Opera Consonance Linear 2.2 or Raysonic 128?

Not exactly side by side but more like room by room.

In comparison:

It is like Cambridge 840/740 and Rega Apollo or Saturn.

Raysonic like Cambridge is very detail, forward and resolution to benefit the system with a little laid back characteristics that might use a small overdoes of sparkle and clean frowardness.
It can be very rewarding in the right system.
However, careful match with the other components is crucial.

Consonance Linear 2.2 is more laid back, sound wise easy on the ears without the edginess and brightness that never fails to disgust me. Consonance is like KOTO and Shin- Shinto Japanese swords. Another words KOTO being the last era of the old masters and techniques in art of the the sword making. A special attention to details, pride of ownership and tradition. While Shin-Shinto is the beginning the new period in sword making. Quality was still great but never match the old school, traditional masters. Opera Consonance Linear 2.2 is somewhere between the old and the new. It is implementing new technology and techniques with the old school of fluid, musical, sweet - tube wormed sound.
That is what I like and that is my choice between the two.

Which one is the CDP that you think might suit you better????
I do not know.
It is a personal decision and it is you who have got to make it.

Cheers

I had a demo Consonance linear 2.2 in house and thought that it was great on good sounding cd's. However, with the majority of cd's I did not like it at all. It didn't really have any smoothing qualities to it, so if the cd is edgy you will get hit in the face with that edge because of the dynamics. On most recording I preferred the MKII. It sounds more holographic and tube like than the linear. I demoed it strictly out of curiosity as I was a MKII owner and wanted to know how they compared after I heard the cd120 linear. I actually prefer the cd120 linear to the ref 2.2.

Not the comparison that you are looking for but I thought I would share my thoughts on one of the players in question nonetheless.

Regards,
Mike

Thanks to everyone who replied. Unfortunately, as I mentioned I not in a position to audition either components so I have to go in blind. I have a MHZS 88E currently and like it, but dont know how much (and what) either of these units will add. I would appreciate any info that is posted

thanks
Sri

Sri, I actually agree with Midnitemick...

For the same price as the Reference CD2.2 Linear, in my opinion, the Consonance Reference CD2.2 MKII is clearly the superior product. Both players use the 6H30 Supertube in the output stage, but the MKII version offers 24 bit/192 KHz oversampling, volume control/variable output, and XLR outputs, whereas the Linear features the 16 bit/44 KHz non-oversampling architecture, and fixed RCA outputs only. The MKII version offers a solidity, low-end weight, and more relaxed, liquid nature that certainly makes it the far more analog sounding component.

I feel strongly enough in this position, that I have stopped marketing the Reference CD2.2 Linear in favor of the Reference CD.2 MKII, as I felt offering both of them created more confusion in the minds of the dealers and customers. I spent significant time with each player, with the end goal being to simply put my energy behind the better one, and came to the conclusion that the MKII was the winner. Of course, ANY product that Consonance manufactures can be ordered for a customer, I just choose to limit what I advertise in the interest of clarity.

It's not as if I'm opposed to the non-oversampling architecture, I'm not. In fact, I believe that the Audio Note digital products are some of the best in the industry. And, at $995, I'm not sure there's a player that eclipses our CD120 Linear. But, when one is ready to take the next step, our Reference CD2.2 MKII and new CD120T are the components I hang my hat on.

Again, this is my opinion, and mine alone. I have encountered a person or two (including my friend, Ian Large, the Opera Audio/Consonance distributor in the UK) who feel otherwise. And, in their defense, I would say the Linear version is probably a bit more insightful and open, even if I find it more "digital" sounding.

DISCLAIMER: I am the importer/distributor for Opera Audio/Consonance products in the USA and Canada

VSR,

I own both units and more or less concur with Mrjstark's observations. Linear 2.2 will yield a very natural relaxed analogue type of sound. As Mike noted, you'll not be spared re: the quality of the recording on the CD. The Raysonic provides a nicely detailed and slighty less warm sound. Soundstage-wise, taking into account the effect room in as much as possible, the Raysonic is a bit more up front vis a vis the Consonance, think 2nd row vs, say, 8th row. Buildwise, both are exceptional for the $$.

Good luck.

Cheers,
Garry