Cambridge 840C compared to Bryston BCD-1 and present system

barondla -- Tue, 08/26/2008 - 11:00

Looking at replacing Pioneer PD65 player. It is hooked to the GW labs jitter reducer/ Perpetual Technologies P1 & P3 with Monolithic power supply wired w/ Resolution Audio & Green Hornet cable. All connected to Sonic Euphoria plc, VTL ST150, and Sound Dynamic 300ti.

Thinking of adding a Cambridge 840C or Bryston BCD1 as a transport. If either is good enough may replace whole PT system.
1. How would newer all in one digital players compare to the older PT dac setup? In the same ball park? Better?
2. How do the Cambridge and Bryston compare in sound?

Thanks

Robert Harley -- Tue, 08/26/2008 - 11:51

I haven't compared the Cambridge 840C with the Bryston BCD-1, but I think either will sound better than your current digital front end. CD players have an intrinsic advantage over separate transports and DACs in that there's no jitter-inducing interface between them. The critical digital-to-analog conversion clock can be located next to the DAC, and the transport slaved to that clock.

Although jitter-reduction devices can help, they suffer from the problem of having to output their signal back onto the jitter-prone SPDIF interface.

Anonymous -- Tue, 11/25/2008 - 18:59

Robert,
The Bryston, Cambridge and Creek Destiny CD players have all received what I would term as rave reviews recently and all are in the same ballpark price-wise. I'm currently using the Rotel RCD 1072 and wonder if I would gain any significant improvements by updating to any of the above mentioned CD players. This would probably be my last CD purchase as it seems some type of hard drive or flash card device will replace CD and DVD in the foreseeable future. By the way, the Rotel replaced an early 90's Phillips-based Marantz unit and the difference, to me at least, was staggering. I had just about given up on CD as a format until that point.

Robert Harley -- Wed, 11/26/2008 - 11:28

I have not heard the Bryston, but Alan Taffel is extremely enthusiastic about it. The Cambridge 840C, which I have heard at length, is outstanding, with an extremely smooth and refined treble and wonderful soundstaging. Based on Alan's review, the Bryston sounds as though it is more incisive and immediate, and the Cambridge more relaxed.

Anonymous -- Mon, 12/01/2008 - 09:34

I have an 840C it is used with a ML380S, Bel Canto REf 1000's and Kharma 3.2fe speakers. I considering going to an MBL1531 or an Esoteric X03 anyone tried that combo?

Anonymous (not verified) -- Tue, 02/10/2009 - 10:39

I heard the Bryston vs. the Cambridge at a hi-fi store. Not a subtle difference. Soundstage was much bigger with the Bryston, but it is about $1000 more. However, the Cambridge is much more flexible. Both read my hard-to-read redbook CD's.

barondla -- Thu, 02/12/2009 - 23:45

How did the tonal balance stack up between the two players? Get the impression from reviewers that the Bryston may be leaner in the bottom octaves. Any other noticeable differences (besides imaging)? Similar resolution? One sound more real to you?
thanks
barondla (also considering the Ayre Cx7eMP seriously)

Anonymous (not verified) -- Fri, 02/13/2009 - 22:33

I literally had to run out of the store to get to a racketball game, but in the 20 minutes I could compare the two the biggest thing I noticed was the soundstage - it just hit me immediately. Will probably go back for a more serious listen - I have been misled before by all-too-brief first listens. Also, based on that very brief comparison I thought the Bryston was a little smoother on the top end as well.

barondla -- Tue, 02/17/2009 - 09:12

Good report. Can't wait to hear more. You are right about quick demos being dangerous. The Bryston appears to be a contender.
thanks
barondla

Alan Taffel -- Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:53

For the reader who asked whether the Bryston BCD-1 would constitute a significant upgrade to his current Rotel RCD-1072, I can attest that the answer is an emphatic "Yes". I wrote the original TAS review on the Rotel player, and I keep one around as a reference for affordable units. Likewise, I reviewed the Bryston for TAS, so I am very familiar with both units. Suffice it to say that, while the Rotel continues to exude many a charm at its price, the Bryston is in an entirely different league. As well it should be, given the price differential. If you can afford it, this is an upgrade that has no downside, as the Bryston is markedly superior to the Rotel is every parameter. No need to hesitate; the Bryston will serve admirably as your best and last CD player.

Alan Taffel
TAS Senior Writer

Joe M. (not verified) -- Mon, 05/18/2009 - 18:30

Would there be any significant sonic difference between the Bryston BDA-1 DAC and there CDP the BCD-1?
Are the "internals" identical?

Joe M.

michael (not verified) -- Sat, 02/21/2009 - 07:53

I recently had a chance to compare the Bryston to the Cambridge player.The Bryston is significantly better in almost all paramaters.I also compared it in the same session to an esoteric sa60 (stereophile class a) which it also significantly outperformed in areas of tone, bass dynamic range and slam of which the esoteric has none

not verified (not verified) -- Sat, 02/21/2009 - 09:10

Interesting Michael. Ever get to compare the Bryston to the Ayre CDX7e (or 5e)? Always felt the Esoterics would be thin sounding from the reviews I have seen.
thanks
barondla

pablocaso (not verified) -- Mon, 07/06/2009 - 00:35

i would get the cambridge 840c because of the extra digital inputs instead of the bryston. that way i can connect my dvd player and music server to it, such as an ipod if i needed to. if your money can stretch, i would bet the bryston dac as i have done for myself. its awesome!