Hey Trelja........

Thanks for filling in the gaps. While i haven't listened to all of those that you did comparisons with, i can agree with the basic statements that you made about the MF gear. It is very clean, clear, detailed, etc.... but just doesn't have any "body" or "warmth" to it. If it was slightly fuller sounding and had a little more "soul", i would LOVE it. As to the NAD cd players, i too agree that they are not the most revealing, etc... but my experience is that they were "quite" smooth and that's what made them "better" than many other "cheapies". Instead of giving you inexpensive "digital hash", they gave you something that had "rounded edges" and sounded relatively warm and in-offensive. Nothing to rave about in terms of absolute performance but something that i would rather live with instead of the typical "abrasiveness" that many other players seem to deliver. In other words, the NAD CD players have the same basic "sonic signature" that the rest of their line offers. As to the Sony SCD-1, my experience is pretty limited. Nonetheless, it was demo'd in a system that probably sold for appr. $100,000 and i was NOT impressed. I thought that the Electrocompaniet blew it out of the water when tested within the same system. Once again, these are all personal opinions and even these might change given different systems and circumstances. Sean
>

I had the Parasound 1000 before acquiring the Cambridge about the same time as Trelja. The Parasound was nice but VERY rolled off in terms of resolution of inner detail and imaging. Some would say that lended an analog-like quality to the Parasound but directly comparing CD to vinyl versions of recordings shows that much detail is missing from the CD without the warmth and imaging of the vinyl. The Cambridge, OTOH, gives you all of the spatial cues of the venue, the "air" between the instruments, and for the most part, the correct timbre and overtones of them;for example, trumpets have "bite" and can be discerned from cornets and a wooden flute can be told from metal. It is also enjoyable to listen to, allowing you to forget all those components of recorded sound and simply participate as listener which is what the high end is all about.It is better at that than the AR Complete and the best NAD which I auditioned against. You're missing a great deal of the music, Sean.

I cannot say the Cambridge is better than the Audio Refinement Complete. As I only heard that player for a very short time. My impression of that player was different than most people who talk about the Audio Refinement. They usually say it is simply YBA, rebadged in a cheaper body, with lower cost manufacturing, etc. They then pass the savings along to you. I think there are more major differences in the equipment; possibly particularly in the power supply/capacitors(where YBA really goes all out, in my opinion the reason for their usual smoothness and body). I hear the sound as threadbare compared to YBA. Positives are its detail and refinement. I think the sound is more along the lines of MF(agreeing wholeheartedly with Sean's summation of their player). The Musical Fidelity was the player I really had my eyes set on. The cosmetics are gorgeous, but I always make sound my first priority. The Cambridge does not possess as weighty a sound as I crave, but it is much superior to Linn and MF in these areas. And Kitch29 is correct in how wonderful it is in terms of refinement, detail, presentation, and truth of timbre. To be frank, the Cambridge D500 SE came as kind of a shock to me. It really opened my eyes. I figured I had to spend MUCH more to get sound on this level. My dealer told me on the phone, he absolutely raved about this player. Said it was a breakthrough, to players what Rogue(which he also carries) is to amplifiers. I was unconvinced(to say the least). I told him I didn't think there was any way I could pick this over the $950 Rega Planet 2000 or the $1700 Linn Genki. He asked me to trust him(famous last words), and come in with an open mind and open ears. Said it may not be better or worse than the Linn, but different. It plays on its field. Anyone who bypasses at least auditioning the Cambridge is a fool in his opinion. I admit, he was right. This player is THE sleeper of today. *** $450?!?! *** Please do not misconstrue, I am sure the MF will be the player many find incomparable. Just didn't mesh as well with my tastes as I really hoped for(always dangerous to judge components with your eyes rather than ears). It seemed like such a good player on paper(and in pictures/reviews). I really believe there has been a significant change in the sound of Musical Fidelity gear over the past year or two. Where they once sounded rich, full bodied, and tubelike, their new(er) equipment comes across to me as much more neutral, fast, crystalline, detailed, and lightweight. Not saying one is better than the other, just that the new stuff is different. I don't usually see companies make that type of change. Seems very unusual to me. I will never knock NAD gear, as I am a huge fan. I try to recommend all of my non-audiophile friends to it. People who love music, want good sound, but would never spend the kind of money we do on this hobby. For not much more money than the junk, you can get amazingly good sound. I also have fond rememberances of Parasound gear. Just haven't gotten near it in a while.

I think I remember discussing the Cambridge with you Telja. They have been making sleeper product forever. I still have an all Cambridge System in my home den/office.
CD4 (Sleeper in 95) with Dacmagic (DAC with CD6 guts and enhancements), A3i Integrated, B&W CDM-1 (original version with the better crossover than currently).

Kitch, i have not used a NAD cd player for quite some time now. I did have a 515 disc changer in one of my systems as a matter of convenience. As such, i found it to be head and shoulders above all of the other changers that i had tried. This included more expensive units from Sony along with competetively priced models from Denon, Philips, etc.. As you did mention, the NAD's major "sins" are that of ommision but it does let the "music" come through with out most of the annoying digital side effects. In other words, i do agree with you that the NAD is not real revealing but it is enjoyable none the less. As such, i'm currently using CAL seperates for most of my listening and am trying to decide on whether to wait for the EVS DAC to show up or move into the Audio Research camp. I've been told that the YBA CD Complete as a transport feeding a CAL tube based DAC sounds VERY good also. Sean
>