CDS v CDX (without the add on power supply)

With CDX/XPS is as good the CDS, albeit a little different. Without the power supply, it just doesn't measure up.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I have both the CDX/XPS and the CDS1. I never really liked the CDX until I got the XPS. The CDS1 is more refined than the CDX/XPS. The CDX/XPS is more exciting to listen to. More PRaT. Both need Mana.

Both are pretty good. Really it comes down to personal preference.

Arthur Bye

I posted a detailed report on the old Forum of a monster CD player comparison I carried out between the CDX, CDX/XPS, original CDS, and CDS II.

To sum up what I found:

• The original CDS is a lot better than the CDX without an XPS. The comparison between the two is like compaing FM and AM radio.

• The CDX with XPS is as good as the original CDS, but its presentation is different. The CDX/XPS provides a more "in your face" presentation than the CDS. Although I could hear the differences easily, I did not prefer one over the other.

• The CDS II combines the strengths of the CDX/XPS and the original CDS and is clearly better than both.

I have owned the CDX/XPS and now own the CDS1. Alone the CDX doesn't touch the performance of the CDS1. I actually didn't like the bare CDX with a 52. With the 82/Super the failings of the CDX are more masked.

The CDS1 is also much better than the CDX/XPS. The CDX has an artificial glare to it which makes it sound more exciting. Exciting on good recordings but watch out for those bad recordings they sound harder and harsh. The CDX emphasises the seperation of instruments. The CDS1 like the CDS2 is more analogue and presents the bleeding of the instruments which gives it a more forest perspective of the music. The CDX presents a more tree focus. If you are debating purchasing either go for the CDS1.

John

And I assume you mean CDS/XPS vs CDS(1).

I did my monster comparison with another CDS(1) owner and a CDX owner. The CDS(1) owners had a slight preference for the CDS(1) on some tracks. The CDX owner preferred the CDX/XPS. However, we all agreed that both players achieved a similarly high level of performance, despite the differences in presentation.

BTW, the CDS(1) used in the comparisons had a black burndy. The black burndy is quite an improvement over the grey burndy. In particular, it removes quite a lot of "mush" from the sound, as Dave put it.

To summarize the findings of my monster comparison in Patterson notation:

CDX<<<< CDX/XPS~=CDS(1) with black burndy <<< CDSII

Paul, sounds like the CDS1 you demoed needing recapping or for some reason wasn't up to its potential. Did you demo with a 52? Big difference if you didn't. Was it warmed up for more than 2 weeks? The improvements are significant if its warmed up long enough.

I owned the CDX/XPS for about a 1.5 years and normalized myself to the presentation but changed it for a CDS1 that I recapped and I purchased the black burndy. The CDS1 out performs the CDX/XPS in that it provides a much wider range of emotion and is most moticable with the older recordings. Some of my 50s jazz recordings were not listenable with the CDX/XPS. Now they wonderful and make sense as the performance is drawn out of them much better. The biggest shock was listening to my old Led Zep Cds. I was reminded why I liked them when I was younger. Something was always lost with this music for me when I swiched from LPs to Cds many years again. The CDS1 brought something back that the CDX/XPS couldn't produce.

John

But then, so were the CDX and XPS, so I think the comparison was fair.

The rest of the system used for the comparison: 52/SCAP/S-NAXO/SCAP/2*250/SBLs.

The CDS(1) in question was mine, which I have owned since 1993. I am familair with what the CDS(1) is capable of - I should be after 8 years of owning one. When I did the comparison I don't recall it underperforming.

To reiterate:

• The CDS(1) does things that the CDX/XPS doesn't and vice versa. The differences are quite pronounced, but it's hard to rate one ahead of the other.

• There's no comparison between the naked CDX and the CDS(1). The CDS(1) is a lot better.

Hey - don't all bag the Catman - there's more than one here who feels the same. I like the CDSI sufficiently, and have heard it sound great... I also understand why people like it. However, I don't hold much of that important, and hence won't buy one.

For me, the CDX excells in the things that are important to me... to the point that I bought one in favour of a CDSI... damn the torpedoes, and the aspects of music that I lost in this choice.

I knew it was a long road to XPS-dom, but don't regret the chosen path.

So remember - there's no winner in this debate - it's very firmly a listen and see issue. Use your ears.

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Paul:

I personally rate the CDS1 better than the CDX/XPS because it is closer to the CDS2 with how it presents the music. A forest perspective rather than a tree focus. It is more expressive of the music. Many of my older CDs were almost trade ins with the CDX/XPS. I also found myself also considering whether the recording was good before I would listen. Now I only think of the music.

The CDX/XPS is very good and I was very happy with it. However I now understand how it fails. It is the glare on the music which makes it exciting but puts it a little out of balance. It is more difficult for the sutle instruments to come through and the balance of the music is thrown off as the focus is only the dominent instruments. This is more noticable at high volumes. The CDS1 performs much better in this regard.

Happy listening!

John

Dave Cattlin’s last words in the CDS/CDX debate:
But is it music?

Who knows? I only know that I have the choice between CDX and CDS1 and having read this issue I just decided to buy the old model. Much has contributed to my decision the experience with my two preamps where the 72 may be far better than the 32.5 but I’m unable to listen to it for longer run so I’ll sell it. A similarity to the case of the CD players comes into mind.
I’m ready to accept the divergence in tastes and all I can do is defining my own one. Dave does’nt define the art of music he likes. I keep speaking about music that is played on acoustic instruments (symphonic, opera, jazz). If listening to any type of that music you can decide where to sit in the hall. Well, I like to sit anywhere in row 10-15. Dave must prefer a place much nearer to the performance.
In the music hall there is plenty of ambience, sound absorbing material, loss of treble. Recordings in the studio are close-miked, have no (or artificial) ambience, plenty of treble, loss on bass. I don’t really know if I want to hear all that “reality” and accept it as music. Just for food of thought.

How real the music is doesn't interest me. Stripping out the digital effect, the electronic sound and balancing the sonic picture makes the music much more expressive and enjoyable.

Enjoy your CDS1. Be patient with it as it takes a long time to warm up.

John

Hi graphoman and congratulations on your CDS, I'm sure that you will enjoy it immensely.

I had a chat with JV about the relative merits of the CDSI/CDX/XPS at a very good evening at Phonography in Ringwood a couple of years ago, and I tend to agree with Dave Cattlin.

My view:

CDS1: ok, inoffensive but no contest with a decent TT. Sorry but never tempted to buy. Also found some other CD players interesting but again no purchase intended.

CDX: different from the CDS but much better (even naked), more music (easy to say but it is my opinion), like a v good TT. Makes you want to listen to the music and enjoy.

CDX/XPS: stunning, much bigger difference than expected. Far more detail, and much more musical. Way ahead of CDX and CDSI.

CDSII: much better than CDX/XPS but overall improvement difficult to tell as 52 had replaced 82 before CDSII introduced. Still want one but after Supercap.

JV view: slightly different!!

Have fun

Chris

John said:
How real the music is doesn't interest me (…)
Enjoy your CDS1.

John, I’ve allways appreciated that Hi-Fi is an independent medium. However, sometime I can’t help but come to the conclusion that it does have some connection to real music…
In the meantime, my CDS1 has arrived. It needed not more than one minute to get the resemblance to an early LP12 which I got borrowed from a friend in 1981. I can remember, too, a rapid test we made (much later) with LP12 vs. Roxan Xerxes where the result was an absolute 50% to 50% and nobody wanted to be convinced by the opposite camp. Needless to say, I was on the side of the LP12.
graphoman

Thanks guys, some very interesting replys here. It's always good to hear diferences in opinions and views.
No doubt the debate will go on for a while yet.

jim learoyd

if you are using a cdx without an xps, do whatever is necessary (legally) to acquire one as soon as you can.

and then get use to smiling big time

chris

Well enjoy your CDS1 ...you have made a wise choice.

I have lived with one since 1993 and now it is away being upgraded to a CDSii.

So not only do you possess a superb CD player now but even greater delights are open to you when funds allow and you can convert to a CDS2

Enjoy!

Micheal:

When you get your converted CDS1 back please provide a post on your findings. Also, I curious on what you paid for the upgrade. My experience to date on the CDS1 vs 2 are they are just different with a slight edge to the CDS2 depending on what CD you are playing. There were however many recordings I didn't like with the CDS2 as the CDS1 has better PRaT emphasis.

I added the burdy upgrade to my CDS1 and recapped the CDPS which resolved any harshness and digital sound to the CDS1. The CDS2 change is my backup if/when my CDS1 breaksdown.

John

That's the first time I've heard anyone describe the CDSI as having better PRaT than a CDSII. It's certainly not a phenomenom I've been priveliged to hear, good as the 'I is. Wow.

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Rico:

Do a forum search, Arthur Bye has made this comment and more than once I believe. He owns both the CDS1 and CDS2. A very lucky fellow! I had a CDS2 for 2 weeks and compared it to the CDX/XPS. The CDX/XPS had more PRaT than the CDS2 but it was at the expense of not being as balanced. The CDS1 has a more PRaT emphasis but with the balance of the CDS2.

Most people just have the opportunity to do a short 1 hour comparison when they are making their purchase decision and their opinions on the forum are based on this. Arthur's opinions are unique because he owns both machines.

I would also guess that most people when they do their test search for the CDs that make the CDS2 excell relative to the CDS1. This makes sense as they would want to hear the benefits of the CDS2. What about the CDs where there is very little difference and where the CDS1 wins? Trust me these do exist and there are many!

John

John:

Your post does reflect my findings. I still own both players and I still find the same differences. The one caveat I have to add though is that the CDS1 and the CDX must have Mana. I'm not sure what Mana does to improve the CDS1/CDX, I just know that without it something is missing.

I know there are many on the Forum that say the CDS2 is way better than the CDS1, but not to my ears. Maybe I'm getting deaf. The sound of the CDS1(on Mana) is different, not better.

One thing I have noticed though, after I saw a post on it in the Forum is that the CDS1 has some high frequency grain/harshness that occurs at loud volume levels. The CDS1 seems to loose some of its smoothness here. Since I rarely play music at high levels I had never noticed it.

Appparently J/W Mana has his own secret fix for this.

Arthur Bye

John, Arthur

I certainly can't, nor indeed, won't argue! You're certainly lucky/fortunate to be so well acquianted with either machine that living with them brings.

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Arthur:

Try the black burny on the CDS1 I think you will find that all of that grain disappears. On a good recording I can have my 52 upto 11:00 to 11:30 with no fatige.

John

I got my system back yesterday from a full service and upgrade.

CDS to CDSii
52PS to SUPERCAP
Recap 135's and recase old style to new
Grey burndis to Black

Using Isobariks until Wednedsay when a pair of NBL's are arriving for a extended dem

Even from cold it was a revelation ..... almost as if a new top and bottom floor had been built on to the soundstage and the middle floors so open and full of air and light.

If it sounding this good already...can't wait till it really kicks in .... in a few weeks.

Gone is any sense of harshness, muddiness in the bass...or confusion...high level listening is a pleasure...

its like a clear blue day on top of a mountain...a breath of fresh air.

I was always somewhat sceptical about servicing...but now I can see why all the people on here have said go for it all along....

so I add my sentiments to that too now....anyone with gear over about 8 years old... send it in and get new life breathed into your system..well worth the money!

Thanks to all of you guys for your comments and encouragement.