Is this a good system to replace my 12 year old system? Or shall I consider other combination? It should be with the same price range as mentioned above.
I have BOSE Acoustimass 5 II + NAD C340 and a Sony DVP as CDP. This is still a decent system IMO. Thanks everybody!
Why do people always go light on the source??? The source is literally the source of the signal that gets amplified and then reproduced for your ears to hear. The better the signal, the better the result. Obviously there are limits, but source-first is a good principle to adopt when building systems. So for similar money, you should get a more musical result with a C542/352 than with a C521/372.
I have no experience of the B&W CM1 so I cannot comment on its abilities. However, the 352 is a powerful amplifier so it should be able to drive the CM1s fine. I don't know what other speakers are available in HK. Here are three that I rate highly in a similar price range here in the UK - Dynaudio Audience 42, Totem Dreamcatcher, Avi Neutron IV.
I believe the only difference between the 2 models is the 542's HDCD capability which for the price difference is not worth it. HDCD disk is a rare commodity here and if there is, it is 3X the price of the regular CD.
DYN 42 = HKD2,000 higher Totem and the other one is not available here. There's a shop here that sells the B&W CM1 that offers 10% discount so I will go for it.
Source??? CD player is not the source. It is the CD recording. I believe that whatever CDP you have if you're playing a regular CD, you can't do anything about it. If you are playing say, an "audiophile CD" (cost 3 to 4X than regular CD)then that's another story. CDP cost to much because of it's capability. If the CDP can play SACD or XRCD or HDCD then it is much costly added to that the cosmetics, build, and the materials used in the casing. I believe that C521 can read all the datas (101010) on a CD then signals it to the Amp where amplifying the signals is crucial to the reproduction of music through the speaker.
The 542 has a different sound then the 521, and most people (90%+) will prefer the 542 over the 521. I bought the 521 and now am thinking of changing it out for an Arcam CDp. The 542 is just "better" ove the 521bee.
And it has nothing to do with the fact the 542 will play HDCD.
In audio component terms, "source" refers to the gear reading the medium. Turntables, CD players, tape decks, etc. Yes, the CD is ultimately the source, but that's not what's really relevant here.
You'd be surprised how good a 'regular' cd (non SACD, HDCD, XRCD) can sound through the right CD player. The differences between the 521BEE and 542 are substantial differences to me and many others.
Contrary to popular opinion, every CD player can't read every 1 and 0 correctly every time, it's impossible. Actually, no Cd player can get every single 1 and 0 right. This is why they use what's called error correction and clocking. The better CD players get more of the 1 and 0 right more consistantly, and don't need as much error correction and re-clocking, but this isn't the only thing that makes a CD player good either.
Different CD players use different digital to analog converters (DAC). DACs turn the 1 and 0 into music. A cheap DAC will do a cheap job. A good one will do a good job.
That's just scratching the surface.
Using the same amplifier and speakers, listen to a few different CD players. Some sound open and detailed, some sound closed in and muffled. Some sound thin and shrill, and others sound full and warm.
Their is a big difference between the 521BEE and 542 on standard CD. The differences may not be appearant when listening to a track or two and analyzing what is happening. With an open mind, listen to a few songs. Listen to the music, and not what's reproducing it. Is it truer to it's 'source?' Then listen to the other CD player. What happened? If you can't tell the difference, then by all means get the cheapest one you can find. Their's no point in spending more money.
Personally, I've found better CD players open up the music more. The sound is more enveloping, has the right pace, and you're listening and feeling the music.
If you really think they generally all sound the same, listen to a great CD player like a Naim or Rega, then listen to something else played through the same system. The differences should be dramatic. But, if you can't tell the difference, then again, by all means get the cheapest one you can find.
Take a good listen like Stu suggests, Deo. Do you think it's worth the difference? It's only you that matters.
As to different sound from different players, that is a fact. I spent time with the 542 and with the Rotel 1072. The Nad is full and warm, the Rotel is fast and accurate.The difference was quite apparent (to me).
I'm sorry if I came across too strongly in my first post. I should've bitten my lip.
The C542 is more than a 521 with HDCD capability. The fact it is capable of HDCD filtering means that it is using a different (and more expensive) chipset to decode even normal CDs from Pacific Microsonics, which is a chipset used in many high end machines purely because it gives a very musical result. The C542 also uses the 24-bit Burr Brown chipset as opposed to the 20-bit item in the C521BEE. However, decoding is only half the job. The other half is the analogue section of the machine and this is where an awful lot of machines fall down.
$200 is quite a bit of cash so it is important to consider the difference carefully, but you should be able to hear the two CD players side by side and compare them. That's when you'll know whether it's worth it from your point of view. The difference here in the UK is about US$150 and it's fairly obvious to anyone I play the two machines how much better the 542 is.
Typically, you're better off with the better source component since it'll make more sense of what's on the CD. Obviously, a bad recording can't be recovered, but if the player makes more sense of it, the difference may be enough to make it listenable.
My suggestion was to try C542/352 vs C521/372. Is it possible to have demonstrations or not? I know that in HK, this may not be possible.
I'm sure the B&W CM1 will be a capable performer. I hope you like the combination you buy.
Thank you guys for all your advice. I went shopping and bought C521BEE (542's gone), C372 and CM1. Bought mid priced interconnect (made in Canada), speaker cable by Delta. I Set it up and listened to it. I noticed that the combination is a little bit lean on the bass side but the vocals and stringed instrument is clear and clean. Imaging is fantastic. I listened to Norah Jones and Diana Krall's CD (recorded in 24bit/198khz don't know what that is) and it seems that the two singers are in front of me. Spent 3 or more hours listening to them and the system amuses me. I am happy with the purchase. I commend B&W for bringing out CM1, definitely a very good bookshelf speaker. Other speakers that I auditioned are Avalon NP 6.0, Magnat FS, AudioFocus, ProAc, Tannoy, Dali and some other. Clearly some of these speakers can sing like CM1 BUT they lose to B&W in terms of good looks. Good looks + Very good sound = CM1.
A good source component should maximise the musical potential of a bad recording too.
So even if the recording is technically weak, good equipment should try to 'recover' as much music(ality) as possible.
But I agree with Frank re: the importance of the source, and the fact that often there are monkeys on the mixing desk in the studio control room and this is outside of our control......