All components by Naim ?

Like I said, the CDX on its own is barely acceptable as a source. Regardless of overall performance though, it does have a better dynamic range than an LP12 or P9, as does any crap CD player for that matter.

BTW--surface noise? You still have surface noise?

Vuk.

Have you ever heard originals of some of the audiophile favorites? Shaded Dogs, Mercuries, Deccas, and EMIs from the fifties/sixties? Sometimes there are problems, but nonetheless the few I've heard mostly sound terrific. Perhaps you should join phonogram, and before long instead of fashioning racks you'll be in the trenches (garage sales) looking for 1s/1s Indy stampers of LSC-2490.

--Eric

You are quite right that I may have missed quite a few releases on CD only. However I made the decision a few years back that I really don't need a CD player. I have over 5000 classical LPs with recordings from the 1920's to the 1980's - more than enough variety I feel (plus there is my Jazz/Rock collection which totals nearly another 2000 LPs - my son even introduced me to Photek and Massive Attack which is great stuff (in small doses) and I even have that on vinyl. I still buy several hundred LPs a year, mostly used. Yes, I am missing out on new releases and there is very little classical in my collection from post 1980.

Until I heard the CDS2, I had not heard any CD player that I felt could bring the same level of satisfaction as my LP12. If I had to start again though, I am sure a CDS2 would be my first purchase and I would probably not bother with vinyl. But presently, with so many records, I don't feel a pressing need to start collecting CDs too.

Thanks for the invite. Next time I am out to Toronto perhaps I can get over to London, too. I think that we may actually have very similar tastes in music and beliefs in what hifi should do - I certainly agree with your stand on source first - ALWAYS!!! (Besides I would like to hear your Mana tables as I have yet to see/hear Mana and that could be my next upgrade.)

Paul

I'm not a novice here. Yes, I have heard and own recording on these labels. I also know most of the audiophile classics, though not by catalogue number. I'm not making things up when advise people on purchases: I'm familiar with thousands of recordings.

Vuk.

You forgot to add: you have an encyclopedic knowledge of music, cultural history and performance practices, you compose symphonies in your spare time, you have conducted all the world's major orchestras, you regularly discuss your musical insights with the major figures of contemporary music, your posts on the Naim forum have won the Nobel prize for literature, and you are able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Ross

I think it is archaic nowadays to claim that a
turntable outperforms a CD player in every aspect.
I think this claim is more emotional then anything else.

As I see many members here are emotional about equipment so such a claim is possible here.

Arie

Barely acceptable ! It's bloody fantastic...

I agree with the Vinyl camp but you just can't say that.

Darren Miller

quote:

---

I think it is archaic nowadays to claim that a turntable outperforms a CD player in every aspect. I think this claim is more emotional then anything else.

---

Arie,

It may be archaic, but - in my system - it's the truth. I spent many years with only a CD player, telling everyone who would listen how CD was far superior to vinyl, with a greater dynamic range, lower noise etc. A friend kept insisting that his record player sounded better, and eventually I bought a (very cheap) turntable. I immediately realised that there was something special about vinyl, and nothing since has convinced me that vinyl is not a more satisfying medium than CD. A turntable may be an older technology than CD, but that does not make it worse. Remember, film is a much more archaic technology than video, but you don't see people queueing up to see a video.

Incidentally, this is not an emotional issue for me. I have no emotional investment in any equipment or medium - if something sounds better I will happily use it, which is why I have a system comprising components from so many different manufacturers (Linn, Meridian, Exposure, Dynaudio, Naim, Michell).

Ross

quote:

---

BTW--Tony Lonorgan also prefers the P9 to an LP12 and tends to share your pessamistic view (and Paul's) of CD playback. Once again, the common feature is that none of you own what I would consider an acceptable player (mine just barely is).

---

Regarding Vuk's comment as to what is an acceptable player, I may choose not to own a really expensive player, but I have heard a good few CDSIIs etc in familiar and high quality systems, so I understand exactly where the state of this particular art currently lies. I simply choose not to pay anything like the asking price (a new CDSII costs more than I paid for my whole system). A second hand one is currently still too expensive in my opinion - both the CDSII or CDX need to depreciate much more before I will buy (I am very patient!). I would prefer to live with mine and the change!

Things have changed a lot in the CD scene over the past couple of years. The current crop of CDs and careful re-masters of old material have made to my ears more difference than that between a good 1K player and one costing 5K. As ever front end first! Improvements in software technology make more difference. A decently mastered recent CD on my humble, but Mana'd CD17KI very much more than acceptable. It has become very apparent to me that most of what I hated about CD in the past was actually present in the software itself.

I do prefer a P9 to a LP12, and think it offers massively greater value, though I am certainly not the LP12 hater that some may imagine - it is an excellent deck, and one of the very best. The LP12, with a decent arm and PSU, is IMHO very overpriced new for what it delivers, but an absolute bargain second hand.

Tony.

Although I have a CDX, I know exactly what you are saying. If I didn't already own so many CDs, I would have held off until prices came down. In many ways, the CDX is roughly equal to a Planar 3 with a decent MC cartridge (CDX on Mana is another matter, though I suppose a P3 might be too). I guess that wouldn't be so bad if the price was also comparable. To dismiss CD playback in such a generalised way that Ross does is simply ridiculous. If someone came over for an evening and I carefully chose to play a specific set 20 records and 20 CDs, I could easily give the impression that a CDX wipes the floor with an LP12 or P9. If someone refused to accept or hear this reality, they would be dogmatic or deaf.

The fact that a TT is much better, but that an evening like this could be experienced simply simply illustartes the variabilty of recordings. Classical LP recordings are especially problematic when it comes to big orchestral forces (and 1970s DG) and that is where the CDX makes up some serious ground. Ironically, on small scale classical, the P9 makes the CD player almost laughable like nothing esle. Since the big classical is more my cup of tea, perhaps my comments about the CDX being able to outdo the deck occasionally with "classical" were a bit misleading. I meant symphonies (and on regular records, not famous audiophile favourites).

As for differences in the mastering of CDs, be very, very careful. When I had the Micromega Stage 6 (and a lesser pre-amp) I was rather impressed with the newer masterings by Sony, DG and EMI. Now that I have a CDX, I am starting to discover that the originally "inferior" ones may actually be better. The biggest shock was with the Walter Bruckner 9th (formerly on CBS, now on Sony). I will have to look into this some more.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I also respect the LP12 very much and completely understand why someone would prefer it to a P9. Unlike certain LP12 owners, I don't feel the need to completely dismiss the rival player and I can accept what it's strenghts are. I will even say that it does a thing or two better than the P9, though overall, it is not as much to my taste.

OK, another final thought. Some of the disagreements I see on this forum are completely incomprehensible to me at times. I have a number of audio friends around here (though some have moved away recently) and whenever we compared equipment, at home or the shops, there would never be any substantial differences of opinion. Then I am reminded of how we once all thought Credos were bright and nasty at the former Naim dealership (this impression lasted about a year), only to discover how fantastic they were, when a couple of us took them home. Now let's suppose half of us heard them at the store, the other half at home and then all went off to our computers and logged in to the forum to post our opinions...

Similarly, when Joe Petrik would play his favourite records at my place, they would typically sound worse than at his. Yet when I played my choices at his house, the outcome would be reversed. Even though I give people shit here all the time, I do try to keep these things in mind and, most of the time, it's because they are.

Vuk.

quote:

---

Similarly, when Joe Petrik would play his favourite records at my place, they would typically sound worse than at his.

---

Vuk,

That's because my system is optimized to play "Rumours of Glory" from Bruce Cockburn's Humans.

Joe

1. First of all, you are an example for someone who doesn't use a system based on Naim only -
and that is the reason for this forum (all componenents by Naim ?) so please tell why did you choose the components you are using.

2.

quote:

---

A turntable may be an older technology than CD, but that does not make it worse.

---

I care nothing about technology and about the "age" of a technology while talking about stereo systems. It is not because I don't understand technology. When I was younger (many years ago...) I eas a technician in the Israely air force. On the early 70's we had a reciever/transmiter that transmited in short waves and it modulated the voice to a digital data
exactly the same way the CD players did 10 years later. This transmiter was in use in the US forces 20 years befire we had it.... Using this old transmiter at the time, you coudn't identify whom you are talking with, but you could hear him clear and with no disturbances no metter what were the weather conditions at the moment.

The first CD players gave me the same feeling and so I didn't run to throw my records and my turntable.

Now, after I realized (about 20 years ago) that there is no link at all between technology data and stereo equipment quality - I realy don't care if a technology used on a piece of equipment is an old technology or a newer one. All I care about is how great is the level of enjoyment I get
while listening to it. (I keep saying it many times here...). Naim's CD players have the ability to give great enjoyable to the listener
and therefore I think that it is a very good idea to have one beside a turntable. Sometimes I feel I want to listen to the CD player and another time to the turntable. I don't think there is a
"war" between these two componenets - they are completing each other - each with it's weaknesses and with it's superiority.

Arie

I am not dismissing CD. I have four or five CD players and over a thousand CDs (and I would have thousands more if I did not deliberately keep my collection to a limit of 1000). The majority of my listening time (probably 70-80%) is spent listening to CDs. CD is a perfectly acceptable medium, and if my LP12 were suddenly taken from me tomorrow, I would have no real difficulty in listening exclusively to CD (and I nearly do now anyway). CD sounds very good indeed.

However, in any comparison of the same recording on CD and a good pressing of an LP (and poor pressings quickly disappear from my collection), the LP always comes across as being the more "real", "alive" and "musical" (and I have difficulty coming up with more objective terms than these). The limitations of CD become apparent and the CD sounds like a cartoon version of reality. The difference is like television vs film. This is true of every CD player I've heard, including the Meridian players, the top of the range Naim player, the CDX, the CD12, the Wadia and Mark Levinson players, the Gryphon CD player etc etc. It appears to be an inherent limitation of the medium, which is hardly surprising given that CD is based on 1970s computer technology. Perhaps SACD will overcome this.

quote:

---

so please tell why did you choose the components you are using.

---

Because I like them.

Ross