Arcam Comparison

The FMJ CD23 is miles better than the CD72 (itself a good multibit player for the price). It also has more presence than the CD92 while sharing many of the latter's virtues. I don't know about the CD82 but I think it's a clone of the 72.

And so the CD23 should be better, when you compare the prices. I have the upsampling CD93 since funds don't extend into the FMJ range, and I'll happily die with it. I've heard that digital theory warns against upsampling players. Who cares? Mine sounds magnificent in my system in my room and I didn't re-mortgage the house to buy it.
 
Not considering ditching that fabulous TMA front-end are you, sane4sure?

I doubt anything Arcam has to offer would significantly improve upon it.

DT
 
McLogan, thanks for the info - I think the FMJ will be out of my price range but those 'lesser' Arcam offerings may be just what I need!

Dynamic Turtle, the TAG gear has got to go to fund other projects (see my ad in the For Sale section) and I'm struggling to find something to 'downgrade' to that will still sound good!
 
The Fmj23 is the best out of the players you state the 92 is close but lack in the bottom end compared to the cd23. IMO the cd23 is a better player than the cd33.
 
Shame that - lovely system you've got there. You'll miss it loads I'm sure. Can't think of an obvious replacement - best go for some older kit perhaps?

You should be able to get some early ninties Meridian digital pretty cheap - look at the 206/7/8 cdp's. Loads about on ebay at sensible prices.

Amp wise, I could happily live with an MF X-A1 or X-A2. 50wpc of very sweet, musical amplification for around £250.

DT
 
I don't know about the FMJ33, but I have the DiVA CD192 and I am finding it every bit as musical as the Alpha 9 used to be whilst being smoother still, having more air, bigger soundstage, etc. Some people have said the bass lacks a bit of impact and definition on the upsampling players compared to the Alpha 9/CD92 but this is not evident at Technobear Towers where I have had the opportunity to compare the two side by side. The CD192 has thwack a plenty and goes deep and firm with plenty of detail.

Of course mine lives in a rather pampered environment being fed by a Sounds Fantastic, a Trichord Powerblock and an Omiga mains cable as well as sitting on a Seismic Sink. All these things help considerably but it was still very good for the money without them.

The CD92T was very similar in construction to the Alpha 9 although was not rated quite as highly by reviewers for some reason.

The CD23 was also essentially an Alpha 9 in a posh frock with a better power supply and a more solid case. Sounds like the 9 only better. Definitely a good second hand buy.

The CD93T ditched the RingDAC of the Alpha 9 and went for a 24bit upsampling jobbie. I didn't listen extensively but what I did hear sounded good to me.

The CD192 looks similar on paper to the CD93T except that Arcam found a way of lowering the price by 50 quid. I am very satisfied with mine :cool:

I think it's time I had a bake-off so you can all judge for yourselves :D
 
Just as an aside, what are your thoughts on laying out less cash and buying an older alpha 7, 8 or 9?

And, to try and keep the missus happy, I'd like to have a 'matching' amp. How good are the Arcam offerings?
 
I found the Alpha 7 and 8 a little wanting in the smoothness department (although in line with the competition at that price). The Alpha 9 is a completely different animal and set the standard at its price point for the entire time it was in production. Just 10 seconds is all it takes to hear the difference. It's that obvious.
 
Just noticed you're using a DAC20. Boy are you in for a surprise. Hee hee!

I forget now how many were present when we pitted the Alpha 9 against a DAC20 but only one preferred the DAC20.

If you can find them, my choice second hand would be a CD23 and an A32.
 
Alas Technobear me thinks those babies are going to be over budget!

Hmmm, an Alpha 9 outperforming my beloved DAC20, I may have to buy one just to hear that for myself!

Do you think the 9 amp and the 9 CD will work as a 'cheap' version of your recommended CD23/A32?
 
sane4sure said:
Do you think the 9 amp and the 9 CD will work as a 'cheap' version of your recommended CD23/A32?
Click to expand...

Yes. I used to use my 9 with an 8R and an 8P bi-amped into Mission 773e's. A very good system for the money.

Dunno what interconnects you have but QED Qunex 2 worked well and is relatively affordable. I upgraded to Van den Hul D102 mkIII when some came up second hand - nicely neutral, smooth and transparent. Try what you already have first though.

I used (still use) QED Silver Anniversary speaker cable.

Physical isolation helps to get the best top end transparency and clarity from the CD player. I use a Seismic Sink but there are plenty of budget options - Foculpods for example.

Mains isolation helps too. This will improve transparency and lower the noise floor from top to bottom. The Olson Sounds Fantastic was a sound buy. The Trichord Powerblock is superb and pretty much makes the Olson redundant. On a budget - Eupen GNLM 05/2.5 is what I used. Don't go for the thicker 05/04; it will make the bass overblown (works well on the sub :) ).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris, I have VDH interconnects (can't remember which model) and DNM Reson speaker cables. I'll definately be keeping my Quad 22L's (there's only so much I'm prepared to sacrifice!) As to supports and mains filters etc, I'm a bit of a heretic in that I've yet to hear the benefits!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top