CDS..better than CDS II???

CDS ceased production because the mechanisms weren't available. This is true.

As to CDS vs CDSII, the only people I've seen who have a preference for CDS1 either have a stack of Mana which skews the sound in a particular direction (see below) or don't (IMHO) have a system capable of truly showing what the CDS2 is capable of.

From my own experiences, I prefered CDS1/52/135s/DBLs over CDS2/52/250/DBLs as the former had more clarity vs the more masked sound of the second setup. This was a home trial over 10 days so I had time for run ins/decent comparison times. CDS2/52/135s/DBLS was something special BTW and would have upgraded immediately if funds weren't the issue.

I've also had the CDS1 "strangled" by a 72/hi/180 system - so much so, I didn't think it was the same CD player playing - certainly not worth the 4000 vs the 450 of the Arcam alpha playing along side it.

I also have "phase 3" Mana (for 4 years). I have played, for a year or so, with the CDS1 on and off the Mana (swapping to Target stands for comparison) and I'm now well and truly into the off Mana sound. Although not as superficially "hi-fi" it sounds a hell of a lot more musical on the Target stand... There is absolutely no question in my mind that Mana changes the sound of the CDS1, but it robs it of a certain wholeness (again IMHO) which is detremental to the whole sound.

There, I said it...

Andy

Hope this helps.
John

It throws music at you. The '2' presents it.

This does not mean I'm right. It means, I prefer the '2'.

mk I was the first Naim player and (with a few small updates) was optimized for the best CD replay performance given the parts available at the time (single-beam Hall-motor rotary pickup arm CDM4/2x transport under analog control, Philips oversampling filter + 16-bit DAC). Parts were select but end-of-life.

mk II utilized same engineering experience but with different, more easily-obtainable parts (more reliable three-beam Hall-motor linear-sledge VAM 1205 transport under microprocessor control {Naim s/w}, HDCD filter / dual-mono DACs with dither) and more sophisticated engineering effort ("bop-amp" discrete output filter stages).

CDPS (mk I supply) uses two transformers, specifically HICAP xfmr for analog supplies

XPS (mk II supply, also used for CDX) uses one (SUPERCAP) xfmr for all supplies, with less point-to-point wiring (unified PCB). Separate ground planes for digital filter and DACs.

IMHO early 16-bit (no dither at mastering stage) CDs perform better on the CDS mk II than the mk I unit, which ruthlessly delivers that least significant bit in a "flat-earth" way.

More CDS mkII units sold into Non-Naim systems than mk I--have your cake and eat it, too.

Dave Dever

[This message was edited by David Dever on MONDAY 31 December 2001 at 00:09.]

quote:

---

I prefer the CDS1 over the II. The II is too laid back for me. The CDS1 is very analogue sounding (confirmed this when I bought my Rega P9) but it goes after the PRaT emphasis in the sonic picture rather than the tonal color. For me the II renders some music boring. Some people will claim that the CDS1 is similar to the CDX/XPS. This is not true, don't believe it. I have owned both machines. When I demoed the CDS2 against the CDX/XPS the only aspect of the CDS2 I like was how it balanced the musical performance. The CDS1 balances the musical performance very similar to the CDS2 but with a more PRaT emphasis. Keep in mind the CDS1 needs a good stand to perform at its best and the CDS2 performs well on anything.

---

Uhh, forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you selling off your CDS I?

No I am not selling it. I explored the option of down grading my CD source because I primarily listen to vinyl now. Much more enjoyable in my opinion. Naim recently had a show in my city and displayed a CDS2/52/500/NBL and after normalizing my ears to vinyl the CDS2 still sounded like a CD player.

I love the CDS1 and have no intention of moving up to the CDS2 but if a cheaper CD player could deliver 90-95% of the CDS1 I would make the move to source funds for maybe a Fraim move or to move my TT upto another level. If my CDS1 breaks I will look at the CDS2 upgrade option but I will also consider other players at the same price.

I demoed the CDS2 for two weeks about 1 year ago and recently heard it at a local Hi Fi show. This player has not made me jump out of my seat yet. It is very very good but not my taiste.

John

With the CDS now in the low-mid $3000 range, I think you'll have a hard time finding a CD player that provides 90-95% of the performance at a significantly lower price.

To my ears, the CS models are the only CD players I've heard that play music (i.e. via the CDS, I almost always know I'm listening to real people playing real instruments).

Everything else I've heard on CD just plays disks, and that includes the megabuck ML players, Sony SACD, Arcam, Myryad, some French stuff, Rega, 47 Labs, Burmester, Linn, CDX, CD3, CD 3.5. The CD5/Flatcap was pretty good, but won't put much cash in your pocket.

With my strained finances, I'm delighted to find that my local library has a big collection of CDs that allows me free access to a very wide range of music. This alone justifies investment in a good CD player - but I'm up the creek if the transport fails.

Phil

If it is your experience that the CDS 2 is boring and performs equally well on anything, that might be the problem. I find that the CDS 2 sounds a bit mushy on a wide variety of surfaces, but that on the Wilson Benesch Triptych ( or maybe Fraim as well?) it is has the "Klout of a wrecking Krue". It also digs the best out of sucky recordings and masterings. Yesterday I was pissed off so I started listening to the very juvenile but satisfying "In My Head" by Black Flag. And absolutely hideous recording, but the CDS 2 rendered it smooth, mean, and powerful with Metallica-like bass drive and a seamless lightning fast mid range that will have you writhing on the floor like Iggy Pop rather than yawning like Frank Sinatra.

My advice: If you think the CDS 2 is boring, it's most likely not on the right stand. You are right that it sounds fine on virtually anything you put it on, but when you find the right stand you will instantly realize how compromized its perfromance is on most other surfaces and the difference between "sounding fine" and "delivering music" will suddenly become apparent. It will be as though you had previously been listening to it "through a glass darkly"

dave

I agree with you and finally came to the understanding that would be swapping a $15,000Cdn level of player with a $2-3,000Cdn player and pulling out maybe $2,000 in cash if I was lucky. So I will stick with the CDS1.

David:

Don't take my comment so extreme. I found it rendered SOME recording boring. I found that when I wasn't sitting and directly listening to the music I psychologically tuned it out. I don't have this experience with the CDS1, it actually pulls me into the music. More dramatic in my opinion. When I actually sat and listened to the CDS2 I enjoyed it. I tried it on Mana with no apparent effect but I at least had the unit perfectly level. In the end I agree the CDS2 is better but it is also different. I liked how it was better but not how it was different.

From Dave Dever's comment it sounds like it maybe was designed more round earth to attract more non-Naim listeners. Maybe a shift in emphasis??? When I demoed it I was reminded of the YBA CD1 player. I previously owned a CD2 and didn't want to go back to that sound as it restricted me to listening to certian kinds of music. Anything that was slow and recorded well was beautiful but anything raunchy or aggressive was boring. I thought my interests changes but the CD player was the one guilty.

Also some people have quoted Julian as stating that "Some people might prefer the CDS1 over the CDS2". I have never read a direct quote but have ran accross the quote a few times on the forum.

John

Sorry if my tone sounded extreme, it wasn't my intention. I only meant to say that the timing of the CDS 2 can be drastically improved by playing it on the right stand. I agree that on most surfaces it sounds more round earth and I have also heard that Mana doesn't affect it much. In my experience my own dedicated stand influences it a GREAT deal.

So perhaps the bottom line is that you are right and in most instances the CDS 2 doesn't appear to time as well as the CDS 1. I would just like to add to this that, that contrary to popular belief, the timing of the CDS 2 can be improved dramatically, but only on a limited number of stands, some of which may seem quite obscure to members of the forum.

I have also had your experience with the CD2 making you think your taste in music had changed, but I had this with the CDX. The CDX forced me to listen to smoother more ambient things, and shy away from more muscular agressive typse of music/recordings. The CDS 2 changed that. It just glows with music of all types.

Happy New Year,

Dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Also some people have quoted Julian as stating that "Some people might prefer the CDS1 over the CDS2". I have never read a direct quote but have ran accross the quote a few times on the forum.

---

I may be able to help you here.

First, here is Vuk's comment, which drew the response from JV:-

quote:

---

Date: 7-Nov-98 13:05
Author: Vuk Vuksanovic (qstatistic@mirror.org)
Subject: Julian, make us a stand!

It has been a few days now that the CDX has been spinning at my place and most of the break in appears to have taken place. First of all, let me say that this is by far the best CD player I have ever heard (no experience with old or new CDS). Yesterday, we took it over to a new member of the local Naim family (Paul Jacob), hooked it up to his 72/90/Doublet system and had a lot of fun listening to music--the kind of experience previously restricted to vinyl. It was so good that, at one point, I looked over and saw Joe, Jeff and Paul with the same worried look on their face: "where am I going to get the money for this?"

The articulation of this machine is fantastic. The phrasing of musical lines is a joy and the handling of rhythms almost flawless. It does not sound like other CD players, although I could still detect a bit of that digital edge; this morning it all caught up to me and, after tossing a record on the Planar 9, I concluded that, in spite of everything, the player was just not quite good enough to live alongside the deck. Since the problem appeared to be primarily tonal, I wondered what effect my metal+glass shelf was having on it (especially considering the rather hard feet). I moved the player to the floor and things got a tiny bit better. Next step was to put it on my custom designed TT stand. Wow! It really needs something like this. The violin section now sounded the part--not just a big steely mass. All kinds of textures popped out. The player was even more listenable at very loud volumes (something the CD3.5 seemed completely incapable of in my system). Is it the wood? Is it the isolation from everything else? In any case, my space is limited and it will be a virtual impossibility to dedicate a separate stand for each source.

Now for the bad part. The turntable is still the clear winner. Primarily, it conveys multiple musical lines with far less strain and in a more lyrical manner. There is also considerable tonal supriority. Imaging and all that stuff seems comparable.

I can certainly live with and enjoy this player. What shall I do?

Vuk.

---

Perhaps this is the quote you are referring to?

quote:

---

Date: 8-Nov-98 05:33
Author: julian vereker
Subject: stands

Vuk

Stands are such a personal thing and also house/appartment construction dependant that we have always (at least since the mid '70s when were trying to make the Isobariks work) left that to other (local) companies to satisfy the market.

I think that the original CDS is more comparable to analogue if that is what you want, the CDSII does both.

julian

---

Actually, I suspect that this is a comparison of the CDSI vs the (bare) CDX.

Of course, both the CDX & CDSII were launched in '98, so this would be not too long after the launch of both.

cheers, Martin

Thanks for the quote, I don't know if that is the one as I have been surfing the forum for probably only two years now. If he was on the forum when I started I probably didn't understand who he was.

I think Julian's comment is in context with another message.

How did you source Julian's quote? I am very interested in anything he wrote. I find many of the new Naim reps on forum only promotional! But what can you expect they need to move them boxes.

John

John

I have about 900 of Julian's posts from the old conference squirreled away (and a load of others, also).

cheers, Martin

Cheers,

Bob

How the comparison is done is very important:

If the CDS1 isn't on a good support the CDS2 will smoke it.

If the CDS1 doesn't have the black burndy the CDS2 will again win hands down.

If you don't listen for an extended period of time and a broad number of CDs you won't have an understanding how each player renders different recordings.

According to Dave the CDS2 is very stand dependant. If this is so I don't understand why Naim doesn't package the CDS2 with Fraim automatically.

John

I agree with you regarding the importance of context and would not have posted if I had not heard both players well set up, extensively, etc.

My feeling is that as good as the CDS1 is when maximized the CDS2 simply offers a much higher level of ultimate musical performance.

Cheers and happy new year !

Bob

I found that when I wasn't sitting and directly listening to the music I psychologically tuned it out.

Yes, I have noticed this to after my 1 was rebuilt to 2. But in "active" listening mode the 2 is so much better! My view on this is that the 1 concentrates on the main groove in the music (and does that very well) and the 2 puts out all the nuiances in the music, small differences in timing between musicians, fracing etc. etc. This IMHO makes the 1 "easier" to listen to when it's playing in the background.

JohanR

In theory, the head should sound the same as an original -II.

As for a CDS-I/XPS combo - the CDS-I cannot be run from an XPS.

cheers, Martin

I think you are wrong about Black Flag. Their mid-80s recordings are very honest, smooth, and rich, at least on vinyl. Not the last word, especially on transparency, but very good. Maybe the cd masterings are poor (not unlikely given that they date from the digital stone age). By contrast, Metallica records from the same period are compressed, thin, cursed with an icy sheen like so many major label records of that era.

--Eric