Review: Raysonic 128 CDP CD Player

Thanks heaps for the review !
I have been keen on it reading the reviews so far and you seem to be confirming it.
It seems to have the qualities I am after .
Cheers

Newbie, thanks for pointing me towads your review. I too and toying with replacing the Cal pieces.

Newbee - thanks for a very helpful and interesting review. Do you like the Raysonic CD128 more than the BAT? Did you prefer Wadi and the Cal stuff to the BAT as well? I've heard the BAT VK-D5 and compared it to a Shanling CDT100. The BAT blew the Shanling out of the water in retrieval of detail, more extended highs and lows, better air etc\. The BAT was more natural sounding than the Chinese made Shanling, which I still admire for what it is. The Shanling just sounded rather flat and unexciting in comparison. Perhaps that is their design goal. I was hoping that is not the case with the Raysonic.

I'm interested in a Raysonic CD128, but I lean toward a more detailed, extended and dynamic presentation that retains an analog tube sweetness. So I am concerned it might still not yield the extention of highs and lows, with airy instrument placement etc. Your thoughts?

Hi Groberts3

Wish I had an easy answer to your question - so much on your end results depends on the rest of your system that its hard to predict how any one piece of equipment will actually interface with your other components.

FWIW I just listened to 4 different digital front ends in one system (all tubes) - the BAT, the Cal Delta/Alpha, the Wadia 302, and the Raysonic. The Cal, Wadia, and Raysonic were all very similar in linearity, tonally speaking. The Wadia was very clean and smooth - no added 'tube' artifice in the highs. The Raysonic was similar with a bit more high end detail (not up-tilted highs) and sounded just a tad more forward, something I can easily control with tube selection if I chose to do so. The Cal was similar to each except that it was more compressed, had slightly brighter highs and less bass.

Now to the BAT. I found in this system, compared to the above units, and playing only one recording of solo piano music which is a recording of a long love for me from LP's thru CD's, the BAT had slightly softer but fullish bass, and a slightly recessed mid-range which created, IMHO, a 'sense' of brightness in the highs which actually wasn't there. What seemed apparent is that the BAT is a bit resessive in the mid range. This is not the first time I noted this 'balance' and over the first years I had the BAT (1998/9) the CAL actually 'sounded' better because of my preference for its balance in the system I was then using.

Now, to make your decision more difficult, I have another system which I have set up (all tubes) in which I have changed out the factory designated tubes, KT88's, and have inserted SED 6550's. These tubes change the sonic's of this system by smoothing out the upper-mids and highs, restoring tonal balance, and reduces any bass bloom, giving a tight and deep bass. In that system the BAT sings!!!!!!!!! Clean, clear, smooth and much more balanced.

I don't know if this will make any sense to you, but my conclusion is that the Raysonic will sound much more balanced in a SS (assuming that is your system) than the BAT.

I hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask further questions if you think I can clarify anything.

I asked a 6Moons reviewer whether an NOS machine would not be better than the oversampling Raysonic.
Having read a number of different reviews of NOS and OS machines, I began to have the impression that NOS were perhaps SET-like (excellent on timing, but a little lean) while OS were more push-pull-like (not so good on timing and a little overblown); but he told me that it all depends how the design is implemented.

Indeed, according to this reviewer, the Raysonic is very close in sound to the NOS Zanden. If that is so, it should be quite something!

He also points out that the Raysonic is a top loader, so that eliminates potential drawer issues.

See also http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=digital&m=123009
for another positive review.

However, there is a strong rejection of the principle of ASCR which this asylum member claims is used by the Raysonic, here,
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/123552.html

"It is yet another CD source that uses asynchronous sample-rate conversion ("24b/96khz upsampling")- One feature that I'd personally avoid like the plague." Posted by Todd Krieger

There is also a not so positive review by a Marc Philip (who appears not to like any tube based CDP), but he is also comparing the Raysonic with a much more expensive Classé machine.
http://magazine-audio.com/actualite/reportages/82

Marc PHILIP (said to be an independent journalist), was visiting Rotac électronique inc, a shop or importer in Québec.
In a French language web magazine, he likens its sound to that of the Shanling, and can't understand the present taste for valves in CD players.

He says he far prefers the Classé CD which he claim is more dynamic, having a more realistic soundstage.

Of course, I do not know how independent such journalists are. Perhaps this does point to the Raysonic, being better in an SS system rather than a valve system. However, Classé is made in Montreal and Raysonic is based in Montreal, I don't know whether they may be a little regional rivalry here.

"La comparaison directe avec le lecteur de CD Classé, ne laisse aucun doute, le Classé CDP 10Z est beaucoup plus performant, le son est plus dynamique et pour tout dire plus réaliste, la scène sonore reprend une taille généreuse, avec un piqué sur le piano notamment, qui nous est apparu en tout point parfait et quelle belle extention dans les deux bouts du spectre, il n’y a rien à faire Classé, fabrique des appareils remarquables."

I believe the Raysonic is hard-wired to the tube bases, so that could allow the use of very different tubes from the original ones.

Thank you for this review, I am tempted to buy one myself.