thanks Yachadm....i'll keep you in mind. i've owned a cd23t & now own a cd23. (sold the cd23t & tried to upgrade & went backwards like we sometimes do). i've owned some good cdp's (cary 306, arc cd mkii, a couple regas) & i prefer the ring dac w/hdcd.
Arcam CD-92 -- good value used?
Do you consider an Arcam CD-92 a reasonable value for a modest system assembled from used components? How well do you think it would stack up against the later CD-73, the Rega Planet 2000 or the Rega Jupiter? For what it's worth, I'm awaiting delivery of a refurbished Arcam CD-92T CD player I picked up via auction for $665 plus shipping. It will replace a Cambridge Audio D500 in a system with B&K Pro-10MC preamp, NAD C270 power amp, Vandersteen 1b speakers, MAS Gray IC's, Cardas Twinlink power cord for CDP, Signal Cable speaker cables. From what I understand, the CD-92 was produced about five or six years ago, part of the same product line as the less expensive CD-62 and CD-72 and the more expensive FMJ-23. Like the prior Alpha 9 and the FMJ-23, the CD-92 used Arcam's version of the dCS Ring DAC. Apparently, it also had an HDCD decoder and Sontech vibration dampening material in the chassis. It's evident that the CD-92 does not offer the latest available technology. Comments on the CD-92 on older Audiogon and AA threads varied considerably, with some describing it as clear and detailed but smooth with deep bass extension, and others describing it as forward, digital-sounding, and thin in the bass. So for those who have owned one for a while, or at least listened to one, do you think this will represent good value, and a reasonable match with the other equipment in the system?
9 responses Add your response
Arcam used pretty mediocre quality capacitors in this unit (unlike the CD73), and as a used unit a few years old, off the shelf, with definite capacitor deterioration, you are NOT going to hear the sound of which it's capable. As a used unit, though, if the price is right, it's a good buy, provided you understand that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you're going to have to invest some effort to bring it up to its true potential. And that effort is worthwhile - after a correct restoration, it is truly spectacular. See my Arcam CD92 restoration here |
HI, I've owned the Arcam CD-92 for several years,and have never had a bad thing to say about it. I've had several not to mention cheaper units,the Ah Tjoeb with upsampler,Sony 999ES Modwright with signature truth mods and the Arcam CD-92 hangs in there only to be beat by the Sony Modwright and that's with the right tubes for my taste.One word of advise for the Arcam is add a bit of dynamat or similar a little at a time because it responds drastic to this.After it is damped to your taste,cut some 3/4x3/4 wood blocks -I used maple getting the idea from the myrtle wood blocks I beleive Ayre uses,and set them under the player raising it off the original footers. I used three blocks,two in front and one in back. Now if you want to further tune the player add some weight to the top of unit in various amounts and locations a bit at a time. I found the weight was not necessary after the chassis was dampened. My experience was the dampening really smoothed out the response and the wood footers actually increased the bass.I have never owned a cd player that respnded to these tweeks before,but can tell you without a doubt it is a serious upgrade.I also use a custom power cord that seems to add a bit also. My Sony modwright was recently sent back to be repaired due to a lightening storm so I broght the Arcam back out until the Modwright returns amd I have to tell you,it was quite refreshing especially on first listen of the Arcam. I told myself for the money of this player and its accuracy of music reproduction ,It crossed my mind to sell the Modwright on return. The bottom line is they are giving these players away at 600.00-800.00 bucks. and if you're looking to upgrade,spend some serious time looking at your other equippment before sending the Arcam cd-92 down the road. |
It arrived. I hooked it up. On first listen, it sounds clear, transparent, detailed, musical, not harsh. The texture of a bowed cello is right there. Pace, rhythm and timing are neither fast nor slow, just natural, better than my CA D500 in that regard. Bass is audible well down the scale, but it's not bass-heavy. Sounds good! |
Just piping up again as for the cd92 forward ,digital sounding,and thin in bass,Not at all to all 3 of those,if you have some of those problems its somewhere else in the system,it isnt the Arcam.Obviously it depends on system,I have cj Sonographe sa250,about as smooth and relaxed as anything ive heard.Legacy studio monitor speakers.Arcam cd92T,Atoll pr 200 pre amp,Signal cable all around,except for Apogee Wyde Eye amp to pre amp. |
Ive ranted about these,I gotta check my records but Bluecirclehead ,didnt I sell you that cd player?Anyway I missed it missed it so much i had to buy another one.I had a Cambridge 500 se,it was ok,nothing compared to the 92,,yes you need a aftermarket cord,the difference,well i let you experience that for yourself,its the ring dac,its outstanding.Inbetween my 92s i had a cd33,sold it and went back to the 92. |
I have a cd92. It replaced a Roksan Kandy and it was an excellent step up. When I compared it to a cd23 a couldn't hear any difference. One thing that really improved the cd player was a good power cord. FWIW, this is what I have in my setup: Von Schweikert VR-2 Blue Circle CS Integrated Arcam CD92 Signal Cable Silver Resolution Speaker cables and IC. PCs: Nucleus Polestar with Oyaide 046 ends (CD), and VH Audio Flavor 2 for the integrated. Bright Star Audio IsoRock 4 under the arcam I used to have the Mas Grey ICs and changed them for SC Silver Resolution. I preferred the SC in my system. As far as I know, the rega planet 2000 is as good if not better than the arcam cd92, but one would be splitting hairs here. I doubt there is a substantial difference. |
Pete, I don't want to rain on your parade, but I purchased CD-92(non-T version) hoping it would replace my Cambridge D500se. Well, it didn't. I spent about the same you are for yours(great deal!). I was hoping it was going to sound much better than the Cambridge, but it didn't. I found them very similar. In fact I couldn't destinguish the difference between them and I really wanted the Arcam to sound better. For the extra $400-$500 it cost(used) I was disappointed and I turned around and sold it. However, yours it the "T" version which was/is newer than the version I had. Build quality is great though. I've had to replace the display lamps in my Cambridge already, which is something I thought I would never have to do. Your results may vary and I hope they do. Maybe it's system dependant. Best of luck. |