CD Players - That Sound Slightly Like Turntable

I should bloody well hope not! 

Might scare you off it, but CDX has the attack of the Xerxes. CDI is more analogue though. Some have compared it to LP12 and I can see something in it. Marantz players have always had something "Fisher Price" about them too!

Yeah but the Xerxes is smoother though.

S.

I apologise sincerely for my strong comments. For me, it's cut and dried after perception-changing experiences up at Linn and at the Decca mastering studios, once in Belsize Road NW6, but my typing speed doesn't keep up with the rapid fire thoughts spilling out, so I come across as too assertive and insistent, my findings coming over as final and non negotiable.

Can I drift a bit to give some background I haven't put elsewhere?

When I started at KJ Watford in 1974, we had some master tape copies of commercial albums(from EMI, Virgin and Angus McKenzie) including DSOTM, Halleluwah! by Can, 'sides' from Mandingo albums and Tubular Bells and Ommadawn later on, because vinyl didn't sound 'good enough' to demonstrate the gear as well (early 70's mentality) although of course we did play records and even sell some choice classical DG vinyl titles too! When I moved to the flagship W1 store in '77 where most of the 'decent gear' had gone to, most of these tapes had been filched (along with some of the boxed stock being slowly siphoned off when nobody was looking, but I digress) and the deck of choice was a Micro Seiki DDX1000 with slimline arms (Black Widow and AT 1120? type) and AT20SLa or Stanton 881S cartridges. The Sony 8750 was judged the next tier down although sonically, I loved it, the arm sitting on twin points for vertical movement and conventional ball races for horizontal motion- oil filled mat too. These decks didn't sound plump in the bass and even when the LP12/G707/Supex blew all these others away in sales and attention, the LP12/Grace 707 of this time didn't sound as bloated or 'fruity' at all until the Ittok ruined it for a few years by over-juicing up the bass... Later LP12 updates to the sub chassis and arm-board ruined the Grace sound, which went thin and scratchy on an LP12 I remember.

I'm effin' well going off on one and I apologise again. When CD started, the Sony 101 was ok, but the top loading Philips players gave even me a headache after an hour or so. The LP12 had the Karma by this time and the sound really was dull once run in (measured it too). Balance a stereo around a 1983 LP12/Ittok/Karma and any CD player would sound terribly fatiguing and thin toned. I believe that today, these excess differences have all but disappeared and where really high quality vinyl is concerned, it's the shitty bits of black plastic we have to play that limits it..

Does any of the outpouring above help in any way? That £5 dac with £39 Chinese linear supply sounds bloomin' excellent to me, if not quite as 'expansive' as red-book digital at its best and my gash beloved Dual decks are huge fun, so I can forgive any lack of sonic scale or refinement. A modern Rega 3 with careful choice of cartridge and careful siting should out-perform an old LP12 (pre mid 80's) now I think and a Planar 6/Ania/Fono MC was incredibly good in terms of life, musicality and overall balance I thought.


Andrew, if you want to delete this please do so, or maybe move elsewhere. I'm typing this over lunch as there's on the telly and I need to go back to do some more work.

My memories of Farlowe era Exposure were in comparison at a customer's place with CB Naim and the two were 'rather different.' We had an Exposure X integrated in and maybe it was faulty, but it sounded very harsh indeed. A XV I have memories of having in for a dem was fine I think.

So, all I can say is whether I've heard many examples or 'just the one in a dem.'

Back on topic, in the past, I think you needed to spend a bit on a CD player to get the 'authority' I think Shane was hinting at. Maybe this quality has crept down in price and I personally feel it has. You know, a good set of interconnects (TIS in my experience but I know others) can do wonders for some otherwise good CD players just needing a little 'tidying up' sonically.

I'm not sure how Stu went about it, but it's my vibe that Naim again hobbled the bloody thing so they could sell an 'upgraded' player for double the money or more. The one-grand AVI player I had in the early 90's had eleven regulated supplies in it, right next to the circuit parts that needed them. think how much more money AVI could have made with a fifty quid burndy (or however much it was) and all these regulators in a separate box - according to people that should know these things, it would have performed worse too... Modern machines, the few that are left, seem very much simpler inside now, so *shouldn't* need so much faff (famous last words).

Anyone with even the slightest interest should check out Stu's threads on PFM. Some of the most fascinating and valuable threads on any forum. I still live in hope of usingbtenm as a learning experience. My CD3 probably isn't the right vehicle so it will be sold when I get myself turned around.

CD3 is a good wee player as stock, but I would love to have heard an Avondale CD3

Naim? Why bother. I've heard one or two of their models sounding good in a non Naim set up but frankly there is better for cheaper. I think after all the mods in terms of power supply you are stuck with the basic character. I recently purchased an Oppo 205 before they end production as I need something to handle hi-res formats as well as video in the long run that has analogue out. Pretty gobsmacked how good this is as a CD player and pretty well would justify it's price on that alone. For CD only the Cambridge CXC paired with a decent DAC is still available.

Actually though I am mainly an analogue fan my approach has been to look at TTs that sound rather more like digital in terms of speed accuracy / timing. Something that doesn't colour the music as older Lp12's did. For whatever reason (likely sampling rates) analogue can give a more believable expansive presentation but it shouldn't be adding warmth to the recording. Really annoys me when warmth is continually put forward by new vinyl enthusiasts as a reason for their preference. Adding warmth to Cd players to make them more 'analogue' is just wrong. A reason it appears for the use of valves in some digital players. I just don't see a place for valves in digital though I'm told the valve version of Rega's top player is better sounding than the standard one.

The 266 is a classic lean-n-clear sound as I remember (I loved it with ATC's and sold one to a friend who kept it for years). I'd suspect it's very different to the CD-I for instance.

The 266 was £1200 at the time I think (better finished and nicer to use than the excellent sounding AVI S2000 CD player was). The Naim mwas double the price and no better - maybe 'different' but the CDX was nowhere near as good until an even more expensive power supply was added. effin' rip-off merchants

No, I didn't know he had one tbh. I bought it on looks and expected to be disappointed. It was cheap enough to try without loss. I had recently owned a CSA14 which wasn't my thing at all and I expected the 266 to be similar. Finding it more dynamic than a CDX as well as better in every other respect was a real shock. I remember Martin T saying it had an unusual SACD chip in it that only shows up in expensive players. Apparently it affects the sound for CD too, so maybe it was that element which elevated it. I sold it because I was coming abroad and I wanted a slimmer player to pack more easily. That's how I ended up with the CD3, although I went and bought a Sonneteer Byron too, so I may as well have kept the Copland!

The earlier 288 floated my boat as well, supremely musical as per the better more expensive players and it had a proper VRDS mechanism too. This went when certain chips became unavailable sadly. The later 289 sounded like a bigger 266, so really good in my opinion.