CDP/DAC Recommendations

[kuryakin 0]

just to throw in a couple more CDP models to audition:-

 

Cambridge Audio Azur 640C

NAD 542

 

i believe both are in the $600+ price range (new).

 

i've observed that quite a number of forumers here use the NAD as their source.

640C has positive reviews, esp on its DAC, but somehow not as popular for headphone setups?

 

 

[N@Z 0]

kahchun, besides the slight physical difference, any idea what other differences the CD85 & CD80 have?

[Absolute0 0]

Very interesting post, kahchun. I didn't mind the length as it was very helpful. But there's one thing I am dubious about. Are you saying most of those players are better than the CD17MKIII even though they are older and cheaper? In this case, I mean better in terms of overall signature/detail/attack/dynamics,etc., not technical superiority. Or do you mean they are better value for money?

 

I also find it contradictory that earlier in the post, you say that "for around $950 new, this (CD17MKIII) is by far the best you can find" but later on, you say that "I will go for the Arcam or Sony if age is an issue. If not I will definitely choose the Marantz CD85 over the CD17MKIII anytime". Perhaps you might want to explain this?

 

I have also ruled out DACs btw as per a few forumers' suggestions.

 

Thanks for all the input.

[Absolute0 0]

just to throw in a couple more CDP models to audition:-

 

Cambridge Audio Azur 640C

NAD 542

 

i believe both are in the $600+ price range (new).

 

i've observed that quite a number of forumers here use the NAD as their source.

640C has positive reviews, esp on its DAC, but somehow not as popular for headphone setups?

How would you rate these players against the others you have heard? Those who have the NAD 542 (supposedly a few of you?) might also want to share.

[kahchun 0]

Very interesting post, kahchun. I didn't mind the length as it was very helpful. But there's one thing I am dubious about. Are you saying most of those players are better than the CD17MKIII even though they are older and cheaper? In this case, I mean better in terms of overall signature/detail/attack/dynamics,etc., not technical superiority. Or do you mean they are better value for money?

 

I also find it contradictory that earlier in the post, you say that "for around $950 new, this (CD17MKIII) is by far the best you can find" but later on, you say that "I will go for the Arcam or Sony if age is an issue. If not I will definitely choose the Marantz CD85 over the CD17MKIII anytime". Perhaps you might want to explain this?

 

I have also ruled out DACs btw as per a few forumers' suggestions.

 

Thanks for all the input.

 

What I meant is, all those players are better than CD17MKIII in my opinion. They are cheaper because they are old. If new, they will be more expensive than CD17MKIII. That's why CD17MKIII is a good buy if you want to buy a new player at below $1000.

 

The Arcam Alpha 5+ and Sony CD3000 are my choice if I'm looking for a used player. They are significant younger than the Marantz CD85 and Philips CD85. And they can be repaired if spoilt. For the CD85 and CD880, once spoilt, especially on the transport mechanism, you won't be able to find spare parts.

Edited October 21, 2004 by kahchun

[kahchun 0]

kahchun, besides the slight physical difference, any idea what other differences the CD85 & CD80 have?

The internal is about the same, but the Marantz is full copper inside. The vocal from Marantz is more fluid, though both are as warm. Both are very heavy as well. The Philips is more balanced sounding as compared to the Marantz.

Edited October 21, 2004 by kahchun

[N@Z 0]

I meant the Marantz CD80 not Philips CD880, as I happen to own one as well.

[Blues 0]

kahchun.. do you mean sony X3000 as compared to cd3000? coz afaik the x-3000 and 5000 is a top loading design and very well built

I think the cd3000 is the headphone..

[bpribadi 0]

Do you guys mean this Sony XA3000?

 

Personnaly I don't really like the sound, espescially for the money. The build is very good and solid, excellent tray. But to me the midrange is too thin, and it sounds dry.... specific Sony. But it has good detail and imaging.

[kahchun 0]

kahchun.. do you mean sony X3000 as compared to cd3000?  coz afaik the x-3000 and 5000 is a top loading design and very well built

I think the cd3000 is the headphone.. 

Sorry for the mistake, not good in remembering models. It should be the CD-X3000. Agreed that it is very well-built.

 

[Mackie 0]

Knowing kahchun, his assessment of the aforementioned cdps are based on the resultant sound from his speakers system. As there are so many variables in the link, his assessment of the various cdps' signatures may differ significantly from yours, especially if U own only a cans system. For instance, his speakers could have a warm signature and in which case, a clean and dynamic sounding Sony player is a more suitable choice than an already warm sounding Marantz.

 

kahchun: Perhaps U could reveal your system setup so readers can analyse the sound make-up for themselves; especially in this forum where most are primarily headphone users only.

 

P.S Last heard, CD17MKIII retails in the S$880 region but U gotta verfiy with KEC on this.

Edited October 22, 2004 by Mackie

[kahchun 0]

I meant the Marantz CD80 not Philips CD880, as I happen to own one as well.

OIC.

 

The CD80 is an older model of CD85. Their transport is slightly different. CD80 uses the Philips CDM1 while CD85 uses CDM1 MKII. Both are die cast metal design, but the CDM1's tray is also metal. So, CDM1 is slightly better than the CDM1 MKII in terms of built. Both are by far the best Philips mechanism next to the legendary CDM 0. So using them as a transport for a DAC upgrade is a good idea.

 

As for the DAC, CD85 uses the TDA 1541 Single Crown (TDA1541 comes with 3 version, TDA1541, TDA1541 Single Crown, TDA1541 Double Crown, the more crown the better, ). The CD80 uses TDA1541 too but I'm not sure which version.

 

Have not heard the CD80 but based on specs, it might be slightly superior.

Edited October 22, 2004 by kahchun