Anyone got experience of the Cambridge Audio Azur 351C cd player?

[Pistol Pete1]

Got the legendary Marantz cd63 ki at the moment, but fancy a change.

Need a machine that is no higher in size than the Marantz, and noticed the Cambridge Audio player which has all the features I need.

Is it any good? How does it compare to the CD6005? Different presentation?

Thanks.....may pop into richer sounds tomorrow and see if I can get a demo, but value other people's experiences too 😉

 

[radiorog]

Hey Pete,yeah,I auditioned one and the 651c for a couple of hours. They are both very good players. I personally prefer them to marantz,by quite a margin. I have the 651c which is slightly better in the soundstage and 3d imaging,but tonally,they sound identical.

Great sounding players.

 

[wclough]

I went into my local Richer Sounds last month to replace my Arcam Alpha 7SE Cd player. I took my own speakers with me and they had an amplifier like mine there. I started reviewing these What Hifi award winners first as they were the cheapest. I was not impressed with either and they sounded very unexciting. I auditioned an Audiolab but ended up with another Arcam; this time the CD17 which I had not listed to try. You really do have to listen yourself regardless of wht is is What Hifi, or so I have found. Hope this helps.

 

[Pistol Pete1]

Been to richer sounds today and was lucky enough to get a demo, even though I didn't pre book one.

I was able to compare the Cambridge Audio 651C to the Marantz CD6005 through a PM6005 and some Dali Zensor bookshelf speakers.

Using Fleetwood Mac's Rumours cd, which I'm familiar with, I could hear quite a difference between the two machines.

The Cambridge machine wasn't as open in presentation, but offered a more 'mature' sound with improved voice presence and depth, but it wasn't quite as detailed in the process. I was able to hear things with the Marantz that I couldn't with the Cambridge player, but I also came away thinking the Marantz might be too detailed/bright/fatiguing in the wrong system, whereas the Cambridge wouldn't.

The other interesting difference was the sensitivity of the Marantz player. Using the same cd, the Marantz started to skip during a track, whereas this didn't happen with the Cambridge.

Anyway, my PM6004 is fixed and ready for collection tomorrow, so I'll see what the damage is first, then make some decisions.

 

[radiorog]

Interesting! Yeah,that is what put me off the marantz,the brightness. I like things to sound as natural as possible. But interesting hear you hear mor detail in the marantz. Decisions decisions...!! 🙂

 

[Pistol Pete1]

The brightness of the Marantz just means I noticed more high frequency detail. So in terms of sound, both were great just different. I'd imagine the Cambridge player would work well in a 'bright' system and the Marantz in a 'warmer' one.

My stereo amp isn't fixed 🙁

They thought it had been, but the intermittent problem happened again today, so it is being sent away....sounds expensive.

I've hooked up my Marantz player to my av receiver using the pure direct mode......not bad at all!!

More decisions......do I need the stereo amp?

 

[Pistol Pete1]

To update this thread:

The Marantz PM6004 is dead, and after some tinkering with the Pioneer receiver I'm satisfied with what it offers in terms of 2 channel performance. I don't use Pure Direct anymore, but have it set up as a 2.1 system (using sub too).

So, back to cd players. Still unsure which to buy, even after the demo earlier in the year.....Marantz CD6005, CD5005 or the Cambridge Audio Azur 351C, which is a 5 star product at £300, but niw goes for £200 now. The Marantz 6005 is £50 more, which could be part used on a 5 year warranty on the CA 351C instead. Or save a bit on the CD5005 at £169.

Oh well, Christmas to think this over.......Merry Christmas everyone!

I may well be back to Richer Sounds on the 27th for another demo, especially as they now stock the speakers I use!

 

[paulsue38]

Never heard a Marantz being described as bright it is usually the Cambridge brand that is thought to be a little forward in its presentation. I had a 650 and it did image incredibly well, the new version is meant to be even better and the CA is very good value. Good luck for the search, you may pick something up in the Richer sound sale on Boxing Day.

 

[Pistol Pete1]

Maybe the over used word 'bright' was the wrong description. More open and detailed with vocals that were slightly thin sounding in comparison to the CA player.

I found the same when I moved from a denon avr 2310 to my current receiver. The pioneer offers much more openness and detail, which I have enjoyed. But it makes me think that when matched the two machines up with my Q100, maybe the Marantz may offer too much in this respect?

Of course, both were using the same cd tracks, which showed off how different they can portray music. Both machines were very good, and I remember coming out with the thought of uncertainty as to which is best.

But with reports of the Marantz struggling to read discs that are scratched, and evidence of the same in the demo, maybe the CA would be a slightly best proposition?