cds2 vs cds1
Posted by: ken c on 23 January 2001
enjoy...
ken
I've had both players for about 8 months now on the same system and have had a lot of time to discern the differences.
The CDS2 is more analog sounding, just a tad more laid back than the CDS1, yet still very detailed. The thought that comes to mind sometimes is "round earth". I imagine that I'll take a few hits on that, but in comparison to the CDX/XPS and the CDS1 it is more round earth. But just a little.
The CDS1 really needs Mana to make it work right. The Mana really makes it shine. Some prefer the sound of the CDS1 as it offers more PRaT. I agree with this assessment. It's kind of like a CDX/XPS going up to the next level.
It the end both players are extremely close to each other and you really have to listen to hear the differences. If you want more PRaT go with the CDS1. If you want your CD player to sound like and LP12 then go for the CDS2.
Kind of hard to go wrong either way. The CDS1 has the obvious advantage of being much less expensive and the promise of future upgradability. You've also got to get the Mana to get the PRaT thing going too.
John Wason (Mana founder) and a lot of the other Mana flock prefer the CDS1 over the CDS2.
I can see their point, but in the end it's a matter of personal taste. I like both of them.
Arthur By
Where does the upgraded CDS2 with CDS1 power supply sit in terms of sound quality?
quote:
Do you really think the CDS1 has more PRaT than an LP12?!?!
Jason:
Yes, I think that the CDS1 has more PRaT than a LP12, or a P9 (which is what I have). The CDX/XPS also has more PRaT. It took me a while to sort this out, but both the CDX/XPS and the CDS1 have, what I think to be, artificially high levels of PRaT that get you jumping, but in the end not realistic. It's not a lot and its difficult to notice, but if you have a CDS2 to compare you'll hear the differences. Most times this extra PRaT is enjoyable and I imagine that's why so many people like the CDS1 and CDX/XPS so much. But there is a difference with the CDS2, and that's what I feel it is.
The CDS2 does a better job of giving you an accurate reproduction of the music.
Other odds bits are that the CDS2 seems to have better resolution, and deeper (although rounder) bass.
It takes a lot of listening to sort all this out.
Mostly the two players sound identical. You really have to listen into the music to get the very subtle differences.
Arthur Bye
phew!! this forum is soooo useful! many thanks to all of you, especially arthur , trevor and neilp for detailed answers.
i had settled on a cds2 -- its the outlay that has got me thinking about cds1 -- possibly upgraded to cds1.5. plus the fact that i rather liked the sound of my newphew's cdi compared to my own cd2. to me, the cdi was more organic than the cd2 -- and i was beginning to suspect the same might be the case for cds1 vs cds2.
mind you, the active system that so impressed me last week was sourced from cds2, so that bodes well for it -- but we always want more don't we???
i dont know this o-ring thingy either -- appears to work against cds1 choice --however, how often does it need changing -- like a cartridge??
its a bit hard to compare these units these days, but if i get a chance, i will.
my current position is to go for cds2 as it obviously contributed substantially in my active demo.
many thanks again guys... any more observations/insights obviously very welcome, especially on upgraded cds1's (presumable the cds1.5's)
enjoy...
ken
quote:
I thought that the CDS1 was of a similar standard to the CDX+XPS and that the CDS2 comfortably outperformed both
Jason:
A dead cold CDS1 will out perform a fully warmed CDX/XPS. The differences are immediate and marked.
The differences between the CDS1 and CDS2 are not that clear. Frequently, depending on the music, they sound very much the same. It's much more a matter of personal taste. Niether one is necessarily superior to the other, just different. If you like the forward presentation of a CDX/XPS, then you will probably like the CDS1 better than the CDS2. By no means does this mean that the CDS1 has a forward presentation though. It's only in comparison to the CDX that you notice this. I doubt that anyone would describe the sound of a CDS1 as being forward when listened to straight up.
As far as the Nextel ring is concerned. I still have my original 4 year old puck that seems to work fine. Occasionally I will encounter an errant CD where I have to use the 2 ring Nextel puck. Being clean with the player and your CD's helps. Keep skin oil off the CD's. The Nextel ring flattens out after a while so you have to squeeze it to work properly from time to time. Additionaly you should not leave discs in the player overnight as this tends to flatten the ring. Just a little discipline and cleanliness and you will rarely encounter probelms with the CDS1. I Blu-Tak the CD bay regularly to keep the area clean (don't Blu-Tak the lens though).
My understanding from Dave Dever at NANA is that the CDS1-PS power supply is very close to the XPS power supply and that most people will not notice the difference when upgrading to a CDS1.5 with a CDS2 head unit. I haven't heard one to know, but my past experience with Dave Dever leads me to believe him.
I know that most people want a winner and a loser here, but it's not going to happen. Both of these units are great and just a little different. I could easily live with either and feel that I wasn't missing anything.
Things like cartridge choice, speaker choice (or placement) in my opinion, offer much greater variations than the difference between a CDS1 Vs CDS2
Arthur Bye
I have heard people comment that the CDX/XPS=CDS1. This is far from the truth.
I also purchased a black burndy for the CDS1 which really smoothed out any hardness to the sound that some people have commented.
Keep in mind with all of my comparisons the CDX/XPS and CDS1 were on Mana which significantly help the performance.
John
quote:
This is not the nextel ring in question.
Stackowax:
I stand corrected. Just not paying enough attention. The Nextel ring is as you indicate the irreplacable part of the transport that wears as you use the machine.
It is my understanding that pre-mature wear can be ameliorated by not allowing the transport to run excessively with the display indicating "ERR". Better to stop and correct the problem with the disc, by cleaning or using the 2 ring puck. A conversation I had with someone at NANA indicated to me that old CDS1's that are being upgraded may eventually be parted out to re-use the used nextel rings when their supply of new ones is used up.
I imagine it will be some years before this becomes a serious problem, and there is always the alternative of a CDS2 head unit upgrade.
Arthur Bye
To say that I am surprised at the tenor this thread has taken is an understatement. To my ears the CDS2 comfortably outperforms a CDS1 in terms of dynamics, detail, ease, tunefulness, groove, etc. That is to say, there is NO area where a CDS1 exceeds or even equals a CDS2. In terms of overall character they are similar but the CDS2 is a significantly better player of music.
The CDS1 vs CDX/XPS is one of those "horses for courses" comparisons--some might prefer the CDS1, some (most ?--in my experience) will prefer the CDX/XPS.
On a numerical scale I would give the CDS2 a 10, a CDX/XPS a 8.5; CDS1 a 8.0.
Cheers,
Bob
Ride the Light !
(Or maybe--See the Light !)
quote:
I have done a CDX/XPS comparison to the CDS2 and have just recently purchased a CDS1. I was put off by the lack of attack of the CDS2 and thought this was the trade off going to the more analogue sound. I have since learned my assumption is not correct as the CDS1 has the analogue sound with the PRaT of the CDX/XPS. The CDS1 is a more refined CDX/XPS picture with a wider range of emotion. Keep in mind with all of my comparisons the CDX/XPS and CDS1 were on Mana which significantly help the performance.
...so as to render any subtle differences between the two nearly imperceptible.
What I don't understand is the prevailing attitude amongst Mana devotees (on this forum and others) that anything cheaper, used, or out of production sounds better.
Funny, on every other stand on the planet, differences between components are, er, different! No one ever seems to complain that their CDS II is not as "edgy" as the CDX it replaces; for most people it's a relief!
Try the same comparison on five other stands and see what results you come up with--I think you'll be a bit surprised.
Dave Dever, NANA
I have never stated the CDS2 has been out performed. My guess is the design of the CDS2 deals with some of the issues the Mana stand provides the CDS1 and CDX. I personally prefer the CDS1.
The differences between the CDX/XPS and CDS1 are as huge as the difference between the CDX/XPS and CDS2 but different.
Your attitude Dave is rather strange. I would be proud of what Naim accomplished with the CDS1. It's an amazing player which many people testify on the forum.
I am also impressed with how Mana works with my Naim system. I am sure other stands work as well and different. I have not had the opportunity to listen to different stands. The best I could find in my city are Lovan.
I don't believe anything cheaper sounds better on Mana. Mana brings out the best in each component. I think you achieve different results when you upgrade components than when you add more stands. I am upgrading to a 52 which costed me 4K. At only 420US I could have phased my Mana stand. I do not believe I could get the character of a 52 out of my 82 no matter how many sound stages I add. But I do believe the 52 will sound better on Mana than on my oak cabinet.
[This message was edited by John on THURSDAY 25 January 2001 at 07:02.]
quote:
...so as to render any subtle differences between the two nearly imperceptible.
Begs the question whether it is worth paying big money for only "subtle" differences.
cheers
Nigel
The CDS-1 is based around the Philips TDA 1541 S1 DAC and associated digital filter. This is a 16 bit D/A with 4 times oversampling.
The main problem with this chip set is its microphony and the being 16 bit, oversampling does not work on the LSB (which is why 20 bits are normally used - this and headroom in manufacture). Another affect is that this chip set cannot be used with the HDCD filter (PMD-100) as the HDCD signal is nominally of 19 bits. Because of the oversampling problems it could be prone to sounding a little 'rough' compared to 20 bit varieties. Its all in the execution thgough. The CDS-1 always sounded pretty good to me.
[This message was edited by Martin M on THURSDAY 25 January 2001 at 16:06.]
quote:
What I don't understand is the prevailing attitude amongst Mana devotees (on this forum and others) that anything cheaper, used, or out of production sounds better.
That might explain why the only Naim speaker that gets a kind word on the Mana forum is the IBL. I'm not knocking the IBL mind you, just echoing the curious correlation you noted.
Joe
quote:
Sorry Arthur, but I must agree with Bob Edwards on this one. The CDS2 is so much better in every dept.
Trevor: My personal preference between these players is the CDS2, so I am not in disagreement with you about this. I like it so much that I now own two CDS2 players.
On the other hand I can certianly see the reasons why the CDS1 is so highly regarded and on certian CD's I prefer the sound of the CDS1.
I don't generally listen to my music at high volume levels anymore as I suffer from tinnitis(it was either a Led Zep or Who Concert), so I haven't tried either player at headbanger levels.
But I also see the point of all those on the Mana Forum that espouse the virtues of the CDS1. I really don't see this as a slam dunk for the CDS2. Some like the CDS1 better, and I can see why.
When I purchased my CDS2's it was with the idea of selling my CDS1 and CDX/XPS. I haven't gotten around to doing it yet, so I've been able to make these comparisons. They're completely subjective on my part, and I admit my bias leans towards the analog sound of the CDS2. But I don't think the CDS1 is a worse player, just different.
Dave:
In response to your remark about stands. I've tried the CDS2/CDX/CDS1 on Lovan, Salamander, Sound Organization, bookcases, and Mana. The CDS1 showed me no apparent differences until I put it on Mana. I was quite skeptical about Mana until I stumbled on an inexpensive Reference Table on Ebay. The difference was immediate and obvious, the same as when I tried my CDX on it. The CDS2, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care where you put it. Personally I would prefer it if Mana were crap. It's a royal pain in the a** to set it up and then you have to let it settle in. It's also just about the most expensive rack out there. But it does improve the presentation of the music. I digress here, and would prefer not to turn this into another Mana thread. Suffice to say everyone has their own personal preferences.
Arthur Bye
quote:
Your attitude Dave is rather strange. I would be proud of what Naim accomplished with the CDS1. It's an amazing player which many people testify on the forum.
I agree with you on this...however, in the U.S., shipping is accomplished over much larger distances than in the U.K., with less emphasis on package integrity than on speed (regardless of shipper).
The Philips CDM4/2x transport used in the CDS is not only scarce, but more susceptible to accidental knocks and vibrations (higher mass) than the current VAM 1205 transport used in the CD3.5/CD5/CDX/CDS II.
Therefore, encouraging one to forgo a newer, potentially more reliable (more serviceable) player (which, to most people, sounds significantly better anyway) on the basis that it works better with the equipment supports you are using (as written on this and other forums) is utter rubbish, if not economically misinformed.
Take this with a grain of salt if you wish, but it is heartbreaking sometimes, given how amazingly good (and expensive) a CDS I is when in perfect condition, to see one come in for service merely because it was improperly packed on its way across the U.S. (or across the Atlantic, from a U.K. seller). The CDS II doesn't suffer this same fate, and is thus our
TECHNICIAN'S CHOICE. 
Dave Dever, NANA
I've never gotten around to doing an HDCD comparison. I do have several HDCD discs though and now that you have mentioned it I'll probably get around to it at some point just out of curiosity.
My initial impressions of HDCD were on a bare CDX. At the time I was having trouble enough liking the rather forward sound of the bare CDX. My recollection is that the HDCD appeared to give better levels of resolution, but did not change the forward presentation. Imaging, air, space, and any other round earth qualities remained the same as far as I could tell. It took an XPS to make me like the CDX, then Mana to make it a notch better yet.
I have to rummage up a few HDCD's and see if I can tell any differences between the units. I imagine there will just be better levels of resolution on the CDS2.
Arthur Bye
"... I do not believe I could get the character of a 52 out of my 82 no matter how many sound stages I add. But I do believe the 52 will sound better on Mana than on my oak cabinet."
Ah, sanity at last...
enjoy...
ken
In comparisson, the CDX/XPS has exaggerated bass slam which some may confuse with better timing, and a more compressed and "dirty" midrange. On the WB tryptych the timing is spot on with the CDS2. It not only gets the drive and slam right, but it picks up all of the subtle stops and starts and inflexions in the mid range and trebble. You can really tune into a guitar solo, for example, whereas with the CDX/XPS it is more difficult. Marquee Moon by Television is fantastic on the CDS2, the player digging deeper into the mids and pulling it all together, where the CDX/XPS makes Television sound like just another late seventies band. THAT, is what I call timing. Not just picking up the obvious double four bass lines, but reading all the nuances and clicking them all together like pieces of a massive jigsaw puzzle. It is in this attribute that the CDS 2 times the piss out of the CDX/XPS, which sounds like a drum machine in comparisson. If the CDX/XPS is really broadly similar to the CDS1, then I can't see how there could really be a contest, unless you like drum machines...
dave
You have to be careful with some "modern" recordings and techniques. I have two discs of Roy Orbison's Greatest, one culled from early sixties recordings and one put together a few years before his death with "the best studio musicians" and the "finest recording techniques available" to preserve "the master's artistry" for generations to come. Not only was Mr Orbison's band tighter and more communicative in the early sixties, his voice much better as would be expected, but the godamn recording is BETTER! There is something distinctly digital sounding about the newer effort while the musty old sixties relic is a gem of emotion and fluidity with just as much detail, dynamics, soundstaging...
JV once said something in an interbview about a lot of the remastered sixties recordings sounding great on CD. I think he was onto something.
dave
Arthur Bye
Sorry!
P.
I believe the nexil ring is the black rubber ring where the CD sits or is coupled from the underside. I understand this can wear down from CDs slipping. My unit looks 100% like yours. According to the old owner of my CDS1 there was no wear on my unit.
Have you tried the black burndy yet?
John
quote:
Have you tried the black burndy yet?
John: Haven't had a chance to try my black Burndy on the CDS1 yet, but I promise you I will and get back to you. I did try it on my CDS2 and there is a noticable difference in clarity or definition of instruments and a better sense of detail. I must have one of the few CDS2 units that were made with a grey Burndy. I had forgotten about it until you mentioned it and did a quick switch with the black Burndy on my CDX/XPS. Guess I'll leave it that way.
Arthur Bye
JonM