Digital Drive Upsamplers, DACs, jitter, shakes and analogue withdrawals, this is it.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Digital Drive ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

CD/SACD Player Shoot-Out; Bottom line: It's all about system integration (long)

Posted by JoshT (A) on August 21, 2006 at 12:40:40

This weekend my wife and I home auditioned (1) a McCormack UDP-1 Delux (Conrad Johnson version), (2) Krell Standard Mk.II and (3) NAD M55. We had (1) and (2) together on Thursday night/Friday morning and (1) and (3) together on Friday night/Saturday morning.

I auditioned them on my two channel system, comparing them to my aging Rotel RCD971:

CJ Premier 17LS preamp
CJ MF2250 ss power amp
Renaissance Audio Group (f/k/a Morel Accoustics USA) Prelude speakers (small, two-way, transmission line floor standers)

I was able to hook up three players at once, which is why I borrowed 2 of the new players at the same time, but not all three. I do not know the extent of their break in.

I must say I had fun, and a few surprises, but my main impression was how important system integration is. I guess I have a particularly warm and polite system, or at least these three players made me think so! Here were my overall impressions of the four players:

My Rotel.

Pros: Dynamic, musical, detailed and HDCD compatible. Raw intimacy on good recordings, if not very refined. I already own it, so it's FREE!

Cons: While not often unpleasant or edgy, still easy to recognize as a CD player except on the best sounding CDs.

Still, no real long term listener's fatigue in my current system. I experienced some listener's fatigue when I ran it with a Krell KAV300i and B&W CDM1SEs a few years ago.

UDP-1 Deluxe.

Pros: On RBCD, smooth sound without any loss of detail. In fact, my first impression was, "Wow! I don't think I could easily identify even 1980s CDs as CDs. There is no noticeable 'digital sound'." And then I noticed that, though smooth and analog sounding, I could hear even more detail than I had heard on my Rotel. Dead silent transport, both while loading and reading and while playing. Beautiful looking player - perfect match for my CJ equipment!

Cons: On particularly warm recordings, such as Stan Getz Bossa Nova, the sound slipped into the syrupy side of things and seemed to lose some of the dynamics of the Rotel. No HDCD. Top end of my budget.

SACDs sounded very nice, and better than RBCD, but did not blow me away compared to either my Pioneer DV47Ai in my home theater system or compared to the other two players I auditioned.

SACD Standard.

Pros: Similar on RBCD to the McCormack (perhaps a bit less syrupy on warm recordings, but very similar sound). Great sounding on SACDs - very open and natural and clean - I would give it the edge here over the UDP-1 and the NAD.

Cons: Noisy transport, both in loading and reading discs and while playing. Clunky display (how hard would it be to have track and elapsed time show at the same time?). Gargantuan size.

Would possibly have been my first choice if I were still single. Price is more heavily discounted than the UDP-1. Ultimately, however, it is unlikely to pass the WAF, notwithstanding being a very, very nice sounding player.

NAD M55

Pros: Very nice overall performer. Musical and dynamic on RBCDs. While it lacked some of the resolution of the more expensive palyers, it made up for that in a bit more dynamics on my system. Sounded great on SACDs (a close second to Krell, but see below). HDCD compatible. Quiet transport (at least on CDs and SACDs) both while playing and loading/reading. Nice price!

Cons: A bit rolled off in high frequencies and not quite as much low end detail as the other two (e.g., on kettle drums). Looks and feels like a DVD player. Plays automatically when you hit close. Big, clumsy universal NAD remote. The sense I get is it's a lot easier to control with a video monitor. Also, the unit I had was defective - it liked to stop and start every now and then. Finally, the SACD output was a lot lower than RBCD, so you had to turn up the preamp a lot to get decent output (but, once turned up, it sounded very nice indeed - Pink Floyd DSOTM in Stereo was fantastic).

The M55 might win out on price alone - would love to audition the two channel M5 if it ever comes out though, because I don't want to have to resort to on screen controls.

***************************************************************

Basically, these are all extremely nice players, and I'd gladly trade my Rotel for any one of them. Given that no one is going to make me such an offer, though, and I don't have a limitless budget, I probably would give the slight edge to the NAD for my system. I think it keeps most of the dynamics and grunt of the Rotel while keeping most of the refinement of the McCormack and Krell. I hope to audition the Marantz SA-15 soon, but am not sure I'll be able to do so at home.

But I also have learned that the Rotel is one fine player for $700 new back in 1999. It's not as smooth sounding, but it has fine dynamics and is quite musical on my system and, frankly, it seems to image as well as all three of these other players, which surprised me a bit.

I think I now understand the sonic differences between upsampling players and non-upsampling players. While the latter can be edgy and sound "digital", there is a raw intimacy on some recordings that seems somewhat glossed over at times with the upsampling of the McCormack, Krell and NAD. There's always some trade off I suppose.

Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings. I am quite sure that my impressions would be different if my other components were different.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---