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
 
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
121 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.
jafant's avatar
jafant
19,771 posts
 
BIF-

how did the CD7 sound w/ Rock, Jazz and Pop music?
Will you be stepping up to the CD9? Or perhaps the new CD6 anytime soon? Keep me posted.
bifwynne OP
2,206 posts
 
Jafant, I thought the CD-8's sonic presentation was livelier and more transparent than the CD-7 in all musical applications. As I recall, because the CD-7 was a bit bass thick, this characteristic tended to over-emphasize the low-end of rock, jazz and pop music that was already bass heavy.

You also asked "[w]ill you be stepping up to the CD9? Or perhaps the new CD6 anytime soon?"

Given some of the comments above, I am concerned that the additional cost of moving into the CD-6 or 9 may not be justified in terms of the augmented benefit. So, I guess for me the jury is still out.

But I look forward to reading comments from members who made the move. I just don't know. I think I may have reached the point of diminishing returns with my system.

By the way, I just picked up a super hi-rez redbook CD -- Tango -- from Acoustic Sounds. It sounds great!! More comments to follow. It will take a lot to convince me that redbook CD is dead.
More to discover