impact that moves from one note to the next like a spring. Not slow at all - a very fast, rhythmic sound to it.
The Arcam doesn't really have PRAT in the typical definition of the term, but it does have a warm mid-range along with a good clean mid-bass that makes it sound more musical and involving. Less rhythmic, but a warmer, more lively and engaging sound.
- Soundstage
Another clear win for the Arcam in this aspect, it just has MORE. The Cambridge doesn't provide much air and space (there is some though), and it gives a very fronted image too, with almost no perceptible depth. It has nice width, but it's all on a virtually flat canvas.
The Arcam, on the other hand, has a soundstage that's as if it's on a true stage, with clear width and depth, that you can actually hear into space and along a z-axis. Very good spatials overall, with a striking sense of air all around, with plenty of breathing room around instruments. No constriction, just a free flow of air. With the right interconnects and/or power cord, the soundstage of the Arcam can be improved further allowing you to hear even more depth, and which instruments and voices are in front or behind others.
- Overall
The two CDPs are almost even in sonic performance overall with the Arcam edging out the Cambridge with more musicality but the Cambridge taking the lead (barely) in technical merit again, but ultimately this is a win in the Arcam's favor, due to its more enjoyable sound. It's smooth & fluid, detailed without being over-detailed, swings wider dynamics, is more involving and musical, and it scopes out more soundstage width and depth.
Round 7 - Amplifier Responsiveness & Synergy - Winner: Cambridge
(click pics for larger versions)
The unique sound of each CDP initially made it seem like one would be more ideal with the tube amps and the other more ideal with solid-state amps, and indeed, I found this to be the case. The Cambridge is better with tubes, as solid-state tends to bring out its worst qualities - namely, the harsh treble, overall lack of soundstage, and short decay. However, the Cambridge's harsh treble can be mostly tamed simply by using copper interconnects, as it almost entirely disappeared with both the Audioquest Python and Signal Cable Analog Two, so that can't be faulted to solid-state amps in general. That said, whether using either silver or copper interconnects, tubes are simply a better match for the Cambridge, as they soften its edges and help add life to what otherwise is a dead and boring sound. In this aspect this makes the Cambridge the winner, as it's simply more responsive to the type of amp that it pairs better with.
And there's the Arcam, which really doesn't need the tonal colorations that tube amps provide, as it's colored on its own and very enjoyable that way. What it really benefits more from is an amp that doesn't get in the way of the sound, and in that aspect, it synergizes very well with the HeadAmp/Gilmore sound in particular, which to my ears is one of the most transparent in existence. The HeadAmp GS-1 specifically is a great partner for it, as it provides a clear window into the sound of the Arcam without going beyond its scale, whereas the GS-X is even clearer, but audibly well beyond its scale.
Round 8 - Aftermarket AC Power Cord Responsiveness - Winner: Arcam
(click pics for larger versions)
The Cambridge didn't respond very differently to the aftermarket power cords I tried on it. Then again, maybe I was using the wrong power cords for it. In any case, there were some subtle improvements in articulation and soundstage, but nothing as much as the Arcam.
The Arcam improved incrementally more with the power cords I tried on it. The Iron Lung Jellyfish did seem to improve its articulation more and added an extra degree of blackness to the background - minor, and a very subtle effect, but still noticeable. The rest of the power cords, the Black Sand Violet Z1 and Signal Cable Magic Power Digital Reference & Silver Res Reference, did more than just increase the blackness, they also improved what was already great about the Arcam. There were increases in soundstage clarity (more delineation around the instruments and walls, more audible acoustics), soundstage depth (even more precision in 3D placement of instruments and voices), overall focus (less "blur" of instrument positioning), and bass clarity (higher tactility, more texture). In short, the Arcam responded to the difference of the power cords more than the Cambridge. My favorite power cord on the Arcam was and still is the Black Sand Violet Z1, but Signal Cable's Silver Res Reference is a great one too and nearly as good. An easy win for the Arcam here.
Round 9 - Price/Value - Winner: Tie
At $750 and $650 respectively, the Arcam and Cambridge are both on the low-end scale in the world of CDPs. For those just getting into CDPs, both of these probably look really expensive, but when you consider the full price range of CDPs, these two are really just drops in the bucket.
That said, having now heard two CDPs superior to both of them (Arcam FMJ CD33 and Audio Aero's 2005 Prima 24/192), I can unequivocally say that ultimately both of them are excellent values at their prices. An approximate price tag of $700 either way nets a lot of sonic goodness that really boils down to your sonic preferences. Both deliver awfully good sound for the money, even at their market price. Of course it's very possible to sweeten the deal by buying used.
Conclusion
Taking out the two tie rounds, the Cambridge is out on top at four rounds while the Arcam emerged victorious on only three! Instant victor to the Cambridge, right? Not so fast.
True, the Cambridge did beat the Arcam on more rounds, for good reason. It's an excellent CDP in many ways and its acclaim is not unfounded. Every time I listened to it, I discovered something new from my CD collection. That in itself says a lot about it. It's a fantastic-sounding machine, and you'd be hard-pressed to find something significantly better in the <$1K bracket.
That said, I'll give the Cambridge the winner's rights on this match-up, it's only fair since it won more rounds. Lest that paint the wrong picture though, I do have to say that between the two, the Arcam was my major preference. It simply made sweeter music and made me love my CDs the more I listened to them. And if the goal of a source component is to make you enjoy your music, then the Arcam succeeded, with flying colors.
[size=xx-small]Post #4,000[/size]
