I recently had the opportunity to audition my venerable, 10 year old NAD C542 against a new Marantz CD6005 and the outcome was not what I expected.
The rest of my music system is not particularly relevant but I feed the digital Coax output of both players into a KECES DA-131 MkII DAC, so I am only really comparing the differences in the CD Transport/Decoder/Coax output buffer. The resulting sonic differences between the players are not subtle, much to my surprise. The Marantz seems to have slightly better bass authority, more punchy than the NAD but at the other end of the frequency scale the high treble seems to fall off a cliff. Its just not there.
I can hear the percussion of cymbals and hi-hats OK, but the initial percussive sound seems very muted and veiled without any splash or dynamics. Its almost as if the frequency range of the Marantz is an octave lower than the NAD. Tracks that contain lots of bass guitar and drum percussion seem to spotlight the difference. Its just my impression, but I will be holding onto my NAD until it finally croaks!
The rest of my music system is not particularly relevant but I feed the digital Coax output of both players into a KECES DA-131 MkII DAC, so I am only really comparing the differences in the CD Transport/Decoder/Coax output buffer. The resulting sonic differences between the players are not subtle, much to my surprise. The Marantz seems to have slightly better bass authority, more punchy than the NAD but at the other end of the frequency scale the high treble seems to fall off a cliff. Its just not there.
I can hear the percussion of cymbals and hi-hats OK, but the initial percussive sound seems very muted and veiled without any splash or dynamics. Its almost as if the frequency range of the Marantz is an octave lower than the NAD. Tracks that contain lots of bass guitar and drum percussion seem to spotlight the difference. Its just my impression, but I will be holding onto my NAD until it finally croaks!
In my experience, newly purchased audio equipment can sound pretty bad fresh out of the box. Make sure you have at least 200 hours on the Marantz before making judgement. It will probably open up and smooth out as the components break in. Best of luck and hang in there.
Thanks both for making perfectly valid points. I had given the Marantz plenty of time to settle but it just sounded so sonically different from the NAD, that I could not get accustomed to the difference. I think the familiarisation affect, getting used to and accepting (or not!) the sound of a new piece of audio kit, is more likely to happen than any significant sonic changes due to electronic component "burn in". Certainly, not within the usual limited returns period for newly purchased equipment. A clue might be in the data-sheet blurb for the NAD C542 -
I didn't investigate the internals of the Marantz but maybe all things are not equal.
I suppose I thought that A/B listening to the Coax output of both players (minimal electronic interface) would reveal very little difference, and it was the following on-board DAC stage that gave the CD player its characteristic sound. This got me thinking about the contribution of the CD transport/decoder/coax buffer to the overall sound quality. I already have a collection of DAC's (Keces DA-131 and Schitt Bifrost) so my upgrade money might be better spent on an affordable and well-respected dedicated CD Transport.
"Unusually at this price point, the coaxial output is buffered
and isolated by a transformer from the converter itself
and the output impedance has been carefully tailored to
produce a precise 75 ohms impedance to ensure perfect
matching. This attention to detail reduces the timing errors
(jitter) that could otherwise distort the digital data stream."and isolated by a transformer from the converter itself
and the output impedance has been carefully tailored to
produce a precise 75 ohms impedance to ensure perfect
matching. This attention to detail reduces the timing errors
I didn't investigate the internals of the Marantz but maybe all things are not equal.
I suppose I thought that A/B listening to the Coax output of both players (minimal electronic interface) would reveal very little difference, and it was the following on-board DAC stage that gave the CD player its characteristic sound. This got me thinking about the contribution of the CD transport/decoder/coax buffer to the overall sound quality. I already have a collection of DAC's (Keces DA-131 and Schitt Bifrost) so my upgrade money might be better spent on an affordable and well-respected dedicated CD Transport.
Despite Marantz Fanboys the NAD is superior sounding.
Only criticism of Nad is in the possible durability aspects.
Never the sounds 🙂
Only criticism of Nad is in the possible durability aspects.
Never the sounds 🙂
Bare, I tend to agree with your conclusion. I didn't intend this to be a Marantz-knocking exercise and I would have loved to square-up the NAD against other new CD players in similar price range. The valuable lesson I have learned (re-learned?) is in spite of the numerous glowing hi-fi media and customer reviews, ignore the hype and listen with your own ears.
probably 6005 sound better as dac (he have input) or cd ,that is good for in the marantz ,take a look at discrete output stage ... I don't see the small trafo for spdf.......
Attachments
Last edited:
Cant see it either, possibly a poorer implementation of SPDIF. What I can see however is a huge amount of empty free space in the chassis. Reminds me of Amstrad tape decks and amplifiers in the early 80's, big impressive boxes and tiny internal circuit boards😀
Not to my ears but I have to admit that I didn't give it a huge amount of air-play as a CDP. In my system set-up, 90% of my music (700 CD's worth) are stored on HDD as FLAC files. I use the Keces DA-131 with an XMOS USB-Coax converter from my music server laptop. I use the NAD to listen to cheap second-hand CD's I buy on-line and in my local charity shops before ripping to FLAC. With some good, popular CD's available for around 1 - 2 GBP including postage, I buy and take a chance. But maybe we are going a bit off-topic.
I finally dumped the Marantz CD6005 for a refund before the returns period expired. I didn't have much hope that the missing top-end frequency range would suddenly materialise after any length of burn in time, especially since I was only using it as a transport. I may have been sold a dud. However, the nice punchy bass sounded much better compared to the light-weight bass from the NAD so I did some reading up on Philips/Marantz CD Transports on Lampizator. Lots of great stuff here. Shortly after, I trawled eBay and bought a nice Philips CD620 CDP (circa 1990) for not much money, based on Lampizator's review of the CD630. Its a lovely player, nice button layout and easy-to-read blue/green VF display. More to the point, it sounds really good on both coax and analogue output (probably mostly due to the quality CDM 4/19 mech inside) and I have now unplugged and relegated the NAD to a lower shelf, ready for an eBay listing 🙂.
Using the CD620 as a transport-only, I was interested in the Lampizator Philips CDP S/PDIF coax output mods and decided to do similar on the CD620 i.e. take the DOBM digital output on SAA7220 pin 14 direct to a new RCA coax output, bypassing the on-board Philips standard implementation. I used 2 x 150R resistors as a 6dB divider (75R source) with the recommended 100nF disc ceramic blocking capacitor. This way I could compare the existing digital coaxial output with the modded one. I have attached some scope pics of the digital output waveforms across a 75R termination resistor at the end of a 1 metre length QED Qunex 75 Ohm cable. Despite the obvious differences in the signals, after some hours of comparative A/B listening I could not detect any significant tonal difference and came to conclusion, as probably many others did, there was no difference in the sound quality. The original Philips implementation of 74HC08 buffer/divider resistors/pulse transformer was probably pants (OTT) but it does the job adequately. While i had the case open, I replaced all the old 33u/47u/330u Nichicon decoupling electrolytics around the TDA1541A and SAA7220 with 220u/470u all bypassed with a 220nF MKT. Don't know if that has made any difference but it made me feel happier to replace these 26 year old capacitors! I might do the PSU caps if I have some spare time.
I will leave it hooked up to my modded coax output because the signal looks prettier and the stronger 900mVpp signal across the terminating 75R load resistor (in DAC player) will make me feel happier😀.
Using the CD620 as a transport-only, I was interested in the Lampizator Philips CDP S/PDIF coax output mods and decided to do similar on the CD620 i.e. take the DOBM digital output on SAA7220 pin 14 direct to a new RCA coax output, bypassing the on-board Philips standard implementation. I used 2 x 150R resistors as a 6dB divider (75R source) with the recommended 100nF disc ceramic blocking capacitor. This way I could compare the existing digital coaxial output with the modded one. I have attached some scope pics of the digital output waveforms across a 75R termination resistor at the end of a 1 metre length QED Qunex 75 Ohm cable. Despite the obvious differences in the signals, after some hours of comparative A/B listening I could not detect any significant tonal difference and came to conclusion, as probably many others did, there was no difference in the sound quality. The original Philips implementation of 74HC08 buffer/divider resistors/pulse transformer was probably pants (OTT) but it does the job adequately. While i had the case open, I replaced all the old 33u/47u/330u Nichicon decoupling electrolytics around the TDA1541A and SAA7220 with 220u/470u all bypassed with a 220nF MKT. Don't know if that has made any difference but it made me feel happier to replace these 26 year old capacitors! I might do the PSU caps if I have some spare time.
I will leave it hooked up to my modded coax output because the signal looks prettier and the stronger 900mVpp signal across the terminating 75R load resistor (in DAC player) will make me feel happier😀.
Attachments
Circuit Diagram wanted
From where I can download the schematic diagram of the mainboard (decoder board with coax/opt. S/P-DIF out) ??
And who know, which loader and which optical pickup is here in use?
Thanks for advices.
From where I can download the schematic diagram of the mainboard (decoder board with coax/opt. S/P-DIF out) ??
And who know, which loader and which optical pickup is here in use?
Thanks for advices.
is in there an out digital transformer ? must have, lundahl make a good ones and use long coax wire sound better...
Both make favorable inviting musical players. I couldn't give the edge to one or the other they both do things slightly better in different areas true. when something seems to introduce rolloff try more forward sounding gear elsewhere, or that just offers different sonic personality. and try swapping connects any one thing or combo can bring with it great balance. Ill agree stronly on trying another dac. Im trying a 4th or 5th separate dac so far I absolutely love it very analog sounding detail and impressive air. I have system sounding pretty good again its been a while since I felt this happy with it so will try not to screw with it too much this time.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.