i've spent the last several weeks listening to different CD players,
most in the 1000-1500 price range. given my research, i thought i'd
share my experiences, hoping that they would be helpful to others
contemplating a new CD player purchase.
of course, these are just my opinions and your mileage may vary. i
always encourage people to trust their own ears...because in the end,
that's what matters. BACKGROUND:
This player replaces my 5-6 year old Parasound CDC-1500 changer which
has served me well. Bought at under $600, the CDC-1500 was an amazing
player in its day, and lended the convenience of being a changer
without sacrificing sound quality. (in fact, i'm keeping it for
entertainment purposes--it's nice to have 5+ hours of music without
having to change a disc)
relevant associated components in my system:
Creek 4240SE integrated amp
Magnepan 1.6QR speakers
REL Storm subwoofer
Transparent speaker cables
Monster interconnects
musical tastes: eclectic: i enjoy rock, pop, jazz, blues, vocals,
folk, classical. i am a big fan, however, of folk/acoustic music, so
i paid particular attention to vocals and midrange transparency in my
auditions.
Some of my audition discs:
Rutter's Requium (Ref. Rec.)
Dar Williams, The Honesty Room/Green World
Heritage (folk compilation)
Richard Shindell, Next Best Western
Cry Cry Cry, Cry Cry Cry
Loreena McKennitt, Mask and the Mirror/The Visit
Dave Brubeck, Time Out
Joni Mitchell, Blue
Shawn Colvin, Fat City/Live '88
Dave Brubeck, Late Night Brubeck
The Who, Who's Next
Muddy Waters, Folk Singer
Handel, Suites for Keyboard (ECM)
Chesky Ultimate Demonstration Disc
Beethoven's Violin Sonata 6-8 (DG)
Vivaldi, Diverse Strings (RR)
other notes:
comparisons were not level-matched, but semi-blind for my initial
auditions...i had someone there to switch between different players in
my initial auditions so i didn't know which player was playing. not
the most scientific method, but at least an attempt to get some
objectivity in my evaluation process.
in fact, to be fair, i would say, i went into the auditioning thinking
i would end up with the Cal Audio or Rotel units given that i've been
impressed with both their build quality [actually of the Rotel 990,
the predecessor to the 991] and sound. in fact, the player i chose,
was my "least likely" choice going in.
Later auditions were "sighted" as i was trying to do a detailed,
systematic comparison.
BUDGET:
<$1500 US [everything i quote below will be in US dollars]; although i
did audition players beyond my price range, including two players that
retailed for over $2000.
THE CONTENDERS
beyond price range: Arcam FMJ 23 (2199)
Sony 777ES SACD player (2500)
the "appropriate contenders" : Arcam Alpha 9 (1599)
Rotel 991 (1299)
Cal Audio CL-15 (1675)
Adcom 750 (1250)
other players of note: Parasound CDC-1500 (650)
Rotel 971 (699)
Rega Planet (795)
Arcam Alpha 8SE (999)
QUICK LOOK SUMMARY:
In the end of a long audition period and much thought, i bought the
Arcam Alpha 9. I was very (and still, sort of, am) concerned about the
"flimsy build" quality, and the A9 being so "lightweight." the cal,
rotel, and adcom units along with my Parasound give one more
confidence in the longevity of the player since they are built like
tanks. but even with the best built of these i noticed that they had a
pretty flimsy disc tray for over 1000, one should expect a very solid player> . in contrast, my
old parasound changer tray is rock solid and well built)]. nevertheless, even tray aside, the alpha 9 package is a lightweight by
any measure. $1599 for a 9 lb weakling? most of the other players i
considered were about twice the heft of the Alpha 9.
In spite of its less than adequate heft and build, in the end the
sonics of the Alpha 9 won out. [i'll just hope and pray that it will
last many years to come without breaking on me.] on a positve note, i
presume that since the transport has been around for over 3 years now
(alpha 7, 8, and 9 family) with very little reported problems (so i am
told), it'll probably be ok. (plus i have the 2 year manufacturer
warranty + 1 year added by my credit card)
COMPARING THE CONTENDERS/THE EVALUATION:
Sonically, the Alpha 9 CD player is a masterpiece. not the "best" or
most "perfect" CD player i have ever heard (that is reserved for the
top of the line Mark Levinson and Linn CD12 i've heard which are both
much more expensive). but the alpha 9 was best in the price class i
was considering in terms of overall sound and value (relative to the
FMJ23).
in my humblest opinion, the sound from the Arcam Alpha 9 was more
"realistic" and transparent than the excellent Meridian 508-24 which i
have adored for quite some time (but couldn't afford). Voices are very
natural [i like listening to a lot of acoustic/folk music so it really
shines here--Dar Williams, Richard Shindell, Joni Mitchell,
etc.]. violins are sweet [Beethoven, Vivaldi, Heritage] , but have a
realistic bite when called for. Excellent ambient detail recovery
[McKennitt]. The piano in Keith Jarrett's Handel disc was just right:
warm, yet still resolved the percussive nature of the piano (hammer
striking strings). Dynamics are excellent (The Who) although bested by
the Rotel 991 and Cal Audio unit by a little bit. Soundstage width is
phenomenal, depth is excellent but not as deep as the Cal CL-15. but
hands down, it was the most transparent of the units i considered, and
to my ears, the most "musical," for lack of a better word. the Alpha
9 brought me closer to the music than any of the others (except for
the FMJ23).
How does the Alpha 9 compare to the Arcam FMJ23 which sells for 600
more (the retail price recently was raised from 1999 to 2199) which
has reportedly a better power supply and analog out plus a more "high
end build"?
the FMJ23, IMHO, was *marginally* better--slightly better dynamics,
but still not as good as the Cal CL-15 (but on par with the Rotel
991), and more air on things like cymbals. but, very subtle
differences. The FMJ23 was subtlely more refined than the Alpha 9 in
spite of having a slightly more "forward" sound. (which wasn't
offensive, but noticeable on certain discs--The Who, Rutter, Joni
Mitchell).
in the end, on my limited budget, i couldn't justify the extra 600
bucks. the external cosmetics of the FMJ were nice, yet i still didn't
get the feeling that it was indestructable (of course nothing is). in
fact, both units i demoed had several scratches on the face,
indicating that the metal is very soft and isn't as durable as one
might have liked.
construction is indeed better than the alpha 9, but not up to the
standards of my old Parasound or the Cal Audio CL-15. Furthermore, the
contacts for the front controls felt "subpar" to me with the buttons
themselves being a bit awkward and small (at least for my clumsy big
fingers! =) ) don't get me wrong, the FMJ23 is a nice a unit, but no
more a "value" than the cheaper built Alpha 9 since it costs $600
more. which is a big chunk of change for the minimal differences. (at
least for someone who could find many other uses for the $600 in his
operating budget...more CDs, food perhaps?).
in contrast, the Arcam 9, however, was a much larger improvement over
the $1000 Alpha 8SE which i am very familiar with [my friend owns one
and i compared it head-to-head with the Alpha 9, FMJ23 and Adcom
750]. While the 8SE is an excellent player for $1000, it doesn't quite
have the resolution or transparency of the Alpha 9. if i had to grade
midrange purity/transparency on a scale of 100, i would grade the
units i'm familiar with as follows:
100 Linn CD12/Levison No 38(?)
97 Arcam FMJ23
96 Arcam Alpha 9
90 Rotel 991
88 Cal Audio CL-15
85 Arcam Alpha 8SE
83 Sony SACD player playing redbook CDs
82 Rotel 971
79 Rega Planet
78 Adcom 750
75 Parasound 1500 given i value transparency and musicality as one of my top priorities,
this roughly resembles my overall rating of the players i
heard/considered. for those who appreciate soundstage depth or
dynamics, the Cal CL-15 may be a better choice. although, IMHO, the
gains are modest compared to the influence of room and speaker
positioning.
as i said above, the FMJ23 is very much like the Alpha 9, just a
smidge better in resolution for a lot more money.
the Rotel 991 had a sweet sound with great dynamics but didn't seem to
have quite the resolution nor transparency of the Alpha 9. it was
still my second choice, because it was 2nd in transparency only to the
A9 and FMJ23. it's faults are forgivable...it was never grainy or
"bright" like the Adcom and Cal units...maybe not as high resolution
as the Cal or Arcam units, but it was very musical and pleasing...it
in general, had a sweet, smooth sound. [note: i did most of my
auditioning without the dithering feature of the Rotel enabled as i
found dither in general just smoothed the sound out and squashed out
the low level resolution the player was capable of retrieving.
subtle, but noticeable...OTOH, it might be a good feature for poor,
treble tilted recordings]. if the Alpha 9 didn't exist, i would have
picked the Rotel 991 over the Arcam FMJ23 due to practicality and
value. (a local dealer offered it to me for 1099 which made it
significantly cheaper than the FMJ23 which i probably could have
gotten for 2000). one squabble re: the 991: it took for ever to do
the initial read of a disc even longer> ...major annoyance. The Cal unit had amazing dynamics and threw the deepest soundstage of
all the players, but was a bit bright for my tastes. i think, on my
system, it would have grown fatiquing in time with its hyper
detail. the midrange wasn't as pure as the arcam units and was a
little less transparent than the Rotel. Some might describe the Cal
has having incredible resolution. i don't doubt that. it resolved
details very well, but it also had a forward characteristic and wasn't
as transparent in the midrange (a "tiny bit of grain" for lack of
better description). although it may be the top choice for others, i
think it was a poor match for my system and tastes. it also tied the
Adcom for being the best built player.
the adcom was my least favorite sonically. this conclusion surprised
me since i heard so many positives about the player and people who
raved about it on the net. i loved the build quality, but this player
did little for me in terms of its sonics. the sound wasn't very
transparent (again, this is all relative to the players i'm
considering), dynamics and soundstaging were good, but not close to
the CL-15 nor the Alpha 9. i would have chosen a cheaper Arcam (alpha
8 or 8SE) over it for performance. and for value, may have even
chosen the Rotel 971 at 699 and saved my money for my next hi-fi
upgrade or forray into the next format (SACD or DVD-A).
How about the SACD player?
i was blown away by the sound reproduction using SACDs. It provided
fabulous transperancy, but more importantly, sounded the most musical
and threw are remarkable soundstage...not necessarily deeper or wider
than what one expects, but it left no doubt re: the delineation
between different instruments/performances. Imaging of different
instruments was remarkable. Ambience was also exceptional. These
impressions are based upon 3 SACDs i heard: Miles Davis, Kind of Blue;
Dave Brubeck, Time Out; and a Yo-Yo Ma disc they had on hand.
however, on normal CDs, the Sony unit underwhelmed me. it threw a
very solid soundstage, had deep strong bass, and a warm sound.
however, it wasn't as musical as the Arcam units, and i would hazard
to say (i didn't have it my system to compare head to head with many
of the other units discussed) it wasn't competitive with any of the
> 1000 buck players i auditioned, with the exception of the Adcom. not
a bad player, but considering the lack of a huge available SACD
library to buy from, i don't think it was a good value for me since i
own over 500 CDs.
aside: build quality on the Sony 777ES unit was superlative making the
rest of the players seem like fisher-price toys.
in my humblest opinion, i thought, even if i had $2500 bucks to spend,
i would wait until there was more software available in the format and
in the meantime, spend $1400 (what i paid) on the Arcam Alpha 9, and
save $1100 for the next generation of SACD players which are bound to
be cheaper. i don't think i'd be willing to buy a new format player
unless it sounded as good as a CD player at its same price point (to
my ears, it did not) *or* had a significant number of titles i wished
to purchase. on the last point, i think a critical number of titles
for me would be 50. ie, 50 titles i would want to own...which means
there would probably have to be upwards of a few thousand titles
released. even if it were more than a few thousand, i'd be hard
pressed since many of my favorite artists are small time
singer/songwriters would record on small labels. i don't imagine
these small labels adopting the new format for quite some time.
so until then...i thought it was wise to buy the best CD player i
could reasonably afford and wait for this whole format war between
SACD and DVD-A to settle itself out.
HDCD?
in my limited experience: i have probably 25 HDCD CDs in my
collection, i would say it is indeed an improvement over the standard
CDs. the only direct comparison i could make was with Joni Mitchell's
Blue which i have both the old version and the new one [with
HDCD]...but even that isn't quite a fair comparison since the newer
one is remastered. [the newer one sounds better than the old one on my
Parasound unit which lacks the HDCD decoder]
Some aftermath thoughts and quibbles on the Alpha 9:
the unit runs warm to the touch which i've been told is normal. also,
with the dirty power lines in Menlo Park (not sure i'm willing to
blame my power provider on this, but that's what Arcam said...), there
is some resonance with the power transformer such that there is an
audible hum from the unit...not audible from my listening
position...only within a foot or so of the CD player itself. my
dealer, arcam, and other owners on the net confirm this behavior for
their units.
design flaw? i think so because all my other components don't exhibit
such behavior. if i open my parasound unit and put my ear to it, i can
hear something, but probably 10 db lower than the arcam 9. again, i'm
not excited about the "build" of the Alpha 9 (nor the FMJ23 for that
matter--see above). but i just couldn't neglect what my ears heard.
so as long as the player doesn't break anytime in the first 5 years (a
conservative, yet reasonable expectation), then i'll be
happy. sonically, this is a fabulous player and a great deal
(sonically) for the money. i do think the Rotel and Cal units might be
better for other listeners, so i'd consider them on any
shortlist. depends on an individual's "sonic priorities" and system
matching.
i've now had the Arcam unit in my system for several weeks. i'm
continually impressed with the sound it produces on my system. it
doesn't do anything striking except for an important thing: it makes
me want to grab CDs off my shelf that i haven't heard in months and
listen to them. there have been many an evening where i discover it's
past my bedtime and i have to reluctantly stop listening. it makes me
feel like i have many of my favorite artists performing a special
house concert for me each evening.
$1400 for a CD player?
i used to think CD players all sounded the same...but some blind tests
[not ABX] convinced me otherwise. are the differences between the
players all that great? it's all relative. certainly with each
upgrade, my improvements, on an absolute scale, get smaller and
smaller, and the law of diminishing returns is upon me...but so far,
i've been able to inch closer and closer (albeit perhaps futilely at
times) towards a more "pleasurable experience" and the "absolute
sound." when will it end? i don't know. each time i think i'm done
upgrading, a few years later, i'm bitten by the bug to see what's out
there and i find there is something worth purchasing to "improve" my
system. of course, as the other of life's priorities take over, the
upgrades will probably become fewer and farther apart.
for now...=) i think i've assembled a very satisfying system.
"Perfect Sound forever"?
No...the CD format isn't perfect, but the Arcam Alpha 9 player eeks
the most out of the CD format at a price i can (barely) afford. The
SACD format hold much promise, along with any higher sampling rate
format like DVD-Audio (i've been impressed with the "DVD discs" that
Chesky has put out in the meantime), but i think having a large
library of "super discs" in my home is several years away, so i need a
fabulous sounding CD player (ie, one that does 16/44khz well) _right
now_. i think i've found the player to satisfy this need.
