CD3 bests CD5!

Funny that I got the lends of a CD5 recently and thought that it displayed the same characteristics of my CDi.

Perhaps it needs more warm up time?

Give it about a month if it's brand new, about a week if it's run in but stone cold. Power supplies do wonders for them too.

Don't mess with cords or cables until it's up and running for a time, you probably won't need them.

I've noticed this as well. My CD3-5, with or without FLAT-CAP, offers more groove factor than CD-5 (with or without FLAT-CAP2).

The old player does have a noticable amount of 'grunge' (no bad thing with many recordings) but the overall presentation is much more lively in a 'warts and all' fashion (i.e. the essence of the tune takes priority over the cosmetics).

In many ways I've noticed parallels across the board wrt old vs. new Naim. I prefer the old but can understand why many (newbies?) prefer the new.

All IMO of course,

Craig

I noticed that I preferred the 3.5 without flactcap too. While the FC made the sound 'fuller'and the bass deeper it lost some of the excitement, control and pace of the un-flat-ted CD player. I felt the bare CD3.5 was a kind of 'CDX lite'. The CD 5 is a very different sound to the 3/3.5 and CDX so it's hard to compare. It's a nice CD player but I prefer the 3.5!

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

I felt the bare CD3.5 was a kind of 'CDX lite'.

---

i'd rather say "ultra-lite"!

rocketeer

Hi,

I read your lines concerning the problem CD 3 vs. CD 5. I'm a new
member of the Naim Forum,
living in Germany. (I hope my English is good enough for you to
understand what I think about it).
I want to help you, because I had the same problem with this player .

I bought a Naim CD 3 in 1995, after selling my Creek CD 60 player and
reading some information about
the new Naim. In all articles I found, journalists highly recommend this
CD3, not to mention what fantastic emotions
it delivers.

After my love for this player for about three years, I got the chance to buy
a CD 2 for less money. I must say, that both players are fantastic, superb, with
rhythm and with this special naim drive.
In 1999 I thought about selling the CD 3 and buying a 3.5. But it tooks
over two years to do so. I found a three year old 3.5 , bought this
before selling my CD3. Besides that I listened to the new CD 5 as well.
At the beginning (!)the new CD5 had given a fresher and more powerful
performance than the older ones did - especially the Flatcap 2 made the
player a superb one, too.
But!!!... after hearing some minutes of music, and after changing the new
interconnect by putting it onto my old CD 3 , the difference became
smaller and smaller.

I heard extreme rhythm music on all players and made the following test : CD 3 vs. CD3.5 vs. CD 5 vs. vinyl drive Systemdek IIxII.
Which one is the fastest? The one, that's faster, sounds better. The
systemdek was definetly the best, followed by my old CD3! - the CD 3.5 and new CD 5 were both boring and
gave a slow performance. I was disappointed by the way the
newer players made music.
It was more digital and a kind of synthetic, like somebody has blown air
into the player - and the old CD 3: it's a kind of analog sound, I think
overall the better sound , very natural , vey nice, more mid bass and very straight.

And the CD3.5, is without the flatcap the better one, but not as
good as the nice CD 3. After this checking I sold the 3.5 again- kept my CD 3 and
was very happy to do so.

Sometimes the older equipment is a kind of something stunning - they
have more of this naim drive than the newer ones. As good as the new naim
generation is, I think there are more and more marketing guys who made
the sound for a wider audience. They are very good, but I miss this
natural and warm performance.

For some people it is a matter of taste as well.

Best regards

Marco Wilbois
e-Mail: marco.wilbois@web.de

Naimaseven !

quote:

---

---

"the CD 3.5 and new CD 5 were both boring and
gave a slow performance. I was disappointed by the way the
newer players made music.
It was more digital and a kind of synthetic, like somebody has blown air
into the player"

quote:

---

---

Have you ever visit a planet Earth?

Sorry, but I just can't stand to not react on this.

Ozren

This is merely about what you expect from a player. The keywords in all the posts extolling the CD3 over the CD5 is rhythm. The CD3 clearly rocks, but there's more to music than rocking, and that's what the CD5 does.

The CD5 is excellent in the PRaT department, but not to the detriment of other areas. so the balance is slightly richer (or rounder if you will). You get more, but some people want less. The idea that 'marketing guys' tune the players is a bit silly, isn't it?

Lotta newbies on this thread, incidentally (or perhaps not so incidentally.)

Herman

Having owned the CD3 for three years and listed quite a bit to the CD5, I would take the 5 in a heartbeat over the 3. But I'm a bit 'oval earth' in my preferences - slam isn't enough for me. The CD3 didn't survive in my house because of what IT didn't do.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Hi Herm,

quote:

---

The idea that 'marketing guys' tune the players is a bit silly, isn't it?

---

Off at a tangent maybe, but I was talking to a R&D man at Castle Acoustics earlier about possible DIY mods to my Howard speakers.

During the conversation, when discussing the design of crossovers and its effect on the sound, he made exactly that point. The marketing men DO tune the product.

He stated that he (R&D) will come up with an engineering solution and then the marketing men listen and decide what sound qualities they are looking for. R&D will then endeavour to deliver what the marketing men think will sell out on the streets.

Whether Naim work that way is another question....

OK. One thing is clear, if Curt Cobain had owned that CD5, he might still be with us.

By the way, yesterday listening Strange Kind of Woman - Deep Purple/Made in Japan (yeah, I love that song and I am not ashamed about that), I said to myself that this is a lot complete, sophisticated and improved sound in order to cd 3.5.
I also love speed, but in musical natural flow.

Ozren

Well, according to Rod Crawford of Legend Loudspeakers (AUS) fame, the marketing boys at Linn called the tune in no uncertain terms.

The good Dr. tells all regarding his experiences working at Linn as chief loudspeaker designer on his web site at http://www.tip.net.au/~legend/info.htm (link tags omitted as per Naim forum rules).

Craig

"Have you ever visit a planet Earth?

Sorry, but I just can't stand to not react on this.

Ozren[/QUOTE]"
____________________

hi,

I didn´t mean, that the CD 3.5 and CD 5 are boring and slow (they are one of the best)- I meant that they are not so fast as the old CD 3 - the newer ones don´t have that rhythm anymore! - the newer give more detail and are cleaner , but do not give this old analog naim sound like the first cd3 or for example a nait 2 amp - that´s the difference and for many people it is a matter of taste, too -
the finest thing with british hifi, especially by naim is, that if you listen to cheaper equipment, you will note that it makes a lot of music - it´s very good and you don´t miss more expensive hifi systems in that moment- it´s because of the fun you have - perhaps with a nait 2 or a cd 3 - all naims are very good, but look at the great debate 72 / 102 - it is the same problem like the CD 3 / CD 5 -problem -
sorry for misunderstanding

Marco

I wrote that the marketing guys make the sound for a wider audience -

I couldn´t believe that the new naim sound (CD 5) is not as good as the old sound (CD 3) - but why couldn´t they make a player that have the same rhythm than the older one, and in addition to that gives more detail and cleanless ?-

one note: a marketing guy from Dynaudio told me two years ago, that for example the Contour 1.8 speaker sounded better than the MK II version, but from the MK II version they could sell much more , because more people will buy it - most like that kind of disco sound -

I have a problem with this way of thinking and hope that naim won´t do so

what do you think about that?

Marco

Hey Marco -

I came across this big time when buying a rear-projection television. The teles are designed and tuned with the overall brightness level way too high (would burn in the images on the projector guns and wear the guns out quickly) and the colors skewed - some sets emphasize (known as "push") red, some blue - all in an effort to look good on the showroom floor.

Research shows (I hate that, but I don't have a specific reference to give you) that the brigher, more colorful teles sell more.

So when buying mine, a key goal was to get a set that would allow me to *defeat* these attrocius "torch mode" settings.

I hope the same isn't true in higher-end audio. I believe it to be obviously true in the lower, and mid-fi arena. Take large, cheap, ported speakers for instance. Thee that booms the loudest...

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

quote:

---

Originally posted by naimaseven:
I couldn´t believe that the new naim sound (CD 5) is not as good as the old sound (CD 3) - but why couldn´t they make a player that have the same rhythm than the older one, and in addition to that gives more detail and cleanless ?-

Marco

---

It seems that the new CD players (CD5 and CDX2) have more details and sound more relax in comparison with the previous products (CD3/3.5 and CDX). I have more than one chance to listen to both players (CD5 and CDX2) to compare with the previous designs.

Where are the CD5 fans? Are they too happy listening to waste time responding?

There are 2 points I'd like to make:

1) I had to work to sit in a room with CD3 or 3.5 playing - too many CD nasties. Timing just can't overcome this. The CD5, especially with a PSU, seems much cleaner.

2) As Herm said, there's more to music than rocking. I can be moved by many more disks through a CD5 than through a 3/3.5. This is much more important than point 1.

Regards.

Phil

When I first upgraded early last year, I compared a cd3, to a cd3.5, to a cd5, all through my 92/90. I used the FC on the 3.5 and 5. The 3 and 3.5 were obviously used, the cd5 was ex-dem.

I really preferred the cd5, despite the price difference At the time I thought $1000 for a cd player was a lot, let alone $2000 for the cd5.

In essence, I tought that the earlier players were fine, but ultimately accentuated what I didn't like about my sistem. They were just too shouty, and a bit harsh. I don't know if they had more boogie, since I don't really know what boogie sounds like. However, I did feel that the 3.5, inparticular, seemed to rush though some of my favorite cds in a somewhat unpleasant manner.

I ended up with a cd5, and was quite happy. It sounds even better still wth my current sistem of FC/cd5/Hicap/112/150. Recently I reported on my demo of a cd5 versus a cdx, I will not repeat that here). However, to my ears, the cd5 is a fine player, and It will not be near the top of my upgrade list for 2003).

Regards,
Bruce

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil Barry:
Where are the CD5 fans? Are they too happy listening to waste time responding?

---

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

Cheers,

Tim
_____________________________

Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...

Phil Barry asked,

quote:

---

Where are the CD5 fans? Are they too happy listening to waste time responding?

---

Presumably most of them are in the USA.

Craig

Craig !

quote:

---

Presumably most of them are in the USA.

---

I wouldn't be so shure, your constatation is irrational, provocative and very wrong. I know what you want to say by "in the USA", "round earth", player for the masses, eh?!

I simply cannot believe that some of you guys compared two players just using few words which are grunge, oomph or boogie factor, drive etc.
I believe, even we are here because of respecting and enjoying our Naim, we are very separated to one which don't know and ask, which know and "teach" others and the most controverse category is one which don't know and think that know more than anybody.
CD3 gentlemens, are your arguments are just oriented on player speed, is your important factor when you listened music only speed?
Sorry, but I can't see any other argument which shows that CD3 is better than 5.

Some of you called us 5ers a newbies, I don't care for that, but I can tell you that cd3, 3.5 and 5 are all very fine players and telling that 3 is so much better than 5 is absolutely ridiculous. CD3 is from my perspective very good player with apostrophed speed which are adding a sense of excitement, but not realistic timing. CD3 a little bit hurry up through the groves and telling that this anomaly is good and separate it from CD5 is pretty stupid. At your place I would rather ask myself is this plus or minus.

I wouldn't react if you are not said that 5 is for newbies, but now my friends I think that YOU are newbies.


Haya,
Ozren

- The difference between Theory and Practice is much greater in Practice than
it is in Theory. -

I have never heard a cd3, I own a cd5. The cd players I have owned previously in an attempt to get cd to play music were a Yamaha cdx910, a Cyrus DAD7, a Krell kps20i and a Sony cdp-xa7es in that order. The cd5 made them all sound plain, I swear by the cd5 every time I use it and am sure that nobody makes a cd player as good as naim. The cd3 and cd5 may present music in different ways, but I'm sure that both are musically invloving, Mario.

[This message was edited by Mario on FRIDAY 03 January 2003 at 15:50.]

Just having a little fun with those that are taking it all a bit too seriously.

Craig
PS. I do like the sound of the CD5 BTW