Cambridge Audio 650BD & 650R update

[Anonymous]

IKnowNothing:
After such a long wait for this receiver, what a disappointing review......ÿ

Oh well I have to rethink my whole idea about a matching 650BD and 650R...

Any ideas anyone?ÿ

I own the 650r and i could not disagree more with the review. If you want ÿa great sounding receiver the 650r is a definite winner. Go have a listen and you will see what i mean.ÿ

I found it improves considerably after using it for just a week. Are What Hi Fi actually listening to the same receiver that is sat in my front room?ÿ

I will agree that it has a few minor issues and a lack of connectivity ( no speaker b / and only 3 hdmi inputs ) But hdmi switches are very cheap now and overall if you value sound quality the 650R is brilliant!

 

[The_Lhc]

boxrick:I found it improves considerably after using it for just a week. Are What Hi Fi actually listening to the same receiver that is sat in my front room?

Of course not, you'd have noticed if it had gone missing. Only kidding, it is early days for this product, so it might be possible that WHF have got a pre-production model that doesn't sound the same as what's available to the public, that's happened before (WHF got a pair of KEF speakers, reviewed them and said there were serious issues with them, turned out they'd been given some pre-production models which didn't have some pretty major modifications that production models had, so KEF sent them a new pair to test. And they still didn't like them!

To be fair they were an improvement but still not the best).

I'm sure the 650R sounds very good in isolation but in comparison to others at its price range it isn't quite good enough.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Nope, we had a full production model.

And yes, the 650R is a belter in isolation - it's only when you compare it directly to other receivers at the same (not inconsiderable) price that it starts to look less of an all-rounder.

 

[The_Lhc]

Clare Newsome:And yes, the 650R is a belter in isolation - it's only when you compare it directly to other receivers at the same (not inconsiderable) price that it starts to look less of an all-rounder.

Must admit, given CAs reputation for value I was a little surprised to see it weigh in at four figures.

 

[Simon Lucas]

Daveee:Simon, In your video review of the 650BD you mention that for Blu-Ray sound and picture quality this player can be beaten for the same price. Which other player(s) would you be referring to if you don't mind me asking?

The superb new Sony BDP-S370 and Pioneer's BDP-320 offer fractionally more in picture terms and a smidgen more in HD sound. Not oodles, mind, and certainly not enough to make up for the Cambridge's versatility if versatility's what you're after. The brilliant Denon DVD-2500BT is yours for 650BD money these days - but, as it's Blu-ray transport, it's the opposite of versatile.

boxrick:I found it improves considerably after using it
for just a week. Are What Hi Fi actually listening to the same receiver
that is sat in my front room?

a) So did we - it was downright fierce for the first 50 hours or so. b) Not yours, but one just like it.

 

[Tom Moreno]

Simon Lucas:
boxrick: Are What Hi Fi actually listening to the same receiver that is sat in my front room?

b) Not yours, but one just like it.

Thanks for clearing that up Simon. We were afraid you'd been donning the ski mask and black unitard again.

 

[Simon Lucas]

I thought we'd agreed to keep that between ourselves, Tom.

 

[Clare Newsome]

And all because the lady loves....

 

[Anonymous]

Simon Lucas:

The superb new Sony BDP-S370 and Pioneer's BDP-320 offer fractionally more in picture terms and a smidgen more in HD sound. Not oodles, mind, and certainly not enough to make up for the Cambridge's versatility if versatility's what you're after. The brilliant Denon DVD-2500BT is yours for 650BD money these days - but, as it's Blu-ray transport, it's the opposite of versatile.

Thanks for the response, the pioneer BDP-320 is now available at half the price of the CA 650BD so thats a no brainer (purely for Blu-Ray playback). I have also being looking around for a black Denon 2500-BT. There are very few of these around anywhere at the moment and as stocks diminish retailers seem to be increasing their prices. Just done a quick froogle search and the only place to get a new black 2500-BT is here at £658. A few months ago they were £400-£500 everywhere!

 

[Anonymous]

So taking the £1000 RRP price mark into consideration what would you rate better or equal to the 650R?ÿ

Also say if the 650r had a much lower retail price closer to the £500 would this push its overall "star" rating up to 4 or 5, or were there other niggling things about it you did not like?ÿ

 

[Clare Newsome]

The full-page review in the magazine includes all our likes/dislikes, and rivals (including Denon AVR-2310, which is both cheaper and better than the Cambridge).

 

[The Lawnmower Man]

boxrick:
So taking the £1000 RRP price mark into consideration what would you rate better or equal to the 650R?

Also say if the 650r had a much lower retail price closer to the £500 would this push its overall "star" rating up to 4 or 5, or were there other niggling things about it you did not like?

If you're happy with the performance you're getting for what you paid, that is what matters.

A review is an opinion remember.

Everything said, £1000 is extremely pricey considering other brands do offer more than the Cambridge in certain areas for a bit less, but the lesser priced receivers won't have the power specs of the Cambridge. However, unless you have difficult speakers to drive to acheive maximum performance, like the Monitor Audio RX6 and 8's, or you intend to play for the neighbours, the lesser priced receivers will be perfectly good enough power wise.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Clare,

You didn't really answer the question of whether the 650r would have got a better rating if it had been at the £500 price point rather than £1000?

 

[Dave_]

Think thats a given, considering WHF review on a performance per pound basis!

 

[Clare Newsome]

Yep, it'd improve, for sure. But then it'd be up against other strong contenders at the cheaper price points, too...

 

[Anonymous]

Having heard my 650r alongside the 2310 i remain unconvinced of its superiority. One particular area is stereo reproduction, the Denon 2310 ( or even the pricier 3310 ) simply do not come close. The overall harmonics, depth and clarity of the 650r shone in this area in my opinion.ÿ

Films wise i guess you could call it closer, one thing i found was the 650R is bass heavy and very difficult to get setup sounding right. Yet i kept going back to the 650R the more i heard it, blind tests and multiple people in the shop backed this up and this was with a well bedded in denon 2310 and my older Marantz SR7001 and even an Onkyo 1007 was on hand. The closest "call" believe or not was my SR7001 which even showing its age sounded utterly superb and much nicer than the other more modern Japanese AV receivers i listened to that day.

At the end of the day sound is obviously personal and its one opinion vs another but id say at even the £1000 the 650r deserves at least a star higher! Just ashame it is priced so high. Hopefully over the coming months we will see availability increase and price possibly drop to a more reasonable level...?ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

I think releasing an AV reciever at that price point in April/May 2010 with only 3 HDMI in (presumably 1.3 and not 1.4) shows that CA have lost the plot IMHO. If they had produced a reciever with SQ a distinct cut above similarly priced AV recievers, then maybe there could be justification, This initial review suggests that this isn't the case though.

If, as with previous CA models, Richer sounds are the only dealers in the UK, then the chances for price reduction, to make it more attractive, also become reduced.

 

[Anonymous]

Hello!
Why is What HiFi? so hesitant to review the new lineup of NAD receivers? I'm not talking about the new T737 or T747 "budget" receivers but the T765 or the T775 receivers with toroidal transformers like the Cambridge Audio 650R has. I'd like to see how the T765 does against the Cambridge Audio 650R or Denon 4310... Thanks for any information you have!

 

[The_Lhc]

john7:Hello!
Why is What HiFi? so hesitant to review the new lineup of NAD receivers?

Why does everybody assume that if something hasn't been reviewed it's because WHF don't want to review it for some spurious reason?

The answer to the question "Why hasn't X been reviewed?" is almost invariably, "Because X's manufacturer hasn't sent one in to be reviewed."

I'm not talking about the new T737 or T747 "budget" receivers but the T765 or the T775 receivers with toroidal transformers like the Cambridge Audio 650R has. I'd like to see how the T765 does against the Cambridge Audio 650R or Denon 4310... Thanks for any information you have!

Try asking NAD.

 

[Andrew Everard]

passingbat:If, as with previous CA models, Richer sounds are the only dealers in the UK, then the chances for price reduction, to make it more attractive, also become reduced.

Absolutely - after all in markets where there's no exclusive deal, and no removal of conventional distribution, it's much cheaper, with discount prices of £1075 (plus tax) in the States, £1200 in Australia and £1220 in the Eurozone...

 

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I'm surprised that an employee of WHF? is so sensitive to semantics. You should check the grammer in your post if this is the case... not that mine is anywhere near perfect. I'm assuming that your negative attitude was a result of the use of the word "hesitant". I'm assuming that you are an employee of WHF? due to the fact that you took time out of your day to state that I should already know that manufacturers don't send everything that WHF? would like to review. That said, you've stated a good point. I intend to phone NAD to ask them about whether or not they will send a receiver to be reviewed by the great team of WHF?. Cheers

 

[Andrew Everard]

Frankly, given that you've already hijacked this thread for your own agenda, I'm less than surprised by the level of assumption in your post. the_lhc is not an employee of the magazine.

 

[Anonymous]

My semantics when referring to Ihc's post is called sarcasm my good man. I know that he is not an employee. Have a good life. I won't be visiting What HiFi? again. Thanks!

 

[Andrew Everard]

john7:My semantics when referring to Ihc's post is called sarcasm my good man.

Right y'are, guvner, an' no mistakin'...

 

[The_Lhc]

john7:Frankly, I'm surprised that an employee of WHF? is so sensitive to semantics. You should check the grammer in your post if this is the case... not that mine is anywhere near perfect.

Or your spelling but we're not allowed pedantry here so I can't point it out. It's a cracker though. I'd be quite happy for you to point out the errors in my grammar though, always willing to learn.

I'm assuming that your negative attitude was a result of the use of the word "hesitant".

No it was a result of people asking the same questions over and over again.

I'm assuming that you are an employee of WHF? due to the fact that you took time out of your day to state that I should already know that manufacturers don't send everything that WHF? would like to review.

I didn't say that at all, I expressed frustation that people ALWAYS (and it IS a common question) assume it's WHF's fault when in reality the opposite is invariably true, they don't review something because they don't have it to review. Like it or not it simply isn't possible for WHF to buy everything they'd like to review, they do it on occasion but nobody can seriously expect them to do it for every item on the market, regardless of the cover price of the magazine.