Rega Apollo, Cambridge 840C...
I have both, and find the Cambridge having noticeably more low-level resolution, plus the highs are quite eye-opening. NOW, having said that, the Cambridge is just a little bit "contained," meaning the sound does not "jump" (as Harley pointed out in his review) out at you. It does, nonetheless have quite good imaging, sounds great on double bass, cello (I have NO idea what Hi Fi Choice said when they complained about the bass, especially given the review by the person who had it for a while varied wildly with their "group test," which, by their own admission, was several songs, played back to back: hardly an extended session, with the one listener who disliked it "by the 4th record"), sounds great on brass (sax, trumpets), very moving on woodwinds (especially piccolo, which has all the "bite" a piccolo has in real life without any brightness) and the flute sounds pretty classy.
The Rega jumps a bit more, has perhaps better dynamics, but I haven't listened to the Cambridge balanced. Oh, and harp on the Cambridge, as well as soprano (and other female voice) moved my pianist friend greatly.
I can tell them apart fairly easily, unless the microwave is on (TURN IT OFF! even if you have dedicated circuits, people. I have 6 (dedicated circuits) and I can hear [the grain] in the highs so easily it's not even humourous -- and so will you) or the 2.8, 5.6 gHz phones and other devices we (most of us)all have. Turn them off, too and THEN listen!!!!! That helps. I have Versalab Red Rollers on the interconnects and find that, with all the high frequency devices we have these days, it is easier to hear a component when the system's not being "poisoned."
I still like the Arcam FMJ 23: it had killer dimensionality and "presence" with a capital "P".
I have both, and find the Cambridge having noticeably more low-level resolution, plus the highs are quite eye-opening. NOW, having said that, the Cambridge is just a little bit "contained," meaning the sound does not "jump" (as Harley pointed out in his review) out at you. It does, nonetheless have quite good imaging, sounds great on double bass, cello (I have NO idea what Hi Fi Choice said when they complained about the bass, especially given the review by the person who had it for a while varied wildly with their "group test," which, by their own admission, was several songs, played back to back: hardly an extended session, with the one listener who disliked it "by the 4th record"), sounds great on brass (sax, trumpets), very moving on woodwinds (especially piccolo, which has all the "bite" a piccolo has in real life without any brightness) and the flute sounds pretty classy.
The Rega jumps a bit more, has perhaps better dynamics, but I haven't listened to the Cambridge balanced. Oh, and harp on the Cambridge, as well as soprano (and other female voice) moved my pianist friend greatly.
I can tell them apart fairly easily, unless the microwave is on (TURN IT OFF! even if you have dedicated circuits, people. I have 6 (dedicated circuits) and I can hear [the grain] in the highs so easily it's not even humourous -- and so will you) or the 2.8, 5.6 gHz phones and other devices we (most of us)all have. Turn them off, too and THEN listen!!!!! That helps. I have Versalab Red Rollers on the interconnects and find that, with all the high frequency devices we have these days, it is easier to hear a component when the system's not being "poisoned."
I still like the Arcam FMJ 23: it had killer dimensionality and "presence" with a capital "P".