NAD C565BEE CD Player

[jaxwired]

Got the CD Player yesterday. I spent much of yesterday listening. I am using my NAD C355BEE amplifier, Chord Crimson interconnects, and I have listened with both my stand mount boston CR-67's and my floorstanding spendor A6's.

I have also been doing a great deal of A/B comparison between the 565 and the 545 as I temporarily have both players.

The 565 is a warm sounding player. Excellent detail. When compared to the 545, there is a touch more warmth to the sound which I found very pleasing. The 565 is a top class player. Build/Construction is also excellent. The remote is far more sophisticated than the remote for the 545 due to all the additionally functionality relating to the USB port and digital input.

The sound is open and smooth with lots of detail. However, after dozens of A/B tests (using identical interconnects and signal path), I found that the 545 delivered more what I was after. The 545 has slightly stronger dynamics and there is what I would call a very fine level of grainyness that adds a level of realism to music that is breathtaking. This is missing from the smoother warmer sounding 565.

I have no qualms recommending the 565 as it is an excellent player, but I am leaning towards keeping the 545 and sending the 565 back. Although I love the added features of the 565, ultimately, it's the music that matters and I can also buy a freestanding DAC.

These are very subtle differences between what I feel are two outstanding CDP's.

One more thing, the 565 has user selectable roll-off filters and I did find that I could hear the difference between these filters. This is an excellent feature as I was able to eliminate harshness present on some overly bright CDs.

I'm still mulling this decision over as it's a very close race between the two players. The C545bee is just so very good...

 

[Simon Lucas]

Will Jaxwired have hit the nail on the head? Or will What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision's findings contradict him entirely? Or something in-between? Find out in the next episode... on sale April 8th!
(Subscribers can find out April 3rd. Terms and conditions apply.)

 

[nads]

tease.

 

[jaxwired]

Simon Lucas:Will Jaxwired have hit the nail on the head? Or will What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision's findings contradict him entirely? Or something in-between? Find out in the next episode... on sale April 8th!

(Subscribers can find out April 3rd. Terms and conditions apply.)

Guess I'm really sticking my neck out here....LOL!

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired: I have no qualms recommending the 565 as it is an excellent player, but I am leaning towards keeping the 545 and sending the 565 back.

Have you given it long enough to run in? Mine is still improving after 12 hours.

I got my 565 last Friday and am enjoying it hugely - but didn't have the luxury of A-B comparison. I was all set to demo a C545 and C565 back-to-back with a Rega Apollo when an ex-demo C565 jumped out at me for the same price as Audio-t quoted me for a new C545 - £400. Pretty chuffed as I didn't really want to spend more than £500 and the 565's digital input should future-proof it to some extent.

I'd heard that Sennheiser HD650s can sound a bit laid back - not so with this combo. It's warm but not overly so - just the right balance to my ears. The overriding impression is of a hugely entertaining, involving sound with great detail and imaging, and remarkable bass extension for a headphone system.

 

[jaxwired]

Let me elaborate.

I found the C565 to be very good indeed. In fact, I'd say for long extended listening or if you have a slight brightness to your system, the C565 would be a brilliant fit. There is depth, detail, and richness to the presentation, it's just slightly less dynamic than the C545. The C545 has a rawness that adds an extra smidgen of realism that I find very engaging.

I do think that the C565 is probably a better all-arounder, meaning, no matter what you play it will not be too harsh or edgy, just smooth, clean detail. They are both excellent players in my amateur opinion.

Like I said, I'm still debating. Like everything, it's a matter of system matching. My system likes the C545 but the C565 is very smooth and I'm tempted to keep it. Can't keep both of 'em...

Regarding "run in". I'd say no, I have not giving it nearly enough time to run in, but I don't have the time as I have to ship one player back. Also, I'm skeptical that CDP's need "run in" time. Not really a big believer in "run in" for solid state electronics, but I don't judge those that are. I could be wrong. My loss...

 

[Anonymous]

jaxwired: Regarding "run in". I'd say no, I have not giving it nearly enough time to run in, but I don't have the time as I have to ship one player back. Also, I'm skeptical that CDP's need "run in" time. Not really a big believer in "run in" for solid state electronics, but I don't judge those that are. I could be wrong. My loss...

I'm no expert, but you should hear Graham Slee on the subject. He's very active on the GS owner's forum and has posted detailed explanations about the ins and outs of running in - including why certain components within his amplifiers need burn-in time before they can give of their best.

I first had a proper listen to the NAD after about 3 hours on repeat. I then left it powered up but not playing for 36 hours, gave it another few hours on repeat and listened again. I'd been blown away by the first listen but it seemed even better second time around - treble even more fluid and even more detail in complex passages of music. Now, whether that's down to the NAD running in, other components of my system (all of which is new in the last month) running in, or simply me getting used to the sound, I can't say for sure. All I can say for sure is that it's a pleasure to listen to.

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say that WHF are going to give it four stars, saying that it's a fine sounding player with good facilities but in terms of pure musicality, not quite worth the extra £200 over the C545BEE. I look forward to the review...

 

[jaxwired]

ajrduff:

If I was to hazard a guess I'd say that WHF are going to give it four stars, saying that it's a fine sounding player with good facilities but in terms of pure musicality, not quite worth the extra £200 over the C545BEE. I look forward to the review...

I was trying to avoid giving a WHF rating guess, but since you've ventured there, I will say that you took the words out of my mouth. I fully expect a 4 star rating saying it's a very good player, but not quite 5 stars. However, I would not be surprised if they did give it 5 stars as it is quite good. 3 stars would very much surprise me.

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

I use to question burn in too, but not anymore as I have listened to units new sometimes they sounded even horrible and within around 2-7 days burn in quite a change takes place, usually sounding more open, smoother fluid sound loseing some of the harshness. I found this to be the case with cd players and cables too. All the best with the NAD.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[jaxwired]

Decision made....keeping the C545bee. Shipped the C565bee back to dealer. The 545 just fits my system better. It's an amazing player. Highly recommend..

 

[Anonymous]

I picked up a copy of the May issue of WHF yesterday and glanced over the C565BEE first test... and we more or less hit the nail on the head.

A little more detailed and refined than the C545, but also a little less attack. Useful facilities but on sound quality alone not quite worth the extra over the C545BEE. Four stars.

After three weeks I'm delighted with the sound of mine. And since WHF reviewed it against an MRP of £600 and I got mine for £399.95, just a touch smug too

 

[link]

how does it perform as a dac?