Opera Consonance Linear 2.2 or Raysonic 128?

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

thanks
Sri

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

VSR,

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 $$.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Garry

Joe,
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.

Again
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
BETTER.

Cheers
Mariusz

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.