What makes a good CDP good?

[Gazzip]

Good transport as a base to build the rest around. Anything with a Phillips CD Pro2 is a good starting point.

Which players use that?

Bel Canto, Chord Electronics and Audio Research amongst others.

Also my Electrocompaniet EMC1UP uses the cd pro 2 mech fixed to an 8kg electomechanical cancellation system to eliminate internal and external vibration.

The Phillips Cd pro 2 mech costs between $450 and $500 on it own before you start building the rest of the Cd player.

http://www.encosystems.net/product/philips-cd-pro-2/

The main reason for better sound from a Cd player imo is the quality of the analogue output stage which in my case is a discrete class A fully balanced output that is very similar to an Electrocompaniet pre amp but without the volume control .

Sadly Phillips have recently discontinued the pro2. A real shame but they are built to last forever so I hope I won't have to worry too much about that...

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Mapping the bits aka Bitmapping.

 

[Al ears]

Not sure of correct answer, but I'd guess at: the DAC(s) inside, reliability of loading mechanism and laser.

I'd second that.

 

[steve_1979]

... And you know how that discussion will end. TrevC bitchslaps world religions, I'm told to die in a ditch, and you get to have a 'technical' discussion with lindsayt about membranes.

Well when you put it like that.

*yes3*

 

[iQ Speakers]

Its probobly the low "less than a thousand Shi*** value of the plastic CD thingy drive" (I watched the video!)

Asuming we are talking SQ its down to the A in dAc Analog section lots of discrete components powered by a large quality PSU carefully and skilfully designed. Add in a top quality drive to give you years of service. Everybody I have met who owns a Electro EC1-UP is totally smitten by it.

 

[steve_1979]

What if the DAC inside is as good as a Hugo DAC at £1200? What if it has two of these inside. On the DACs alone it would be worth over £2000.

You can get a DAC for just a few tens of pounds that has vanishingly low distortion levels that are so low they're inaudible. Once a piece of hifi equipment is audibly transparent there's no need to make it any better because any improvment is impossible to hear.

Sorry Vlad. I couldn't help it.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Good transport as a base to build the rest around. Anything with a Phillips CD Pro2 is a good starting point.

Which players use that?

Bel Canto, Chord Electronics and Audio Research amongst others.

Also my Electrocompaniet EMC1UP uses the cd pro 2 mech fixed to an 8kg electomechanical cancellation system to eliminate internal and external vibration.

The Phillips Cd pro 2 mech costs between $450 and $500 on it own before you start building the rest of the Cd player.

http://www.encosystems.net/product/philips-cd-pro-2/

The main reason for better sound from a Cd player imo is the quality of the analogue output stage which in my case is a discrete class A fully balanced output that is very similar to an Electrocompaniet pre amp but without the volume control .

Sadly Phillips have recently discontinued the pro2. A real shame but they are built to last forever so I hope I won't have to worry too much about that...

Buy spares now lol

 

[Vladimir]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

 

[keeper of the quays]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Cyrus do...as do quad.

 

[Al ears]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Cyrus do...as do quad.

That would depend on what you consider 'sanely priced' to be.

 

[Vladimir]

I can think of Oppo (universal player) and Marantz (SA-8005 seems nice). Any heavyweights of 15kgs and upwards for sums less than a car?

From this list I like the Sony SCD-XA5400ES, but not as much as I like the XA9000ES. Still looks a bit cheap compared to the old Pioneer PD-5000 or PD T-09 for example.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I can think of Oppo (universal player) and Marantz (SA-8005 seems nice). Any heavyweights of 15kgs and upwards for sums less than a car?

From this list I like the Sony SCD-XA5400ES, but not as much as I like the Sony XA9000ES. Still looks a bit cheap compared to the old Pioneer PD-5000 for example.

the SA-8005 is a good cd player and marantz have made good cd players for years the loading tray is rubber coated but i still think its the same cheap tray under the rubber coating that you get on all cd players

 

[BigH]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Cyrus do...as do quad.

Yes Cyrus do after there big fallout with Philips.

 

[BigH]

I can think of Oppo (universal player) and Marantz (SA-8005 seems nice). Any heavyweights of 15kgs and upwards for sums less than a car?

From this list I like the Sony SCD-XA5400ES, but not as much as I like the Sony XA9000ES. Still looks a bit cheap compared to the old Pioneer PD-5000 for example.

the SA-8005 is a good cd player and marantz have made good cd players for years the loading tray is rubber coated but i still think its the same cheap tray under the rubber coating that you get on all cd players

Yes Marantz are good, I have a 63SE still working thats over 20 years old, the loading tray is the main weakness and seems to be the first thing to go wrong but its fixable for about £70. But modern players don't seem to built to last these days judging by the numerous problems with recent cdps.

 

[unhalfbricking]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

 

[NSA_watch_my_toilet]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Really difficult question to answer, because it means to know when quality is starting to become quality to you. I would write Restek, Yamaha, and probably Oppo.

 

[keeper of the quays]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Cyrus do...as do quad.

That would depend on what you consider 'sanely priced' to be.

if you have kit that is good then a thousand quid is minimum spend..im not sure my stuff is high end? But all my cd players sound good..but my new quad cdp2 is superior in every way..and my mates top of range Cyrus cdp is frankly astonishingly good...so maybe the question might be mid range hifi is fine for Marantz, denon,oppo etc..but when ones kit gets to a certain level? These cd players sound not as good..sorry

 

[radiorog]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

Sounds about right to me. I'd also be surprised to find anything way in front of the Cambridge at u der £1000. Id like to hear the rega appollo side by side tho.

 

[manicm]

Who builds high quality CDPs these days? I don't mean dCs exotica, but something sanely priced?

Cambridge Audio CXC, though it's a transport only, not a deal breaker though as amps come with dacs, as do their own ca60/80.

 

[BigH]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

Sounds about right to me. I'd also be surprised to find anything way in front of the Cambridge at u der £1000. Id like to hear the rega appollo side by side tho.

How long will it last though?

Try it against Rega, Marantz 8005, Cyrus CD t, Abrahamsen.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

Sounds about right to me. I'd also be surprised to find anything way in front of the Cambridge at u der £1000. Id like to hear the rega appollo side by side tho.

How long will it last though?

Try it against Rega, Marantz 8005, Cyrus CD t, Abrahamsen.

there is not much in it between marantz SA8005 & Abrahamsen 1up sound wise but the cd draw is better on the marantz then the Abrahamsen 1up i hate to say

 

[BigH]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

What does processing power mean?

All due respect but an hours listening at Richer Sound to 1 track is hardly extensive testing, some things are subtle and may only show up after extensive listening. I've seen so many reviews on here by users gushing praises on their new gear only to see they are changing it after a few months time.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

What does processing power mean?

All due respect but an hours listening at Richer Sound to 1 track is hardly extensive testing, some things are subtle and may only show up after extensive listening. I've seen so many reviews on here by users gushing praises on their new gear only to see they are changing it after a few months time.

and also the sound your getting from the CD player will be a combination of amplifier. , speakers , CD player dac and your room . I have been there myself buy a new CD player and think it's great but after 2-3 months it's not that great anymore but again it's one of those combinations that's normally the issue

 

[keeper of the quays]

I watched the video..I wonder what it sounds like? Think the narrator had a dim view of Chinese kit? My quad amp and cd are Chinese built as are my phone stages and dac magic I believe..i happen to think the huge interest in hifi in china is a good thing..i saw a similar thing as a guy was disassembling a wadia cdp and moaning bout the Philips transport? Lol..the upshot of his waffle was that the wadia had a lot of Marantz parts inside? So what? The crucial thing is the sound? That's really what you pay for..

 

[radiorog]

For my money a CD player needs to have a nice musical tone, but also the ability to process information and unravel complex strands of music.

The prevous CD player I had in my system was a NAD 515. The NAD had a lovely, smooth 'analogue' sound, which I really liked, but it struggled when the soundstage filled up and tended to sound cluttered and 'mushy', losing clarity and precision. This was a deal-braker for me. The first requirement of a source is that it has the ability to convey adequate levels of musical detail and after two months of ownership the NAD was therefore a 'fail'.

I went back to Richer sounds and road-tested a Marantz 6004 against a Cambridge 651C. The track I tested was the one that the NAD had particularly struggled with, 'Starship trooper' by Yes. The final section of that song starts with a single, heavily-flanged electric guitar playing a repetitive chord sequence. Other instruments are then gradually added into the mix: an acoustic guitar, hammond organ, drums, another electic guitar and so on. Halfway through, the NAD would give up trying to separate everything out and the sound became a congealed mess.

During an hour-long listening seesion at Richer (during which time I think they forgot about me!) both the Marantz and Cambridge were endlessly road tested against this track. I couldn't split them and in the end decided on the Cambridge purely on looks!

Compared with the NAD, I would say the Cambridge has a slightly 'clinical' sound; I pererred the NAD's more natural tone, but in terms of processing power the Cambridge is on a different planet. The Cambridge ROCKS and I reckon I would have to spend the thick end of £1,000 to buy anything meaningfully better. If I could have the natural sound of the NAD as well as the detail of the Cambridge that would be perfect. Since when do we ever achieve perfection though?

Sounds about right to me. I'd also be surprised to find anything way in front of the Cambridge at u der £1000. Id like to hear the rega appollo side by side tho.

How long will it last though?

Try it against Rega, Marantz 8005, Cyrus CD t, Abrahamsen.

Well it's going OK so far, but it's loading mechanism is temperamental, has been since day one, so I admit build could be better. On the richercwrbsite one reviewer says it was better than their Cyrus, although not sure which one.