I'm glad you are enjoying the 6000CDT. I agree that the differences may not be worth it unless everything everything else in the chain is very transparent. This audio quality OCD drives me crazy sometimes
It's a no no if they have dropped black. Looks like all now in a 'lunar grey' finish? I don't think they have changed anything else. The old finish can be had for £250 in UK which is what I paid 3 yrs ago. Price of the new finish is £400 and they are claiming it blends with both silver and black finish. Sorry Cambridge I don't think so - looks like a cost cutting exercise providing one finish only.
I've read where Cambridge wanted the CX line to match the aesthetics of their new Edge line of gear. But yes, certainly looks like a cost cutting measure as well.
Interesting comparison. Did you use the same interconnects to compare these two units, or was one perhaps running SP/DIF while the other was running Toslink?
One thing I have noticed with every transport/CD player I've used with a DAC is that the Transport/CD player's lineage becomes a part of the overall sonic picture. Your description of the sound of CXC with your DAC makes sense. Since, I don't like the sound of Cambridge gear that would not work for me. I think it's going to depend on what you value for sound which you would prefer. In the end I think that having a good quality transport is a real plus and both of these units appear to fit that bill.
Both were using the same cabling, only difference was the transport. I wish I could correlate some measurement to the difference, but that would be difficult.
Without the aid of a ~$50k spectrum analyzer, you are not going to be able to measure the jitter differences. So the best that most of us can do is to use our ears.
I have had the 6000cdt for a few days now and I am currently comparing the cxc to it. Still too early to come to a conclusion on sound quality. What I can comment on is aesthetics and a little about performance. The soft rubber isolation feet on the 6000 is a lot better than the cxc hard rubber. Built quality goes to the 6000 for sure. Feels extremely sturdy. The finish on the 6000 is not rubber coated as mentioned by member on here. It is sandblasted (like a sandblasted finished on the pocket knife). It does leave marks fairly easy, but can be wiped away for the most part. The slot loading is excellent. I use to hate slot loading, but this definitely changed how I feel about it. I actually prefer it over the cxc slightly flimsy tray. The 6000 is faster at loading cds, advancing to the next track and a lot quieter loading a cd than the cxc (during actual playback the 6000 is so slightly less noisy too). When playing the same cd on both the cxc would fall behind about 3 secs or so on each track. I honestly love the look and built quality of the 6000cdt so much. It looks way better than the cxc to me. I really hope I keep it...we will see. Damn this thing is a beauty!
Ok after having both for a bit longer, I have come to a conclusion. To put it short and sweet, the cxc wins and is staying. Watercooler pretty much sums up how I feel. I would say the cxc is about 5% better. They are very very close. After I decided I would be keeping the CXC, I did a few easy mods to improve the sound further . Pictures below. Yes I got this idea from the YouTube video from Steve Guttenberg. https://photos.app.goo.gl/xZ1w8StgPNA5dv3Y6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/YDu9R1f46L7zM1nP9 https://photos.app.goo.gl/THNbMY8Phhg1LuQh8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/uuPSbUmW8ohWBvRB6 https://photos.app.goo.gl/6sWctD6KtVG8rbzf7 https://photos.app.goo.gl/CMq9GF3UqCo83iSn6
To be honest the CXC sound great before and after the upgrade. I'm sure the changes in sound is very little, but I don't doubt it has improved the sound. I had the upgrade bug for a bit but this took it away......at least for now Total cost $130. Worth it. Fyi I got a dynamat 18x32" sheet on Amazon.
I am auditioning the cxc vs the 6000cdt right now and there is a huge difference in sound. Night and day. One is not really better they are just different. The cxc is brighter with more delineation between sounds. The audiolab has more meat on the bones overall and everything is more blended and warm. It is a matter of personal preference.
This ^. That is exactly what I don't like about the Cambridge house sound and what I love about the 6000CDT. Well said.
I've recently acquired an Audiolab 6000CDT. My previous Transport was an OPPO UDP-203. I purchased the 203 simply because of its die-hard Disc Mechanism (I never played a DVD or anything but RB CDs). I was also in the belief that the duty of a Transport was to simply pass 1's & o's, and there 'shouldn't' be any difference in the presentation to the DAC. Boy, was I was mistaken. The 6000 is just in another league when it comes to what it actually does, compared to the OPPO. I'm sure the OPPO is a good "All Rounder" but in Digital Playback, the 6000 trumped it in every area. And I might add, at a very attractive price point.
Let me first say that I am not refuting what anyone says about the 6000CDT sounding different or better than whatever it is being compared to. Let me also say that I am a BIG believer that cables have an effect on the sound you get from your system and that preamps, amps, CD players and DACs all largely have their own sonic character. But for the life of me, I can't understand what it is that would make one transport sound warmer and less analytical than another when connected to the same DAC, using the same input on the DAC and the same connecting cable. I mean, the output doing to the DAC is digital...1's and 0's...what is causing the sound to be different when it's just data being sent to a DAC - (which I completely understand will have an effect on the sound)? I...just...don't...get...it.
I am not arguing that there IS a difference. I am inquiring as to what it is that makes one transport sound different than another if all it does is read and send data to be processed.
I know you're not arguing, neither am I. I just thought that "hearing" any differences would be better than anything that I can post here. Someone else here will have to chime in with a proper explanation, as I can't tell you. I just know what my ears are telling me, it's not a Placebo Effect as a fellow Audio Buff could tell the differences immediately as well.
Isn't it obvious? The 1's are a little sharper and the 0's are more rounded. lol, just a funny comment I read before about this same topic. I personally have no idea myself as I haven't ever compared transports. Though I agree that the best thing to do is just to listen. Sometimes what is expected on paper isn't what we get in real life.
The only thing I can think of is due to jitter. After then researching further, I found an article on the Absolute Sound that pretty much confirms this as the reason why CD transports are audibly different: "The second theory holds that virtually all CD transports can recover all the information from a CD with perfect bit accuracy, and that the sonic variations between transports are due soley to jitter (timing errors)." Good read: Article in Absolute Sound
This is true. Also true is that nowadays good DACs are immune from source jitter due to reclocking, so if people is hearing or claiming to hear difference in CD transports either they are mind-building those differences or thay have a sub-par DAC
Yes, everything was the exact same. Even muted the Volume so it would also be the same for both players.
My DAC is a Lampizator Amber 3. Even though it is Lampi's Entry Level DAC, I'm confident that it's "Decent" as in terms of quality and Analog reproduction.