Good CD player for 4412s?

[Dave Dunbar]

I should have asked this question on this forum before I bought. I bought a Cambridge Azur 650C because it had the cleanest high end of any lower cost CD player I tried. I'm increasingly dissatisfied with the bass response. I'm running a MacIntosh C27 pre-amp into an Adcom 555 amp. I'm using the Music Streamer 2 + for digital, and I love it. Anyone have any suggestions on a CD player which won't overwhelm the 4412's tweaters, but will still have a nice clean midrange and a solid bottom? I'm very disappointed with the Cambridge. The control functions are odd (no means to return to the beginning of the current song) and it won't play compilations burned in a Roxio program. I don't enjoy using it, but it's the only thing I can find that doesn't make the highs on the 4412s sound shrill on older (60s and 70s) female vocals. I'm about to the point where I'd sell it at a loss. Ideas? Thanks!

[SEAWOLF97]

I've usually stuck with Sony ES (elevated standard) on CD & MD decks ..and have never been disappointed, I'm sure others will jump in with their favs ..and some Euro guys will tell you that there is nothing decent under 3K-USD, but there certainly is.

that CD player you bought did get good ink , at least from AudioAdvisor. Could your problem possibly be elsewhere ?

speaker placement ?
power ? (I have to ask, tho the 555 is a nice amp)
did your system sound better on a diff CD player OR
is this the first in the system ?
bass OK on other sources ?
polarity ?

[Dave Dunbar]

Anyone have a suggestion on a good CD player? A player which would mate well with my 4412s? I'm using a MacIntosh C27 pre-amp and an Adcom 555 amp. Right now, I've got a Cambridge Azur 650C, which I bought for the silky highs, and because it doesn't overwhelm the 4412 tweeters. BUT...the 650C is bass-shy and I'm having to dial in some EQ from my Soundcraftsmen 2215 to balance the sound. I'd rather not have to resort to the EQ. Also, I don't like the funky/strange controls on the Cambridge. I'm open to ideas if someone has good suggestions. I tried the Emotiva and the Vincent CD400 (both way too hot on the highs) and the Marantz 5004 (sounded distant and a bit muffled to me) before settling on the Cambridge. But wimpy bass is a high price to pay for those sweet Cambridge highs.

[Rolf]

It depends how much money you are willing to use. You could buy a Burmester to US$ 20.000,00. I am sure you will be satisfied.

[hjames]

Please Rolf - get real - why would you recommend that ANYONE put a super-high end machine ($20,000 - ???)
on a mid priced speaker??
Its not like vinyl where there is wear on the media ...

It depends how much money you are willing to use. You could buy a Burmester to US$ 20.000,00. I am sure you will be satisfied.

[grumpy]

Apologies for seeming harsh, but it seems like your premise is unlikely to bear fruit.

Unless the 4412's are entirely not to your liking (a possibility),
I have a hard time imagining the effectiveness of trying to match
a CD player to -them-.

Whether the CD player is a match for your Mac pre input impedance (100kohms)
or there is something else amiss in your system (pre dc-blocking caps?, loudness
control working?, ...) seem like better candidates for 'bass-shyness' or high end tizziness.

I personally would not characterize 4412's as bass-shy ... I could see where someone
might have other preferences in that area, or perhaps more importantly in the tweeter
range, but to point at the Cambridge as problematic in either area seems... odd.

It may very well help to try another digital source, just to convince yourself
(or to prove me wrong :) )

[Rolf]

It was a joke! Come on.:D Sorry if I offended someone.:o:

[Mr. Widget]

Apologies for seeming harsh, but it seems like your premise is unlikely to bear fruit.In a world where changing speaker wires can make or break a system for some, I suppose anything is possible, but in my opinion, you need to spend stupid money to get a CD player with SIGNIFICANTLY superior performance. My recommendation is to buy the best DAC as you can afford as it will work with all digital sources, and buy a decent CD player with SPDIF outs... if your current player already has a coax digital SPDIF output you are good to go.

Widget

[BMWCCA]

Unless the 4412's are entirely not to your liking (a possibility), I have a hard time imagining the effectiveness of trying to match a CD player to -them-.

:banghead: I've never understood questions of this type. Buy the best equipment you can afford and it'll likely work out. I don't understand a complaint of "wimpy bass" from the L112, either, though they can be substantially affected by position with respect to boundary reinforcement. :dont-know:

[Rolf]

That is a good idea Widget. Maybe a better idea is if a good DAC is included in the CD player? Don't really know.


In a world where changing speaker wires can make or break a system for some, I suppose anything is possible, but in my opinion, you need to spend stupid money to get a CD player with SIGNIFICANTLY superior performance. My recommendation is to buy the best DAC as you can afford as it will work with all digital sources, and buy a decent CD player with SPDIF outs... if your current player already has a coax digital SPDIF output you are good to go.

Widget

[Dave Dunbar]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful responses.

I love the 4412s, hence the search for the best-matched sources. Nothing I've heard matches that very forward and detailed "you are there" characteristic of a nice set of JBL monitors. I'd sure miss it if I didn't have it.

Grumpy, the bottom end on the 4412s is stellar, and obviates the need for a sub. No question about that. As noted earlier, I'm using decent a decent amp and pre-amp, and both were recently refurbished as needed by excellent audiophile shops. I'm using good quality connectors. I'm using a near-field listening position (6-7') with the 4412s five feet apart. The room is dedicated to sound and damped as needed.

I've decided to upgrade sources after hearing better highs at the home of a friend who reviews audiophile gear for a well-known web site.

At this gentleman's home, I had a chance to audition the Cambridge on several "entry level" audiophile speakers in the $2000 to $4000 range, and several other listeners agreed that my Cambridge Azur 650C was lacking in bass. My friend's reference CD is a ten-year-old Sony ES, and it sounded hands-down better than the Cambridge on lows and mids, and almost matched it on highs. Considering the Cambridge's incredibly good high end, that says a lot for the Sony.

I was willing to spend up to $800 on the CD and $500 on a DAC. The Cambridge won over the Marantz, the Emotiva and the Vincent, all because of its silky smooth high end. The Cambridge has incredible mid-range detail, too. But it has stupid, funky control layouts (hard to use). And there's that issue with lame bass. I never thought I'd say "lame bass" and "JBL 4412" in the same sentence.

SEAWOLF97, I now know that I should have included the Sony ES line in my sampling. I wasn't sure that their newer units would be as good as my friend's older ES unit. Any thoughts here?

For Rolf and Mr. Widget: I gone the DAC route for material on my hard drive. I chose the MusicStreamer II+ as the best match with the 4412s (to my ear). The DAC Magic didn't have as good a high end on USB as the Azur 650C, and was also a bit bass shy. The V-DAC was just too hot for the JBLs on both ends. The Streamer has a solid, clean bottom, detailed mids and a clean high end. The high end can be a tad recessive on some older material, so I've given in and added about 3db of high boost in those cases. That's a better solution for me than the others, which had more than one issue. By the way, I want to have a good CD player, so I can just pop one in and listen, without transferring the music to my hard drive. I've got the Streamer for HD Tracks and so forth. Love it, but there's a big place in my music room for discs, too.

Right now, I'm still feeling disappointment with the Azur 650C. I'm paying a high price for the best high end match for the 4412s, but at the cost of annoying ergonomics and a lame bottom end. I'm considering either the Mapleshade 650C upgrade ($445 to get bass! Ouch!!) or selling it and looking for a vintage ES player.

I've learned from this exercise that the 4412s are even better than I thought they were, but you have to match them with just the right gear. But once you do, the result is stunning.

Thanks again for all of your comments.

[SEAWOLF97]

My friend's reference CD is a ten-year-old Sony ES, and it sounded hands-down better than the Cambridge on lows and mids, and almost matched it on highs. Considering the Cambridge's incredibly good high end, that says a lot for the Sony.

SEAWOLF97, I now know that I should have included the Sony ES line in my sampling. I wasn't sure that their newer units would be as good as my friend's older ES unit. Any thoughts here? I'm considering either the Mapleshade 650C upgrade ($445 to get bass! Ouch!!) or selling it and looking for a vintage ES player.


Mapleshade ?? I'm sure Pierre is a innovative guy for sure, I read his catalogs but just shake my head (no,no,no) , he could be onto something, but I just can buy it ...if you don't like the controls anyway, his upgrade won't fix that.

My 2 good ES-CD desks are in the LR on the 250Ti & demo systems ...on the big BR system ..the CD player (Carver) got wiggy and needed replacing ...all I needed was a single disk, simple good sounding deck . Walked through a thrift and spotted a pristine CDP-Xa1ES deck for CHEAP ...no remote, but most Sony remotes are interchangeable .....wonderful sound, very reliable and I looked it up and found on Stereophiles recommended components ...have no problem recommending that one too. ( I was afraid of losing the deal and so strapped it onto my touring bike for the long trip home, nervous all the way)

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/digital-sources/cd-players/sony/cdp-xa1es/prd_117290_1586crx.aspx

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/bbr.pl?sony&1&listmodls&&Sony

my guess is that the newer ES models are even better , but usually if you buy a XA1, the shipping will be more than the deck.

[pathfindermwd]

I chose the MusicStreamer II+ as the best match with the 4412s (to my ear). The DAC Magic didn't have as good a high end on USB as the Azur 650C, and was also a bit bass shy. The V-DAC was just too hot for the JBLs on both ends. The Streamer has a solid, clean bottom, detailed mids and a clean high end. The high end can be a tad recessive on some older material, so I've given in and added about 3db of high boost in those cases. That's a better solution for me than the others, which had more than one issue. By the way, I want to have a good CD player, so I can just pop one in and listen, without transferring the music to my hard drive. I've got the Streamer for HD Tracks and so forth. Love it, but there's a big place in my music room for discs, too.

Dave, I just got the MusicStreamer II as well. They had great reviews on Amazon, and so not knowing much about the alternatives I figured the for $150, I would give it a try (I don't believe it is the + model). I'm glad to get a little more comparison about it from you. I compared a CD recorded .wav file on the computer to my CD player, it sounded just as good, I was completely shocked, and pleased! Seriously, it was just as good! This is right in line with the reviews I had read about it on Amazon.

I had also tried the SPDIF output of the computer to a pioneer amp, and was not well pleased. But the new DAC is so good, I guess I'll never know if it was the amp, or the SPDIF output of the computer.

Sorry if this was off topic.... I use an old school 5 disc JVC CD player that can't play mp3's or such. It sounds as good as the new DAC, so if you think the MusicStreamer DAC is good, my cheap old JVC must be pretty good too because they sound about identical.:D I bought it used at a pawn shop for $20 ;)

[Mr. Widget]

For Rolf and Mr. Widget: I gone the DAC route for material on my hard drive. I chose the MusicStreamer II+ as the best match with the 4412s (to my ear).I personally would buy a $2000 Bryston DAC and a $25 CD player with coax output... obviously a used CD player at that price point. As for computer music playback, I would not use the USB input on the DAC. I would either use a sound card with SPIF output or I'd buy a high quality USB/SPDIF or USB/AES EBU converter... basically I feel CDs will not be with us all that much longer just as Laser Discs and Tape have gone away. (Please, I know some people still play wax cylinders :blah: but for all intents and purposes... these are dead, dead, dead.)I haven't heard much if any repeatable differences between CD players as transports, but the DACs and analog sections do seem to make a big difference. That said, the difference between a $200 and a $1200 CD player is marginal at best.

Realize, these are the experiences of a fellow who has had little luck definitively documenting cable differences with repeatable results.


Widget

[pathfindermwd]

I personally would buy a $2000 Bryston DAC and a $25 CD player with coax output... obviously a used CD player at that price point. As for computer music playback, I would not use the USB input on the DAC. I would either use a sound card with SPIF output or I'd buy a high quality USB/SPDIF or USB/AES EBU converter... basically I feel CDs will not be with us all that much longer just as Laser Discs and Tape have gone away. (Please, I know some people still play wax cylinders :blah: but for all intents and purposes... these are dead, dead, dead.)I haven't heard much if any repeatable differences between CD players as transports, but the DACs and analog sections do seem to make a big difference. That said, the difference between a $200 and a $1200 CD player is marginal at best.

Realize, these are the experiences of a fellow who has had little luck definitively documenting cable differences with repeatable results.


Widget

Can't we all ever just get along? :D

The Music Streamer II is an asyncronous USB device. The Bryston does not specify if it is or not. While at $150, I doubt it is the best that one could do, it does sound very close to my CD player, (which is also not expensive).

But if there isn't much differences in CD players, and my new Music Streamer DAC sounds pretty-much like my CD player, I'm not sure how much a $2000 DAC could add. I'm sure you know your equipment MR. Widget and I'm sure the Bryston is better for a few dozen reasons, but isn't this getting into the same argument as a $20,000 CD player?

Well just for me perhaps. Because the best amp I have is my (integrated) NAD 375BEE. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any digital connections, I wish it had the SPDIF because it's the best amp/receiver I have ever owned (and the most expensive).

Sometimes more money gets you better, sometimes not. The new DAC was a huge improvement for $150, not like speaker cables, or CD players, which "might" be marginal, not that I am saying they are, or know it first hand (disclaimer). On the other hand...I recently bought a Pioneer Receiver with SPDIF input, and that did not sound better than the sound card/NAD. SPDIF with lower end gear did not get me better sound, not even in pre-amp duty to the Adcom 555. :blink:

I need some more testing. The DAC sounds very good on Wav or Lossless, but I am not sure how well it is helping the lowly 128kb+ music I have. The sound card might have been a bit more forgiving for that content. But if you have great recordings, it's great. It's a huge improvement for computer based music! Fortunately, hard drives are becoming spacious enough for high bit rate files.

At this point I'd rather spend $2000 on better recordings and put them on my computer and listen to them on my new $150 DAC! :p

[Mr. Widget]

But if there isn't much differences in CD players, and my new Music Streamer DAC sounds pretty-much like my CD player, I'm not sure how much a $2000 DAC could add. I'm sure you know your equipment MR. Widget and I'm sure the Bryston is better for a few dozen reasons, but isn't this getting into the same argument as a $20,000 CD player?I didn't mean to imply there isn't much difference in all CD players... there are many very costly CD players that are significantly better sounding than the sub $1200 players. No, what I was trying to convey was that in my experience and in my opinion, there is little need to "upgrade" a CD player from a $200 player to a $1000 player. However since Dave, the thread starter, was considering spending $800 on a CD player and $500 on a DAC, I suggested a path that while costing a bit more than his total, in my opinion, a better investment would be in buying an excellent DAC which will continue to be useful even after the demise of the CD and if combined with a pretty average CD transport will approach the sound of that mythical $20K CD player. I have no idea how good the Music Streamer is, but if it doesn't sound significantly better than your CD player that is likely because it uses similar opamps and DAC chips to those found in the sub $1200 CD players.


At this point I'd rather spend $2000 on better recordings and put them on my computer and listen to them on my new $150 DAC! :pI certainly can't argue with that... though I'd strongly suggest you stop paying money for lossy compressed music. DACs, music servers, amps, and speakers are all likely to be replaced over time, though you will likely want to keep your music.


Widget

[richluvsound]

My 2 cents ... ( from experience )

I use a M2 Tech Young DAC ( $1500 ) and a DVD player that cost me 20 bucks off eBay. I have owned and used both components costing 10 times that .... Has the sound been 10X better ? Not to my ears and the ears of a few others ... In fact , the only person not like the sound was a hifi dealer selling MSB .
The MSB is a fine bit of kit , but look at the price !

Rich

[pathfindermwd]

and if combined with a pretty average CD transport will approach the sound of that mythical $20K CD player. I have no idea how good the Music Streamer is, but if it doesn't sound significantly better than your CD player that is likely because it uses similar opamps and DAC chips to those found in the sub $1200 CD players.

I certainly can't argue with that... though I'd strongly suggest you stop paying money for lossy compressed music. DACs, music servers, amps, and speakers are all likely to be replaced over time, though you will likely want to keep your music.


Widget



Oohh. I see. I thought you didn't think too much of a USB DAC. I think I understand what you are saying now. To be clear, you seem to be saying Why buy a bunch of components with high quality DAC's when you can buy just one...cool. In that case $2k is a bargain over the long term of various inexpensive components. Now I feel a bit stupid..I wasn't fully aware that a digital output would bypass all the low end DAC's in gear. Now I understand how to improve my gear for alot less money. Thanks!


Music Streamer does have a Burr-Brown DAC, albiet some basic offering. The DAc may sound a bit better than my CD player, it's so close it's hard to tell, but I didn't/couldn't ascribe to it being better, I'll have to listen again... In any event, I wasn't counting on it being that good, all the better!

Yeah, I used to own alot of music, but over time it has been stolen, or ruined by misuse. My car stereo was stolen, and I just gave up on having anything nice. Finally it (CD's) wasn't that portable. Then I found cheap/free music on the internet. I bought new gear but never got around to rebuilding my CD music library much, and computer music is just much more convenient, if I want a new song, I just download it immediately.

I'm sure your right about the CD's becoming a thing of the past. The future is undoubtedly in downloading. But what is going to inspire the music industry to offer larger files when they are already getting full price for a 128kb/sec song/album? At 10x the size, bandwidth becomes an issue especially on their end.

[Mr. Widget]

Music Streamer does have a Burr-Brown DAC, albiet some basic offering. The DAc may sound a bit better than my CD player, it's so close it's hard to tell, but I didn't/couldn't ascribe to it being better, I'll have to listen again... In any event, I wasn't counting on it being that good, all the better!Burr-Brown, over sampling etc. really aren't the point... it is all in the implementation and quality costs. A number of forum members have had good luck building DAC kits. I haven't heard any yet, but that may be a good way to get superior performance at a reduced cost.



I'm sure your right about the CD's becoming a thing of the past. The future is undoubtedly in downloading. But what is going to inspire the music industry to offer larger files when they are already getting full price for a 128kb/sec song/album? At 10x the size, bandwidth becomes an issue especially on their end.There are companies that offer hi-res downloads... but only on limited selections. Personally, I am still buying CDs and ripping them to my drive using lossless compression. Drive space just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper... but definitely back up, all drives will fail eventually.


Widget

[Rolf]

I personally would buy a $2000 Bryston DAC and a $25 CD player with coax output... obviously a used CD player at that price point. As for computer music playback, I would not use the USB input on the DAC. I would either use a sound card with SPIF output or I'd buy a high quality USB/SPDIF or USB/AES EBU converter... basically I feel CDs will not be with us all that much longer just as Laser Discs and Tape have gone away. (Please, I know some people still play wax cylinders :blah: but for all intents and purposes... these are dead, dead, dead.)I haven't heard much if any repeatable differences between CD players as transports, but the DACs and analog sections do seem to make a big difference. That said, the difference between a $200 and a $1200 CD player is marginal at best.

Realize, these are the experiences of a fellow who has had little luck definitively documenting cable differences with repeatable results.


Widget

Hi Widget. I own a Burmester CD player. Not one of the extreamly costly ones. About US$ 6000. I have tested external DAC's, both those in a 5.1 surround processors, (price around US$ 10.000) and only external DAC's, (price around US$ 5000), and after carefully listening I use the DAC in my CD player. If you look at the price difference, my CD player is really cheap comparing to the 5.1 processors og exsternal DAC's. I have never tested a US$ 25 connected to an US$ 2000 DAC, but I believe that last combination is a great improovement.

Another thing to think about if one buy a used CD player is that tha laser has a limitid lifetime. There are great variation of the laser, and the cheaper they are the lifetime of the laser is poorer and poorer. And to buy a new laser is costly, if you are lucky to find the correct type.

[grumpy]

That last point is worth weighing in any consideration of a used digital disc transport. "cheap" may still win, but hassle may also.

Closer to the original topic, I still have to wonder about the Cambridge low end issue... a conscious design choice? a defective unit? Might a current buffer help? Poor vibration isolation? Seems odd that a $79 CD player could pound and this higher aspiration unit could not.

[SEAWOLF97]

an old family saying ....

"used quality is better than new crap"

[Dave Dunbar]

All very interesting. Until the money tree I've planted reaches maturity, I fear I won't be buying a DAC costings into the thousands. But I'm quite happy with the MusicStreamer II +. I've run a lot of downlaods from HD Tracks through it, and they sound fantastic on the 4412s. No complaints. And for what it's worth, asyncrouous USB inputs, as in the Streamers, seem to sound to make a difference in my limited comparisons.

To BMWCCA: I also have a pristine pair of L110s, so I know what you mean about bass.

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.

To Mr. Widget: Thanks for acknowledging that there can be differences in the sound of CD players. I would respectfully submit that my recent informal tests of five CD players in the $400 to $800 range revealed that each had a very audible sound characteristic that differentiated it from the others. I'm reasonably sure that CD players which cost a lot more probably sound a lot better, but it is quite possible to get respectably audio from a player under a grand.

As for the future of CDs, there's no question that most people listen to music from some form of hard drive these days. I don't enjoy compressed music, so my .wav files would fill an iPhone in a hurry. I'm very happy to listen in my music room, mostly to my hard drive or CDs. We have a classical station here in Cincinnati that cares about audio, so I sometimes listen to it. Their HD-2 signal is jazz, and I like that. I have thousands of CDs of big band, top 40, old R&B, pop vocals, some easy listening and even some "Nashville Sound" era country. I enjoy holding a CD in my hands and punching buttons to play them. Anything wrong with that? I read hard copy newspapers but am never without my iPhone, and we have five computers in the house. I enjoy a little of the new and a little of the old. I make no apologies for likeing my CDs. Or my computer music system.

Thanks again for the comments. I enjoyed them.

[Mr. Widget]

To Mr. Widget: Thanks for acknowledging that there can be differences in the sound of CD players. I would respectfully submit that my recent informal tests of five CD players in the $400 to $800 range revealed that each had a very audible sound characteristic that differentiated it from the others.My point was that while most of the CD players I have listened to cost between $150 and $1200, I couldn't pick one out as clearly superior... different you bet, but on my system with my musical selections, I never found a direct correlation between price and quality.

As for liking to play discs... I get that. I am currently using a secondhand Meridian transport as one of the sources for my DAC. Will I still play discs in 5 years? I have no idea though I still spin the black discs. ;)

As for dishing out "thousands on a DAC" I only went there because you seemed prepared to spend $1300 on a CD player and DAC. I wasn't suggesting you had to buy a $2K DAC, but rather it seemed a better outlay to minimize the CD player's cost and focus on something that could make CD playback and your computer playback sound better too. As I said, there have been some DAC kits that have met with positive reviews here on the forum. I imagine that DACs will continue to improve and the cost should come down.

Just some things to think about...


Widget

[4313B]

Until the money tree I've planted reaches maturity, I fear I won't be buying a DAC costings into the thousands.There's nothing about them that should cost that much. But people say the same thing about JBL recone kits too.
I imagine that DACs will continue to improve and the cost should come down.I certainly hope so. I want an "audiophile grade" DAC that fits in a slot and can be upgraded as technology improves.
As for the future of CDs, there's no question that most people listen to music from some form of hard drive these days.I can't wait for the day that I never have to clean a record or look for a cd again. All this stuff should be completely computerized, including the legacy album art.
I don't enjoy compressed music, so my .wav files would fill an iPhone in a hurry. I'm very happy to listen in my music room, mostly to my hard drive or CDs.It's really too bad that it wasn't quite ready for prime time when the cat was let out of the bag. It wasn't too long after that some people realized that it was effed up from the get-go and now they're trying to fix it. We all probably still remember those first few years of vinyl versus cd. Convenience won the day. We just shouldn't have had to give up quality to get it.

[Krunchy]

That last point is worth weighing in any consideration of a used digital disc transport. "cheap" may still win, but hassle may also.

Closer to the original topic, I still have to wonder about the Cambridge low end issue... a conscious design choice? a defective unit? Might a current buffer help? Poor vibration isolation? Seems odd that a $79 CD player could pound and this higher aspiration unit could not.

I'm at a loss about the cambridge brand myself.
I have a Cambridge that I purchased in '07 (the Azur 640c), it was in the $500 range, it sits in my office and gets moderate use, in the last year and a half its been showing signs of malfunctioning. The display light sometimes does not work and sometimes it does. This is a complete mystery to me, this unit has hardly been "abused" and has no reason to be acting up in any way, but it does and therefore I deem it a piece of junk (to be polite).
I have two used adcom gcd750s that are far superior to the cambridge in every way except maybe cosmetically but who gives a c___ about that. The adcoms can be had for a reasonable price, as it relates to quality, there's that elusive term again, just keeps popping up. :)

[SEAWOLF97]

My main living room system is the 250Ti's fed by vinyl, cd & md sources ..this last year I added a big (19 inch screen) Vaio laptop that has mini-Toslink output ...ran that digi stream through an older Adcom GDA-600 DAC and that is one of the smoothest combos that you could imagine ...makes Pandora actually sound very good.
I've also run the CD-ES and minidisk player into the GDA with very little improvement. They must already have pretty good internal DACs

have also run the laptop from just the headphone jack, bypassing the Adcom, and it sounds pretty nice too , it must have a good quality DAC inside.

agree with an earlier poster that there really is nothing inside the current DACs to justify their price

[Mr. Widget]

agree with an earlier poster that there really is nothing inside the current DACs to justify their priceI am not trying to argue with you, but have you tried any really good DACs? Comparing an older low-mid priced CD player's internal DAC with an older low-mid priced DAC from another company... I wouldn't expect much difference.

As for dissing current DACs... digital audio has actually come a long way in recent years. This is an area where real sonic improvements have been made. An excellent properly running older turntable won't be all that different from a new one, but the very best DAC or CD player from 10-15 years ago is not going to compete with a quality newer unit. Your 250ti speakers are resolving enough for you to hear the difference, you might borrow something "ridiculously expensive" just to see what they are capable of.

Now, as to what justifies a certain price? I suppose that is like art... eye of the beholder and all that. If something sounds better and I can afford it then it is worth it to me. If it is amazingly better but I can't afford it, then it may still be worth it, but I must do without. Justifying a price may be a matter of craftsmanship and materials for a piece of furniture, but in audio, ultimately it is about performance.


Widget

[louped garouv]

I'm sure your right about the CD's becoming a thing of the past. The future is undoubtedly in downloading. But what is going to inspire the music industry to offer larger files when they are already getting full price for a 128kb/sec song/album? At 10x the size, bandwidth becomes an issue especially on their end.

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.... :)

[richluvsound]

I'm at a loss about the cambridge brand myself.
I have a Cambridge that I purchased in '07 (the Azur 640c), it was in the $500 range, it sits in my office and gets moderate use, in the last year and a half its been showing signs of malfunctioning. The display light sometimes does not work and sometimes it does. This is a complete mystery to me, this unit has hardly been "abused" and has no reason to be acting up in any way, but it does and therefore I deem it a piece of junk (to be polite).
I have two used adcom gcd750s that are far superior to the cambridge in every way except maybe cosmetically but who gives a c___ about that. The adcoms can be had for a reasonable price, as it relates to quality, there's that elusive term again, just keeps popping up. :)


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 .
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

[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......:bouncy:

[Rolf]

And some (like me) only use original CD's.:D 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 . :D

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 :D.

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 :D.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 (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 ... (http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/audiophile-reviews-top-five-dacs-under-1000.html)

[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:bouncy:

[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:bouncy:

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/cd-players/cdp-x77es/PRD_117175_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.

[BMWCCA]

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.

Sounds like you could accomplish the same effect by putting a tissue over the 035Ti in your 4412s. :dont-know:

Forty-years ago we used to offer a back-handed compliment to McInstosh (especially their speaker systems) by saying they had a "living-room" sound. Sort of like today when we say a Lexus is like a living room on wheels. You either want the involvement that comes from hearing everything a recording has to offer (and sometimes that means taking the bad with the good), or you don't.

Some people like to drive and others would prefer to be driven. The first group might actually feel some bumps in the road.

[louped garouv]

.... Once upon a time we led the world in innovation ,quality and design ...

Rich

I do have to give you all some credit, folks on the other side of the pond...
I have a piece of Vintage MATAMP gear, and it is simply top flight...

I've never seen a DJ mixer, especially a vintage one, built to this level of quality...

:)

It's a Stereo Supernova (even the model name is cool!)

[SEAWOLF97]

Sounds like you could accomplish the same effect by putting a tissue over the 035Ti in your 4412s. :dont-know:

Forty-years ago we used to offer a back-handed compliment to McInstosh (especially their speaker systems) by saying they had a "living-room" sound. Sort of like today when we say a Lexus is like a living room on wheels. You either want the involvement that comes from hearing everything a recording has to offer (and sometimes that means taking the bad with the good), or you don't.

Some people like to drive and others would prefer to be driven. The first group might actually feel some bumps in the road.

that post is so bogus that I can't even trust myself to make a non-snarky reply.

[Dave Dunbar]

I think I know what BMW is trying to say with the automotive analogy, but I also respectfully disagree (assuming I did, in fact, understand correctly). If I were a dispassionate listener, I certainly wouldn't be running the gear I'm running into speakers that are as forward and revealing as 4400 Series JBL monitors. Just because a speaker is letting "all a recording has to offer" come through - and we're talking about the highs here - doesn't mean it has to come through in a brittle or grating fashion. I've gone to great lengths to get clean and undistorted high end reproduction. If I had to assess myself here, I'd peg me on the more involved side. There are plenty of speakers which involve the listener far less than our beloved JBLs. I'm sure there are internet forums for folks who like a less-involving sound. Most of us JBL fans probably think they're missing a lot, or we wouldn't be here, right?

That said, there's a world of difference between MacIntosh electronics and MacIntosh speakers. I don't believe my C27 is a piece of gear I need to apologize for. Trust me; it's letting "all a recording has to offer" come through, and come through cleanly and accurately.

[BMWCCA]

You can chill. I'm not arguing with either of you about your equipment choices. I was commenting on the characterization of equipment preferred for Japanese homes and found the quoted reference a bit silly.

Seawolf, you've driven a Lexus LS, I assume. You may have heard a McIntosh speaker system, or two, as the result of one of your speaker safaris. You probably have your own description of how both differ from other cars we drive and speakers we love. Once you understand I'm not slamming your precious Sony ES disc players (I have several Sony players and would love an ES), maybe you'll be able to see the forest for the trees in my comment? ;)

And tissue paper in the L-series with the 035ti is a cheap way around upgrading to the T3 networks . . . sort of. :blink: (I prefer the networks.)

[Mr. Widget]

(I have several Sony players and would love an ES)Not all Sony ES products are quite as elevated as others. I don't post this to lessen the musical joy any have given anyone here, but simply to possibly save others from blindly purchasing a pretty ordinary product expecting something special.

I believe the original ES products were all a light bronze color... the earliest of these were indeed special. Over the years Sony has used the ES on their flagship products and many have been quite outstanding, but they have also stuck the ES label on other products that simply had an extended warranty and most recently the ES badge is used to differentiate product distributed through custom installers as opposed to big box stores to help these retailers compete in a very competitive market. (One where great deals for customers reduce the profit margin and therefore selection and service. Think of the airline industry here... cheap flights, but with the creature comforts of taking the bus.)


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

Not all Sony ES products are quite as elevated as others. Widget I'm sure glad that our beloved JBL never fell into that trap since most companies seems to have uneven results among different models, suggest some net homework and search on owners comments & recommendations.
Seawolf, you've driven a Lexus LS, I assume. You may have heard a McIntosh speaker system, or two, as the result of one of your speaker safaris. no, lexus & McIntosh are not on my radar.
you understand I'm not slamming your precious Sony ES disc players (I have several Sony players and would love an ES Precious CD ? naw ... my MD decks are tho, and funny thing is that some NON-ES Minidisk decks seem to be better than the actual ES ones. If the CD decks were precious, I might have edited that quote down a bit ...but I left it as-is and provided a link did read the latest Stereophile and it has a review of an Emotiva CD player ($449) ...if I were looking for a new one (and there are lots of advantages to buying NEW) would give it a demo too. BOTTOM LINE: the OP did extended listening tests correctly and had a preference ..and no amount of tweaking is going to improve clunky controls/interface on his current unit.
And tissue paper in the L-series with the 035ti is a cheap way around upgrading to the T3 networks . . . sort of. :blink: (I prefer the networks.)

:blink: whaaa ?

[Dave Dunbar]

For the record, I did test the latest Emotiva CD player with my 4412s. To my ears, and those of a listening panel I invited over for multiple opinions, it had a somewhat hot high end playing through the JBLs. The mids were highly detailed and very pleasing, and the bass was robust. If I had a modern system with a more benign tweeter, it probably would have sounded very smooth and balanced. I also tested the $850 Vincent player, which sounded very much like the Emotiva. Either might be a good choice with a modern, audiophile-oriented speaker system. Both had very nice user interfaces, which would have instantly made them more pleasant to use than the Cambridge. If its sonics are to your taste, the Emotiva is a screaming bargain. But...it has a motorized slot feed system which requires a leap of faith to believe that it won't harm CDs. It also has an aluminum remote which is cold to the touch and pretty heavy in your hand. The only downside of the Vincent was that the "play" button seemed to hit fast, once or twice chopping off the first micro-second of a song. The remote looked a bit cheap for an $850 unit. And it does have variable output, which is nice to have. Not a bargain, but a decent player. As for ES decks, I've only tested the X303ES, so I my experience is limited. I spent two hours in my listening room A-B-ing the ES and the Cambridge (again!) and again concluded that the ES is far more pleasant on a far wider range of material. If my friend would sell it, I'd buy it and put the Cambridge on e-Bay. He won't.

[SEAWOLF97]

A slight curve ,,,

If I were starting from scratch...and had settled on a brand and model line, wud check if they had models with SACD & DVD-A ....on the unfounded assumption that they may have even better DACs , since they are newer.

would have no problem owning either of these
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-DVP-NS3100ES-DVD-CD-SACD-Player-HDMI-Super-Audio-Digital-Video-/200685885211?pt=DVD_Players_Recorders&hash=item2eb9cf971b

or

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-DVP-NS3100ES-DVD-Player-Audiophile-CD-SACD-Player-/290651299693?pt=DVD_Players_Recorders&hash=item43ac2adf6d

no affiliation and not even sure if these are top rated models , just that they have the feature set that I'd like (and not too much downside) ;)