Arcam A19 vs. Cambridge CXA60 with Cambridge CXN Network Player?

[barneybear]

Hi,

Does anyone have any thoughts on pairing Arcam A19 with the Cambridge CXN Network Player instead of just sticking with the Cambridge CXA60? Looking for the network streamer and the best matching Amp (speakers) to go with it.

thoughts?

thanks.

 

[matthewpiano]

Have you decided on speakers yet?

 

[CnoEvil]

Personally, I'd go for the A19 with some Q Acoustics Concept 20s (depending on room size)....I have no idea what you will like best.

 

[rainsoothe]

I like Arcam a lot, but try to audition. Personally, I like how Arcam CDS27 + A19 + Focal Aria 906 sounds a lot, and prefer the A19 to CA Azur 651, haven't heard the CXA. I think the Arcam app is pretty bad though (from web, haven't experienced it).

 

[barneybear]

Now thinking that perhaps the google chromecast audio thing might be a better better for a streaming option - into a DAC. The Cambridge unit currently doesn't get Tidal subscription for example. Seems a lot to pay for something with limited streaming options to me.

Will look up those speaker suggestions. I read that the monitor audio might pair well with the Arcam, otherwise B&W 685 s2 perhaps.

Just looked - those Focal Aria speakers look really nice!

 

[matthewpiano]

If I was purchasing I'd probably go for the Cambridge out of the two. It is a more versatile piece of kit and, on the basis of my previous experience with CA amps, it should be cleaner sounding than the Arcam, particularly in the bass where the A19 can be a bit heavy/bloated sounding. As Richers deal with both you should be able to get a comparative audition, which should give you the chance to make your own mind up.

 

[alexheadau]

My recent hifi journey started with replacing a dying amp. I was advised the A19 would be a good match with my MA speakers which do sound a little bright in my room. The increase in quality was great. I then looked at changing my input as i was mostly accessing my music collection through a hard drive and streaming. The CXN was recommended. I added this piece of kit and again another leap in sound quality and access convenience. By this time i was on a roll and decided to replace my aging speakers. I settled on Tannoy 6.2 and am extremely happy with the sound. The only thing I would consider changing is possibly going with a power amp as the CXN has a preamp function and all the inputs i would need.

 

[Audio Maniac]

ARCAM is one of the last British brands that still makes audiophile quality entry level ($) products. Their products are built to last for decades like in Hi-Fi golden ages (80 and 90's).

Im my opinion, comparing ARCAM's products to those made in China under Cambrige Audio's label is unacceptable.

Before someone attacks me with stones, there're good Chinese made products. But it's not the case of Cambridge's. Some of the latter's products sound fine, but they all are not reliable as regarding lifetime because of adoption of low quality parts.

My recent hifi journey started with replacing a dying amp. I was advised the A19 would be a good match with my MA speakers which do sound a little bright in my room. The increase in quality was great. I then looked at changing my input as i was mostly accessing my music collection through a hard drive and streaming. The CXN was recommended. I added this piece of kit and again another leap in sound quality and access convenience. By this time i was on a roll and decided to replace my aging speakers. I settled on Tannoy 6.2 and am extremely happy with the sound. The only thing I would consider changing is possibly going with a power amp as the CXN has a preamp function and all the inputs i would need.

 

[matthewpiano]

That is totally unfair, and inaccurate.

Arcam is now owned by the Canadian company JAM, though (like Cambridge) it is still headquartered in the UK. The fact that some components are made in the UK doesn't automatically make them great. British manufacturing is generally nothing to shout about.

Cambridge have had their occasional reliability issues, but so have Arcam and most other brands. They don't use cheap parts but actually pride themselves on using the best quality parts possible for the price, which is all anyone can do.

Both companies make some very fine equipment and there is no reason why they should not come up against each other in a comparative audition.

 

[davedotco]

If you are set on the CXN consider using it directly into a poweramp, if you do not need analogue inputs, a lot of the functionality of either the A19 or the CXA60 would be wasted.

There are plenty of power amps to choose from, I can vouch for the Cambridge 651w as being a step up from the A19, and it can be had for just £450-499.

As it is an 'old' series power amp it is a visual match for the Stream Magic 6 rather than the CXN which may or may not bother you. Plenty of options in the prive range if you care to look around.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

i thought that some of the arcam stuff was not made here anymore ? anyway i did demo some of the cambridge amps before i got my marantz amp and thought some of them sounded better then the arcam a19 did just make sure if you do go for a cambridge amp to get the dealer to check it all works ok before taking it home as they sometimes have issues out of the box . i do not want to put you off but this does happen sometimes with this amps

 

[Audio Maniac]

That is totally unfair, and inaccurate.

Arcam is now owned by the Canadian company JAM, though (like Cambridge) it is still headquartered in the UK. The fact that some components are made in the UK doesn't automatically make them great. British manufacturing is generally nothing to shout about.

Cambridge have had their occasional reliability issues, but so have Arcam and most other brands. They don't use cheap parts but actually pride themselves on using the best quality parts possible for the price, which is all anyone can do.

Both companies make some very fine equipment and there is no reason why they should not come up against each other in a comparative audition.

Yes, I was expecting such type of disagreements.

I have already owned some Cambridge and Arcam's products and opened all of them to check their built quality.

All Arcam's products that I have opened adopted high quality parts, like Japanese capacitors, including expensive OS CON polymer capacitors in digital circuits (ARCAM CD 73), Japan made Rubycon, Nichicon and Elna electrolitic capacitors on filtering and PSU stages, Japanese Fujitsu Takamisawa relays (A65 and A85), German Wima MKP and MKT capacitors and high quality European made transformes.

How about Cambridge? Well, I used to own Cambridge Magic DAC and the integrated amplifiers A5, 740A and 640A V2. I also removed the cover of a 840A V2 that I tested for a week at home. I have to agree those ampflifiers were bigger and more powerful than similary priced products of other brands, but Cambridge Audio had to made trade offs to price them competitively. All capacitors used in their projects were Chinese made and their brands were not identifiable. High quality custom made parts, like those adopted by Luxman, Esoteric and Accuphase? Certainly not! I do believe they all came underneath Cambridge's cover to hide their low reliability origin. I used to be an electronic technician and, despite not working in this area any longer, I haven't forgot what I learnt. None of Cambridge's product that I analised were reliable due to adoption of low quality parts, most of them from unknown Chinese suppliers, certainly for cost savings matters.

I remember a hot discussion about Cambridge's products reliability about 8 years ago in a Brazilian forum. Myself and some respected electronic technicians pointed the low quality of parts used on Cambridge's Azur. Switch selectors, potentiometer, electrolitic caps and relays were pointed the main concern as regards reliability. Obiviously, most Cambridge's product owners got offended by our observations, but the ages to come showed the truth. I've have seen lots of issues with Cambridge amplifiers since then.

Sonically, some of them, like 640A V2 and 840A V2 integrated amps, do sound fine. Also, I enjoy Cambridge Magic DAC. It does sound great. But frankly speaking, excepting the latter, I wouldn't keep them much longer because of high risk of failure in the long run.

No product is unbreakable and some Cambridge's product may not sound better than ARCAM's, but the risky of break downs of the latter in 10 years time is much lower. The former's products are not made to last longer than 5 years in fact.

Sorry for my bad English. I'm not a native speaker and still learning English.

 

[alexheadau]

Yes the Chinese built dilema followed me everywhere when sourcing gear. From what i gathered practically everything i looked at in my price range was assembled in China. I needed to go up in price by a factor of 10 to find country of origin build, especially speakers. The sales pitch though was that design and manufacturing quality control was managed by original company personnel.

I generally found sonic quality and functionality fine across the ranges i auditioned but i do wonder about long term reliability.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

the amp that sounds better then the arcam A19 is the cambridge CXA80 which costs £745 very nice amp indeed . i would of got one but went for the marantz as better bulid i thought but the sales man told me he would have to check the new one in the box as they have had some that were faulty new out of the box which put me right off so went marantz

 

[hybridauth_Facebook_10208319608330949]

That is totally unfair, and inaccurate.

Arcam is now owned by the Canadian company JAM, though (like Cambridge) it is still headquartered in the UK. The fact that some components are made in the UK doesn't automatically make them great. British manufacturing is generally nothing to shout about.

Cambridge have had their occasional reliability issues, but so have Arcam and most other brands. They don't use cheap parts but actually pride themselves on using the best quality parts possible for the price, which is all anyone can do.

Both companies make some very fine equipment and there is no reason why they should not come up against each other in a comparative audition.

Yes, I was expecting such type of disagreements.

I have already owned some Cambridge and Arcam's products and opened all of them to check their built quality.

All Arcam's products that I have opened adopted high quality parts, like Japanese capacitors, including expensive OS CON polymer capacitors in digital circuits (ARCAM CD 73), Japan made Rubycon, Nichicon and Elna electrolitic capacitors on filtering and PSU stages, Japanese Fujitsu Takamisawa relays (A65 and A85), German Wima MKP and MKT capacitors and high quality European made transformes.

How about Cambridge? Well, I used to own Cambridge Magic DAC and the integrated amplifiers A5, 740A and 640A V2. I also removed the cover of a 840A V2 that I tested for a week at home. I have to agree those ampflifiers were bigger and more powerful than similary priced products of other brands, but Cambridge Audio had to made trade offs to price them competitively. All capacitors used in their projects were Chinese made and their brands were not identifiable. High quality custom made parts, like those adopted by Luxman, Esoteric and Accuphase? Certainly not! I do believe they all came underneath Cambridge's cover to hide their low reliability origin. I used to be an electronic technician and, despite not working in this area any longer, I haven't forgot what I learnt. None of Cambridge's product that I analised were reliable due to adoption of low quality parts, most of them from unknown Chinese suppliers, certainly for cost savings matters.

I remember a hot discussion about Cambridge's products reliability about 8 years ago in a Brazilian forum. Myself and some respected electronic technicians pointed the low quality of parts used on Cambridge's Azur. Switch selectors, potentiometer, electrolitic caps and relays were pointed the main concern as regards reliability. Obiviously, most Cambridge's product owners got offended by our observations, but the ages to come showed the truth. I've have seen lots of issues with Cambridge amplifiers since then.

Sonically, some of them, like 640A V2 and 840A V2 integrated amps, do sound fine. Also, I enjoy Cambridge Magic DAC. It does sound great. But frankly speaking, excepting the latter, I wouldn't keep them much longer because of high risk of failure in the long run.

No product is unbreakable and some Cambridge's product may not sound better than ARCAM's, but the risky of break downs of the latter in 10 years time is much lower. The former's products are not made to last longer than 5 years in fact.

That's true, I have a Cambridge Audio Amp (640v2) and when I was looking inside, I've seen a terrific cheap electronics made. For example one of them are the Opamps, made by a very good microchip maker like Texas Instruments but in this case the Opamps that Cambridge puts inside are very cheap ones and the capacitors are terrific, keep in mind there are 8's of the caps all together very close to each other, it looks like a salad of electronics and I ask to myself, how it's possible that this machine can sound a little bit good?

That's the main reason why I'm gonna upgrade my system for a good brands like Arcam or Rotel. I think this change or upgrade should be a lot of UP! I'm too much tired for the tiny sound that it brings to my MA RX2.