Arcam fmj cd23 vs cd33


Which do you prefer? Why?
CD23 with ring DAC with HDCD
vs
CD33 with WM8740 stereo DAC without HDCD

Assume that the price and condition is about the same (for used).
128x128ihcho
For me, among many upgrades done over 6 years, the biggest difference was from Yaqin MC10L (Chinese 55WPC int tube amp) to Linn SS power amp/Rogue tube pre amp -- $550 vs $4800 if new.
The second, from B&W 603 S3 to Tyler Taylo 7U -- $1000 vs $3500 if new.
Third, from $100~$250 MM cartridges to AT150mlx.
Fourth, from NAD C541i to Arcam CD23 -- $500 vs $2000 if new.
... including speaker wires, interconnects, power cable, turntable upgrades, ...

As seen, the CD player upgrade was not as big improvement as with others mentioned, but still big enough to readily notice, and bigger than many other upgrades I've done.

Yes, I gotta dig in CDs to enjoy music again.
I would have to agree that the FMJ 23 is an exceptional player. What is has, that many other (current and otherwise) players do not is the "breath of life."
What I mean by this is that it sounds as though a real human being is playing the instrument, not just the sound of the instrument. This may be related to microdynamics: the sense that each note played is different in intensity and duration than the one before it. I bought it twice and have listened to many players since then, yet it is still the player I compare others to. I wouldn't call it the highest resolution player, but to me, the point of music is to FEEL it, and in this, the Arcam trumps other players in spades. In fact, I was looking at a used one right before this thread and thought I might sell my Rega Apollo to get it. It (the FMJ) has airiness, musicality, drive, rhythm, feeling and emotion. What it does NOT have is the lowest octave (but I don't listen to much organ music, nor the lowest notes of the piano). I NEVER felt it lack propulsion: the first time I heard it with the ASL Hurricanes, my jaw dropped. As a former reviewer, that's happened only 3 or 4 times in my existence: When I heard the Jadis Defy 7 matched to Avalon Eclipse speakers (well, I DID have a Versa Dynamics turntable at the time (1991), but that's beside the point; The Avalons themselves which are so grainless that only the Sound Dynamics RTS 3s match them (and those are killer speakers, but people don't seem to understand that lack of grain = live mike feed, a la live broadcasts from the Metropolitan Opera); the Hurricanes and the Arcam. Oh, yes, the Manger speakers, which I was going to review for Ultra Audio, but UPS had clearly dropped the box. The speaker worked until I moved it downstairs at which time something came loose and one speaker died, but they are dazzling. I have not heard Magicos, but I would think Manger can match them. My brother, no audiophile, said the Mangers were the first speakers he heard that he could believe a live person was playing them. A shame they are A) expensive and B) rare.
Back to the Arcam. It still haunts me, even though I have the Cambridge Audio 840C. In fact, I may just get the Arcam again. There's little to complain about, other than the bass. It does soundstaging extremely well, has super image focus and specificity, you'll hear air expand around a piccolo -- in the BACK of the orchestra, and a sense of continuousness alien to many other players.
Ihcho is right: it surpasses the Rega in the sense of sounding more like the live mike feed from the Met I'm in Connecticut, only 90 miles away, and the signal from the Met is quite "alive" sounding.
Some people have complained that the Arcam is "forward" sounding, which means nothing more than the standup bass on a jazz recording sounds 4 feet away from you rather than 8, but the Arcam changes perspective according to the recording, a sign of a LACK of artificial perspective. Close recordings sound a tad closer (doesn't bother me), but distant ones sound distant as well. Havin glived in San Francisco prior to this and having heard recording of the San Frnancisco Symphony Orchestra (in Davies Hall), I can attest that they sound very distant, which, as I recall seeing microphone placement there, correct. The mics are at balcony level and it sounds as though you are hearing DOWN into the orchestra, which is exactly right.
I never understood why it was not more popular. Oh, and it reveals both the texture of an instrument (wood instruments sound like wood) and the tracks shifts in human emotion (meaning, if a singer sounds angry, you hear it: if he/she is playful, the player reveals that as well). I heard, while reviewing the Tetra 405s, a song, from a test CD, where the singer was clearly depressed. I haven't yet heard another player make the guy sound that depressed and I've gone through the Meridian 508.24, Consonance Droplet 5.0, the Rega, the Cambridge and a few others. The only player that came close was, given how cheap it was, was the JVC line: XL Z-1010TN,and the 1050 players.
The Arcam is an outstanding player.
I agree that Arcam cd23 is a bit forwarding and shy of base. But those are not much of concern when I can feel superb quality of music it produces.
I have Tyler Taylo 7U speakers. One of my friends asked to have them for a while and now I have my systems with Klipsh KLF-20s which are used in HT setup.
What a disappointment on KLF-20. With KLF-20, Arcam cd23 does not sound much different than NAD C541i or Marantz DR700. Just louder, but that's it.
With Arcam cd23, I can tell that KLF-20 is much lesser speaker than Taylo 7U. With NAD or Marantz, I did not notice such huge difference between KLF-20 and Taylo 7U, which tells a potential CD23 has.
I will have my Taylo 7U back soon.
Gbmcleod, you were waxing very enthusiastic when you first got a Cambridge 840C. How did that turn out, and how would you compare it to the Arcam?
Drubin, I still enjoy the Cambridge, but I have to say that its slight reticence of power in the bass is one of its few flaws. It needs a bit more power to it.
I have to say that I like Arcam's sound. Some people have pointed out that it's "forward"- sounding, which hardly disqualifies it for me. I find that type of sound to simply make the performance seem more immediate. Also, unless I'm wrong, the Arcam's images are more solid and layered in a continuous arc.
They're both great players, but it's funny how, years later, after several highly touted players, I would enjoy having an Arcam among my group of players.
Incidentally, the Arcam's midbass is fine, just the low bass is a bit cut off. It has plenty of midbass power and dynamics, from my memory of it.