Understanding CDSII - CDX/XPS Differences

Posted by: John on 23 September 2000

I am trying to understand the difference between the CDSII and the CDX/XPS.
My friend has given me his CDSII when he is on vacation. To confuse things
a little I recently purchased a Mana stand.

Without the stand the CDSII clearly provides more information from the performance
than the CDX which sounds more mechanical. The Mana stand significantly improved
the CDX's performance and the missing information suddenly appeared. The stand
helped the CDSII's performance but no where to the degree of the CDX. I believe the
CDSII has a supsension system (I hear it tick, tick when I move the player) that in
theory would help it.

At first I put on the CDSII and tried different kinds of music. I am normalized to the
CDX so my immediate impression was that something was missing. The pase of the
music seems slower and a more relaxed feel. After listening to many CD's I found I wasn't
emotionally captivated by what I was hearing. I wanted to go back to my CDX.
Going back the excitment was there again. I am confused now! What is going on?

My impressions are the CDSII has a more balanced sound field and the information
where the instruments meet is resolved better with the CDSII giving it a more continuous
flow. Analogue feel??? The CDX doesn't seem to resolve this information and hence cuts
it off making the instruments sound more seperate which gives it a higher contrast presentation.
The CDSII seems to bring out the rythm in the lighter instruments while the CDX focuses
on the more dominent instruments. The CDSII sounds perfect with vocals but I question the
timing and attack on instruments. It sounds like the musicians are sitting down and very relaxed
when they play. When I listen to rock music this doesn't seem natural. The CDX sounds perfect for
attack and timing but doesn't bring out the same smoothness of the vocals. The CDSII seems to emphasize
the beginning of a note and the sustain of the note while the CDX emphasises the attack on the note.
I know the CDSII has less distortion because I can turn the volume up higher without fatigue.

I am curious if the CDSII really needs the 52 to show it off ?? I am a little put off by the slower
feel. My system is an 82/Supercap/135's/SBL's. Do I have an accurate take on the differences
or do I need to adjust how I am listening to the music.

John

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by David Antonelli
John,

I don't use SBLs, but certainly with these speakers and 135s your system should be up to it. But maybe you need a 52. I'm not sure. When I had a 102/supercap/180 I actually prefered the naked CDX to the CDX/XPS which seemed kind of oafish in comparisson. When I got the 52 and great stands I tried the XPS again and found that it was a noticeable improvement and I was happy with it. However, a few months after that XPS (last november) I stopped listening to my CD player as at times it again seemed a bit crass in comparisson to my wee little nat 03. Craving that analogue sound I guess. Without my WB stands the CDX/XPS sounded like something fashioned in some bleak subteranea - ie. much much worse.

It was only when I got the CDS 2 that all became lemon pie and brambleberries and I've never looked back. The CDS 2 continues to rule the floor and open up new musical landscapes in my apartment. The bass is deeper and more open and the mid range (what an amazing mid range!) just bristles and pops with excitement. My girl friend and I are both converts. She is a proud anti-audiophile but in spite of this I notice her sometimes staring, mouth agape into my albions from about 15 feet away as she sits with a book in her lap trying to read when the music is so utterly captivating that it pulls her away from her book time and time again.

Maybe its that 52 showing its pedigree.

Daveˇ

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
My CDSII is running of the 82 and 2 x hicaps. The fluidity and anlaogue sound is very noticable, and very different to CDS/XPS. The difference is very noticable, but, I have found that the player has to be left playing for a long time (80-100 hours) before this expresses itself - before this it probably does sound worse than CDX/XPS.

David

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by John
The CDX and CDSII seem to be working
from the same picture but presenting a different emphasis. I like
the analogy of a photograph or TV image. The CDSII has a very
flat picture image which makes the sutle details more obvious
and the immediate impression is there is more information. The
CDX has a higher contrast picture which emphasizes the central
image vs. the outer details. For some reason the higher contrast
picture also emphasises the energy of the performance better.
I believe the true picture has both. Arthur Bye mentioned that
there are posting on the Mana forum which JW and others
prefer the CDS1 to the CDSII for the reasons I have been
stating. Interesting because maybe the CDS1 might have a
better balance on this issue.

I don't believe the auguement that the CDX just can't reproduce
the correct pacing because it's not as refined as the CDSII.
I have owned 2 YBA players and even the cheapest player
didn't have problems rendering this slower pace. It has to be
a decision of the manufacturer. I believe there is a trade off
between dynamics and the sutle detail information which
seems to give this analogue feel. The CDX uses the dynamics for its pacing while the CDSII uses the sutle information for its pacing.

John