Anyone compared Droplet to the Raysonic CD168?

FWIW, as I've never actually heard either CDP (but I do have the 128 purchased on the 6moon reviewers recommendations) SE has reviewed the Droplet as well as Consonances' 'lesser' unit, the 128 and the 168. From these reviews you should be able to envision the differences.

I can assure you of one thing, my humble 128 (using different tubes than those provided!) is very dynamic. Excellent bass, extended highs, very transparent, and never less than musical. It is very tunable for good system matching. I'm sure the 168 might be a tad better, but from my recall of the 6moons review, it was not much more than a tad.

I owned a Droplet and now own a 168, about 5 months....my droplet (owned 3 years) died from an electrical surge. I have a pending claim against the power company.None of my other equipment died and that makes me wonder if this is a "fragile" design." I feel the 168 offers more detail(especially midbass and topend) but with similiar "meat on the bone" image density. With the droplet I would always get some low level transport noise and I experience none with the 168. Both players have a similiar bass presentation and if I had to choose between both I'd go with the Ray only because it is quieter and you have the option of tube rolling the 6922's. the remotes are similiar and also both share a unique design.

Newbee, an idea for you. I have a Ray 128 myself and had been curious about the use of 6N1P tubes in it after reading positive stuff about this Russian tube, which is not exactly a 6922/6DJ8 replacement, but close. I queried Raysonic and got a green light for the substitution. I don't know whether this applies to the 168 or not (didn't ask). A quartet of the 6N1P's from a Ukrainian seller on Ebay cost all of $17.00 including shipping from the Ukraine! I know, sounds weird, but they got to Potomac, MD in less than 10 days. They're in the 128 to stay. I was earlier using Mullards and (my favorites in this CDP) JAN Phillips 6922s. Dave