Cambridge 840c vs. Bryston BCD-1 vs. Ayre CX-7e

I had the ayre in my system for a long time, but the 840c has amazing specs. Not to mention is years newer, and cheaper. Id like to hear the 840c.

I eventually bought a Bryston, after auditioning cdps from Arcam, Cambridge, Naim, Primare, and Rega. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to hear the Ayre.

The Arcam FMJ 37 was probably the most analytical of the bunch. It impressed on first auditioning, by really separating out very distinctly everything that was going on in a complex recording, but as one listened on, it became clear that it could be fatiguing over the long haul. Timbrally pretty neutral I would say.

The Rega Saturn struck me as middle of the road, clean, but ultimately a little "polite".

The Primare CD31 and Naim CD5x were both good, very listenable units, relatively warm and well-rounded (good timbral qualities), players that one could no doubt live with long term, but which ultimately didn't distinguish themselves, didn't stand out from the pack.

The Cambridge Audio Azur 840c was my runner up. I went back and forth a couple of times between it and the Bryston. It was neither too analytical nor too warm, very balanced, good timbrally, lots and lots of air. Instruments floating in three-dimensional space.

The BCD-1 has many excellent attributes, but what struck me most (or what struck me first), was its authority in the bass. I'm guessing that this has to do with how Bryston handles the output stages. It is in another league compared to all the other units I've mentioned. It gives the music an incredible robustness. As I listen mainly to large-scale, nineteenth-century, orchestral music, this is a particular plus for me. When the massed double-basses really dig down deep, they really dig. (Think the opening bars of Mahler's 2nd.) This in turn gives the rest of the reproduction an excellent base (no pun intended). Very fine player also in terms of neutrality, timbral rightness, soundstage, imaging, etc. I heard none of the "dryness" I've occasionally seen mentioned in reviews. Perhaps the 840c nosed it out in the "air" department, but after considerable back-and-forth auditioning, the BCD-1 was a clear winner.

I think the Cambridge and the Bryston are excellent units. I'm sure the Ayre is too. Beyond that, it's more a question of system synergy, and what qualities are particularly important to you as a listener. As usual, horses for courses.

Seams like Bryston masters bass response, itss the same as in my 9bsst amp

I would not, personally, put the Droplet ahead of the Cambridge unless you like fuzzy sound. I once reviewed the Droplet, and found it warm, fuzzy and not terribly pure sounding, as though all the instruments had a halo around it. I noticed one of my colleagues also wrote about it for Soundstage, I believe, and noted the same thing (maybe we had the same model). This was around 2005.
The Cambridge is considerably purer sounding, perhaps to the point of being less forceful (purity, something the Goldmund Mimesis 9 amp had in spades, sometimes means "it doesn't 'let go'" of the sound. The Cambridge is slightly restrained, but I haven't tested it in balanced mode, where it was said by Robert Harley to have more muscular bass. For all that, the treble on the Cambridge has a purity that is NOT boring: it is tonally lovely, without being technicolor. In fact, I hear the amp more than the CD player, and I had a Parasound JC2 for a few weeks, but couldn't get around the lightweight sound of it and the Cambridge combined, even with ASL Hurricanes, which means the two preceding components were pretty lightweight indeed!
I don't recall liking the Droplet very much at all, due to the murkiness of the sound. Too mushy for me. Perhaps the Droplet got updated after the reviews, which were back in 2005 and doesn't sound mushy now.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. How did the Droplet get into this string? I was comparing the *Bryston* to the Cambridge....