Anyone compared Droplet to the Raysonic CD168?

Once owned a Droplet and am looking for something with similar positive attributes, plus a little more in terms of better stage definition, etc.
I owned a Droplet and now own a 168, about 5 droplet (owned 3 years) died from an electrical surge. I have a pending claim against the power company.None of my other equipment died and that makes me wonder if this is a "fragile" design." I feel the 168 offers more detail(especially midbass and topend) but with similiar "meat on the bone" image density. With the droplet I would always get some low level transport noise and I experience none with the 168. Both players have a similiar bass presentation and if I had to choose between both I'd go with the Ray only because it is quieter and you have the option of tube rolling the 6922's. the remotes are similiar and also both share a unique design.
FWIW, as I've never actually heard either CDP (but I do have the 128 purchased on the 6moon reviewers recommendations) SE has reviewed the Droplet as well as Consonances' 'lesser' unit, the 128 and the 168. From these reviews you should be able to envision the differences.

I can assure you of one thing, my humble 128 (using different tubes than those provided!) is very dynamic. Excellent bass, extended highs, very transparent, and never less than musical. It is very tunable for good system matching. I'm sure the 168 might be a tad better, but from my recall of the 6moons review, it was not much more than a tad.
Newbee, an idea for you. I have a Ray 128 myself and had been curious about the use of 6N1P tubes in it after reading positive stuff about this Russian tube, which is not exactly a 6922/6DJ8 replacement, but close. I queried Raysonic and got a green light for the substitution. I don't know whether this applies to the 168 or not (didn't ask). A quartet of the 6N1P's from a Ukrainian seller on Ebay cost all of $17.00 including shipping from the Ukraine! I know, sounds weird, but they got to Potomac, MD in less than 10 days. They're in the 128 to stay. I was earlier using Mullards and (my favorites in this CDP) JAN Phillips 6922s. Dave
I hate to piss on your Ray parade guys but IMO Droplet is a better player.... Build, sound-wise as well as esthetices. Older version of Droplet used Philips transport......newer model is using more reliable Sony transport. To my ears, Raysonic is to edgy and veiled. If coloration and edginess in higher frequencies is your defenition of detail, so be it.
I am not saying that Raysonic is a bad CD player or trinig to upset devoted owners - I just do not get it, what the hype is about. I have heard all Raysonic players, including top of the line 228 two piece CDP which but away is using Philips transport and non of those impress me to the point of finantial commitment and believe me, I can afford anyone of these players.
To the author of this thread.
If you liked Droplet and want a better soundstage and imaging try Rew Wine Audo Isabellina NOS, non-upsamling DAC with good quality transport. It is amazing. Vinnie Rossi of RWA visited my home last week to present his new Isabella preamp with Isabellina DAC build in. I thought that Droplet was good for the money......but Isabellina took it to another level. It is pricey at 2K as the stand alone product (it runs on batteries and has usb to be use with Mac or PC) but it must be heard to fully grasp what it does. On the cheap, you can use your PC or Wadia iTransporter as a transport. Vinnie used his Mac for better half of the evening and it sounded great. (RWA offers 30days money back guarantee).

Good luck
Wow, the Ray 128 uses a Sony transport too. Imagine. But then I've never heard anything that was both edgy and veiled. Including the Ray 128.
Dopogue, FWIW, you will note that the very affluent Mrjstark is probably nothing more than a (too) proud owner of a Droplet.

Re the Sony transport, it was interesting to note (in this forum) a distributor of a Chinese CDP complaining about the Sony Transport which I assume was used in a Consonance CDP as he was their distributor. I also noted a complete absence of context in Mrjstark's summary of the Raysonic CDP's. I don't pay much attention to this type of product denegration.

BTW, thanks for the recommendation. If I come accross some I'll give them a try. I'm presently using old EI 6DJ8's in my 128 and find them very neutral and clear. Poor mans version of NOS Tele's.
I was refering to new 228 4K Raysonic.
And when high resolution frequencies have exccesive brightness and coloration, gritty or harsh sounding if you will - veiled by defenition is smearing and or hazzing (not dull or dark). So when I said veiled, I meant that the acctual information or "detaile" is lost or inaccurat due to coloration.
Enjoy your Raysonic
with Sony transport and planty of " detail".
Mariusz, thank you for chiming in here with your thoughts. While I also have enough experience to comment on the sonic merits of the Droplet versus the Raysonic players, I feel it appropriate for me to stay out of that discussion.

Just one correction, the Droplet 5.0 used to use a Sony transport, and has switched to the long discontinued Philips. The Philips is FAR more reliable than the Sony, which is prone to failure at quite an alarming rate. Luckily Consonance was able to corner a special lot of the Philips transports a while back, and reserves them for exclusive use in the Droplet - all other Consonance players, including the mini Droplet 3.1, use the Sony transport.

Hopefully, the one you recently purchased has the Philips, as there were some other improvements implemented at the time.

DISCLAIMER: I am the importer/distributor for all Opera Audio/Consonance components in the USA and Canada
I do not need your attention and please do not take my advise since I am not giving any.
Proud Droplet owner????
Please, give me a break.

If you said that my preferences are different then yours......well, that is another story.

So, do not let me stop you......there are planty Rays up for sell on AgoN........and if I was you , I would not even look at Droplet or anything else for that matter...

Give me a break.........
unless you have some real life experiences with either and others.

Enjoy reading reviews

Yes Joe, you are right......I got it upside down. My Droplet has new Philips transport. Thanks for correction.

I might soon use Droplet as the transport only ........and yes it is a shame but I have heard something that is very special and am working on getting this dac in my system as we speak.

And NO, I am not anty-Raysonic......I have recommended 128 to other audiophiles on the budget in the past and still think that it is a very good player for the is just not for me......that is all.

Mtjstark, FWIW when you start a post with a statement "I hate to piss on the parade of you ray guys, but...." I should think that you would expect someone to ask you to put your money where your mouth is, that is you should tell us all about the tests you conducted using the Raysonic in direct comparison with the Droplet, including what tubes you were using in the Raysonic, as well as what all of the associated equipment might be. The absence of such comments really evicerates the worth of your testimonial. At least to anyone who might really care. Unsupported testimonials are a dime a dozen around here.

Also, it escapes me why you would, in essence, think that your opinion was of greater value to anyone than, for example, the opinion of Larryken who had owned a Droplet for 3 years and had opted for a Raysonic. Is he some sort of dufus and you are an expert?

"Please give me a break". Not likely so long as you are going to "piss on parades" with nothing more that personal opinions of dubious value.

Also, it escapes me why you would, in essence, think that your opinion was of greater value to anyone than, for example, the opinion of Larryken who had owned a Droplet for 3 years and had opted for a Raysonic. Is he some sort of dufus and you are an expert?

"Please give me a break". Not likely so long as you are going to "piss on parades" with nothing more that personal opinions of dubvious value.

I never said or suggest anything of that sort. Trying to put the words in my mouth is not going to work .....sorry. I know what I said and stand by it.

The only true statement in your post is that it is in fact my personal opinion and should be taken as such.

Seems like your are asking me to prove my honesty, knowledge or truthfulness. Well, let me put it this way:
I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Even if I was sucked into your little game it would not change a thing......don't you think?????

I don't write reviews like yourself since I do not feel that my qualifications and language are up to the task.
Opinions or suggestions posted by me on AgoN or other sides are exactly that. And if you (for whatever reason) don't agree with my experiences or point of view.....fine.
There is nothing wrong with that either. You feel that my statement was bias because I own this particular CD player...... I do not exactly believe that insinuation but I would be very surprised if it wasn't the case with most audiophiles who own audio gear they worked so hard for.

If you must know, I helped out in Raysonic room at 2008 CES and heard plenty of Rays before that as well as after.
Including 24K speakers and 10K amps.....which but away were also Rays and were also not my cup of tea. How honest do you want me do be??????
My experience is that my Raysonic 168 differs tremendously with each tube type. In my system the EH 6922 and the Jan Phillips 6922 both sound thin and veiled( a lot of background "noise"). When I insert 6922 White PQ'S the sound not only becomes fuller, richer there is also definition to the background, all the "noise" becomes instruments or voices or feet moving! I don't think you've heard what the Ray can do if you haven't heard it with NOS tubes( I'm assuming the 128 is similar. I've tried Seimans 6DJ8, Mullard 6DJ8, Jan 7308 White,Bugle Boy 6DJ8,Orange Globe 6DJ8, Orange "A" frames 6DJ8 Holland & Gt, Brittian,Orange PQ 6922 and my favorite the 6922 White PQ pinched waist. I read reviews with the stock and laugh because the tubes inhibit the sound so much that their listening to a different 168 than I listen to. Taking Newbee's lead I just bought a CD-3 MK2 so now I have two choices in sound.