Would sure appreciate reading comments if anyone has compared the CD-8 to the CD-6 or CD-9. Thanks. |
Jafant ... one member sent me a private message with some reactions. He thought the CD-9 might edge out the CD-8 on the redbook CD side of the house, but not enough to justify buying the CD-9 just to achieve better redbook CD playback. Although I have been, and am, a bit curious about other digital input sources that would require a DAC, ... not that much where I am willing to drop thousands of bucks to find out ... at least not yet.
ARC suggested that I road test the CD-6, which has the same circuitry as the CD-9, just minus the tubes. So, still hoping to read comments from our fellow members about their reactions.
Jafant, for some reason I seem to recall that the CD-5 is basically a Ref CD-8, but sans the tubes. What are your thoughts about the CD-9 versus the CD-5, but only as far as the redbook CD function is concerned?
Thanks |
Jafant ... the Ref CD-8 is a hot-rodded up CD-5 with tubes. They use the same BB 1796 PCM DAC chip. I gather from your posts that if I am not really interested in picking up a general purpose DAC, it might not make much sense to go with either the CD-6 or CD-9. Is that your view? |
Thanks Jafant, but I already owned the CD-7 and traded up to the CD-8. IMO, the CD-8 sounds better than the CD-7, probably because the CD-8 uses the newer Burr Brown 1796 PCM DAC. The CD-6 and CD-9 use a later version of the BB DAC ... the BB 1796A PCM and use it in some type of quad mono configuration, probably to handle the DAC side of the house.
As I mentioned above, I surmise that the bottleneck is NOT my CDP; instead it's the fair to poor quality of CDs. Sad irony is that many folks are bailing on redbook CD in favor of other digital media sources for the wrong reasons.
IMO, if folks are moving in another direction because of convenience ... that's ok by me. Who am I say say no.
But .. if folks are moving on because redbook CD is obsolete and just doesn't sound that good, there I take some exception. I don't think the problem is the technology. Instead, as stated above, it's fair to poor redbook CD recordings.
I've recently picked up some "Gold" quality hi-rez CDs -- WOW!! Buckle up and prepare to be impressed. |
As I said, I used to own the CD-7. Compared to the CD-8, I found the CD-7's sonic presentation to be a touch dark; almost thick. IMO, I think imaging is a bit better with the CD-8. Also, better dynamics, drum hits and so forth.
The two main differences between the 7 and 8 are power supply and DAC. The CD-7's PS was modified by removing 2 6H30s and replacing with a single 5881. Honestly, I don't know if the 5881 sounds the same as a 6550, but it is a difference.
The other difference is that the CD-8 uses a BB DAC. The CD-7 used another brand, the name of which escapes me.
Hey look .. the CD-7 is a fine player. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Bruce
|
Your comments make sense Jake. As I said, the CD-7 is a fine player. You might be able to pick up a preowned CD-8 for not too much money with a flip of the CD-7. I happen to like the CD-8 over the CD-7. But that's my opinion. |
Jafant, I thought the CD-8's sonic presentation was livelier and more transparent than the CD-7 in all musical applications. As I recall, because the CD-7 was a bit bass thick, this characteristic tended to over-emphasize the low-end of rock, jazz and pop music that was already bass heavy.
You also asked "[w]ill you be stepping up to the CD9? Or perhaps the new CD6 anytime soon?"
Given some of the comments above, I am concerned that the additional cost of moving into the CD-6 or 9 may not be justified in terms of the augmented benefit. So, I guess for me the jury is still out.
But I look forward to reading comments from members who made the move. I just don't know. I think I may have reached the point of diminishing returns with my system.
By the way, I just picked up a super hi-rez redbook CD -- Tango -- from Acoustic Sounds. It sounds great!! More comments to follow. It will take a lot to convince me that redbook CD is dead. |
There's a couple of vendors out there. I started a thread, titled something like "Redbook CD is Not Dead." A couple of members posted some web site where hi-rez redbook CDs can be purchased. In the meantime, I've bought quite a few hi-rez redbook CDs (in various formats) from Acoustic Sounds, located in Kansas. Very reliable folks. |
Refreshing this thread. Still looking for comments. |
Ok, ... I can answer my own OP from 7 years ago. Last year, I swapped out my Ref CD-8 for the Ref CD-9SE. I think the CD-9SE sounds noticeably better than the CD-8, ... but not by a mile. Yes, there seems to be more detail. Bass is a little tighter. Soundstage and imaging are better too. But the CD-8 still does a fine job.
I think the take-away here is that there is only so much juice that can be squeezed out the redbook CD orange. That said, I can see at least one possible improvement; namely: the next round of ARC CDPs that comes off the line has a 3-stage audio circuit like the Ref 6SE and the Ref Phono 3SE. It would also be nice if ARC would build-in a remote on/off button and hour counter on the clicker.
As to a comparison of the CD-6 to the CD-9, I seem to recall that a reviewer from one of the audio magazines made some comments. I can't recall the name of the reviewer or the magazine, but I think I picked up the article from one the reviews collected on the ARC website. Take a look.
BIF
|
