[Duc]

I think I have settled on a Cambridge Azur Player. Question is the 640 or the 840. It seems they have put some time and effort into the 840, but is the sound quality difference worth the price?

A refurbished 640 is $350, new it is $550 (USD)
The 840 is $1350

 

[Garbz]

I'd go out and try and compare them side by side, and definitely listen before you buy. That way there's no disapointment.

The quality of upsampling largely depends on the algorithm used. As to why you would upsample inside a cdplayer is an entirely different question. It makes sense in the DAC application though.

 

[wower]

I heard the lower one here and it sounded great (I didn't even know about the higher one). It's not going to be a $30,000 player but as along as one doesn't expect that it should be fine. I think it's a great value and am planning to get one (eventually). I think this player is an example of how technology is in favor of the consumer.

 

[Duc]

That many people have used upsampling players huh?

 

[drarthurwells]

Save money and get a Refurb.

Likely had an immediate problem before much use and was returned, fixed, then tested thoroughly. Good as new but tested unlike new ones.

Sometimes Refurbs are new stock from overstock supply.

 

[HiWire]

It's very difficult to get an apples-to-apples comparison. A lot of the oversampling players have much better transports, output sections and power supplies.

Refurb is a good idea if you use it heavily right away - within the shortened warranty period. I had to send some refurbished electronics back within 2 weeks because of problems.

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc That many people have used upsampling players huh?

HiWire he mentioned upsampling, not oversampling which is very different. Both players I am sure would use ovesampling on their DACs. Most modern players even cheap ones do. I for one am from the school of oversampling being a great modern advancement in DAC and providing great benefits to analog filter design at the following stage. I do not believe in Non-OS and all the NOS players I've heard I have not liked despite price, prestige or any other factors.

Duc with upsampling you really have to wonder why? There's really no great benefit to doing so. With 8x oversampling in DAC chips the first reflection of the audio data is already beyond 350khz, pushing it any higher is useless. As for detail, upsampling can't add what isn't there. Infact most of the time seeing how upsampling doesn't always change the sampling rate with flat multiples, the result can be worse.

That is why I said compare the players on it's sound and not technical merrits. I doubt upsampling is the reason one player is better than the other, but in any event it is a nice term which many consumers don't know the meaning of and looks great on the spec sheet.

 

[bigshot]

I have an upsampling CD/SACD player. I wouldn't even know if that upsampling button is wired to anything or not. It makes absolutely no difference.

See ya
Steve

 

[kuma]

Duc,

I haven't heard the said Cambridge players, but one of the DAC I got to listen to had both non-upsampling and upsampling features on it.

FWIW, a non-upsampling input ( this unit has a separate digital input for both to avoid a switch in a signal path ) sounded more upfront and vivid whereas the upsampling input made the music more midrange focused and somewhat laidback. Less focused but midrange expand and had a spacious feel which seems to be in keeping with other upsampling CD players/DAC I have heard so far.

It's a matter of personal taste to which one is better, so before you spend the money, it's better to listen to both.

 

[Duc]

Yeah, I am just wondering if everyone is like "OMG upsample thing is the best thing since sliced bread" (which actually isn't that great) or if it is "yeah 50/50" I too agree how upsampling can actually alter the sound since there is only so much data that can be pulled from the Red Book format.

There is a shop in town that has Cambridge Audio gear, but I can't stand the owner, so I would prefer to just buy the refurb and if it sucks let it go on eBay. I am also sort of looking to the AH! Njoe, but think that it may be too tweakable which could drive me nuts trying to find the 'perfect' sound. It has an upsampler available and a tubed output stage.

I have an old Marantz 63SE which actrually sounds pretty good, but I want to see what 10 years of technology has to offer. The Cambridge Azur 640c v2 seems to have a good rep and the price at 350 for a refurb is spot on.

 

[gtortorella]

Garbz stated:

"Duc with upsampling you really have to wonder why? There's really no great benefit to doing so. With 8x oversampling in DAC chips the first reflection of the audio data is already beyond 350khz, pushing it any higher is useless. As for detail, upsampling can't add what isn't there. Infact most of the time seeing how upsampling doesn't always change the sampling rate with flat multiples, the result can be worse."

I agree. This seems very reasonable.

I, too, am interested in the 640C v2 and 840C. In fact, just last night I started to seriously consider the questions being discussed in this thread. I think I will end up going with the 640C v2, as the upsampling does not appeal to me (especially at the price points of upsampling players). The real question (or final question) for me, though, is: will the 640C v2 beat my CD25.2? I tend to think this may be a "tight race," and thus some further insight would be nice (especially before I make a purchase).

 

[Sleestack]

My Esoteric combo can upsample, upconvert (to DSD) and/or oversample. Everything also can be done in reverse. The up/downconversion to/from DSD produces an audible difference.

 

[Garbz]

There is a minor price difference Sleestack

Not to mention that those ludicrously expensive units you have would use a vastly different algorithm for sample rate conversion than these cheaper ones.

 

[wower]

I think the upsampling issue has been proven. If you look at Meridian's CD players (those things don't even start cheap) they sounds great. Almost Tube-y with a tremendous amount of resolution, speed and extension (Had a long seesion with some maggies a while back). They use, I don't know, magic?, to make recording void of digitial artefacts. Those units really make CDs sound their best and I think it is because of the upsampling.

 

[bigshot]

Digital artifacting, if it exists in a standard redbook recording, will still be there with upsampling. That said, the only artifacting I've heard on CDs are due to heavy handed de-noising by the mastering engineers. No amount of upsampling is going to correct that. Also, tube sound is not less "artifacting"... it's more- just a more pleasant sounding distortion.

See ya
Steve