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
jafant's avatar
jafant
20,525 posts
 
Hello BIF,

sure, at more than twice the price, the CD9 will sound better than the CD5. If you do not need a killer DAC, go for a CD5 or CD7- that is the better money spent.

I would be interested in the newer CD6- it is priced way too high at $8K retail. If I were ARC, I would have set the price at $4995 = better value, IMO.
jafant's avatar
jafant
20,525 posts
 
BIF-

the CD5 is a killer player, no frills, best money spent.
The CD9 is more than 2x the price, will sound a bit better (my ears) abd has the killer DAC (really what one pays).

ARC could have done better on the new CD6 price-wise as it is over priced at suggested $8K retail?
bifwynne OP
2,206 posts
 
Jafant ... the Ref CD-8 is a hot-rodded up CD-5 with tubes. They use the same BB 1796 PCM DAC chip. I gather from your posts that if I am not really interested in picking up a general purpose DAC, it might not make much sense to go with either the CD-6 or CD-9. Is that your view?
jafant's avatar
jafant
20,525 posts
 
Yes BIF. In the CD9 one is paying for a DAC (first) and CD transport (second). Nothing wrong w/ this, as many competitors are building the very same.

If you like tubes, buy a CD7 used and spend the leftover $$$$ elsewhere.
bifwynne OP
2,206 posts
 
Thanks Jafant, but I already owned the CD-7 and traded up to the CD-8. IMO, the CD-8 sounds better than the CD-7, probably because the CD-8 uses the newer Burr Brown 1796 PCM DAC. The CD-6 and CD-9 use a later version of the BB DAC ... the BB 1796A PCM and use it in some type of quad mono configuration, probably to handle the DAC side of the house.

As I mentioned above, I surmise that the bottleneck is NOT my CDP; instead it's the fair to poor quality of CDs. Sad irony is that many folks are bailing on redbook CD in favor of other digital media sources for the wrong reasons.

IMO, if folks are moving in another direction because of convenience ... that's ok by me. Who am I say say no.

But .. if folks are moving on because redbook CD is obsolete and just doesn't sound that good, there I take some exception. I don't think the problem is the technology. Instead, as stated above, it's fair to poor redbook CD recordings.

I've recently picked up some "Gold" quality hi-rez CDs -- WOW!! Buckle up and prepare to be impressed.
More to discover