Great CDX

Posted by: dwdm on 15 October 2001

Hi,

I received my new CDX one month ago, having lived for seven years with the CDI.
After the burn-in period (which is not so critical than many people report it in that forum...), I must admit than the CDX is amazing
on all aspects of the musical reproduction. In addition to a much better PraT, the most significant (Hi-Fi) improvements are, in order :
1. soundstage depth (CDI = 2D clarity, CDX = 3D coherence, CDSII = ?)
2. bass tighness and volume
3. voice and instruments timbre (especially brass : the great John Coltrane now plays in the living room...really amazing)
Adding an XPS (I tested it at home for one week) brings a clear improvement on points 1 and 2, but the difference is (IMVHO) smaller than with the CDI to (bare)CDX upgrade. Personnaly, I prefer using the XPS budget (3,5 kEuros) for a NAT05 and a s/h 82 combo.
Some of you may think differently...I know a CDS is definitely better than a CDX.

Bruno.

72/HC/250/CDX

Posted on: 15 October 2001 by Mike Hanson

Virtual Reality!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Posted on: 16 October 2001 by Mike Hanson

You're missing the point, Vuk. I don't care whether it sounds better or not, or whether an equivalent fidelity can be had from vinyl spinner for a fraction of the cost of my CDS2.

Although high fidelity is very important to me, practicality plays a large role too. The CDS2 is certainly "good enough" as far as fidelity goes, so it leaves me to concentrate on practical issues, like convenience.

CDs are my source of choice for practical reasons. Regardless of how good or cheap the vinyl source is, the software is not so convenient. Plus turntables require much more fiddling than CD players.

With CDs, I can get the music I want, when I want, without going to a lot of trouble trying to find scarce vinyl alternatives to ubiquitous CDs, cleaning LPs, being careful about cueing the tracks, etc. CDs are much simpler in many ways, and I like that!

BTW, the same logic applies to the my tuner. Occasionally I enjoy listening to the radio, but I would rather act as my own program director.

I will always balance high fidelity and convenience. In light of this, CDs are currently the winner.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Posted on: 16 October 2001 by Arthur Bye

Mike Hanson wrote:

quote:
I don't care whether it sounds better or not

Mike, I think I see an MP3 player in your future.

Arthur Bye

Posted on: 16 October 2001 by Mike Hanson

quote:
I think I see an MP3 player in your future.

Not when you consider my closing statement: "I will always balance high fidelity and convenience."

I can't stand the sound of MP3, at least not in its current incarnation. If MP3s sounded as good as or better than CDs, and Naim made a player for it, then I might reconsider it.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Posted on: 19 October 2001 by Mike Sae

Does it make a mockery of the Accuphase?
I guess you won't be selling the XPS, then

BTW, what's the price of the Accuphase?

Best,

Mike S

Posted on: 20 October 2001 by Eric Barry

Interesting what Chris K. says about cds--US pressings are leaner than UKs. With vinyl, I think that's a definite trend. Now in some cases, for instance UK recordings, I think the quality of UK pressings is higher and probably due to both the vinyl formulation, the care of pressing, and the mastering itself. In other cases, I think the differences in UK (and Dutch, and German) pressings is due to the fact that a US-made tape was dubbed for use by the European label. Some audiophiles prefer the warmer, less detailed and punchy sound of these.

With cd, I wonder if the same issues apply? I have not done comparisons of US and UK pressings of cds (it's all digital, right). When I have gotten UK cd-singles of things where I have the album (Pavement, Sonic Youth, Sebadoh) I have found a the sound on the singles to be less detailed and punchy but warmer sounding. I have assumed that these were made from copies, which accounts for the majority of the differences (source first, right).

--Eri