Understanding CDSII - CDX/XPS Differences
Posted by: John on 23 September 2000
My friend has given me his CDSII when he is on vacation. To confuse things
a little I recently purchased a Mana stand.
Without the stand the CDSII clearly provides more information from the performance
than the CDX which sounds more mechanical. The Mana stand significantly improved
the CDX's performance and the missing information suddenly appeared. The stand
helped the CDSII's performance but no where to the degree of the CDX. I believe the
CDSII has a supsension system (I hear it tick, tick when I move the player) that in
theory would help it.
At first I put on the CDSII and tried different kinds of music. I am normalized to the
CDX so my immediate impression was that something was missing. The pase of the
music seems slower and a more relaxed feel. After listening to many CD's I found I wasn't
emotionally captivated by what I was hearing. I wanted to go back to my CDX.
Going back the excitment was there again. I am confused now! What is going on?
My impressions are the CDSII has a more balanced sound field and the information
where the instruments meet is resolved better with the CDSII giving it a more continuous
flow. Analogue feel??? The CDX doesn't seem to resolve this information and hence cuts
it off making the instruments sound more seperate which gives it a higher contrast presentation.
The CDSII seems to bring out the rythm in the lighter instruments while the CDX focuses
on the more dominent instruments. The CDSII sounds perfect with vocals but I question the
timing and attack on instruments. It sounds like the musicians are sitting down and very relaxed
when they play. When I listen to rock music this doesn't seem natural. The CDX sounds perfect for
attack and timing but doesn't bring out the same smoothness of the vocals. The CDSII seems to emphasize
the beginning of a note and the sustain of the note while the CDX emphasises the attack on the note.
I know the CDSII has less distortion because I can turn the volume up higher without fatigue.
I am curious if the CDSII really needs the 52 to show it off ?? I am a little put off by the slower
feel. My system is an 82/Supercap/135's/SBL's. Do I have an accurate take on the differences
or do I need to adjust how I am listening to the music.
John
It took me over six months of fiddling with the CDX before I finally started liking it though. It took the addition of and XPS power supply and a Mana stand (ditched the "Vukwich") for this unit to really shine. Before that I just simply found it too clinical. A nice unit but not up to a CDSII
I, like you, also find that the Mana stand affords minimal improvement to the CDSII
In the end though, I find that the CDSII is superior. It is more analoge sounding. Yes, It does not have the attack of the CDX/XPS but I think in the end it is more realistic sounding that way.
My system is a little different as I have a 52 along with Epos 22 speakers, which are on the fast side. Mixed with the CDX/XPS it has a tendency to be too much sometimes. The CDSII seems to tame everything down to real time. I also find that the CDSII has more scale than the CDX/XPS. The bass is more focused and the vocals are more realistic.
I find that I could happily live with either. Depending on my mood and depending on the music I find myself choosing one over the other and then vice versa.
In the end I think the CDSII embraces you with the music, whereas the CDX/XPS/Mana confronts you with it. I don't think of either as bad, just different.
Arthur B
What I have noticed through my headphones (CDS 2 52/ hicap/headline) with Senn HD 600 is that the CDS 2 actually has more drive and more excitement than the CDX/XPS which sounds thin and obtuse in comparisson. I go home from work several times a week and listen to my headphones and am amazed at how utterly tuneful, massive, absorbing the music is with groovey and velvetty highs and huge and tight, but rounded lows. I get the same with my albions, but here i notice that everything is so involving and gripping while the cdx/xps just emphasizes the trebble and bass at the expense of the mid range performance.
As far as I have seen, the cds 2 is like a good bottle of Chateau Margaux - an iron fist in a velvet glove!‡
I think that you are under rating the CDX/XPS/Mana though. It really is subjective. A lot of time it comes down to my mood as to which unit I want to listen to. If I want to listen to the music and be consumed by it then I'll listen to the CDSII.
If i'm playing air guitar and I want a head banging frontal assault that give you no choice but to listen, then its the CDX/XPS. It's a bit more artificial but does more to grab your attention. You don't miss all that extra stuff the CDSII offers you. Sometimes less is more.
The Mana stand for the CDX is critical. I was ready to sell my CDX and upgrade to a CDSII head unit until I heard it on Mana.
Anyhow, I think it just comes down to personal preference.
Arthur Bye
Make sure the CDS II is warmed up-three days as a minimum to get the analog circuits close to their intended level of performance.
Make sure your Mana rack is properly set-up (is this a Reference Table or a multiple-shelf rack?) Do not overtighten, perfectly vertical uprights, etc
I must agree that the Reference Table (I've two different vintages) had more of a pronounced effect with the CDX (no suspension plate) than with the CDS II (sprung plate + leaf-spring tray suspension), such that I've opted for the presentation of a lone shelf on my Base rack instead.
The speed difference you refer to is likely related to the lack of etched highs on the CDS II relative to the CDX-tends to be a smoother presentation on the CDS II.
(There are some performance tweaks for the CDS II; contact your dealer for details.)
Currently listening to Nine Inch Nails' THE FRAGILE on an aggressively grey rainy morning, and, oddly enough, that record comes off not nearly as aggressive on top as you might expect.
Dave Dever, NANA
quote:
There are some performance tweaks for the CDS II; contact your dealer for details.)
Sorry Dave, you just can't do that. What are these performance tweaks ?
Allan.
Thanks for your observations. You have both players! Whow! This of
course would be ideal. I continue to listen to the CDSII but when I get
to rock music I want to switch over to the CDX/XPS. Basically what
you seem to be implying. I am pushing myself to not switch players
so I can see if I can normalize myself to the CDSII sound. I'm listening
to Dire Straits now and picture a group of 60 year olds grooving to the
sound and teenagers sitting down. The CDX/XPS would have the
teenagers bouncing and the seniors leaving the room. What is truer
to the music??
We are running different pre-amps. I have an 82. Have you heard
the players on an 82? Maybe part of the glory of the CDSII requires
a 52? and/or even active vs. passive?? I have been told that an
upgrade to the CDSII would be benificial and nothing negative
but an upgrade to the 52 with the CDX/XPS would push me
more for a CDSII. Curious on your opinion.
My thoughts so far:
Given my current equipment 82/Supercap/135's/ SBL's, I think
the CDX is more balanced. If I had a 52 and went active with
135's I assume the CDSII would be glorious because the balance
and smoothness becomes more important and I assume it
would resolve this lack of excitement.
The CDSII should be running warm. I am using the same XPS which has
never been off except for changing players and the CDSII has been
running for two days now (I have kept it running all night to be sure).
The player is also about 1 year old.
You are also running a 52. Have you heard it on an 82? I envision that
the CDSII with a 52 running 135's active would produce different results
on the attack. Maybe more similar to your headphones????
if while hearing a system you feel that the pace is slower, I think it means you are listening to a better system. It is only a thought of mine
and I'm not sure it is the right explanation, but I noticed that there is a link between a system quality and the pace - the better the system the slower the pace (to my ears). I think that if the quality goes better, our brain has more time to understand the music. If the music quality comes out poorer - it "loads"
our brain with wrong data and enlarges our efforts to understand the music - and this gives us the feeling that the music has a fast pace.
Out of my experience, if you feel that the Cdx
has a slower pace and gives you a relexing feeling - it means it is a better quality cdplayer then the one you are comparing it to.
Arie
Here in Israel, I don't think Naim has any competition - for several reasons. So I have
a simple life and I listen to Naim only and all I'm saying regards to Naim.
I had listened to a very expensive system based on Theta - Mark Levinson and Whilson and I din't fell of my chair like I felt with some Naim
demonstrations - so I don't bother my self.
I also like the idea that with Naim I don't have to worry about interconnects and speakers cables - so I like it the easy way and I love the quality.
Most of my expereience to listen to expensive system comes out of listening to Naim.
The only pro dealer in Israel (to my opinion of course...) is Linn dealer - but each time I had the possibility to comapre Linn with Naim - I think Naim is (like people in GB like to say )
streets ahead Linn.
So if you think there is a better stereo manufacturer then Naim - please tell me and I'll try to find out.
Arie
quote:
Have you heard the players on an 82? Maybe part of the glory of the CDSII requires a 52?
John:
I have not heard the CDX or the CDS2 on an 82. I did have the CDX originally hooked up with a Nac 102/hicap but without the XPS power supply. It was ok but quite far afeild from the 52/CDX/XPS. I am not familiar enough with the 82 to know its impact on the sound of either the CDX or the CDS2. I had the CDX hooked up to a friends NAC72 for a few months an for some reason it sound terrible in comparison with his CD3 even after a six week warm up. My guess is that the CDX has gotta have a top drawer preamp to show its stuff.
I don't think of the difference between the two players in terms of "60 year olds" sitting around while the teenagers are bouncing off the walls with the CDX. The players are much closer than that. The CDS2, to me, plays all of the music, all the time, the way that it should sound. It can be dynamic and have punch while being subtle at the same time. It's the closest to analoge that I have heard in a CD player(haven't heard the Linn CD12.)
I listen to a VERY broad variety of music. There's actually not much that I don't like in the way of music, as long as its well done, so I prefer a player that can do all things. The CDX plays the hard stuff OK and the details OK, but the CDS2 does that plus the subtleties, plus the vocals.
If I was just into Hard Rock I might prefer the jammin sound of the CDX. The CDX has a way of getting you up out of your seat. It also sounds quite good with everything else, including vocals, it's just that the CDS2 is better. It's not like you feel that you're missing anything when listening to the CDX. Its more that when you play the CDS2 that you realize that there is more there.
I know that I tend to favor a cd player that does vocals well and the CDS2 seems to have no peer in this regard and it's just one more of the reasons I prefer it to the CDX.
But if there were no CDS2 I would be more than happy with a CDX/XPS/Mana.
It's kind of like watching the Olympics and seeing a great performance and the athlete gets a 9.8 or so. You say to yourself there's no way anybody can out do that. Until the next performer gets a 9.9
You really can't lose with either.
The "Bounce" or "Groove" factor of the CDX remains a mystery to me. I'm not positive that it's the real music or artificial. It sounds pretty good either way to me so I just go with the flow.
It really comes down to personal preference.
Considering the price differential between the two you should just stick with the CDX/XPS.
Arthur Bye
90% of life is just showing up. -Woody Allen-
I believe the Mana is setup correctly based on the CDX singing!
The speed difference can't be attributed to the highs only because
the base is where most of the difference is. I came from the YBA
camp where the base is more similar, flatter and less pronounced.
The CDX renders the base with more dynamics and punch. When
The YBA approach to music seems to be to streach out and flatten
the sound field to give wide and deep sound stages, the cost to
this always seems to be a loss in dynamics. You pick up information
that surrounds the instruments such as the room, ect. Over time I found
this to be boring, YBA was more about sound than music. It was a
great sales tool because when you first hear all this added information
you feel you are moving up the quality ladder. Boy was I wrong.
The sound benefit I received when I switched to Naim was the
dynamic and tight presentation of the drums and base. This
brought a rythmic coherence to the performance that pulled the
whole performance together.
I am surprised to find the CDSII moves slightly towards this YBA
presentation. I notice a significant difference with drum cymbals.
The CDX presents them as crashing and metal sounding. The CDSII
softens them and you lose the punch but it doesn't distract you
from what else is going on in the picture. It balances it into the
sonic picture but it doens't seem natural to me. In a live
performance the cymbals crash through the sound field
as they are intended to.
My main concern with the CDSII is when I have it playing in the
background I don't notice it, I tune it out??? I need to sit down
and make a focused effort to appreciate it. The CDX grabs me
no matter what I am doing, I enjoy it when I focus and when I
don't focus.
I would like to hear the CDSII with a 52 and 135's active. My guess
it is at this level the punch will come back???
John
I believe the slowing of the music is more from flattening the
sound picture so the punch in the base or drums doesn't
drown the sutle instruments. The benefits of flattening are
more information around the instruments such as room effects.
The pull backs on the ftattening is it takes away from the
music going on. I used to have a YBA CD2 and it is a piece
of sh*t compared to the CDX because it goes after that
flattened sound picture at the expense of the music.
John
What I ment is when the two component are sound good and one's pace is slower then the other.
You are talking about cdx and cds and not about some poor equipment.
As I said - I think better quality gives the brain more time to understand the music - and this "more time available" gives you the feeling of slower pace and relaxing.
Arie
I think I appreciate what you mean by these speed differences.
A system is fast if it is able to respond to the music so effortlessly that it is obviously operating well within it's capabilities all the time. This includes when accurately reproducing something very fast or dynamic.
John, Arthur,
a friend of mine (known here by the Nym 'Juan Zenuff') has 82/Super/135s. He has upgraded through CD2/CDX/XPS/CDS-II. His system is all on Sound Org multi-tier tables.
CDX was significantly more pacy in this system than CD2. Better all round.
XPS was a huge improvement. Pace, drive, subtlety - everything, really.
CDS-II has a completely different character than the X/X combo. It is much more subtle, has a wonderful sense of flow and much more sense of texture, especially in the bass. However, that bass also seems almost fat and slow by comparison. (Edit: I should clarify - "Juan's" room seems to cause some problems in the bass area - a fuller bass from the CDS-II may have pushed the room over the edge).
Perhaps the X/X achieves it's excitement through enhancement or emphasis. However it achieves it, for a minority the CDS-II is going to be a downgrade.
BTW, re CDS-II run-in - i.e. from brand new rather than warm up after being switched off - the head sounds fat in the bass and slow throughout the frequency range. The run-in seems to go through several phases, and if I remember it took about a month for "Juan's" bass to sort itself out.
I recently heard another SBL system - CDS2/52/Super/Super/SNAXO/2x250. Best SBLs I've ever heard. Superb. Wow. The owner commented that sometimes even he missed the party qualities of the X/X combo. It definately does something that the CDS2 doesn't.
I've just purchased a CDS1-PS for my CDX. My plans had been to stick at this level for now. I might well have considered replacing my Isobariks with SBLs first, for instance.
However, this became of more than academic interest to me today - I've just been offered a mint CDS-II head, which I will be trying at home ASAP.
Only problem is, my Burndy is configured for CDS-II and I haven't even had it reconfigured for CDX yet. I won't be able to do a direct comparison.
Decisions, decisions.
Dave,
you swine! How could you leave us hanging like that?
Are you saying it's possible to change the character of the CDS-II to be more like that of the CDX/XPS?
Do tell!
cheers, Martin
[This message was edited by Martin Payne on MONDAY 25 September 2000 at 00:04.]
I also have a CDS1, which I have not mentioned before for the sake of simplicity. It was my intention to get a CDS2 head upgrade for this.
After getting my Mana stand I noticed on the Mana Forum that JW and others seem to prefer the CDS1 over the CDS2.
I have deferred my upgrade to further evaluate this.
Preliminary results are interesting. The Mana stand provides a signifcant upgrade for a CDS1. I can understand how some prefer its sound to the CDS2. It's kind of like a CDS2 on steroids but without the same high level of resolution. The CDS2 is slightly, very slightly laid back in comparison.
The CDS2 offers more bass. The CDS1 seems to offers less bass but perhaps with better timing.
Upper frequencies and vocals seem similar, but I still give the nod to the CDS2, barely, mostly for resolution.
So many choices, so little time.
You may want to auditiona Mana rack with your CDS1 before shipping it back to Naim.
At this point my vote is still to upgrade the CDS1 to a CDS2, but its a lot of money ($4k US) for not much difference.
Arthur Bye
Oops!
Didn't read your thread completely. Thought you got a CDS1 not just the CDS1-PS.
I expect the CDS1-PS will be roughly the equivalent of the XPS. So enjoy!
Arthur Bye.
Yesterday I read the article you brought and gave you 5 stars for it *****.
Arie
Not all cymbals get to tape in the same way-some go through electrically slow mic preamps, others through fast-settling consoles or whatever.
--I'd rather know this information than have it compressed into a same-y presentation (because somewhere a recording engineer had to make a choice as to which mic preamps and microphones to use, through some record / playback system).
As things get better (in any field of appreciation), the smoother, more subtle things prevail: wine, tyres, skin, mic preamps, etc.
Does this make sense?
Allan-
Do check with your dealer about the tweaks, as they require opening the head unit to check the tray suspension pins, ribbon cables, etc.
Dave Dever, NANA
As for Vuk's comments about stands, the Mana stands obviously do a great job. I was blown away by what my WB Triptych did to the CDX, but never compared it to a Mana rack. Even a non-audiophile friend who loves music but doesn't care much about spending 50 K on a system commented how harsh and thin the CDX sounded before it was placed atop the WB stand. He wasn't very impressed (he has a 1980 midfield denon system) After that, he said "I can now see why you spent so much money" I think there are a lot of good racks out there and if you try enough or are lucky to get one that satisfies at first impression, then you'll eventually get one that works. The CDS 2 likes the glass top of the Triptych more than the MDF of the Aside (which my other components thrive on). It has more attack and higher resolution on the glass, slightly warmer, but more muddled and flatter sound on the MDF.
I don't have a car, Vuk! Next time I rent one and am in transit northwards, I'll get in touch. UI'd like to experience this mana effect.
dave
hmm, you've got me thinking about "Juan's" stands (see my message above) - top of a Sound Org multi-tier for the CDS-II.
Could try harder?
Juan - if you're following this, do you want to try out my Mana?
cheers, Martin
Sorry that this is a bit off topic for the rest of the members. Where in Israel is your Linn/Naim dealer?
I have a dear friend Mark, who lives in Tel Aviv.
He plays jazz bass, owns a recording studio & his wife Gani is a recording artist. Last time he was in the UK he was blown away with my LP12 & I have always wanted to steer him in the right direction of a good shop.
Like _all_ other pro musicians I know his hi-fi is a bit grim, but I think he could be persuaded to get something decent.
Best wishes,
Bob
I have tried 2 home demos of a CDSII, and finally received mine just over a week ago. Warm up is absolutely crucial. I know many people have said that the CDSII sounds great out of the box. To my ears, I can hardly tell the difference between the CDSSII and my old CDI. However, having left permanently playing for 3 and a half days, the sound totally changes. The difference is now so great I find it hard to compare how much better the CDSII is. So my advice is give it some more warm up before the final comparison. I don't think it will ever have the attack of the old CDS or the CDX/XPS, but you get so much more in return.
David
Naim dealer in Israel is Eilan Tamir - he lives
in Haifa and his phone is 04-8241422
cell 050-445544
Linn dealer are in Jerusalem two nice persons
Efi and Amit and their phone -
02-5387296
02-5383543
If your friend wants to buy a s/h Linn, I trust
Eilan (Naim) to check and tune it as he was several years Linn dealer, he knows very well Linn
turntables and he is the best pro in the stereo
equipment available in Israel - that is my opinion.
Can you arrange for me a visit at a recording studio ?
Arie
[This message was edited by Arie_Gur on MONDAY 25 September 2000 at 15:16.]
"I don't know how anything could be so powerful, yet so refined. An iron fist in a velvet glove"
Robert parker comparing 1996 Vogue Musigny to Chateau Margaux.
...and now to the CDS 2.
Make sure you have 135s, a 52, and some decent fast speakers or a headline/hicap with good phones. Then go out and buy "Rhythm and Stealth" by Leftfield and then listen to "Dusted" on full blast.
Only then will you know the truth!
Big Priest!
Check the guy's rock record...
I since have switched back to the CDX/XPS and played with my speaker placement in an attempt to make the CDX sound better. I moved the speakers a little closer together and about 2cm further from the wall. This has helped the vocals to make them sound more similar to the CDSII's. I had the same experience when I purchased my supercap (I had to rearrange my speakers)
I will put the CDSII back on again and try to be patient for the results you are talking about. I have about 1-1/2 weeks before I need to give it back. For now I wouldn't want to lose the slam effect of the CDX. I am waiting for the CDSII to open up another aspect of the music, so far it hasn't.
Without the mana stands the CDSII is much better and worth the 5K upgrade. The mana seems to resolve 90-95% of the sound differences are resolved. I only have a 2 tier amp stand for another 420US I can go to phase 2???
Has anyone heard the difference from stage 1 to 2 with a CDX??? I am also using the second table for my 82, any thoughts on whether the XPS or supercap should go on it vs. the 82???
John