Relief? The New Digital Players


On a digital note is anyone relieved that the preliminary reports on the new digital format/players are not all that favoring IMO? I keep hearing the word "thin" used to describe the sound, both from this site as well as a few dealers that have attended trade shows. I have wanted a second CD source and have been kind of placed on hold in the interim. Thin would not be the way to go with our current system which I do not wish to change, and in which I had planned on using the new player, and the old one in a second system. If the new format does not sound miles better I do not see the industry changing formats anytime soon. How good are the new players? Are they thin sounding as I have heard to date or is there more to it?
128x128dekay
Dekay -- on the "inexpensive" side of the high end CD players.....I experienced the Arcam Alpha 9 last year and was REALLY surprised. I then recently auditioned the Arcam FMJ23 briefly (my local Arcam dealer who is an @%%hole). It was so nice that I seriously considered buying it (but again...my local dealer is such an @%%hole that I couldn't bear to give him my money) I ended up spending considerably more money to get more sound, however, the Arcam is a nice inexpesive high end CDP....well worth an audition...or available used to try out.
Got to agree with Robert, Mfgrep, and Carl above-- buy the best 16 bit rig you can afford NOW. In fact I did exactly that based on the fact(s) that I'm 57 years old and have over 1000 CDs-- and those are just the "keepers". I get rid of CDs I don't like. Craig.
I guess that I stopped auditioning to soon with the Arcam players, they did have the model 9 in stock. The 8SE had more detail than my CAL and almost as much bass, it just did not sound as musical. I do not know how to desrcibe what it missed that I am looking for. I have the same problem with describing cables. Sam at this site once used the word "organic" when reviewing something and that seems like a good word for it. Though I would still be unable to describe in other words what "organic" sounds like. I have noticed that they get a little stressed out at the shops when I end an audition after a cut or two. But at least I know what I am looking for, I just don't know how to desribe it. Craig, we only have around 100 CD's to date 75% of them from flea markets and thrift stores. I buy both music that I am familiar with and like as well as stuff that looks interesting that I do not have a clue about, since the price is right. Yesterday I picked up a Forever Tango CD that turned out to be a "keeper" as you say. I am fortunate in that I am less than an hours drive from Uscale Audio that I read about at this site. I have not gone down there yet, but will do so before I commit to a SET or new player. I get the impression that he has gobs of good used gear on a continuous basis. Anyway I thank you all for your different viewpoints on this subject and now feel much clearer in my perspective. I am certain that you have also helped a lot of lookylous that read but do not write.
dekay, i can unnerstand yer feelings, not wanting to start over. but, if ya do, ya mite wanna try the gnu musical fidelity stuff. while i've not directly heard it, it *has* gotten outstanding press, especially at its price-point. and, ewe *are* familiar w/& obviously like the m-f sound. would those m-f mono amps ewe have on order go w/the gnu m-f integrated amp? retail on it is $1500... regards, doug
Mf claims that the output/input of all their equipment is matched for this purpose. Though I do not know if they are talking inter species - X vs A. I have looked at the A line but cannot stand the appearance. Gold and stainless steel together looks like a cheap and or overpriced watch to me. I have ruled it out because of this. I also believe that it is more neutral sounding which I will admit is not my taste in electonics. I have always preferred tube gear and find the X series to be a compromise that I can live with for now. The midrange of the X gear is very nice.