[Hantra]

You know I could dig a battery powered DAC if it was transparent to me.  Perhaps if there was a way for it to go on battery when it got a lock, and then go off battery and onto charge when there wasn't a lock.  The Nagra preamp does something similar to this and it's probably the most magical preamp I have ever heard.

So with the Ack in charge mode, is it fully powered on?  Can it play in charge mode?  I have never heard digital that didn't need a lot of warm up time, and I can't imagine warming up a DAC like I would a tube amp.  It's just not worth it.

The Ack! doesn't at all look DIY.  

[Loftprojection]

Well I think I'm more and more interested in a DAC.  This Nixon is very interesting for it's price and specially that it's tube based and I really liked the Jolida tube based CD player...  I also read glowing results from so many professional review on the Benchmark DAC-1 that it is tempting but almost twice the price of the Nixon.  This will be a difficult decision because I wont be able to listen to any of these.

[Hantra]

This will be a difficult decision because I wont be able to listen to any of these.

Loft:

Where are you located?

B

[dave_c]

Well I think I'm more and more interested in a DAC.  This Nixon is very interesting for it's price and specially that it's tube based and I really liked the Jolida tube based CD player...  I also read glowing results from so many professional review on the Benchmark DAC-1 that it is tempting but almost twice the price of the Nixon.  This will be a difficult decision because I wont be able to listen to any of these.

They are also very different implementations of DAC technology.  

Benchmark - 24bit / 192khz upsampling with jitter reduction technology

TubeDac - 16bit Non oversampling with Tubed output stage

You may want to read up on the two before you decide.  I believe that the 540D has 24bit / 192khz converters, but I don't know if it performs upsampling.

[rhmmmm]

Rather than spend $1000-1300 on a mod, my advice would be to drop that on a different player.  I just got a Meridian 588 for $1500 and it's excellent and has a bonus of great resale value - which you lose with mods (you tend to not get as much back as you put into a modded unit).

[Loftprojection]

rhmmmm, I agree with you, the last option I'll be looking at is modding the DVD 2900.   In my mind this player will have a short life!  HD-DVD coming, I will want to change it...   So I'm looking at either a DAC that I can keep even if I change the player or a dedicated CD like your Meridian.  By the way, this Meridian seems to use a similar technology to the Creek CD50MKII and I found that Creek player very very good but a bit expensive for what I want to pay.  I'm trying to stay more around $1000 so the Shanling CD-T80, the Jolida and the Arcam are more interesting for my budget.  

Did you compare some players before buying your Meridian, if so I'd like to read your comments on which player you tried,...  Thanks.

[Loftprojection]

I did a little experiment last night to try and see how the transport does in the 2900 player.  So I brought it over to a friend's place because he has an HT receiver with digital input (Cambridge 540R and Monitor Audio speakers).  

I brought with me my Denon 2900 and my Cambridge 540D.  We did several tests, plugging each of the players to the receiver in analog and digital with several different type of music.

Well, on most songs, the Cambridge was the favorite, either plugged digital or analog.  On some type of jazzy music (like Cassandra Wilson), then it was more equal even tough a bit different, the Denon was more clear and detailed, the Cambridge a bit more warm and soft.  On "medieval" music with some high pitched harp instruments like Loreena McKennit, then the Cambridge was better for sure, digital or analog.

So this test is quite revealing to me.  I am now leaning much more on the side of getting myself a dedicated CD player.  The Denon's transport is probably quite good but it does not seem to have the type of sound I'm looking for so a DAC may make it nicer but it will always have this sonority that I don't really appreciate.  

It's quite amazing that there is such a difference even with using it only as a transport.   I admit that as a transport, the Denon was overall quite good, it is just not the type of sound that suits my taste for warm and soft music.   The Cambridge probably "colors" the music but I don't care, if I like "colored" music then so be it.  

So, I think I have to head to the shops again!  I already spotted a few shops that carry the Shanling CD-T80, the Exposure 2010, the Jolida JD-100 and the Arcam CD-73.   I would probably love the Creek CD50mkII, the Naim CD5i or the Shanling CD-t100 but those are too expensive unless I find a used one.

Thanks for all your suggestions.  Keep it coming if you have more...

[dave_c]

I know you've stated that you're against getting mods done to your player, but you may want to reconsider.  Judging from respone, you may not find a better solution than getting your 2900 modded.  The Modwright Universal Truth mod is at the edge of your price range, but do some research on it.  You may find that this is your best bet.  Look in the Modwright forum for user feedback.

http://www.modwright.com/products/index.php?product_id=19

[Hantra]

If it were me, I'd use a PC as a transport.  It should thoroughly crush any conventional ones, and can be had WITH a DAC for what you're wanting to spend.

[Loftprojection]

Hantra, I went to the store and tried a few players.  With my current Arcam receiver the improvement is not worth it that much.  The Creek CD50mkII was very quite nice but it's when I matched it with the Creek integrated amp, wow, then music popep out.   So now I think I would have to invest quite a bit to get the sound I'd like.  The DAC option is back on my plate and a PC as transport will be definitely something I'd look at in the future.  

Seem like I'll have an opportunity to try out a Benchmark Media DAC1 very soon.  One of my friends works for an audio recording company and they can get one for a trial.  I also got an email from Scott Nixon, he's got a backlog of a few weeks right now so I'll see how it goes with the DAC1.

[boead]

Hello Loftprojection,

I just went through a similar time.

I had a California Audio Labs Sigma-II with 24/96 DAC. I rolled through loads of tubes (settled on a Sylvania 3-mica, Black Plate) and cables (settled on a Harmonic Tech Fantasy AC-10) and gat a Denon 2900 as a transport and SACD Player.

After about a year with it I found I was not thrilled with either component. SACD was good but Redbook from the Denon wasn’t. The CAL DACs Redbook was certainly better then the Denon 2900 but still wasn‘t meeting up to my expectations. I seriously considered many options. Mods for the 2900 ranged from $300 to $3000. The least that needed to be done in my opinion was the power supply, opamps, main board caps and the clock. Cost was just over $1000. A tube output section on top of that was closer to $2000. And I still didn’t trust I would like it. After all, I wasn’t in love with the player as an Audio Player. It was not anywhere near a TV mind you, I didn’t buy it for video, only audio.
I also considered a tube cathode follower or buffer stage. Still, that doesn’t take care of the failings in the power supply section, opamps, main board or the clock.

So I sold the CAL and all the accessories associated with it and bought an Arcam FMJ CD-23T CD Player.

WOW!! The Arcam FMJ is many, many, many times superior to the Denon. I can’t imagine the Denon ever coming close to its performance. The Arcams balance, texture and soundstage is so darn good I think you would have to pry it from my cold dead hands. Its going to be a very hard component to follow. A friend got a Meridian 588 and although I didn’t do a direct comparison yet, I don’t think the Meridian is better enough (if at all) to justify replacing this Arcam.

Also, I have a dozen SACD’s, and the Arcam FMJ’s Redbook out-performed the Denon  playing SACD easily! No need for SACD really.

I have a 36” Sony XBR (HDTV), I had a new Denon 1910 DVD player on it, I replaced with my DVD-2900 and the difference is extreme.

I hear Arcam’s DVD Players are extraordinary.

[boead]

The Denon is edgy, a little harsh and leans on the bright side. Detail is there but it’s unbalanced. Soundstage is good but not particularly wide or deep. Bass is deep and tight but not rich or full. The layering of music within the soundstage isn’t all that defined from front to back. Disappointing and smeared when compared to Higher End players.
SACD performance is substantially better, less edgy and not nearly as bright with an improved soundstage.
Redbook music is analytical and without a doubt has that digital sound. Vocals have a tendency to sound congested and overly forward.
SACD is more musical, less analytical but not to a huge degree.

The California Audio Labs (CAL) Sigma-II 24/96 with a Sylvania triple mica, black plate (late 50’s) 12AX7 is never edgy or harsh and leans to on the darker side. Detail is not always as apparent as it should be but never washed away. I wouldn’t say the Denon DVD-2900 has more detail but much of it is more sharply defined then the CAL, certainly more lively and that’s even with a tube that is certainly more detailed and lively then most. Soundstage is wide and fairly deep. The CAL has a nice image and its certainly one of its strongest points. The layering within the soundstage is good but not great and can be a little unfocused or soft. Bass is full and deep but not as tight as the Denon. Vocals are rich and sometimes lush depending on the tube. Midrange is a step or two back and never piercing or distracting. Very musical at times, another strong aspect of the CAL DAC. What it gives up in micro detail, focus and dynamics, it makes up for in overall palatability or musicality. Deep, lush and a little dark are all good, certainly better then most digital players. Many have said this player is more analog or vinyl like, I would have to agree. Compared to the Denon 2900’s SACD playback, I think the CAL still has a musical edge but the sheer detail of SACD is unmistaken and it’s a difficult compromise to make. Some would feel that the musicality of the CAL is more pleasing with the right tube for your particular system and others might feel the Denon’s SACD performance is more accurate and realistic.

The Arcam FMJ Cd-23T (dCS RING) is so much better then both players I almost don’t know where to begin. First lets just say its difficult to point out anything this player does wrong, I don’t think it does anything poorly at all. That said, I can describe what it does best.

Soundstage is nothing short of superb! The musical presentation (stage) comes out from the speakers in all directions. Width to the walls, depth beyond the studs, forward into the room, this players strongest point is certainly its ability to create an IN-THE-ROOM experience. Not to be mistaken with the midrange being front or back row. The images are perfectly balanced within the soundstage which leads to the player’s ability to layer music within the stage. The separation of individual instruments is a real treat. You can more easily hear a singer swaying at a microphone, the perception/placement of the drums in a kit and the position of the pianist hands at either side of a piano is more easily distinguished. Actually there is no comparison to the Denon or the CAL, they simply don’t do it. But compared to other high end players the Arcam not only does it but does it better then most at any price.
Dark and alluring can also describe this player. Dark in that it’s extremely quiet, it’s frightening. Alluring because its richness and vocal rendition make you feel like the player is loaded with tubes yet its entirely solid state in design. Detail is never compromised, it has more detail then I have ever heard before in my system yet its never been edgy, harsh or the slightest bit bright.
It’s said this player lacks bass. We’ll I can’t imagine having any more without intentionally unbalancing the player. Bass is deeper, tighter, fuller and richer then I have had to date, certainly more so then the CAL or Denon or anything even remotely similar. More wouldn’t necessarily be better and I don’t think I would want it coming from my player anyhow.

Musicality is an understatement! It’s not in the slightest analytical or digital sounding. It’s as analog as my vinyl rig. Maybe if I was comparing it to a $5000+ VPI I wouldn’t feel so, but compared to anything lesser, surely.
The last and most important is this; Each and every CD I play on this player sounds great! It has made unlistenable CD’s sound wonderful. I have a couple of current favorites that have a harshness and sometimes a distorted edge. I can still hear the distortion and garbage sustained during the recording and/or mixing process but it’s so palatable, it’s actually become enjoyable.

I’ve had to keep a small bucket and mop in my listening room to clean up all the spittle leaking from my open jaw. It’s been over a week and I just keep getting more and more amazed at just how good a GREAT source can be and how much better my system sounds with it. I feel all the time I spent with lesser players, DACs, tubes and wires was all a big waste and time lost from my life I’ll never get back. This player will be hard to best/replace. And for now you would have to pry it from my clenched dead hands to get it away from me.

Now back to some music!

If the ArcamFMJ DVD player is half as good as this (and I think it’s its equal) then I know whose Home Theater player I’m buying next.

[Loftprojection]

Thanks for the info Boead, it's comforting to see I'm not the only one to dislike the sound of the Denon.  I'm also a big fan of Arcam, my receiver is an old Arcam and I haven't been able to find something that sounds nicer in the new receivers below $1500.  

I haven't checked out the Arcam CD players yet but I can tell you that the comments you have on your CD23 are very similar to the ones I had when I demoed the Creek CD50mkII the other day.  That's why I'm so reluctant to buy an external DAC without trying one first, specially if I'm going to use the Denon as a transport!!!

Thanks for your feedback.

[Hantra]

Thanks for the info Boead, it's comforting to see I'm not the only one to dislike the sound of the Denon.  I'm also a big fan of Arcam, my receiver is an old Arcam and I haven't been able to find something that sounds nicer in the new receivers below $1500.  

I haven't checked out the Arcam CD players yet but I can tell you that the comments you have on your CD23 are very similar to the ones I had when I demoed the Creek CD50mkII the other day.  That's why I'm so reluctant to buy an external DAC without  ...

I am a big Arcam fan also, but having A/B'd my old Nixon DAC with a CD-82, there is just no way the margin could be made up by going to the FMJ player.  My opinion anyway. . .

[Loftprojection]

Hantra, what are you using for transport on your Nixon DAC?  I'm sure the transport is very important and in your A/B test, if it beat the Arcam player then you probably had quite a transport.   Have you ever heard the Jolida JD100 CD player?  The output is also based on tubes like the Nixon, I wouldn't be surprised if they sound similar.

I also have an old Rotel CD player and for fun I tried it against the Denon and it sounds a bit nicer!  Maybe it has a not so bad transport but it has only an optical digital out, no coax.

[Hantra]

Hantra, what are you using for transport on your Nixon DAC?  I'm sure the transport is very important and in your A/B test, if it beat the Arcam player then you probably had quite a transport.   Have you ever heard the Jolida JD100 CD player?  The output is also based on tubes like the Nixon, I wouldn't be surprised if they sound similar.

I also have an old Rotel CD player and for fun I tried it against the Denon and it sounds a bit nicer!  Maybe it has a not so bad transport but it has only an optical digital out, no coax.

Right now I am using a PC.  During the aforementioned test I used the Arcam itself.  

I haven't heard the Jolida, but I like Jolida gear.  The key to the Nixon DAC's sound is not the tube, but the topology.  Non-oversampling is where it's at.

[boead]

I am a big Arcam fan also, but having A/B'd my old Nixon DAC with a CD-82, there is just no way the margin could be made up by going to the FMJ player.  My opinion anyway. . .

The CD-82 is an entirely different player. It may be made by Arcam but it’s not even similar to the FMJ CD23T. Arcam has made over a dozen models.

The Arcam Diva CD82 (introduced in 1999) has (2) 24/192 Wolfson DAC’s with BurrBrown opamps. Sold for $950

The Arcam FMJ CD23 (introduced in 2001) has the dCS Ring-DAC’s/dCS output section. It also retailed for $2400.

From talking to people who have heard them, the CD82 doesn’t sound anything like the FMJ 23.

BTW: My buddy had the Jolida JD100 CD player and the Denon DVD-2900 (for SACD and Video). I have taken my CAL Sigma-II to his place for a listen and in many ways the CAL DAC is better then the Jolida JD100 and in other ways its not. The Jolida is very nice with the right tubes. The stock tubes sort of suck!
He auditioned a new Arcam FMJ CD33 (uses 8 Wolfson DAC’s) and upsamples. He liked it but ended up replacing the Jolida with an older Meridian 588.
We compared the Jolida to the Denon as a transport and the Denon was a lot better in every way. We used an MIT digital cable.

I’ve heard lots of nice things about the Scott Nixon but I don’t think it more desirable then the dCS’s in the Arcam. But its certainly a matter of taste. The Nixon is a big bang for the buck but its at the mercy of the transport, clock and digital cable. Too many variables to overcome without spending fists full of money.

[Kevin P]

Matthew Anker is a well respected cd/sacd moder and speaker designer who's work tends to be much less expensive than some of the others.  His 2900 mod runs $700-800... http://www.sacdmods.com/DVD2900.htm

Gordy

I know Matthew and his work and can recommend him highly.   Both John Tucker & Dan Wright also mod this player albet for more than your listed budget.

[Hantra]

I’ve heard lots of nice things about the Scott Nixon but I don’t think it more desirable then the dCS’s in the Arcam. But its certainly a matter of taste....

If the dCS was that good, why is Arcam using Wolfsons in all their new stuff?  Including the FMJ. . .  

I am not arguing.  Just provoking thought. . .

[boead]

I’ve heard lots of nice things about the Scott Nixon but I don’t think it more desirable then the dCS’s in the Arcam. But its certainly a matter of taste....

If the dCS was that good, why is Arcam using Wolfsons in all their new stuff?  Including the FMJ. . .  

I am not arguing.  Just provoking thought. . .

Good point.

Arcam says that dCS was getting too expensive for some of the parts needed and that at least one of the parts were no longer available for manufacturing (only repairs) requiring a replacement. The Wolfson design was already being manufactured by Arcam in lower models, the CD-93T specifically.

Also, the Wolfson 8-chip design is upsampling and apparently upsampling is in style. I’ve come across many that like the dCS better. I’m happy with the dCS model I own.

The CD82 is not upsampling, it uses just two Wolfson chips, not eight and a completely different set of opamps then the FMJ CD33, NOT the same animal. If anything the DiVA CD192 is closest to the FMJ CD33.