First Listen: Audio Research CD5 Compact Disc Player
It may seem odd to many of you that at this particular moment in the high end when media servers and other hard-drive/solid state drive components are hogging most of the attention that I should get as excited as I am over a CD player but that’s exactly what happened. May be I’m just slow to come around but I still enjoy the simple ritual of placing a disc in a transport. the irony is that at this moment I’m finding myself feeling the exactly same way I did when the compact disc was anointed the replacement for the turntable.
Fact is, the Audio Research CD5 maybe the most analog-like performing CD player (no SACD) that I’ve been able to spend time with. And this is a solid-state machine-no tubes whatsoever. I’m hearing a more effortless, fuller performance where music doesn’t seem as dessicated and divided. The warmth of harmonics stirring the air in an acoustic venue is somehow more than just a passing inference. It’s there in the space that every vocalist or instrumentalist is immersed in. It’s there in the physical dimensions of players and singers. The detail and information are all present but my ear doesn’t single them out in such cold terms. Rather, it integrates everything into a musical whole first and second, permits me to listen deeper into the recorded work.
It’s an odd thing that happens when I listen to most Redbook PCM, the music never sounds entirely settled. There’s something about its presentation that simply doesn’t transport me. Sonically there’s a picture in front of me, one that is outlined, even colored in and detailed for the most part but not entirely completed. You can see the intent of the artist but not feel the full emotional weight of the artist’s vision. Something is left unexpressed.
Posted on the Audio Research website is this general description; “The CD5 relies on the substantial Philips PRO2M laser mechanism mounted to a machined aluminum I-beam with Audio Research's proprietary mounting system and damping for ultralow mechanical jitter. The I-beam, in turn, is bolted to a heavy, machined aluminum plate for maximum rigidity. New high-performance circuit board material and an all-new FET direct-coupled analog output stage with beefy regulated supplies yield better performance that's measurable: channel separation is improved from 92 dB to 120 dB, and S/N ratio is improved from 90 dB to 114 dB. The CD5 is even "greener," drawing just 14 watts at idle compared to 26 watts for its predecessor. Analog outputs include balanced XLR and single-ended RCA. Digital outputs include AES-EBU/XLR and coax/BNC. The line cord is detachable with a 15-amp connector.”
What this description didn’t prepare me for was just how good the darn thing could sound. The “magic” for me is probably occurring mostly at the harmonic level–that is, the upper octave information that is most audibly affected by phase errors and jitter. The CD5 doesn’t have the balled-fist tightness and constriction that digital so commonly possesses in the treble. the CD5 is harmonically enriched and open. It seems to even close the energy gap in the areas of dynamics and transparency-regions where SACD often dominates. Finally, what it’s causing me to do is start spinning discs that I’d either been disappointed in or simply gave up on in disgust –just like in the vinyl days when I’d install a new cartridge. Don’t know if or when I’ll be formally reviewing the CD5 but I’m going to keep spinning discs until I can nail down just what makes this machine so special. Price: $5995. audioresearch.com
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Wasn't this player reviewed last year?
Nope-I believe the one you're referring to was the Reference CD7 with a tube output stage. Jonathan Valin reviewed it in 2007.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
So, Neil, the model numbers are decreasing?? I mean, we've had a CD 7 and a CD 8, but this one is newer than either of those?
Also a consideration: if the player is better than the speakers -- or the rest of the system -- does not the gestalt of a player (or any other piece of equipment) become lessened? For example, the CD5 may have a "continuous" presentation, but the speakers, preamp and amp don't. Someone reads this review, buys the player and it doesn't sound that way on their system because say, their, Spica TC-50s, from 1986, just don't DO continuous. Do you (as a reviewer) listen first with your "excellent-presumably-high-resolution" system and then, say, something that's "good" - say, around 5k total - electronics/speakers/etc, just to see how much of the effect will be lost on "lesser" equipment? It does seem, as in the Magico forum, where the listener just wasn't "bowled over" that it may have been the partnering equipment not doing its job, or, more aptly put, not functioning at the same level. I've always thought that HP's reviews allowed the component to sound "god-like" (if the component was "god-like) because he was using $145,000 speakers, $25,000 cj premap, Nordost cables/conditioners and a $6,000,000,000 turntable (just kidding here).
Given your thoroughness and down-to-earth, pragmatic approach, I just thought it something to bring up. Having been a reviewer, I certainly know why people disagree with my findings in reviews. Will the CD5 sound like this with my 10 year old Hales, my 20 year old Mirage 490s, or my Usher BE 718s, if you get my drift. Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Actually I always have "less expensive" components on hand to give me a reality check. Not to mention the concert hall or a piano or guitar that is always nearby in my home. But your point is well taken. I can only describe the qualities of a product based upon the reference system I have available to me-which is why those components are typically listed at the tail of every (or most) article.Fact is, Good audio is a synergistic endeavor. A system is only as good as the weakest link in that system. For me, it all begins at the end of the chain with the component that can have more tonal/dynamic and other fatal colorations than perhaps any other component-the loudspeaker. If the loudspeaker is a non-starter then it doesn't matter what's in front of it. Yes, every piece contributes to a complex puzzle but given equivilant price points most amps and front ends built today won't have the extent of colorations and flaws that speakers can have. BTW-I was a great admirer of Paul Hales speakers-a talented guy. With that speaker, you'd hear the difference hands down!
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
In this sophisticated electronic media, it is quite astonishing that a CD player is catching all the attention. The name of the payer is Audio Research CD5 CD player. The audio performance of the system is simply superb. The real quality of the music can be enjoyed only when player is good. It is an analog based system. The price of the player is $5995. Every minute detail in the music can be clear in the system.
We had the CD7 Reference cd player and now have the CD8 Reference cd player, we had the CD3 cd player and now we have the CD5 cd player, some are Reference and some are standard source components.
Hi Neil:
Thanks for you report on this player. And as the poster clarified above, the CD5 superceded the CD3. The poster before should at least have a modicum of knowledge before asking model questions. Plus, if you can understand his question, you get a prize/
My 2 cents...your quote below is interesting, because it seems to be the mantra of audio reviewers, and NOT real world listeners. I do not have the same perecption as you in any way when listening to Redbook (Naim CD5 XS) in any way shape or form. Neither do any of the audiophiles I know, who have more more expensive players and systems than I do. Your view on Redbook in general, and you are perfectly entitled to have it, is in my opinion, part of a dogmatic belief system. Also, how many LPs that you and other Vinyl Fetishists own were mastered from CD or digital master tapes?
"t’s an odd thing that happens when I listen to most Redbook PCM, the music never sounds entirely settled. There’s something about its presentation that simply doesn’t transport me. Sonically there’s a picture in front of me, one that is outlined, even colored in and detailed for the most part but not entirely completed. You can see the intent of the artist but not feel the full emotional weight of the artist’s vision. Something is left unexpressed."
Hi Neil
I am amazed at the number of products out there and the different models. I think in the main stream world, you hear of a Sony or a Philips and you are content. If you own one of the brands I mentioned even better. You are thrilled to bits that you have got the best, if you get a Bose. But here are a few score names which I have never heard before and which are getting rave reviews too. I am wondering if the dry clinical quality ones are the ones that we laymen listen to!
Brown | beat making software
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your great reviews!
I'm in the market for a new player, as the transport on my Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista SACD player died (for the 2nd time), and can't be replaced. I listened to the Ayre C-5xeMP in my own system, and was disappointed: despite many excellent qualities, notes, and particularly overtones and timbres, seemed truncated in a particularly unnatural way. I was strongly considering the Esoteric X-05, based on your rave review, but have been unable to borrow one for an in-home audition, and it sounded terrible at the local dealer. Now you say that the AR CD5 is "maybe the most analog-like performing CD player (no SACD) that I’ve been able to spend time with." I know that this was just a preview, not a full-fledged review, but if the AR truly does a better job on CDs than the Esoteric, I'm wondering if it's worth giving up SACD for.
Also wondering if anyone at TAS, AVG, etc. will be reviewing the Playback Designs MPS-5 player.
Thanks!
I believe TAS is looking to review the Playback Designs player but I'll need to confirm this. Regarding the Esoteric, this is a close call. "sounded terrible"? What was the dealer auditioning it with? Anyhow, The ARC does have a warmer, plumper mid-range sound-it almosts sounds as if it has a tube output stage, although of course it doesn't. the Esoteric doesn't quite have this posh quality but it's still one of the best Redbook players I've heard. However, I'm personally very fond of SACD, have a decent collection and am still adding new titles on occasion. If I had to commit to a single player I'd like to have both formats at my disposal. For that, the X-05 is hard to beat.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Neil,
Thanks for the quick response! I too am very fond of SACD, and have several hundred SA discs, but it sure limits the choice of players.
The Esoteric was playing through a VTL preamp and Focal speakers. (I forget the amp.) It SHOULD have sounded good, but instead sounded dry, brittle, one-dimensional, bright and edgy. Kind of reminded me of my shower radio! I assumed that something was terribly wrong, but despite having made significant purchases from this dealer in the past, including the Tri-Vista, they wouldn't even consider letting me audition it at home. The "attitude" on the part of some dealers (and their "lock" on local sales for a given manufacturer) is my least favorite aspect of the high end.
It's a shame about the Ayre - it did so many things so well, and produced a remarkable (for digital) sense of three-dimensional performers in a "real" performance space - but those excellences just threw it's "fatal flaw" into sharper contrast for me.
I hate to buy anything on faith, but it may come to that - the other well-reviewed SACD-capable players such as the dCS or EMM are out of my current price range.
Thanks again.
the dealer "attitude" you speak of has been a thorn in the side of the high end for as long as I can remember. What is your current system? What speakers are you listening to. I don't know which Focal's were playing but some of their models can sound a bit dry and clinical-highly detailed but not everyone's cup of tea..
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
My current system is a hodge-podge of components from the last 25 years of my audio life: Infinity IRS Beta speakers, Classe M-700 mono-blocks on the woofer towers, Edge G8+ mono-blocks on the mid-tweets, Hovland HP-100 preamp, SOTA Cosmos-SME 5-Koetsu Rosewood Signature, Alesis ML-9600 CD Mastering burner, MIT Shotgun (1st gen) interconnects & speaker cables. (And talk about anachronistic legacy, I still have a Nakamichi 700 ZXE cassette deck from 1981 attached! [For some live recordings I made that I haven't yet burned to disc])
It is certainly NOT the system I would put together if starting from scratch in 2010, but it sounds decent, and my financial priorities have been elsewhere. The cabling clearly needs an upgrade, and would have been my next purchase if the Tri-Vista hadn't died.
Given the inevitable compromises, I always prefer to err on the side of warm, sweet and rich, rather than cold, hard, and clinically detailed. I love medieval music (tried playing the krumhorn, but didn't have the lungs), and anything that bleaches the timbre, or diminishes the overtone structure, of instruments or voice drives me crazy.
I never heard Focal speakers before
Sorry - meant to delete that last sentence fragment before posting...
I guess Neil gets a prize, doesn't he?
Thanks for the clarification, guys. I don't follow any particular manufacturer's line of products, so I haven't been aware of the differentiation between ARC's "standard" and "reference" lines. Thanks for enlightening me.
Any updates on the ARC DSi200 integrated Neil?
Any updates on the ARC DSi200 integrated amp Neil??
I'm in the middle of writing the review right now. I will say this–the CD5 compliments the virtues of the DSi brilliantly. This is an amp that exposes treble colorations, timing problems and so forth.Issue that don't appear to dog the CD5. If I was to hazard a guess, I imagine that ARC did some serious listening to this pair as they were finalizing the DSi200.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi Neil,
Just wondered if you had any thoughts/suggestions/advice based on my system and preferences, as described above, before I take the plunge and order the Esoteric X-05, on the strength of your recommendation.
Thanks, John
John,
Obviously I haven't heard your system but based on these components, all high resolution products, you should be able to derive the full benefit of the Esoteric's SACD playback capability. The Beta was and still is quite a speaker with all those EMI drivers. And the Hovland/Edge combo should be especially sweet as well. And what can I say, I still use a Cosmos/SME V. In fact about all I can add at this point is "happy listening". Let us know how it all works out.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Thanks, Neil - I'll let you know.
I really appreciate your accessibility and responsiveness.
Hi Neil,
I was wondering if you had any further updates on the CD5. Also, have you had the chance to compare it to the Reference CD8? I ask because my local dealer does not stock the CD5, but I greatly prefered the CD8 to an Ayrre C-5xeMP and Esoteric X-03SE. However, the CD8 is well out of my budget, and I'm wondering just how much of the magic might be lost in the CD5 compared to the dearer player. The rest of my system consists of an Audio Research Vsi-55 integrated amp and Wilson-Benesch Arc speakers, neither of which are quite at the exaulted ARC Reference class component level, so perhaps the CD5/CD8 differences may be a bit reduced in this context. The qualities am am most concerned about losing by stepping down to the CD5 are the amazing sense of humanity in musical flow (especially in upper woodwinds and small choirs), and the 3D spaciousness (though the former is more important than the latter).
Thanks in advance for your input (if you're still checking this blog post)
-Jim
Jim,
I can really only add that the player continues to impress over time. And no I haven't had an opportuniy to compare the two,side by side. However because of the tube stage and more advanced DAC of the 8 I would imagine that in the context of a great system the differences are real and justified if subtle. Tubes could very well be making the difference to you in light of the fact that you chose the ARC over the Esoteric so that's something to keep in mind. Obviously SACD isn't an issue either. Bottom line, in the context of your system, you won't go wrong with the CD5 but it won't be an 8 either.
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Hi Neil,
I have a CD3 MKII. How does the DAC 8 compare to the CD5? My thought is, would I be better off using my current player a transport and have the additional benefits of the of the DAC8? Or is the processing of the CD5 superior to that of the DAC8?
Thanks,
John
Sweat, persistence, and endless attention to detail.