|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 20 Registered: Feb-06 | Picked up an Arcam AVR200 today (used), fully expecting to be able to use the internal DACs with my cheap $80 Sony DVD. Finally, an all-on-one solution on the cheap (with a bonus tuner!), or so I thought... What a disappointment! But first, here's my ranking, top to bottom: 1) CD73T to "reference" A65+ (clear winner) 2) Sony DVD to A65+ 1) CD73T analogs to AVR200 analog (nearly tied with #2) 2) Sony analog to AVR200 analog 3) TIE: CD73T Digital & Sony Digital to AVR200 DAC (and the clearly inferior solution) I should mention I'm listening through a "classic" pair of Polk Monitor 7C's. Not the greatest for detail... but addictive as Nicotine. I can't shake 'em. Overall, the AVR200 (analog) sounds pretty good... it has a nice powerful (powerful!) sound, well balanced, if not exactly detailed. Upper bass can "plod along" on the wrong recording... Herbie Hancock's "New York Minute" lacks the finesse found on the A65+... Rush's "New World Man" can tend towards being murky and distant. McCarney's bass doesn't punch on "Taxman" like it should. Led Zeppelin's "Good Times Bad Times" was a difficult and fatiguing listen. On the contrary, the A65+/CD73 feels like fresh vinyl with this recording. I was willing to accept these trade-offs given that I was clearly experiencing a more powerful, dynamic amp compared to the A65+. But this was all through the analogs... and the point here was to run the Sony's digital out for full-time use as a decided CD/DVD player at (hopefully) at quality similar to the CD73 (without having the shell out for an Arcam DVD player... they really need a lower-priced universal player) Not even close! The DVR200's internal DACS are horrible. No detail. No warmth. Completely devoid of low-end punch. Journey's "Send Her My Love" sounded like the "wall of sound" I remembered from my youth... before my first "Hi-Fi" (an NAD 7240PE still in use today). On the other hand, the A65+ provides definition and clarity to an otherwise difficult & dense 80's recording. The AVR200 completely failed the wife test, who thought "Eleanor Rigby" sounded cold and "harsh". On the A65+, I feel as if I'm in the studio. Final thought... I'm passing on A/V for now, it's not worth the sacrifice, even with an Arcam receiver. Is the (expensive) solution an A90 with multi-channel module paired with the P90/3, using analog outs from a univeral player? Yikes! Curious how this compared to other's experiences... I was surprised by the cheap Sony DVD's performance against the CD73. Is the dedicated CD player dead after all? Is the "all in one" solution dumping the CD73T in favor of any modern cheap DVD player? Or am I expecting too much of my Polk 7C's? |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1468 Registered: Sep-04 | I would have expected the CD73T analogs into the AVR200 to beat the Sony DVD into the A65+. Other than that, your results are pretty much what I'd expect. It's unfortunate that the A65+ doesn't have the fixed gain feature of the higher end amps. This feature allows you to connect the amp as a 'slave' to the processor on one of its inputs. This way you can reserve the CD73T for use with the 2-channel amp. The DVD player can be used with the surround amp except that the front speakers would be powered by the slave. The processor would act as volume controller in this scenario. You can get a similar result (if not as good) by connecting the front pre-outs of the processor to one of the inputs of the A65+, such as VCR. Turn up the volume to 12 o'clock. Then setup the AVR200 to balance the volume between the various speakers. In operation, you'd use the CD73T/A65+ (and any other 2-channel sources) as usual. For 'surround', simply switch the A65+ to VCR and set its volume to 12 o'clock. Then use the AVR200 as volume control. The danger with this setup is that you may forget to lower the volume on the A65+ when you next switch it back to CD, with ppossibly terminal consequences for your speakers... Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 21 Registered: Feb-06 | Interesting recco... but space is a premium, and whatever I set up must be easily understood by all in the family. Achieving a certain simplicity was the original goal, after all. I think the Sony DVD/A65+ combo "beat" the CD73T/AVR200 partially (mostly?) due to my speakers. The Polk Monitor 7C's are lovely... though not especially accurate or detailed. With these speakers, I'll wonder if I'd get greater mileage from a servicable source component combined with a smooth/warm/transparent/well behavied amp of reasonable power? I'm very curious to compare an A65+/CD73T combo against an A90/Sony DVD combo! Where's the $1400 better spent given my speakers (which stay for now). Would I benefit from the extra power more than I would an upgraded source component? I'm starting to realize that modern "cheap" DVD players can more than hold their own in audio performance, especially when the rest of one's system isn't quite up to snuff. The old adage stands... speakers first, then amp, then source components. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rjw1138Regina, SK Canada Post Number: 26 Registered: Nov-04 | Like Frank, these are the results I'd expect except for the order of the 2nd and 3rd place items. Receivers generally have worse D/A sections than even moderately priced CD players, and apparently the AVR200 is no exception to this. The AVR300, on the other hand, is apparently a different beast completely. Apparently the digital input section kills on that one, and compares favorably to the analog connection through high-end CD players. Read the IAR review if you're interested (www.iar-80.com). But the 200, well, that sucks, but I'm not surprised. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rjw1138Regina, SK Canada Post Number: 27 Registered: Nov-04 | And apparently "apparently" is my favorite word this morning. I just used it three sentences in a row. Oy vey, I need more coffee... |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 22 Registered: Feb-06 | The poor quality of the AVR200's DAC is clear and evident. Fine for movie watching, but stick with the analogs for 2-channel music. Too bad, as the amplifer is very good. Any idea what kind of DAC's are in the AVR200? What's surprising is that the $80 Sony DVD (DVP-NS315)is able to hold it's own against the CD73T through Polk Monitor 7C's with an A65+. So far as specs, it has a 24bit audio DAC, high signal to noise ratio... etc etc etc, blah blah blah. I'd say that isn't important, though Arcam certainly makes a point of these same features in their marketing. I hear more striking differences between various amplifiers I've either owned or auditioned in-home... NAD 7240PE: unique even for NAD, with incredible dynamics, nice mid-80's update of the 3020 offering improved detail for the newly arrived digital era. Over the years paired with a Dual turntable, 2nd gen Yamaha CD player, a Sony ES Changer, and finally an NAD C521BEE. The Yamaha had a lively and bright presentation, consistent with early CD players. The Sony was always a little flat and dull for my young ear. The NAD took me back to my turntable days, encouraged me to reexplore my CD collection, allowing hours of listening without fatique. A joyful player! Arcam A65+: A nice "upgrade" from the 7240PE... what it lacks in dynamics is exchanged for improved imaging and detail. Where the NAD made my Polk 7C's sing, the Arcam made my *room* sing. The integrated to end all integrateds (under $700, that is). Paired with an NAD 521bee, CD73T and Sony DVD player. Interestingly I hear little difference between the Arcam and Sony. The NAD has a completely different personality with a mid-forward focus. I actually prefer this player for some recordings. NAD C320BEE: Surprisingly flat and "neutral" (is it possible to be "too neutral"?). A good intro to "hi fi" and recomended as a first step beyond what's available at this price mass-market. But not up to snuff of NAD's earlier gear and clearly "half" the quality of the A65+ (in price as well!). I didn't keep this very long. Arcam AVR200: See my original message! My first powerful amp, and I feel it and I like it. The brawnier, less brainy, of my Arcam duo. I'm close to saying it's the "best of both" and the "worst of both" the 7240PE and A65+. *Some* of the dynamics and power of the NAD combined with *some* of the refined behaviors of the A65+. But then there's my experience compariing the Sony DVD and Arcam CD73T. Not that I have a tin ear... I've recognized clear differences between past CD players, and was horrified by the sound quality of some DVD players (NAD T531, T571, early gen Sony and Onkyo players). But lately... I'm wondering if CD/DVD technology has matured to the point where differences are subtle and only evident on much higher-end gear? |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 23 Registered: Feb-06 | I'm left confused by the IAR review of the AVR300. Did they like it or not? A very subtle analysis. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Rjw1138Regina, SK Canada Post Number: 28 Registered: Nov-04 | LOL!! I know, it's a bit (*cough*) heavy-handed, but man it's fun to read J. Peter Moncrieff's take on this receiver. He sounds like a giddy schoolboy, except I don't know of any giddy schoolboys with quite that level of writing. One really has to wonder though: Is the AVR300 really that good, or is the guy starting to show signs of bad hearing and/or senility? I'm pretty sure it's the former though. I believe he's one of the best reviewers there is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1482 Registered: Sep-04 | Jeff, In the hierarchy it's source first, then amp then speakers. If the source doesn't give you a decent signal, no amount of amplification will fix it. In fact if it's really good, the amplification will highlight the problem, as would good speakers. This philosophy has been around since the early 70's when Linn launched their Sondek LP12 turntable. It was strong marketing, but it turns out they were right. This also explains why I was surprised that the Sony beat the CD73T in any combination. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 24 Registered: Feb-06 | This doesn't make intuitive sense. Differences amongst competent, component CD players (not portables or iPods) are "subtle", while differences amongst amplifiers are not. Same for speakers. As an exagerated example, is a budget-limited shipper better off with an Arcam CD73T and an $80 Sherwood receiver... or an Arcam A65+ and a budget CD player from Circuit City? Clearly, *clearly* the latter. My Sony DVD player sounds very good, and ought to according to Arcam's marketing (24 bit audio DAC). I've heard poor sounding DVD players from NAD, Onkyo, and others.. but this particular one sounds good. However, because it is "cheap", it must not! |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 25 Registered: Feb-06 | And of course Linn pushed "source first"... they made expensive turntables that shoppers passed on in favor of better speakers! Good marketing, absolutely... but truth? Hardly. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1496 Registered: Sep-04 | Jeff Linn's marketing was a single voice in a sea of naysayers, and yet the idea caught on. I have done many demonstrations where the source-first principle has been put to the test. It's rare that it doesn't win. The differences are not subtle, as is true of changing speakers. When you change speakers you change the overall presentation of the music significantly, but this can be so with sources such as CD players too. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1497 Registered: Sep-04 | Incidentally, what type of DAC is used is all very well, but it's the implementation which counts just as much. It seems you have a great cheap Sony DVD player. I have no problem with that, but I am surprised it beats your Arcam CD player because that implementation is really rather good. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 26 Registered: Feb-06 | Woah, Frank... let's slow down! The Sony doesn't "beat" the Arcam. ***Where did you read that?*** The CD73 "beats" the Sony in both pairings, with the AVR200 and with the A65+. But the CD73T isn't enough to compensate for the AVR200's weaknesses. Source first my foot. A quality amp is paramount. "Source FIrst" reminds me of the rednecks back home driving cars more expensive than their houses. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3249 Registered: Dec-04 | garbage in=garbage out(no matter what amp). What is the job of an amplifier? Why, to amplify the source it is fed. Unless the amp adds so much coloration, uses so much feedback, etc that it is a muddled mess. In which case, who cares? |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 27 Registered: Feb-06 | But even the prom queen looks bad after a hard night of drinking... Sorry, not even sure what that means.... Based on this conversation, I've spent my $1800 budget on a FMJ CD33T and a Sherwood RD-6500 (100 watts!). Source first, right? |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1507 Registered: Sep-04 | Needless to say there are balances to be struck as is always the case in life. Jeff the Sony beat the CD73T in your first post. I quote: But first, here's my ranking, top to bottom: 1) CD73T to "reference" A65+ (clear winner) 2) Sony DVD to A65+ 1) CD73T analogs to AVR200 analog (nearly tied with #2) 2) Sony analog to AVR200 analog 3) TIE: CD73T Digital & Sony Digital to AVR200 DAC (and the clearly inferior solution) Going by Source First principles, the CD73T playing into the AV R200 should beat the Sony DVD player playing into the A65+. Your results support your view that the amp is all-important. If I were listening to the systems, I'm willing to bet that I would have chosen the 3rd system over the 2nd. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 31 Registered: Feb-06 | I prefer the CD73T to the Sony both with the A65+ and the AVR200. But I prefer the A65+ to the AVR200, no matter which CD player I was using. Thus, my ranking is dependent on the amp I'm using. In my view, there's little reason to invest in an expensive CD player without first having approproate amplification. This assumes that the "cheap" CD player is at least adequate in delivering an accurate signal, which the Sony DVD player is capable of. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 32 Registered: Feb-06 | Meanwhile, have you heard the AVR200? It's a very different beast from any of Arcam's integrateds... more similar to an NAD A/V receiver than an A65, A80, etc. Imagine an NAD T752 without the hiss/hum and QC issues. The AVR200 is definitely *not* neutral. It doesn't provide the expansive soundstage or natural warmth of the A65+. Like I said, the A65+ filled my room in 2-channel. For the AVR200 to accomplish this PLII is required (ooph!). Even *with* the CD73T. "Source First" doesn't take into account the budget-challenged. For me (and most), finding the optimal blend of components is essential. Certainly you wouldn't reccomend trading down to a Sansui integrated in order to afford an Arcam CD player? The CD73T is wasted on the AVR200, 'nuff said! For those interested, my AVR200 is for sale... contact me if interested! |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1518 Registered: Sep-04 | Yes, I do know the AVR200 quite well. It was based on the same mule as an early NAD surround receiver (I forget the number), the main difference between the two being the power supply section which uses a toroidal transformer in the case of the AVR200. The Arcam was better than the NAD, but we're not talking a huge difference. The subsequent amplifiers are very different, as you say. Regards, Frank. |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 34 Registered: Feb-06 | The AVR200 is gone and in it's place a Cambridge Audio 540R (V2). I will post my perspective on the AVR200 vs. 540R cs. A65+ once I "break in" the CA unit. I also picked up the 540D DVD player, so I look forward to some critical comparisons between that, the Sony, and the CD73T. I may or may not keep the dedicated CD player pending outcome of the test! |
|
Bronze Member Username: FatelvisPost Number: 44 Registered: Feb-06 | For those of following at home... the Cambridge was a dog, as I like detail with by bottom end. My NAD 7240PE had it in spades... but the Cambridge left it's low-end back in England. But it had a *lot* going for it, otherwise. I finally found the holy grail. An Arcam AV50... and surprise surprise... an Onkyo CP802 Universal *changer*. Sounds great, and has a lovely Wolfson 24-bit DAC... same as in the Arcam CD73T. Meanwhile, I'm very much enjoying SACD and DVD-Audio. Almost makes me feel like a fool for ever believing in up-sampling CD players, or thinking there was value in spending $1000 on one. High-resolution audio is the real deal and makes the subtle differences between an NAD C540 and Arcam Alpha 7SE feel like a joke. Can't believe SACD/DVD-A didn't take off. Finally, after 20 years, something that sounds like good vinyl! And multi-channel is pretty fun on certain disks (Roxy's Avalon is a good example, so is Yes' Fragile). I'll buy every high-res disk I can... and move the CD's into the closet after encoding with Apple Lossless! |