Marantz <vs> Cambridge Audio DVD

SKsolutions

I'm familiar with both names, but for have escaped owning either that I can remember. . .

I want something new, and I don't think I'll be able to grab that tubed CD, or transport/outboard DAC till after summertime, so here's my shortlist for a passable DVD player with above horrid CD performance, and if anyone would like to shout their two cents, I'd be grateful. Audition time being an elusive commodity and online is a must. I don't really have a limit, but I don't plan to invest more than $500 for a one stop shopping/one-size-fits-all/pop-it-in-like-a-toaster type of unit.

Marantz DVD6400/6500 (UNI-player) fact refurb w/warr for $330 and $380 w/o shipping
Cambridge Audio DVD-87 (UNI-player) local Boston pick-up for $269 wrinkle free finish.

Both have solid video and audio DAC's and are above their price point in 2 ch sound. It would serve as main CD player for a time because the bike is wanting those new pipes.

Early B.

Cambridge Audio 540D.

Mike Reeter

I think I would go with the Marantz simply based on looks alone...I'm sure the quality of performance is very close in the two players.

*Seby*-Polk-

Go with Marantz. Superior quality of components and reputation. Cambridge is excellent too, but Marantz is a Marantz.

SKsolutions

2to1 in favor of Marantz. I do take the asthetics into consideration when the quality/price is equal. Thanks Early B for reminding me of the other CA alternative. I can get one new and it runs around the same as the Marantz refurbed.
How is the 2ch performance? I notice you have one.
I plan on acquiring a tubed CD this year, and if the performance is high enough on the Azur 540D, I may just go with the outboard tube DAC and decent separate non-tube CD.

Anyone own the Marantz DV6400/6500/6600?
Anyone have experience with the newer Crystal DAC's as opposed to the Wolfson? On paper I would lean toward the new Wolfson.

dorokusai

I'm a fan of both. We used a Marantz 8260 for Polkfest '05 and it was a gem. A friend of mine uses a 8260 in conjunction with an AR SP16 tube pre-amp, Magnepan 3.6R and some big **** monoblocks, pure magic.

I would go big or not go at all personally, Marantz DV9600.

HiPerf360

Marantz all the way

*Seby*-Polk-

Now, you know what dvd are the best to buy...right ??? :D

I don't have a Marantz ... (maybe in the future...i own a Yammie S-657, sufficient to my Sony Trinitron WEGA 29". Works great)

When i could buy a plasma...then buy a MARANTZ !!!!

Willow

I own the marantz dv4200, which will be replaced soon. I will continue to use it as my cdp. It is a great player and I can only imagine what the dv8000 series is like. That said I have read and heard great reviews on the camb. 540. It looks like a solid player. either way you'll end up with a good player

steveinaz

I'd go with the Cambridge 540D up to the Marantz DV-7600. I don't care for anything in the Marantz line below the DV-7600. I'm making this exact decision myself right now, but I'm still wondering if the $340 difference is justified between the 2.

Willow

I'd agree with you steve, as much as the 4200 is decent.....it lacks quite a bit. Mind you I bought it 2 yrs ago brand new for 200$. If I had to do it over again I would flip the Xtra cash fo the better player...I do like the camb player !! seems to be built well on top of everything else

steveinaz

Yeah, it's really the lesser build "heft" of the DV4600/6600 that have me comparing the 540D and DV7600, they have similar build quality. Plus the 7600 has the IEC type ac plug as does the 540d. Since I'm considering this piece to do dual duty as my CDP/DVDP I want to get a fine quality piece that will do justice by CD, without loosing my shirt.

I'm leaning hard towards the Marantz because of the ability to shut-off the video circuitry completey when listening to CD's. All audio will be routed thru my Benchmark DAC1, so I'm looking for solid build above all.

SKsolutions

Thanks, Doro, Seve, Willow . .et al.

I am at the point where I might just spend the some of the "Sub" budget on a higher end Uni-player and go outboard later.

My current DVD, which is the only player in the room with the plasma, won't play 1.5 out of 3 CD's. You can hear that maddening tracking relay clicking! I'm about to fire it out the window. . .seriously. .from the third floor window. . .without opening it first.

Just looked at the dv9600 Marantz and Damn thems-a-few-too-many-bucks.
Back to square Two: Used Marantz 6/7 series vs CambAudio Azur 540D

Thanks, I think you've all helped to narrow it down. I may throw a dart.

Sean

Early B.

Allow me to expound on the virtues of the 540D. I have an old fashioned 36" tube TV, so I can't speak to HD picture quality (although it's great with my TV, IMO). However, the sound quality is excellent and CD playback is exceptional at its price point. I did a head-to-head with the 540D and the 640C CD player, and the sound was nearly identical.

SKsolutions

Early B. wrote:

Allow me to expound on the virtues of the 540D. I have an old fashioned 36" tube TV, so I can't speak to HD picture quality (although it's great with my TV, IMO). However, the sound quality is excellent and CD playback is exceptional at its price point. I did a head-to-head with the 540D and the 640C CD player, and the sound was nearly identical.

Early B,
That is a major endorsement. I have been hoping for someone who owns the actual unit to 'expound', especially on 2ch where it would double duty.
That would leave me more money to buy. . . . . like. . . other stuff.
Wish it played SACD, but who knows if I'll ever use it.

Thank you.

Mike Reeter

SKsolutions wrote:

Early B,
That is a major endorsement. I have been hoping for someone who owns the actual unit to 'expound', especially on 2ch where it would double duty.
That would leave me more money to buy. . . . . like. . . other stuff.
Wish it played SACD, but who knows if I'll ever use it.

Thank you.

I'm sure it won't play HDCD either...which you will want to use.

reeltrouble1

SKsolutions wrote:

Wish it played SACD, but who knows if I'll ever use it.

Thank you.

Well if you dont buy a player that can play them I can pretty much guarantee you will never use them. Your missing out.

RT1

Early B.

I'm sure lots of people will disagree, but IMO, with a very good 2-channel setup, there's no advantage to HDCD. And in terms of SACD, music in surround sound is cool, at first, but it isn't how music should be played.

steveinaz

The cool thing about HDCD is that they sound great on players that don't even decode them.

If you want the SACD option, get the DV-6600. I have no interest in SACD/DVDA.

shack

SKsolutions wrote:

Early B,
That is a major endorsement. I have been hoping for someone who owns the actual unit to 'expound', especially on 2ch where it would double duty.
That would leave me more money to buy. . . . . like. . . other stuff.

Wish it played SACD, but who knows if I'll ever use it.

Thank you.

Then go with the Cambridge Audio DVD-87. Given their history of making quality products and the price it would seem to be a good choice and you get ALL the formats.

shack

Early B. wrote:

I'm sure lots of people will disagree, but IMO, with a very good 2-channel setup, there's no advantage to HDCD. And in terms of SACD, music in surround sound is cool, at first, but it isn't how music should be played.

OK..I'll disagree. I think I have a very good 2-channel rig and I can hear a difference (improvement) in HDCD and SACD is a whole different level altogether!

Mike Reeter

I can tell a distinct improvement with an HDCD recording...but that's just me...

dorokusai

Damnit! I KNEW it was you!

Mike Reeter

dorokusai wrote:

Damnit! I KNEW it was you!

I guess everyone is entitled to "I KNEW it was you!

SKsolutions

This could spiral into the speculative and trixy realm of new format discussion. I guess this is why it is difficult to choose a player at this time. There are many formats that might take a foothold, but might not. From what I've read on SACD, it doesn't look much better than a well recorded CD, has worse high end capability, and the whole idea iof unprocessed signals from studio to consumer is defeated by the almost universal use of Linear PCM in studios anyway. The big beast of Sony wants to change this, but I don't think they are going to re-fit every studio. DVD-A appears more promising to some engineers because it lives in the PCM already, and doesn't "re-draw" any waveforms.
I suppose it would be nice to play everything.

To comment on the multi-channel, I dig if for poor recordings. I don't dig it otherwise. I have no reference for SACD, and DVD-A, just what I've read or been told.

So, I am aiming for a dichotomy or symbiotic 2ch/multi for now. I know it will evolve into two separate animals at some point, and I will enjoy playing with them both. Maybe one will have "tubes", god help me.

shack

DVD-A is a dead format and SACD will probably survive as a high end "niche" format similar to vinyl. A well recorded SACD is head and shoulders above a well recorded redbook. A poor recorded SACD is a poor recording. Your understanding of SACD is flawed. All that and MC music sucks....IMO.

schwarcw

SACD and DVD-A both play in 2 channel and are a very audible improvement over Redbook CD. Much less compression and very detailed highs and lows. A lot of high end players offer it in 2 channel only. Listen to it and make your own judgement. I think the vast majority who have will tell you the hi rez sound of SACD or DVD-A in 2 channel is terrific.

dorokusai

What planet do you revolve around SK?

SKsolutions

My own girth, Doro.

dorokusai

I can relate then.

SKsolutions

If you would like an explanation:
I've been away from everything audio since 1993 when I was audio engineer at (insert the world finest tech college here). I did not matriculate, and did not graduate. Familiar responsibilities required other 'choices', and I've forgotten more about acoustics, audio, signals -wave and pulse forms, and measurement than I remember. I've not owned a piece of equipment worth mentioning since that time. I've not fixed, modded, tracked, tweaked, or mixed. Iv'e not followed the trends. I haven't kept current on the new formats.
I have read the tech papers and such, and I have the benefit of understanding and using the developing parent technologies years before they were ever manufactured.
The idea of SACD was based on a Direct Stream from the mic in the studio to speaker in your home. A speaker can be used as a microphone, and the inverse is true. Great idea, right. Well, the problem lies in the fact that almost every studio uses Pulse Code Modulation, so they have to convert before laying anything into ProTools. That is flawed. Not my understanding.

Have I heard it? No. Have I seen the coding, yes. Does it represent what could be? No.
Might I dig it anyway? Yup.

Just cut me a little slack if I'm annoying and can't spell for ****. I'm just catching up on 13 years away.