Hi, it's been a while since this thread started, has anybody/owners done meaningful comparisons of their CD8 with other current top notch cdps such as Emm Lab XDS1, Puccini+U-clock, Playback Design MP5, Esoteric, Accuphase? I would like to know of their basic sound differences, and also how it stands comparatively against the others. Thanks for any inputs.
136 responses Add your response
I know you think that the CD7 had an upgrade in power supply. In fact it was a revision due to problem with the two regulator tubes. The problem can be noticed when you use the unit via SE outputs if you increase the volume you can here a huge hum. Revision 5 kit killed the hum, but also killed the sound quality. Now the revision 7 (5881 tube) brought the sound back but the also, the hum, after some use. I had my unit upgraded. And now the hum is back. I will call ARC I think they will have to change all units again, problably using a 6550 like in CD8. So I ask you to test your units and call ARC if you have a hum in SE output. |
Turko, Difficult question - no CD is close to analogue presentation. I own a SME30A/2 and I can not say that the CD8 is closer to the analogue sound than the CD7 or vice versa. The type of sound of the CD8 is quite similar to the CD7, but has a more defined bass and more detail in the higher frequencies. You can have much larger differences in analogue with the same turntable and tonearm just changing cartridges. I have not compared the CD8 with the CD7 with the upgraded 5881 power supply - the friend who got my CD7 had it modified and told me it was a considerable improvement. Even long term A/B comparisons are not absolute - you just testing if a piece matches your system better than the other. In my opinion comparing analogue with digital in the same system is unfair - you are just establishing if this system is optimized for analog or digital. Unhappily I never saw a system optimized for both, the best analogue systems I heard were a disaster with CD and the best digital ones were un-interesting with vinyl. |
I recently purchased an updated CD7, an upgrade from my beloved CD3MK II. The CD7 is in an entirely different class. The sound is so big, detailed and lively. Instruments and voices are so real and vivid they sound like the band is in the room. I look forward to spending more time with this player. lucky for me this player is huge(5" deeper than cd2. 3etc. so it wont fit in many places. It is truly a maginal musical instrument. |
Wow! Excellent comments on the now broken-in CD8. Thanks. It doesn't surprise me at all that the break-in time is over 500 hours. My CD-7 took that long as did the Ref-3. The PH-7 didn't take as long ... but still a good 300 hours to sound it's best. For those who are finding the ARC gear to be bright, non-musical, tonaly bare or solid state like, I would humbly suggest that you check your power cords and room treatments. Magnan power cords and Shitaki Holograms (2 pair) have transformed my system ... and I thought it was really good before these improvments. Now its great. |
Please do not consider me pedantic, but I think that such thing as the "6h30 sound" does not exist. I owned Audio Research REF2 mk2 , REF3 , conrad johnson ACT2 and ACT2 series 2 (all using the 6h30 exclusively in the amplifying stages) and could not find a common trait between these four preamplifiers. A friend of mine owns a BAT phono unit and it does not sound as a cj or an ARC! Circuit topology, operating points, power supply and choice of passives have great importance in sound balance. I think that the main reason why many manufacturers are using the 6h30 is because it is reliable and lasts long - I recently measured the 6h30s of my REF3 that have 4093 and they still measure as new! |
Dave, you cannot make general statements like that. Ref 3 and CD-7/8 sound very different to each other, in terms of overall balance - and both are tube based, and both use 6H30 tube. There is a general consensus that the Ref 3 is a much better preamp than both Ref 2 and Ref 2 mk II, although I can understand that some ppl, in some systems may actually prefer the Ref 2 over Ref 3 for its specific "flavor". |
Dave, you make no sence: Ref2-MkII is 6H30+jfet based, by far the most SS like tube gear ARC ever made, also VT100MKIII and VT200MKII are 6H30+Jfet based. I had the REF2MKII and it took 500 to burn and a lot of setup to play well, after sometime played really well. All reference gear from ARC are top sound they are only different versions. Funny the CD8 take 600h to burn since it does not have Jfets in the path of sound. The 6H30+Jfets worked very well in ARC Power Amps not so easy in the preamps. Dave maybe you should check the cables or room acoustics, I had some problem with Synergistic Cable and was thinking it was my gear in the end was a damaged cable. A very tube sound is good to cover bad links in the chain of sound, to use less tube gear sound like (Hi-Resolution) you have to have everything correct. ARC made a choice about 10years ago, they made the gear sound less tubed in order to gain in other aspects. Here the REF3 and the CD7 upgrade, folowed by a 300.2 bi-amplification just play LIVE! |
My CD8 is sounding better than ever. I am currently hosting a pair of JM Labs Grande Utopia Be - great speakers, that have a tilted up balance in the upper frequencies above 2 kHz. Until two weeks ago I could not listen for longtime to to the CD8, as the sound was very clear an defined but too bright, I even preferred a CD3 mk2 for longtime listening. However, currently the CD8 evolved in a sweeter sound, matching the tweeter of the GUB perfectly. I feel the same as Elberoth2 concerning resolution, but I reserve my comments to a direct confrontation of my old CD7 versus the CD8, to be done soon. Beware that during burn in the sound of the player will become dull during at a certain phase before stabilizing at its definitive (I hope!) balance. Even with the Purist Audio System enhancer CD burn in took over 600 hours. |
One thing I have noticed and mentioned many times before is that the sound of 6H30 tube based equipment is just not as musical as it's 6922 bretheren. In fact, almost any other tube based gear I've used sounded better than any of the 6H30 stuff I've owned such as the ARC Ref 3, CD 7, LS 26 and BAT VK D5 and Super tube preamps. The earlier LS 25 and ref 2MKII along with the VT100 and VT200 amps were Golden era ARC gear. The new stuff might as well be SS for me since it misses the tone color and sweetness of the 6922 based gear:O) |
I have had a chance to listen to the CD-8 for the first time this past weekend. One thing I was affraid of was that the CD-8 will be brighter than the CD-7. It is not. It is much more transparent, but it is not brighter. It still has a lot of bloom and texture that made the CD-7 so special. Compared to the CD-7, CD-8 allows you to hear much deeper into the recording, soundstage is deeper, there is more resolution and air, image outlines are much better delineated. CD-7 sounds as if it was a bit of of focus. |
Well mine CD7 finally is done too. Conclusion: I was listen to crap for the last 2 years. But different from most you guys I knew. My original CD7 was magical before the problem with the PS, after fixed (previuos upgrade) became just lifeless. Now it's back. I will listen for a week or two to check if it will match the original sound I had once. Dynamics, extensions, details all raised but mostly now it's much more toneful correct and clean. It's sad ARC took so long to correct it. |
Last friday my CD 7 was upgraded by ARC Holland ( Europe ),I brought it in and after 2 hours all was finished incl. testing .Total costs NONE , service .Today I replaced the 5881 tube by a NOS GE 6L6GC , which tube was recommended by my local ( not ARC ) dealer .The sound is as Wsill described . Only no burn in time.I already replaced all the 6H30 by DR types.I think everything is better than it was before the upgrade . Greetings from Holland , a happy CD 7 owner ( even the REF 3 and PH 5 ) |
I was thinking about that as well.This is a bit off topic but I have a different system now and need to update my system profile. I am using an Intergrated SET 84C that I made from kit. It only puts out 1.5 watts in Triode and about 5 watts per channel Pentode class A,bUT THE SOUND IS INCREDIBLY TRANSPARENT.I am getting some high effecient crossoverless 2 way speakers next week with 95DB effecieny. Parker Signature 95 speakers from Parker Audio. The only other upgrade I need now is my source. So I wanted to get the best cd transport I can get my hands on regardless of price,But have also been looking at some mod services available on the web. I.E. Musical Fidelity A5 with a $1,800.00 mod done to it. We shall see |
Microstrip: The amps were ARC REFERENCE 210'S and speaker cables and IC'S were Transparent Reference Cables with their interface boxes of course. Also was used were the Transparent power conditioner filter device.I 'm not sure the model number,But this device alone cost 3.5K. I THOUGHT A PS Audio at half the price would do a better job. Oh and for your info. I have never heard a CD7 or any ARC gear in several years so this was a real ear opener to me to say the least. Later on I did get a chance to hear the ARC CD5 and could only listen for just a few minutes it was that much a sonic let down to me after being exposed to the Reference Gear from ARC.I'll need to give Lenord a call an compliment him. I use to own ARC SP-6A,6B,6C,SP-8,D110B Amp, and VT-60 amp. So u can tell its been awhile since I've been exposed again. So I'm in trouble an bit with the ARC bug again. I'll be saving my coin for 1 year to able to purchase a CD8 and it would be worth the year wait from everything I heard from this incredible piece of gear. |
I had the oppportunity to listen to the CD8 today at a dealers store with all the other ARC Ref. gear hooked up with it along with the Wilson Maxx Series 3 Speakers.Its been a long time since I sat down to listen to the latest ARC gear and with this set up I thought I was in audio nirvana heaven. I brought a special cut CD of Firebird Suite 1919 from a 96k 24 bit HD Track and I was spellbownd at the utter bass slam and powerful dynamics of everything.The sound stage stayed stable at FFFF on the final cords of the piece.The images were layered perfectly and the space occupying the overtones were so there. I played the Riverdance sound track and I could feel the weight and the character of the stage the dancers were stomping on. A first in my life and I always thought when I went to see the live performance of them that no stereo in the world would be able to reproduce this. Well I was wrong. I can go on and on about what I liked,But my only question is .Is this from a combination of the entire system playing or just the REF.CD8? |
Here is a pic of an upgraded CD-7 I got from a fellow member from Sweden: Inside image CD-7 with 5881 |
My CD8 has been now been playing almost continuously for 22 days approaching 500 hours. Happy to tell that after burn in the bright, sometimes almost edgy sound is completely gone. During the burn in phase I had to remove the Valhalla cables from my system as they exacerbated the sibilants and splashiness, but today I could use them again. One thing is sure - the bass control and depth are improved and it is more detailed than my previous CD7. I will wait a few days more before borrowing my old CD7 to make a direct comparison. |
Hi, I have fitted myself the two tube upgrade kit to my old CD7 and did not find it deteriorated the sound - truth is it did not change, compared to a good set of matched 6h30. Later a close friend also had it fitted to his player by the distributor and considered it an improvement. As he was listening to an unit with defective 6h30s in the power supply immediately before it is not a good case. Owners using RCA units immediately noticed the hum noise when the tubes were not matched, people using the XLR output only noticed a much poorer sound. My CD8 is still burning in ... |
I just sent my CD7 away for the upgrade. I think my player had the previous "lifeless" upgrade that was referred to above where a raised board was installed to hold the two 6H30 tubes. Perhaps a version 2 from the original. If this is the case, I cannot wait to hear the latest version and the associated improvements on an already great player. I will post my findings when it returns. Better sound and more reliable? Who could ask for more from a great company like Audio Research. I, for one, say continuous improvement is a good thing.... |
Hello Tonywinsc , the electrolytic caps are needed to smooth the direct current after being alternate current to be changed by solid rectifiers .ARC always is famous by making very good powersections in their gear.Its the most important part of the design. You will notice there is no sign of humm in whatever gear of them. |
But I'm compelled to say that I am a bit underwhelmed at the layout of the PCB inside the CD8. I know that sound is the ultimate goal and I don't mean to dis your nice player. It's just that the tube analog section doesn't seem isolated from both the PS sections or digital sections. The DAC chip is not a problem. In most players it is placed very close to the analog stage. The "dirty part" is the display, transport and its servo board, and those are situated as far as possible from the analog section for an integrated player. 6550 tube, as noted before, in not a rectifier tube. ARC had to stuff a lot of parts inside the box, and taking that into consideration, they did a remarkable job. |
hello Tonywinsc , let us make one thing clear , the big tube is NOT a rectifier tube and also the 6h30 tube in the powersupply . The are used as stabilisation . From 120V AC transformer current is rectified by solid rectifiers . So there will be no long wires under the board. Same as the upgrade of the CD7 . |