CA 651C and Marantz CD6004 go head to head...

[unhalfbricking]

Oh God. Here we go again! Back in Richer Sounds' demo room on Monday morning - most likely with a stonking hangover - to demo the above two CD players to replace my NAD 515BEE. [My amp, Arcam A-18; speakers, Kef Q-300].

Two test tracks:

1. 'Perpetual change' by Yes. Lots of light and shade / quiet bits / noisy bits / tempo changes. Plenty of solo voice / bass / snare drum. Good test.

2. 'King of bohemia' by Richard Thompson. Sparse, acoustic, brilliant.

CD player is the final piece in the jigsaw until it's time to look at digital streaming in about a year or so. Will report back.

 

[Baldrick1]

Oh God. Here we go again! Back in Richer Sounds' demo room on Monday morning - most likely with a stonking hangover - to demo the above two CD players to replace my NAD 515BEE. [My amp, Arcam A-18; speakers, Kef Q-300].

Two test tracks:

1. 'Perpetual change' by Yes. Lots of light and shade / quiet bits / noisy bits / tempo changes. Plenty of solo voice / bass / snare drum. Good test.

2. 'King of bohemia' by Richard Thompson. Sparse, acoustic, brilliant.

CD player is the final piece in the jigsaw until it's time to look at digital streaming in about a year or so. Will report back.

Whilst you are there I would also listen to the CA 351C. It got a better review that its bigger brother (better in all the right areas...IMHO) and is currently £50 off normal price at Richer.

I am thinking of a new CDP and the CA 351C is definitively in my sights as a possible.

 

[Covenanter]

I would take a lot more music than that! I think you need a really wide range to make a fair comparison.

Chris

 

[radiorog]

Not heard the marantz but the 651c is ace. I demoed for a couple of hours this and the 351c. was difficult choice as both do sound excellent, but more detail and soundstage in 651c makes it the better player.

 

[BigH]

I heard the Focal 714 at RS, it was not Watford was it? Yes I tend to agree about cd players not much between them, I doubt I could pick them out in a blind test.

 

[unhalfbricking]

I heard the Focal 714 at RS, it was not Watford was it?

It was Liverpool. Just goes to show they probably have a standard set up across the branches!

 

[unhalfbricking]

Thanks for the replies. I thought I would limit myself to two audition tracks based on my experience of demo-ing my orginal system back in February. On this occasion I used five tracks, incorporating every conceiveable style of music that I would be likely to listen to. In the event it all got a bit bogged down, constantly swapping discs over and trying to compare 'apples with bananas'. I now know exactly what I'm looking for (bags of mid-range detail, bright, airy sound, plenty of bass grip) so I want to keep things as simple as possible. A couple of old favourites should suffice.

The CA 651C in question is an ex-repair model and has been discounted from £449 to £280 -- a solid rather than spectacular reduction, all things considered. Will compare and contrast with the Marantz CD6004, but am hoping that the CA wins because the Marantz is plug-ugly, IMO, albeit a good benchmark against which to test the 651C.

Radiorog, I am glad you're enjoying your 651. I gather from Cambridge's website that it has three different sound settings. To be honest, you would need a PHD in astrophysics to understand their description of how they are supposed to differ. Which setting do you use, just out of interest?

 

[unhalfbricking]

Anyway, the CA and the Marantz slogged it out head-to-head in the demo room of Richer sounds this morning. In order to keep things really simple I ended up just using two or three tracks off 'The Yes Album' to compare and contrast. Amp was a CA of some description and speakers were Focal Chorus 714 floorstanders.

To be honest, I was impressed with both CD players and there was precious little to choose between them. The CA 651 was a shade brighter across the upper-mid range, but for some strange reason the Marantz 6004 had slightly more pronouced sibilances (although they were in no way harsh). That's it -- a cigarette paper between the two of them. Both really good at the price point. The 6004 still looks like a breeze block spray-painted black, and in the end sometimes the final choice comes down to something as silly as that. I chose the CA 651. It had a slight dinge in the side panel - hardly visible to the naked eye - and for that they had knocked off £70 above and beyond the £100 that they have already discounted the model, so it came in at £279.00. Assuming that they were running the bass and treble flat on the amp, I though the set up I listened to was a bit 'toppy' and lacked a bit of depth and bottom end. For those wanting a nice, bright, up-front sound the CA / CA / Focal combo is worth looking at, although I wasn't completely blown away by the speakers.

Very early impressions, once installed at home, are that the sound is brighter than the NAD 515 that I currently own...the latter sounding more 'analogue', but at the expense of a bit of mid-range detail. I'm still not sure the CA is a 'keeper' yet. I have two weeks to decide. Will report back...

 

[unhalfbricking]

So now the CA 651C is going head-to-head at home with my NAD 515BEE. I have two weeks to decide which to keep. First impressions are that the three filter options that come with the CA make very little difference. Compared with the NAD, the bass on the CA seems a little more pronounced, more muscular and 'beefy' in places compared with the NAD's slightly softer bass. I actually think I prefer the NAD's bass sound -- it's a little less 'in your face'. Playing 'Flaws' by Bombay Bicycle Club last night, the acousitc guitar is picked out more by the CA, whereas the vocals are a shade more prominent on the NAD. I'm not sure if this is a 'mid-range detail' thing or just subtle differences in presentation.

I've got this awful feeling that those discs that sounded good on the NAD are going to sound good on the CA and the less good ones will sound equally less good on the CA. We'll see. I shall give it a week and let you know my final thoughts...

 

[Blackdawn]

Interesting post. Just goes to show that more expensive kit isn't always nicer to listen to. Did you compare the Marantz 6004 to the NAD 515BEE? I see NAD have a new model 516BEE out. I'd be inclined to keep the NAD if in two weeks you can't hear any observable difference between the 651 and the 515. Have fun.

 

[crusaderlord]

i used to own a NAD CD player a long while back and then i had a CA CD player on a weeks demo before i returned it.

Maybe i prefer the NAD sound but i thought the CA player was too bright and not melodic enough for me. I went myself for an Arcam CD73 as better than the NAD and CA in the end and have stayed with Arcam ever since. You can pick up Arcam CD players CD73 or 192 for relatively low cost from auction nowadays and that would me what i would try - especially if i had an Arcam amplifier already.

 

[unhalfbricking]

Interesting post. Just goes to show that more expensive kit isn't always nicer to listen to. Did you compare the Marantz 6004 to the NAD 515BEE?

I haven't compared those two directly. To be honest, there was so little difference bewteen the Marantz and the Cambridge at the demo that I'm happy to keep things simple and just make a direct choice between my NAD and the Cambridge. After another listening session this morning, the Cambridge is poking its nose in front. 'Moving pictures' and 'Hemispheres' by Rush, which lost a little bit of top end lustre once my system had run in, now sound a touch brighter and more engaging. On 'Vincent Black Lightning 1952' by Richard Thompson, you can hear the acoustics of the room in which he recorded his vocal. Amazing detail. Like you say, I'm having fun!

 

[radiorog]

Hi Unhalfbricking!

Glad you ar egetting a good chance to compare the 2 players.

I have my setting on linear. I haven't tried yet with my new amp, but with my older one i couldn't really tell any difference so i left it in what i think is the factory setting, and what i guess is the middle ground. as the others are "steep" and "minimum" . I will no doubt try again out of interest when i am next bored and amp has worn in.

i am loving my player tho, i think the detail is outstanding, and although i don't have much to compare it to, it seems musical enough for me and then some.

 

[unhalfbricking]

Just a final word on the last two week’s home audition of the Cambridge 651C against my NAD 515BEE. In the end the Cambridge won fairly comfortably and is a 'keeper'. In general terms, the Cambridge is a shade brighter and crisper with more pronounced bass and more definition and detail in the mid-range. Additionally, it keeps a better grip of the music when the soundstage fills up.

For the few CDs I have in my collection mastered at the bright end of the spectrum, the NAD was at least as good as the Cambridge. In fact the smooth, anaolgue sound of the NAD probably presented these discs slightly better. However, the clincher for the CA was the 80% or so CDs I have that are somewhere in the middle -- good quality recordings, but neither over-bright nor flat-sounding. Here the Cambridge was the clear winner, presenting the music with a more up-front, engaging, crisper sound. Completely by accident, my 'litmus-test' CDs ended up being the Beatles 2009 re-masters, particularly 'Rubber soul' and 'Revolver'. Whereas the NAD had a slightly 'chalky' mid-range and tangible lack of treble, the Cambridge brought these old recordings to life in a really compelling way. This outcome was replicated across the bulk of the CDs in my collection. Job done.

I suppose the bottom line is that whereas the Cambridge pulled off the trick of sounding bright without being harsh, on my system the NAD’s smoothness came at the expense of being slightly dull.