Arcam Ring DAC models v. Sony DVP-S9000ES

The DVPS-9000ES is a good CD player and a great SACD player, but its red book CD performance is far from an Arcam FMJ CD23T. The FMJ will let you hear on CDs what you cannot hear on the DVPS-9000ES. If you care to read on, I enclosed the details of my search:

I was evaluating the same choices starting a few months ago. I had the DVPS-9000ES at home for a one month evaluation. Although the SACD performance was truly impressive, the CD performance was detailed but lacking integrity in harmonic structure. I also tried the Philips SACD 1000 and it was even less satisfying. I listen to mostly classical music and I do not see a lot of support for SACD from major European labels. After evaluating the future or lack of future of SACDs, I decided to spend money on a good CD player.

After evaluating the Krell KAV 250 CD/2, the Rega Jupiter and the Jolida 100, I found all of them deficient in some way. The Krell was rich but dark, the Rega was transparent but not very detailed, and the Jolida had the tube "fluffy warmth" that I consider a distortion.

Then I bought an Arcam FMJ CD23 from a local person. I am very impressed by how the FMJ resolved details. The level of detail was just right, the transparency was stunning and the harmonic integrity was really good. If you favor richness and over warmth, then the FMJ is NOT the player for you. The review from Stereophile mentioned a midbass shyness, and although I noticed it, I associated it with the clean and detailed bass. With the CD23T, my system comes closest to my reference of a live classical quartet than even the Accuphase DP-80 transport and Mark Levinson No. 36 DAC combo that I used to have. Every instrument and voice comes through the CD23T with only air between you and the soundstage. The CD23T is simply musical, no pretense or additives, just a little less flavor than live. I can live with it for a few years.

My system consists of:
Arcam FMJ CD23T with small tip toes supporting the chassis.
Audible Illusions Modulus 3A preamp with sim pods under the chassis
Mark Levinson No. 331 power amp
Wilson Watt 3 Puppy 2 loudspeakers
Transparent Music Link Super XL interconnects
Transparent Music Wave Plus speaker cables
Monster Cable 2500 Power center

Hope I helped you. Feel free to email me with questions.

Aaron

I've lost track of the Sony SACD DVD model numbers. Assuming this is the original, or at least sonically equivalent, the following applies (In my case):

Shortly after they first came out I brought home the Sony to compare against my Arcam Alpha 7SE and preferred the Arcam. I've since replaced the 7SE with an Alpha 9. The 9 is substantially better than the 7SE in every way that I can think of. So, doing the algebra, I don't think the Sony would stand much of a chance against the ring DACs on redbook.

Thanks guys. And Aaron, thanks for taking the time for such an extensive response.

My only exposure to Arcam components was an audition of an all-Arcam home theater electronics set-up, but it was enough to indicate it was probably what I was after.

It's crucial to me that the very front end of the chain extracts the maximum amount of information (in all senses) from the source, that it has a high degree of transparency, and it gets the details right without being clinical.

It's unlikely I'll hear any of these components before I buy, but I was curious whether the Sony had a suave touch to go along with what most Sonys seem to have, a dynamic presentation.

I did notice a trace of hardness at volume in the lower mids/upper bass in the Arcam system I heard, but was unfamiliar enough with the components to identify where the problem was.

I have both a DiVA CD92 (ringDAC) player and a Sony SCD777ES (the big top-loader weighing about 40kg). Whilst SACD is clearly ahead when comparing dual-layer discs, using either player for the CD layer, the Arcam is better on standard CDs, at least as far as resolving fine inner detail is concerned. Example: a group of unison violins sounds like a number of distinct contributions on the Arcam, but 'N violins' on the Sony. It's subtle, but I believe that Arcam is using the best available DAC architecture in this player, and the low-level linearity and resolution is just what one might expect.

The Sony does very well on image spaciousness, placing sources very well in three dimensions. I hope to be able to use the wonderful transport of the Sony and feed the SPDIF output into the RingDAC converter - but that will require substantial ingenuity and modification to the Arcam player.

Arcam no longer have rights to use the RingDAC, it seems, as they have switched to a different architecture using Wolfson DACs in some multiple-differential scheme. No doubt it's good, but DCS, the inventors of the ringDAC scheme, have pretty good arguments about why it's a good solution (it originated in radar systems, where ultimate resolution is rather more life-critical than in audio!). I regret this change, and also that there has never been an affordable DAC using this technique - which is why modding the CD92 seems a good idea.

If anyone here knows how easy/difficult it will be to make an alternative digital input for the CD92 onboard DAC, I'd be very interested in some feedback.

In the meantime, I have no hesitation in recommending any of the Arcam players - unless you want a particular 'type' of sound, they are very truthful, accurate, and satisfying to listen to.
(rest of system is NAD S100 preamp, own passive high-impedance crossovers to twin Audio Synthesis Desire amps, own-design speakers using Bandor wide-bandwidth drivers and low crossover freq. to transmission-line bass) Not standard, but good enough to intrigue most visitors!

cheers

Miles