Personally, for classical music, I'd go for the Arcam CD73. It was a brilliant CD player in its day and is still a brilliant player now. In particularly its gorgeous midrange and great timbral accuracy are of great value when listening to orchestral music.
I read about Arcam CD 73, that is less warmer than the arcam Alpha series cd players, it has plenty of detail, but it lacks some musicality. I looking for the less digital sounding cd player, I did not support sibilance.
Which cd player would be better choice for a warm, smooth, fluid sound (lack of any treble harshness) ?
I have Arcam Alpha 7 R amp, Acoustic Energy Aegis Neo 1 speakers . I listen mainly classical music.
Thank you for any observation
I would recommend the Marantz CD 63 MK2 KI followed by the Rega Planet 2000.
All the best
Rick @ Musicraft
I agree the marantz is certaintly better than the arcam cd73t. Its more musical and better for fast pace music - compared both. The rega I havent tried, I still have my old marantz.The marantz was unbeatable for its price in it day, and still beats most budget cd players.
I remember reading reviews dated 1995-96 on the marantz, it was probably on the market for 4-5 years. I doubt that you get one that is under 10 years old. My 63se is 15 yrs old and still going strong, a friend of mine sold his ki version a few years ago.
Tibor:I read about Arcam CD 73, that is less warmer than the arcam Alpha series cd players, it has plenty of detail, but it lacks some musicality. I looking for the less digital sounding cd player, I did not support sibilance.
I would say musicality is the very essence of the Arcam sound and of the CD73. I've owned a CD73 and a Marantz CD63 MkII KI and I'd pick the Arcam every time.
On my system I did like the Arcam cd73t on classical music but when it came to jazz and top 40 I preferred the marantz, it seemed to have more sparkle up top, and the mid seemed more natural with voices, the bass a little tighter. The arcam had a wider soundstage, a little more refined, fuller bass but the marantz seemed a little more musical to me and had a bit deeper in soundstaging. Just my experience on my system comparing them over a few days.
I agree the Apollo is excellent. It can, however, get a little on the bright side and lack some body in the midrange which doesn't make it the best choice for classical music. I think you should audition the Apollo. However, if you are now considering new you should also try the Arcam FMJ CD17 which is on special offer at £469 currently. It is quite a big step on from the CD73. It retains the earlier machine's mid-range fluidity and soundstaging precision but manages dynamic swings better and doesn't have that very slight syrupy feeling. I personally find it a more enjoyable and involving machine than the Rega Apollo.
At the end of the day it is all down to personal choice and I would highly recommend trying to audition some of your options before making a decision.
The Marantz is a ridiculous choice for classical music. I've owned one and it was far too upfront, harsh, unsubtle and tiring for classical. The Arcam players are much better suited for longer 'listening' periods, because with classical music you are actually sitting down and listening to the music, as opposed to wondering around the house. Also, even the slightest hint of treble harshness, makes listening to chamber music and baroque painful.
cse:The Marantz is a ridiculous choice for classical music. I've owned one and it was far too upfront, harsh, unsubtle and tiring for classical. The Arcam players are much better suited for longer 'listening' periods, because with classical music you are actually sitting down and listening to the music, as opposed to wondering around the house. Also, even the slightest hint of treble harshness, makes listening to chamber music and baroque painful.No, the Marantz in my system was just perfect, especially at drawing out the nuances.
Also, we do the house work with the 1812 or Pictures at an Exhibition blasting out, and there's nothing like a bit of Prokofiev to help you over the dodgy bits in the Bathroom.
Mind you, I wouldn't choose Sibelius for cooking music. Far too moody. What you want there is a touch of Vivaldi to lighten the omelet.
Grottyash - the music that you have mentioned is not chamber in style and only the Vivaldi is close to the baroque sound. It appears that you just listen to the popular classics and are not a dedicated conosiour. Your choices/references, are like those often used by HIFI shops, when you ask if they have any classical music and they manage to eventually find a dusty disc from somewhere.
It is my aim in life to become a "dedicated conosiour" , until then I'll just have to settle with being an "ignorant connoisseur" .
I'm sure Master Grotty doesn't give a damn whether the music he listens to when he is flicking the duster around the house is baroque or chamber in style just as long as it helps him through his day . However , I'm sure he is happy for you to tell him what he should be listening to because he has obviously got it all wrong . What a silly Master Grotty ,
Ah, you didn't specify it had to be chamber music. Don't forget that you need something loud when hoovering else you can't hear it over the din - all those intricate twiddly bits are lost beneath the sound of a Dyson at full blast!
Also, you need something stirring to keep that duster moving, like Pictures. I did try some Bach, a partiti or something, but its altogether too mournful to encourage a decent clean.
By baroque do you mean Handel's Firework music, and didn't that actually have a Firework display going on at the time, which would I think make a fair din?
I'll freely admit I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to classical music. Certainly no connoisseur, but it means I can listen to and enjoy both popular classics and unpopular classics equally, and with an open mind.