Good CD player for 4412s?

[pathfindermwd]

To pathfinderwmd: The point of a DAC is to bypass the inner workings of your computer and provide a cleaner path from the material on your drive to your electronics. If you take a digital output from your computer's sound card, nothing you hear can sound any better than that card. I haven't heard every sound card out there, but in my experience, a decent DAC is usually the better way.

I understand the concept a little, I also bought the Music Streamer USB, for the purpose of bypassing the sound card. What I wasn't clear on was the "One DAC For All" that Mr, Widget was suggesting. His is a good suggestion, and before I consider buying another item with a DAC, I'll consider going that direction first.

the inspiration is already happening, 320kb/s files are considered the requirement in terms of digital resolution that many of the higher end DJ types will require for professional use...
it's the bedroom jocks that are playing 128s etc...


heck, the guys I know that are into digital music 100% prefer WAV or FLAC (or other 'lossless' formats) -- OOG Vorbis is about the only lossy format that i know touring professionals are using.... (and will readily admit to )

bandwidth and storage are both extremely cheap compared to worldwide distribution of LPs or 2" tape....

I have been downloading music for years, starting with the old peer to peer. What I mean is that if a 128kbs song costs a dollar, what will they have to charge to offer the full size wav/lossless version 5-10 times larger? Bandwidth has not changed much in the 10 years I have been downloading, I'm still connected to the same broadband. However, I wasn't completely aware that there were some offerings beyond 320kbs until very recently. The reason is simple, until I bought the new Music Streamer DAC, and upgraded to a new 1TB PC, I had no use for those files. With the new DAC, high quality lossless files have taken my system to new levels, and the new Hard Drive capacities have made storing the music convenient and cheap. I'm not really interested in 320kbs anymore, I have alot of those, now I want the whole sound, I want it to be as good as it can be because I can finally store it conveniently, and more fully appreciate the quality. Now I am looking for places that offer lossless files......

[Rolf]

And some (like me) only use original CD's. Why? because in my ears the original (pressed) CD sounds better than any format I have heard so far. I have some music, really old tracks that I have burned on Audio CD's, but regarding this the quality does not matter, as the original recording isn't so good you can hear any difference. Most of the burned ones I have is also in Mono.

heck, the guys I know that are into digital music 100% prefer WAV or FLAC (or other 'lossless' formats) -- OOG Vorbis is about the only lossy format that i know touring professionals are using.... (and will readily admit to )

[Dave Dunbar]

pathfindermwd: Mr. Widget is referring to the two types of inputs to a DAC; either USB or SPDIF. USB is usually the output of your computer, i.e, your hard drive, while SPDIF is a digital connection to the digital output of some components. Some DACs do one or the other; some DACs accept both. Cambridge's very popular DAC Magic, for example, accepts both types of inputs. The MusicStreamers only accept USB. SPDIF requires its own type of connecting wire. A SPDIF connecting cable looks similar to an RCA audio connecting wire with a single male connector on both ends.

richluvsounds: Very interesting theory on UK listening rooms. If your "room size" theory is currect, it explains my disappointment with the Azur 650C's lack of low end grunt. A lot of things in the UK and Europe tend not to be quite as, er, ah, expansive a lot of our Yank stuff. I thought I'd enjoy an E-Class Mercedes in France this summer, but I'd have been better off with a smaller car given the scale of the roads.

As for the 650C throught the 4412s, I'm just blown away by how clean, open and natural-sounding the mids and highs are. It might be budget stuff over there, but so far, it's doing a lot of things very right for me here in the states. It appears to have some fairly decent innards. I believe the things that annoy me were conscious design choices, and may well have a lot to do with the "home" market's needs. It may just be a Cambrigde characteristic. I tested the DAC Magic and it also had a bit of a weak low end. If it had enough of a bottom to it, I'd have bought it instead of the MusicStreamer.

Your comments about Cambridge reliability are a bit troubling. I don't plan to ditch a room full of great CDs - ever - so when my Azur croaks, I sure hope someone is still making a decent CD player a fairly reasonable cost.

I have no bias against UK gear. I usually cross-check my gear at the home of a friend who has an all-Linn system playing through Acoustic Energy Radiance 3s. A wonderful system, and all UK gear. My Azur had a less-robust bottom on his system than his Sony ES player.

And to Mr. Widget: I, too, still play those little black discs from time to time, though far less frequently these days. One reason is that I've transferred most of my vinyl to digital .wav files. Another reason is that discs are just so darned convenient, and they don't scratch up and deteriorate like many records tend to do. Example: Our Christmas tree is in the living room, where I have a modest-but-decent system, while my room-filling main system (two sets of JBLs and a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10s) is in a dedicated room in another part of the house. I like to play some seasonal music on the aux/living room system, and discs make that easy. Of course, I could network the thing if I had a computer hooked up to the smaller living room system, but since discs make the music so easy to take from room-to-room, why bother?

There were a few comments about quality in there since I last commented. Good sound is more a function of the quality of the source material than of the medium upon which it is transferred.

[Krunchy]

Cambridge is not the same as the AR - Cambridge of 15 -20 years ago ... Cambridge is marketed as a budget brand here . They had some success with 840 ,but never got good reviews from the independents .Rich

I dont doubt it, and thats unfortunate, it being a UK product I had high expectations.

I was wondering if there is such a thing as voicing with components as there is with speakers . That would explain the LF of the Cambridge gear ... The same with Quad , Chord and a few other brands I have heard . There seems to be a dryness to the sound , very detailed and bright ,but no real dynamics .
Could it be perhaps ,that in general with have smaller rooms here in the UK ,therefore more reliance is based on room gain to fill out the low end .
It has been said before ,that the output-stage is the most critical part of any CD player ... Mass produced mid priced in a nice looking box will always finds its suckers .
TD makes a good point about , looks VS quality ...

There is nothing wrong with the 4412...it punches high above its weight , but you can't put crap in and expect the 4412 to polish it .

Dac's are getting better , and your getting more for your buck too ... Wolfson are used in the higher priced Macs ... and I see Oppo are using the Sabre DAC chip . I would like to here that machine ... Good value for money as it comes with USB in put . Cd - Pre amp .. useful !

Rich

Voicing.....I think there is to a certain extent, somwhat subtle but its definitely perceivable. The way you describe it sounding dry, bright & detailed is right on the money, its not a bad sound but it is not warm or super musical. The old adcoms I have sound much nicer, more musical, I remember reading somewhere someone describing the adcom (a $1500.00 unit when new suposedly?) as being a $1000.00 Dac, a $498.00 transport and a $2.00 display, which seems about right .

I will be in the market soon for a new cd player for my office which is being relocated to the dungeon, and all this talk of D-Ac definitely piques my interest, I'll have to look into it.

[Mr. Widget]

I remember reading somewhere someone describing the adcom (a $1500.00 unit when new suposedly?) as being a $1000.00 Dac, a $498.00 transport and a $2.00 display, which seems about right .

That may be true, but realize that a $1000 DAC of a few years ago is probably not going to hold up against a much more modest unit designed and built today. A really good older trans[port is likely as good today as ever, but the digital designs have really moved forward and the analog sections of any DAC is significant, and the better ones today are quite good.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Good sound is more a function of the quality of the source material than of the medium upon which it is transferred.

I'd agree to a point. I have a number of early digital recordings that predate CDs. I bought these as LPs and they sound as lifeless as the early CDs do... bad is bad, plain and simple. That said, the better everything else is, the better even a poor piece of source material will typically sound.


Widget

[Krunchy]

That may be true, but realize that a $1000 DAC of a few years ago is probably not going to hold up against a much more modest unit designed and built today. A really good older trans[port is likely as good today as ever, but the digital designs have really moved forward and the analog sections of any DAC is significant, and the better ones today are quite good.Widget

Absolutely! on the first point, I wouldnt try to delude myself into thinking that some of the older technology would hold up well agaist a more recent product. I am in no way trying to build up adcom (they dont need my help) or suggest their price point (hence the ?), I know they are older units, used, but with all that in mind they are still a decent little unit that can be had for a fairly cheap price.

As for your second comment, well, thats just fantastic news for us all, I would think that digital designs have moved forward by leaps and bounds like everything else digital. I have a great deal of respect for your opinion as well as those of many of my fellow forum members who are far more knowledgable about all this stuff than I am. I still feel like a novice in many ways, but I love music, thats the bottom line. If I can improve my musical experience/enjoyment by introducing a piece of equipment that is within my comfort range ($wise) I will probably look to do so. Thats the beauty and fun part of our hobby.




Rich,
I hope you dont think that I was trying to bad mouth Cambridge audio, merely commenting on my experience with that particular cd player. Obviously it has left a bad taste in my mouth and I personaly would not consider any of their other products based on this.
As we all know a lot of companies change but not always for the better, for a myriad of different complicated reasons, mainly to remain competitive but it seems like something always suffers in that quest. Nothing Personal my friend

[4313B]

Has anyone had the chance to check out Ed's DAC?

http://www.meitner.com/preview/index.html

For those who don't know, Ed is the man responsible for all of us charge coupling our legacy JBL loudspeakers.



That may be true, but realize that a $1000 DAC of a few years ago is probably not going to hold up against a much more modest unit designed and built today.

A quick Google of $1000 DAC's.

Audiophile Review's Top Five DACs Under $1000 - Audiophile ...

[Krunchy]

Where's BMW's popcorn popping emoticon!

[richluvsound]

Rich,
I hope you dont think that I was trying to bad mouth Cambridge audio, merely commenting on my experience with that particular cd player. Obviously it has left a bad taste in my mouth and I personaly would not consider any of their other products based on this.
As we all know a lot of companies change but not always for the better, for a myriad of different complicated reasons, mainly to remain competitive but it seems like something always suffers in that quest. Nothing Personal my friend

Why not .....I wouldn't put Cambridge gear in my system . I have owned it and left it . I have owned some pretty highly rated British made gear .... that sound is not for me . Even my friends big Tannoys ,although mid and Highs are great the low end is lacking . Look at Cooky's old Tannoy . The best studio monitor they make and what does he listen to now ....JBL .
Check out the buzz here at the moment .... diy speaker forums are buzzing with JBL ... FFS LOL .
I won't wave the patriotic flag in defence of what I perceive as a poor product . Japan , Germany , USA and Canada still make the best sounding gear to my ears in the world.
We spent our empire 100 years ago . The English make mostly shit everything now . Its time to come down to earth and realise it , STFU and learn from others doing it better .

RANT OVER !

[cooky1257]

The Cambridge sound isn't for me either.
Actually Rich, my horns are JBL, comps JBL, Be dias Truextent, bass drivers Precision Devices(British and very very good),DSP xover XTA(British) amps MC2 (British).
DACs; Benchmark(US) and Audiolab M-DAC(British designed).
Dont be too ready to diss the UK

[richluvsound]

The Cambridge sound isn't for me either.
Actually Rich, my horns are JBL, comps JBL, Be dias Truextent, bass drivers Precision Devices(British and very very good),DSP xover XTA(British) amps MC2 (British).
DACs; Benchmark(US) and Audiolab M-DAC(British designed).
Dont be too ready to diss the UK

There are some good things about the UK ,building consumer electronics ain't one of them . However , we make some bloody sexy looking landfill . Value for money is so old fashioned LOL

.... Once upon a time we led the world in innovation ,quality and design . There are people still trading falsely on that legacy ... "Made In England" is worthless as a sign of quality ! The penny pinchers got to Cambridge long before they got to JBL. We have know real tradesmen left , all we have is overseas MDF experts . There is no more passion in what we make . Passion is not nurtured over profit !

Anyway , to put it politely.... the 4412 is a fine speaker and worth while building a system around . I would not build a system around this particular CD player or any other product under that name ....

As the saying goes "Crap in , Crap out" I guess I'm just incapable of being polite !

Rich

[Dave Dunbar]

CD player update: After the negative posts about Cambridge gear confirmed my suspicions that I had purchased a less-than-optimum piece of gear, I arranged for a marathon listening session last night pitting my Azur 650C against a friend's Sony X303ES player. After several hours of A-B tests into the 4412s, there is now no question that the ES is the preferred player for use with the 4412s. For those who don't recall my earliest posts here, the electronics consist of a MacIntosh C27 preamp feeding an Adcom 555 amp, both recently refurbished by trusted high-end shops. The Sony is a bit smoother on the highs, but at a very slight expense in detail. The difference wouldn't be enough to choose between the two. On some material, we preferred the cleanliness and detail of the Cambridge. On material with a more energetic high end, the Sony was more pleasant, without much sacrifice in detail or sparkle. The mids were a dead heat. Detail was outstanding on both, and both provided a very "musical" experience. Below the mids, the Sony took over and never looked back. The Cambridge lows were there. They just had no punch or thump. The Cambridge was tighter, but the bass was less prominent. The Sony provided a lower-end fullness and warmth that the Cambridge simply lacked. Overall, my friend and I would characterize the Cambridge as crisp, open and tight, with an energetic but clean high end, almost faultless mid-range detail and a tight, recessive lower response characteristic. The Sony had a more natural-sounding high end on the 4412s. It has a very clean and open high end, but has a less-forward and detailed high-end characteristic than the Cambridge. To be completely fair, the Sony gave up a we bit of high-end detail to the Cambridge. The Sony has a very smooth, pleasant and detailed mid-range characteristic. And unlike the Cambridge, the Sony has a warmer, more musical and simply more "present and accounted for" lower range response. As one listener in the room said, "The Sony's got cojones."

[SEAWOLF97]

this seems to be echoing what you are hearing Dave ?
when I read this, sat there shaking my noggin "yes,yes" in agreement ...have had at least 4 "ES" cd players and never a problem ..and as I mentioned earlier, if you find a good one without remote, no sweat ...most Sony CD remotes are interchangeable , non ES units will substitute. I have mucho Sony minidisk players, the interfaces are the same ...they try to standardize as much as possible thru their audio line. have never heard of anyone complaining abt the controls/interface.
If I were buying a replacement unit today, think I'd find a 77es or 777es ...they are SACD also and both seem to be in the 5th rated percentile of their products.

I read this on audioreview about Sony ES players...

http://www.audioreview.com/mfr/sony/...5_1586crx.aspx

I wish to discuss a little known fact which goes far to explain the build quality and sound of this player. These "gold" ES players from the late 80's thru 1995 were essentially units designed and built for the home Japanese market. Their sound was voiced for Japanese preferences, i.e., harmony and tone rather than American high-end preferences, i.e., analytical detail often accompanied by tonal sterility. It's no accident that so much old McIntosh and Marantz tube gear has been exported to Japan.
In any case, because of the small volume of sales to the US, Sony simply took their domestic units, changed printing to english, adjusted the AC line voltage, and gave us the "gold" ES players. In direct comparison the the best domestic and English players, these ES players have an unmatched full tonal quality and "naturalness". Just like tube equipment, however, they lack the pin point detail of top end transistor equipment. So if you're an engineer conducting scientific measurements these units are not for you; but, if you're a music lover, who simply wants to experience the full emotional involvement with the music, these units are unsurpassed.
In addition, considering their build quality, at their current used prices, they must rank as one of the great buys of the music equipment world. And no, I'm not getting ready to sell my unit! I simply wish to share my opinion with other music lovers on a budget.

[Dave Dunbar]

Seawolf, your last post pretty much sums up how I'm feeling about the ES player. My friend was good enough to let me borrow his X303ES for a few days so I can continue my A-B comparisons on more different material. I played a bunch of symphonic Christmas music tonight, and found things to like about both players, but I liked the Sony more. It's just more musical and pleasant to listen to on more different material. But, in passages with bells and flutes, I was reminded again of how clean and detailed the Cambridge high end is. It's not a dog, just recessive on the low end. With the Azur, I've put my Soundcraftsmen RP2215 back in the path, with some lower-range boost. Just a tad, but it's necessary to my ear to balance things. With the RP2215 inline, the 650C can be coaxed into sounding almost as good as the Sony.

I do believe I'll be shopping for an ES.