2. digital
  3. 1393650200

ARC Ref CD-8 compared to CD-6 and/or Ref CD-9

Looking for comments from members who might have compared the ARC Ref CD-8 to the newly minted CD-6 and/or Ref CD-9, principally focusing on the redbook CDP function.

Based on a conversation with ARC, I understand that the redbook CD playback circuitry in the 3 models is similar, but not exact. Principal differences are upgraded coupling caps and the DAC configuration.

The Ref CD-8 used Burr Brown PCM 1792 chips configured in stereo mode. By contrast, the CD-6 and Ref CD-9 use the BB PCM 1792A, but configured in quad mono mode.

Also, the CD-6 and Ref CD-9 upsample and have fast/slow filter options. The Ref CD-8 does not offer these options.

Obviously, techno-babble aside, what counts most is how the CDPs sound. ARC says the CD-6 and Ref CD-9 have better dynamics and bandwidth, and lower distortion than the Ref CD-8. Not surprisingly, the new issues sound better.

So ... has anyone had a chance to road test the new players. Even better, compare them to the Ref CD-8. If they newest offerings are markedly better, maybe I should put on the bucket list. Oh ... mainly interested in the redbook functionality.

Thanks

BIF
bifwynne
jakegt3
40 posts
 
Bifwynne - I'm just curious in what ways you found the CD8 superior to the CD7. I currently own the CD7 and have debated whether to upgrade to a CD8 (used one, of course). I have not been able to audition a CD8 but I see them for sale at prices that are starting to become tempting. The CD7 is wonderful in many ways but I have my own thoughts on how it could be improved. The rest of my electronics are all ARC.
bifwynne OP
2,206 posts
 
As I said, I used to own the CD-7. Compared to the CD-8, I found the CD-7's sonic presentation to be a touch dark; almost thick. IMO, I think imaging is a bit better with the CD-8. Also, better dynamics, drum hits and so forth.

The two main differences between the 7 and 8 are power supply and DAC. The CD-7's PS was modified by removing 2 6H30s and replacing with a single 5881. Honestly, I don't know if the 5881 sounds the same as a 6550, but it is a difference.

The other difference is that the CD-8 uses a BB DAC. The CD-7 used another brand, the name of which escapes me.

Hey look .. the CD-7 is a fine player. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Bruce

jakegt3
40 posts
 
Bruce,

I understand how you might consider the CD7 "a touch dark; almost thick". To my ears the CD7 has a strong midrange presence that makes instruments sound more full-bodied. I actually like it a lot on classical music. Other players give a thinner sounding presentation, which is why the CD7 might sound thick in comparison.

On the other hand, this midrange presence seems to create the impression of a slight lack of top end "air". It's only a minor fault IMO, but a player that combines the midrange qualities of the CD7 with a bit more air would be perfect. I'm wondering whether the CD8 is like that.
bifwynne OP
2,206 posts
 
Your comments make sense Jake. As I said, the CD-7 is a fine player. You might be able to pick up a preowned CD-8 for not too much money with a flip of the CD-7. I happen to like the CD-8 over the CD-7. But that's my opinion.
whitecap
120 posts
 
I too moved from the CD-7 to CD-8, and my experience matches closely Bifwynne's well said observations about the differences between the two. Both are great CDPs, but that extra bit of top end air that Jakegt3 seeks is there in the CD-8.
More to discover