[Review] Cambridge Audio azur 640c CD player - initial impressions

Cambridge Audio azur 640c CD player - initial impressions

So, anyway, there I was on Saturday afternoon listening to some music instead of listening to my HiFi (you lot remember that, right? ) when there was a small "pop/crunch" from my CD player, and the music cut off. Then a bit of painful sounding whirring, then nothing.

Ah.

My faithful Rotel RCD-865 had finally thrown a rope over the rafters and hurled itself off the desk.

New CD player required.

Right, now I was more than happy with the sound I'd had, which means one of two things:

1) I must be either a crosseyed clotheared nitwit who can't tell good HiFi from bad, or

2) I can hear OK but I'd got just up to the level where I had a sound I liked, was satisfied with, and didn't feel the need to improve too much more.

Either way, I wanted something of a similar standard to my old Rotel, £300 worth about 12-13 years ago. And, since I'd got a minidisk recorder in the interrim, an optical out was something I wanted. So I went off to my local Richers (stop the booing) and asked them what they had that fitted my brief. Obviously, they tried some flannelage, and good luck to them, it's their job and that, but to be fair, rather than trying to tell me that their "exclusive" brands were the best, the first player they recommended was an NAD, the BEE thingy. But fine words butter no parsnips, it didn't have an optical out, it was a non-starter. I then went through the list of what they did have that fit my criteria, and commited the cardinal hi-fi sin of "OK I'll have one of those, then" thinking that, it's got good reviews everywhere, it's the right price/feature set/availability etc.

I know, I know, some of you are holding your head in your hands now, some of you are saying "won't somebody think of the children", etc. but sod it, I just wanted a decent CD player to continue the sound I'd had. So, anyway, I plumbed it in, turned it on, whacked in a disc, pressed "play" and hoped it sounded similar enough to my old one to not make me think, oh well, but to be fair, I had high hopes.

As soon as the first notes of the music (Goldfrapp's "Lovely Head") came out of the speakers, I froze. Even in the first couple of seconds, straight out of the box, before the 36 hours warm up they recommend on a sticker on the casing, there were all sorts of things in there I'd never heard before. You could hear the end of the whistling loop, the utter black for a beat, then the new loop starting, the drums kicked in, but all of a sudden you could hear the hihat being worked on the snare beat as well as the brushes. And there was bass, loads of bass. And in a good way.

Hmm... wasn't expecting this big a jump in sound. Let's try something a bit dirtier, see how that works. "Young Soul Rebels" by Dexy's, specifically "There, There My Dear". Blimey, that trumpet's definitely hiding somewhere in the room, but I'm buggered if I can see him. Very good, very good indeed.

OK, last one, "Led Zep Remasters" and "Kashmir". Shit! Duck! We're being mortared! No, hang on, it's just John Bonham. Blimey, my cheeks ache. I've just been smiling for about 7 minutes solid.

Initial impressions are "encouraging" to say the least.

 

Bodes well for the new Azur range. I've had my eye on the new Azur 640 amp IF I choose to replace my Alto 35 (unlikely right now). But I think I'll wait for Richer to drop the price. Bound to happen at some point.

 

Thanks for that review I'm thinking of getting one of those CD players.

 

How well do you think it will compare to a Sony CD530? I am thinking about getting one but not too sure yet. I just really love the looks so much.

 

Never heard that Sony, so can't really compare, but what I do know is that, to my ears, the Cambridge sounds terrific. Loads better than my old Rotel, which I'd always thought sounded better than other, newer CD players whenever I'd heard them. I was waiting for my rotel to turn up it's toes, it was 13-14 years old after all, so I started auditioning at home in the under "£250" bracket a few months ago. The best out of the bunch that I heard was the NAD BEE one, followed by the Marantz 5400. Neither one gave me a vastly nicer sound than my rotel.

I know I bought the CA one on spec without hearing (which I am aware is a big no-no), but I'm glad I did. It put a bigger grin on my face than either the NAD or the Marantz.

I think that if you do plump for the CA one, you won't be dissatisfied.

 

I think its worth keeping an eye out for that then, I wait a year or so until its £149.95 - we must be crazy at Richers.

Or if my Sony packs in the CA will probably be very high on my list at £250.

 

Hi Amazingtrade,

The one thing that has improved over the last couple of years is disc tech (IMO). So with the trickle down effect a £200 cd player must be a big improvement. I have noticed that cd players over a £1000 seem not to be improving (according to some on this site), maybe they have Platoed. I for one thought the Arcam cd23 was better than the cd33.

 

Haven't heard the Cambridge, but own the NAD C521BEE. I've got an MD deck as well, but solved the problem with a coax to optical converter from Maplins.

Glad you like the CA player - it certainly looks the part and may have been on my audition list if Richers was local. However, the trade-in offer from my local dealer for my RCD-W3 was difficult to resist and the minute I heard the NAD, I was hooked