I believe the same reviewer at 6moons wrote up both of these CDP's. You might compare his reviews. I bought the Raysonic based on his review when it first came out and have not been disappointed in any aspect of its performance in comparison to the Wadia 302 or the BAT DK5 which I also use in my system. My guess is that you will find the Raysonic will have a fuller and more dynamic sound and the 2.2 will be more linear and precise, sort of like the difference between a lot of ss stuff v tube stuff (even though as I recall the 2.2 does use tubes. You might also come to this same conclusion of the sound of the 2.2 by 6moons comparison of it to the Droplet which it also reviewed. In than comparison they mentioned that the Droplet had a longer decay compared to the 2.2.
Anyway its a good read. Draw your own conclusions.
I have some interest in these products as well. A third product you might want to consider is the Doge 6. I have not heard it, but it is receiving a lot of attention. Pacific Valve Company says it's as good as it gets!
Not exactly side by side but more like room by room.
It is like Cambridge 840/740 and Rega Apollo or Saturn.
Raysonic like Cambridge is very detail, forward and resolution to benefit the system with a little laid back characteristics that might use a small overdoes of sparkle and clean frowardness.
It can be very rewarding in the right system.
However, careful match with the other components is crucial.
Consonance Linear 2.2 is more laid back, sound wise easy on the ears without the edginess and brightness that never fails to disgust me. Consonance is like KOTO and Shin- Shinto Japanese swords. Another words KOTO being the last era of the old masters and techniques in art of the the sword making. A special attention to details, pride of ownership and tradition. While Shin-Shinto is the beginning the new period in sword making. Quality was still great but never match the old school, traditional masters. Opera Consonance Linear 2.2 is somewhere between the old and the new. It is implementing new technology and techniques with the old school of fluid, musical, sweet - tube wormed sound.
That is what I like and that is my choice between the two.
Which one is the CDP that you think might suit you better????
I do not know.
It is a personal decision and it is you who have got to make it.
I had a demo Consonance linear 2.2 in house and thought that it was great on good sounding cd's. However, with the majority of cd's I did not like it at all. It didn't really have any smoothing qualities to it, so if the cd is edgy you will get hit in the face with that edge because of the dynamics. On most recording I preferred the MKII. It sounds more holographic and tube like than the linear. I demoed it strictly out of curiosity as I was a MKII owner and wanted to know how they compared after I heard the cd120 linear. I actually prefer the cd120 linear to the ref 2.2.
Not the comparison that you are looking for but I thought I would share my thoughts on one of the players in question nonetheless.
Thanks to everyone who replied. Unfortunately, as I mentioned I not in a position to audition either components so I have to go in blind. I have a MHZS 88E currently and like it, but dont know how much (and what) either of these units will add. I would appreciate any info that is posted
Sri, I actually agree with Midnitemick...
For the same price as the Reference CD2.2 Linear, in my opinion, the Consonance Reference CD2.2 MKII is clearly the superior product. Both players use the 6H30 Supertube in the output stage, but the MKII version offers 24 bit/192 KHz oversampling, volume control/variable output, and XLR outputs, whereas the Linear features the 16 bit/44 KHz non-oversampling architecture, and fixed RCA outputs only. The MKII version offers a solidity, low-end weight, and more relaxed, liquid nature that certainly makes it the far more analog sounding component.
I feel strongly enough in this position, that I have stopped marketing the Reference CD2.2 Linear in favor of the Reference CD.2 MKII, as I felt offering both of them created more confusion in the minds of the dealers and customers. I spent significant time with each player, with the end goal being to simply put my energy behind the better one, and came to the conclusion that the MKII was the winner. Of course, ANY product that Consonance manufactures can be ordered for a customer, I just choose to limit what I advertise in the interest of clarity.
It's not as if I'm opposed to the non-oversampling architecture, I'm not. In fact, I believe that the Audio Note digital products are some of the best in the industry. And, at $995, I'm not sure there's a player that eclipses our CD120 Linear. But, when one is ready to take the next step, our Reference CD2.2 MKII and new CD120T are the components I hang my hat on.
Again, this is my opinion, and mine alone. I have encountered a person or two (including my friend, Ian Large, the Opera Audio/Consonance distributor in the UK) who feel otherwise. And, in their defense, I would say the Linear version is probably a bit more insightful and open, even if I find it more "digital" sounding.
DISCLAIMER: I am the importer/distributor for Opera Audio/Consonance products in the USA and Canada
I own both units and more or less concur with Mrjstark's observations. Linear 2.2 will yield a very natural relaxed analogue type of sound. As Mike noted, you'll not be spared re: the quality of the recording on the CD. The Raysonic provides a nicely detailed and slighty less warm sound. Soundstage-wise, taking into account the effect room in as much as possible, the Raysonic is a bit more up front vis a vis the Consonance, think 2nd row vs, say, 8th row. Buildwise, both are exceptional for the $$.
I absolutly agree in your statment\recommendation regarding the differences between the 2.2ref and MKII.
MKII sounds even more relaxed , engadged and at the end......more musical.
CES demo in Red Wine Audio with horn loaded speakers(which but away were on they own....very nice) is the perfect exemple. I am not sure but I think that you had one in one of your rooms together with Cybers 800 but I could be wrong on this one.
just like Garry said.....both players are very good and buil equaly well. Both will perform equaly well in the right system setup. I just like Opera-Consonance
I have the Ref 2.2 and liked it in stock form (6H30 tube). But I had it modified ("factory mod") by a former Consonance dealer and now I LOVE it! He changed output caps to 2.2 450 volt Auricaps, replaced output diode, re-wired power supply for voltage to caps, and replaced output tube with JJ Tesla EC-99. Improved overall detail with sweeter midrange. In case you get the Ref 2.2 you might want to consider this mod (I think I paid $300 for it) - well worth it.
Rockadanny, I'm happy you are satisfied with the Reference CD2.2 I would guess you have the original version, prior to the Linear and MKII, correct? A good number of these original version units were modified. The original version can be identified by the volume control knob on the rear of the player, the RCA outs in the middle of the rear panel, and the Philips CD transport/laser head assembly instead of the Sony.
One caution I would like to throw out there is that the lion's share of vacuum tubes are designed for operation in the normal vertical mounting position ONLY. Some of the 6V tubes (6DJ8/6922/ECC88/7308, 6CG7, and the 6H30 used by Consonance) are suitable for mounting in any position, as they were designed for the USA/NATO and Soviet/Warsaw Pact missile and rockets they were used in. These 6V tubes are able to cool themselves (via the typical convection means of vacuum tubes) in any position which a rocket would find itself in; the 12V tubes are not (they also cool themselves via convection - but using the chimney effect, hence the required vertical positioning).
It has previously been fashionable to replace the 6H30 tube inside some of the Consonance components with 12V (ECC99, 12AU7, or 12AX7); moreso to allow folks to tube roll than anything else. The Consonance owner/designer assures me there is a sonic degradation, in addition to reliability questions. Otherwise, he would have used the lower cost and more ubiquitous 12V tubes in the first place. I cannot say with 100% confidence whether the statement regarding the sonics is true, as I have never A/B'd the swap on its own in a CD player. Normally, the tube swap is a part of a larger and more extensive mod, which gets us into more of an apples and oranges type of deal. I will say that in my experience, it does seem to not improve the hybrid integrated amplifiers it was done to (not that that product was my favorite anyway), though I do try to keep an open ear/mind in any situation. We have encountered some in for repair due to volume stability (during warmup and cooldown) and overall reliability issues related to the swap. So, this mod is obviously something I recommend against, even if we do encourage people seeking to max out their components in a sensible manner.
Sorry to have forgotten to answer your question, Mariusz!
Yes, my friend, Jacob George, of Rethm Audio, was using our Reference CD2.2 MKII with piano black lacquer top straight into the Red Wine amplification, driving his Saadhana loudspeakers. You are also correct in that we had the new CD120T in our room, using the Cyber 800 6CA7 tube monoblocks. The CD120T is a variation on the Reference CD2.2 MKII, and slots in as our penultimate player sonically - below the Droplet 5.0 CDP.
No issue whatsoever horizontal mounting of ECC99 in Ref 2.2! None! I have it on good authority (well known and highly respected tube guru) that there is NOT any issue mounting this specific tube (nor ANY tube unless restriction stated in its data sheet) horizontally. Been a couple of years for this thread but must set the record straight. This fear has plagued the back of my mind for years. And it was pure hogwash. So fear not.