Audio Research Ref: CD8

As explained to me by Leonard(ARC customer service), the CD7
receives only the PS supply upgrade, not the new DAC. I have
a CD7 and feel that it has the best midrange of any digital
piece I've heard. I preferred it to the Krell 505, AMR,
Marantz 7SA1, CD12, and others. My old Krell 20i is still an
option, and on the same level as the CD7. In most cases, the
sound is just "different" and the choice is based upon your
preferences and synergy with your equipment. I recently tried
a terrific new player from Playback Designs and found it
basically the equal of the CD7 and 20i...again, different
although very similar to the 20i. Of course, anyone interested in SACD might make different choices.

Hi Lula,
not sure you can be serious about top CD players and be discussing ancient players like the 20i and CD12 and comparing them to new players.

The CD7 has large but vague imaging with slightly constricted flow of dynamics, although like most good ARC gear very musical and special sounding. The ARC gear needs to be tweaked quite a lot to get it to give you better layering and a more solid and clear or vivid soundstage. Clean contacts, valve pins and bases, nice fuses, cabling and so on.

In the case of the tired 20i, this old krell battle ship has much less resolution and quite a lot of grain when compared to the latest players. You cant discuss these players and compare them to the latest offerings.

You should try some better players say the latest EMM lab or DCS. These kind of players will give you low noise floors with extreme resolution and pinpoint imaging, leading edge information and free natural dynamics and a complete lack of grain.

I have been told the playback Design is good but I have not heard it. Try the Bel canto player out too, its pretty cheap and sounds very good. I am sure the CD8 will be good. It is unlikely to be worse than the CD7.

Hi Chadeffect, not sure if you can be serious about the cd 7's "imaging". In my experience 90% of "imaging" results from room interactions and setup. 90% of the remaining 10% comes from the speakers. I think you might legitimately claim that the cd 7's dac setup (no upsampling) and tube output stage lacks ultimate detail/clarity. This may or may not be a good thing depending on ones system or listening preferences. Tubes for example tend to limit sibilance ( a microphone artifact)and this is a good thing. Even APL's wo2 after gaining detail with a zillion dac's uses a tube output stage. My guess is that all the detail in the world just didn't sound quite right without it. Upsampling or over sampling can be a good thing if done well. Generalizations about cd players doesn't make much sense to me. IMHO differences are actually pretty small ( compared to speakers, preamps, and rooms/setups)and come down mostly to the output stages. No offense intended. Just my own biased opinion - Jim
jim

Hi Chadeffect,
The Krell 20i needs the "right" cables. When I first purchased the 20i, new,
many years ago (I've since picked up another one, used) it had some grain, no
doubt about it...but, it had tremendous bottom end and body; no other digital
approached that effect. Adding a Cardas Golden Cross interconnect tamed the
slight forwardness. Adding a Shunyata King Cobra V1(not a V2) some years ago
eliminated the grain, added spaciousness and gave the player even greater
dynamics. If you're lookling for ultimate detail at a cost of full-bodied impact,
then you look elsewhere. By the way, the Playback Design player surely beats
the EMMM player (don't know about the latest separates). So-called "ancient"
digital can still compete with today's best when adding the "right" power
cord. Power cord options didn't exist back in the 90s.

Hi Aldavis,

No offense taken. I understand your point. In my experience once all those things are dealt with and the rest of the system is fine tuned and working at its best, all you have left is the source. Rubbish in rubbish out.

What I mean by imaging is the ability for the player to resolve the information on the disk that make it possible for the rest of the system to carry it into your room. This is very sensitive information and is easily lost or disturbed. Spacial coherence layering, timing, depth, width etc. Once exposed it is impossible to go back, especially on "real" recordings as opposed to processed ones. The lack of artifacts produced by the player itself enables what was once hidden to be clearly heard if the rest of the gear is up to it.

Hi Lula,
I remember the krell quite well. Around that time I had the ML 31.5/30.6 reference player. There is something about that generation of chips and clocks and components. There is a burliness to the sound. Grain, fat bass, slight haze and vague imaging by comparison to what is available now at that level. The disk is not presented as a whole. You know what I mean? Like there is a spot light on a particular area.

Even though the tweaks you speak of will help, it can never replace the already lost information. It is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. I am not saying those older players cant sound good for some types of music, its just more about refinement (and what you are used to). I could never go back to my old ML now as good as it was. I did have some fantastic listening sessions with it at the time!

Dont be fooled by all that audiophile BS that was around in the 80s and 90s. That technology is not getting worse its implementation is only better and cheaper on the whole. Digital has come of age recently IMHO.