First Impression Cambridge Audio 640C CDP

trees

Based on feedback from folks here I'd narrowed my choices to bottom end NAD, Rotel, or the 640C. Audio Advisors are closing out the 640C V1 for $344, so that sealed the deal. Running it through 9s and NAD T773 AVR.

Had been playing CDs in a bottom end DVD player (but not bad reviews) or older mid-line Sony cdp.

Not an audophile, but I try. I've already worked for a year to optimize room accoustics. And have a very flat frequency response, but the room size (14x14x10) limits the total amount of sound before things start getting muddy. In addition to a RS SPL meter and Avia, I Use 3 sources for evaluation room acoustics and equipment as I try to improve things: some Nora Jones, Dire Straits "Sultans of Swing," and "Allegro from Concerto for two Oboes" (Albinomi).

First, I'd read that if you just use the DVD or cd player for transport, you will hear little difference. BS! There is a huge difference.

Anyway, things are much more precise and I'm able to play the music up to about 90 db before I hear the different frequencies starting to meld.

Tried both analog and digital and I like the DACs in my 773 much better. Cambridge is coming out with the 640 V2 which has DACs for each channel but I doubt if that will make much difference.

Got a breakfast date, so later,

Trees

SKsolutions

OK. I'm still not sure if you have received your new player.

lanion

Umm... I think I can translate....
He recieved his 640c and is running it through a NAD T773 to his LSI9s. He likes the CD player. He prefers listening to it via digital output to his 773 rather than listening to the CD player's analog outputs. He contends that the 640c used as a transport (digital out) sounds much better than his old cd player, challenging the notion that different CD players sound the same if using the digital out.

audiobliss

I had no problem reading his post.

Glad you like it! For $344, it's a deal!

shack

audiobliss wrote:

I had no problem reading his post.

That's cause you and lanion have the decoder ring!

audiobliss

Actually I just assumed it was because I always think and express my ideas in a rambling, jumbled up, incoherent manner. But hey, we'll go with the decoder ring!

trees

I had been playing cds in a cheapo DVD player. I had read that buying a decent quality cdp would not make much difference in sound quality if I used the digital output (and the receiver's DACS) rather than the analog output and the cdp's DACS.

To me there was a large improvement in sound quality, even when using the digital output, when I played cds in the Cambridge cdp rather than in the cheapo DVD player.

Hopefully, this post meets your needs for structure and clarity!

Trees

billbillw

trees wrote:

I had been playing cds in a cheapo DVD player. I had read that buying a decent quality cdp would not make much difference in sound quality if I used the digital output (and the receiver's DACS) rather than the analog output and the cdp's DACS.

To me there was a large improvement in sound quality, even when using the digital output, when I played cds in the Cambridge cdp rather than in the cheapo DVD player.

Hopefully, this post meets your needs for structure and clarity!

Trees

Were you using the digital outputs on your DVD with the receiver's DACs before? If so, I can't see that much difference in sound. I would believe that there is a huge difference between the analog outputs between the DVD and the new Cambridge. I think you should give the analog output a better chance. Make sure you listen in Direct mode. The Analog output is what you paid for with the Cambridge.

cmy330go

Can you explain what it is that you prefer about the receiver's DAC over the CA?

shack

I think NAD uses better DACs in their recievers than most of the mainstream Mfgs. (Denon, HK, Sony, Yamaha, etc,). Having both NAD and Cambridge Audio CDPs it would not surprise me that he would prefer the NAD over the CA because there is a difference in the sound. NAD uses Burr Brown and CA uses Wolfson and it comes down to which "sound" you prefer.

heiney9

Ok, I've held off commenting because who am I to comment on what YOU hear. Yes, there are differences between the Wolfson and Burr-Brown dac chipsets. I admit I don't know too much about how the dac section in most AVR's are designed. I've never owned an AVR receiver. But looking at other designs I can say that since there are MANY MANY circuits, etc. in the AVR that the digital section has to suffer. There is no possible way to suffeciently isolate the digital section from the analog section from the video section from the surround processing section, etc. SO, I'm a bit perplexed that the AVR's dac section sounds so much better to you.

I have a fairly cheap (not at the time $250) Pioneer DVDP that by itself sounds horrible. Hooked thru my stand alone Adcom dac it sounds wonderful and I can't detect a bit difference between cd's played on that unit thru the dac over cd's played in my Nakamichi thru the dac. Sure the transport at some point will have a positive effect. But to say that the transport alone is responsible for this amazing new sound is just not possible, IMO. I'm thinking a lot of placebo effect here. The Cambridge is a solid unit that should atleast sound similiar to the AVR dac's but should actually sound better (subjective).

Also IMO, no one should consider a player that doesn't have a chipset for each channel. The differences are very very noticeable.

Again this is just my experience and I've listen to many players, stand alone dac's, transports, sound cards, etc. They all sounded completely different and the cheaper less well designed combo's always left much lacking. The most startling thing I noticed is the transport seems to have a very negligible effect on sound quality. Dual DA's should have a much better sound, if they are implemented properly. An AVR's environment is not the best place.

Maybe our gear experiences are on 2 different levels and you haven't had a chance to really hear how good a cheaper transport can sound thru a well designed DAC. In a perfect world we'd all use uber expensive transports mated to uber expensive DAC's. But for the funds challenged a mediocre transport mated to a nice DAC can sound exceptional.

H9

trees

Excellent comments & suggestions.

I did use the RCA cables supplied with the Cambridge for the CDP analog out. The manual said not to use cheap cables and that that is why they didn't supply them. Well, they did supply them and they look pretty wimpy. I'll buy new cables.

I'll also make sure that the NAD T773 is not overriding the analog and converting it back to digital. I thought that I had correctly selected an "outside analog source." But, as you can see from the sarcastic responses to my initial post, I do make mistakes.

And suggestions for which cables to buy and where?

Thanks, and I'll report back.

Trees

shack

trees wrote:

And suggestions for which cables to buy and where?

www.signalcable.com Analog One or Two are both good ICs. Order whatever length you want/need. Club Polk members get a 5% discount.

trees

Shack,

Thanks for the tip. Always up for a discount.

CMY330go,

First, I seem to remember you posting re HDCD. Thanks, I had the same questions.

Re the difference in sound: To me using the digital output from the cdp gave me a crisper sound and I could hear more detail. Almost to the point of being cold. Using the analog, the sound seemed more blended and not as crisp. Since I'm running the Dayton Tiny Mighty subwoofer, I changed the crossover from 80 HZ to 60 HZ and this seemed to improve the sound, maybe the placebo effect.

Trees

Am interested is seeing if better analog cables makes a difference as well. Lots of controversy about cables on this and other sites, and I'm interested in hearing the results for myself.