Meridian 507 vs. Naim CD-5 vs. Arcam CD93

Just come back from various hifi shops with a Naim CD-5 and an Arcam CD93 to compare to my Meridian 507. Will be able to pretty much do a straight swap with my Meridian for either of these (might need to fork up a bit extra to keep the dealer happy, but not much) so I thought I'd compare them out of curiosity. Certainly, on reputation and hearsay the three of them should sound rather different. That said, they're all CD players, they're all in the same-ish price bracket so from my experience they shouldn't sound all that different.

So, what are the bets? I've had my Meridian for a year and a half now, having previously owned a 506.24 for a 18 months prior to that, so I'm a bit of a Meridian junky. I like how neutral and 'unshowy' they are in that they just sound "right". That said, I haven't tried any other sources in my system since I first got the 506.24 and even then I didn't really shop around much or compare it to other possibilities, so my horizons when it comes to CD players are fairly narrow. So this may well be quite interesting.

Anyway, I've got them at least for the evening, possibly for the whole weekend if I can wangle it with the dealers. I'll be sure to post a follow-up with my findings. In the meantime, does anyone have any comments?

Dunc

P.S. - The Naim is not Flat-capped or Hi-capped or anything-capped. There's a Hi-cap in the shop I believe which I may well try if I like the Naim, but it'll cost a fair bit more so I wanted to try the player without beforehand. I actually have very little understanding of the Naim power supply upgrade options for the CD-5 (the Naim upgrade chain seems a bit mind-boggling to me).

 

Given the pre-amp and speakers you are using I would not be supprised if you like the slightly warmer sound of the Arcam

 

The thing I like about the 507 is that once you've bought it then thats it. Nothing more needs to be bought to make it sound its best. With the Naim you pay a stack for it and then get repeatedly told over and over that "oh it wont sound right till you've spent another stack for all the differing power supplies". Apparently thats quite acceptable for some reason.

 

alll cdp's sound close enough to be the same

 

and thats a fact

 

:ffrc: :ffrc: :ffrc:

so i guess all turntables, amps, speakers etc. all sound the same too?

:newbie: :newbie: :newbie:

cheers


julian

 

[Disclaimer: reader beware - prepare thyself for a real ramble of a post...]

Well, I've had two nights with them now. I think I've decided to keep the Meridian. I've got till Monday with the Arcam and Tuesday with the Naim, so I may yet change my mind (will continue playing), but I doubt it.

First, the Naim. Have to say I'm not too impressed. Physically, it's brilliant. I absolutely love the look & feel of it - the casework, the logo, the buttons, the swing-out transport and CD puck. It just screams exotic-but-functional-and-rather-industrial hifi. So I wanted to love it. But, from what I've heard so far, I don't.

It's not bad or anything - it sounds just fine. It just doesn't do anything better than the Meridian, and does a number of things worse. For one, thing, the frequency response seems to be tailed off at the extremes. There doesn't seem to be as much treble sparkle as with the Meridian or Arcam, and nor does the bass seem to go as deep (on one Moloko track there was a bit that rattled the floorboards under my feet with both the Arcam and the Meridian, but not with the Naim ). Not a major flaw, and certainly something I'd be happy to overlook if it was otherwise better than the Meridian. But it isn't.

The midrange also seems to be somewhat fuller and more obvious, particularly the lower midrange. This was really obvious on a track with an acoustic guitar (can't remember for the life of me which track), where the Naim and the Arcam both sounded noticeably fuller and more "bloomy" in the guitar sound, the Naim to a greater degree. This bothered me more than the lack of extreme treble & bass, but I again I could probably live with it.

But it just seems flat. Two-dimensional. As the dealer put it, it produces a sort of "wall of sound" effect, which would be great for parties, but not so great if I want to close my eyes and believe the performers are in front of me (which is my biggest kick in hifi). It also doesn't seem to differentiate individual instruments as well as either the Arcam or Meridian - they seem more like a blob of sound than an actual instrument. Hard to explain. And generally, the absolute resolution seems to be worse - by comparison to the Arcam, and especially the Meridian, everything seems a little coarse, grainy.

Again, all of this would be meaningless if I enjoyed the sound more than the Meridian. But the thing that I was expecting the Naim to excel at - drive, pulse, timing, whatever you want to call it - the Meridian did just as well. The Arcam was somewhat more laid-back, but the Meridian is really good at digging out the life in a rhythm. So basically the Meridian does everything just as well as the Naim, and some things rather better. So, sadly, I'm probably going to have to cross it off my list.

There is an issue to be raised about warming up. Naimees seem to be quite convinced that Naim equipment takes hours, days, weeks, even months to warm up properly and come "on song". So it's possible I may well not be hearing it at its best. But for god's sake, if it takes that long for it to sound right how am I ever supposed to hear it at its best without owning it?? Seems like a fairly cunning ploy on Naim's part.

Now, the Arcam. This is interesting. I'm still wavering on this one. Physically, I hate it. It looks and feels tacky and cheap - excusable perhaps if it were £200 but it's a £1000 bit of kit and it should look and feel more like it. As usual, though, I'd be more than happy to excuse this if it sounded great.

So how does it sound? Well, I've heard Arcam kit described this way before and it seems accurate: "safe". It's a bit warmer and cuddlier than the Meridian (which has a tendency to err on the dry side of things - but I'll get to that), and it seems to ease off on the upper midrange or lower treble or something so that it's easier to listen to at high volumes for long periods of time. Easy-going might be another way to put it. You could listen to the Arcam all day without a problem - the question is, would you want to? Both the Naim and the Meridian are more involving, more exciting to listen to, than the Arcam. For some music, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue, but for a lot of music (and a lot of the most fun music), it does. Again, Moloko is a good example. 'Things To Make And Do' is one of my favourite CDs because it's just SO infectious and groovy and lively. On the Meridian and the Naim (the Meridian more so, incidentally), it can get a bit fatiguing at high levels as it has a lot of sharp, obvious treble; the Arcam makes it much easier to listen to. But it makes it boring. The way the Meridian and the Naim play it, you want to get up and dance, with the Arcam it just seems a bit lifeless.

Now, before I say anymore, I want to be clear - all of these differences I'm talking about here are very subtle. All three of these CD players are very good and produce a very enjoyable sound. Indeed, the first thing I thought after playing a track through each of them was that they all sound basically the same. But I found that after I settled down a bit and really started listening I could pick out the sort of differences described above. But I really did have to listen for it. Now I know what I'm looking for it's easier, but it took some time. There's definitely an argument to be made that if the differences are so small, why worry about it? Just stick with what you've got and be happy. Well, if I were sensible, I would, but I've spent untold thousands on my hifi and I post regularly on hifi forums so that should give you some idea of my level of sensible-ness.

Anyway, now that I know that there are differences, I'm pretty sure I can't just ignore them. It may well be that if I hadn't compared them like this - if I had just one day sold the Meridian and bought the Arcam - that I wouldn't really notice a change. Personally, I think over time I would have. I would have noticed that some albums that I loved before didn't seem so exciting and involving as before - or maybe that some albums that had always sounded a bit edgy and hard to listen to were easier on the ear now. I don't know.

But I digress.

So, the Arcam is easy on the ears but perhaps a touch dull and uninvolving. I do like the slight midrange warmth, to be honest. It sounds very inviting and pleasing, particularly with voices. If it were just a matter of the Meridian's lively, involving, but a bit lean and dry sound vs. the Arcam's warmer, more inviting, but less involving sound it would be a bit of a toss-up. I would have a hard choice between them. But I also think the Meridian is a higher quality player. There's a thing the Meridian does that neither the Arcam or the Naim do, at least not as well - it makes each instrument sound three-dimensional and real, whereas the other players sound somewhat more two-dimensional, like caricatures of the real thing. (Oh boy, this is rather hard to explain...) I suppose you might call it holographic imaging. I'm not sure what else to call it. I suppose you could also call it refinement, but that seems a bit poncy and vague. Whatever it is it makes a big difference to me in the do-I-believe-it's-real stakes. It's most obvious for me on drums. Snare drums especially. They just sound more real, more convincing, on the Meridian. The Meridian does drums really well.

So, on this basis, I'm pretty sure I'll be saying no to the Arcam as well. I am definitely intrigued by the slight warmth and friendliness. This experiment has brought to light the Meridian's somewhat stark balance, with either a slightly forward upper mid or a recessed lower mid (not sure which, though I think it's the latter). It's something I've always attributed to the ATCs, but they may not be the [only] culprits - in any case it seems to be exacerbated by the Meridian.

So, will I keep my Meridian? Most likely, yes. Do I like how it sounds? Yes, definitely. Is it beyond reproach? Sadly not. But I think if I want to find a player that I will be genuinely happy to swap it for it will have to be a proper upgrade, rather than a "side-grade" like I was hoping. And that will require a good few months/years/decades of saving and scrounging. I'll definitely have to have a listen to the new G series, and perhaps the 588. And I'll be on the lookout for that magic player with a slightly warm balance that can still do the lively and involving thing without sacrificing three-dimensionality and "refinement" - though I'm guessing I may be in for a long, hard, expensive search.

Dunc

 

Good review dunkyboy, I enjoyed reading that.

I know a few forum members have ended up with the quad 99 CDP at that price point, so it might be a good one to try to demo.

 

Nice review Dunk, and looks like you saved yourself a few bob! Try the naim with a PS though just for a larf, although to be fair the CD5 is probably the 'safest' player in the naim range, or was I should say.

 

utter Bollocks

 

dunkyboy,
people do either seem to 'get' naim or not and as gary says the cd5 is the 'safest' cdp in naims range. warm up, psu's etc. all do make a (large) difference with naim kit but that way can lead to naimophillia nervosa and it sounds like 'the naim sound' isn't your cup-o-tea so i'd just leave it alone.
the quad may be worth a listen as chris says.
cheers


julian

 

I wouldnt part with my 507. Havent heard anything different so far that would make me want to change it.

Took me ten years to finally upgrade from my 506!

 

Well done, I think you have accurately dissemenated each players 'house' sound, the naim does hav an acquired taste, but like I have said before, they aren't top heavy, more mid forward, as you have rightly said.

 

Duncan

If you've got a couple of hundred quid in your pocket have a clock fitted to your Meridian, that'll put a smile on your face.

Regards
Gary

 

Hmm, Gary, you mean like a Trichord or some such? Can't say I know much about the possibilities - care to elaborate?

Cheers,

Dunc

 

Yes, they are available from a number of companies, including Audiocom. If you feel confident with a soldering iron you might want to have a go yourself, he's some instructions for the 508 to give you an idea of what's involved.

http://www.audiocominternational.com/control/news/anmviewer.asp?a=26&z=4

It would be worth contacting Wadia-Miester for a professional opinion on the differences in sound between the major known brands.

Another option, although more expensive is a Meridian 518 which adds another box to your system, moving further up the chain you could get an Apogee Big Ben master clock which even improves on the internal clock upgrades, allegedly. I have a 518 and a Big Ben and the Big Ben is the better of the two. I have a 602 which is supposed to have an upgraded clock and both the 518 and Big Ben improve it's performance.

If you search the web I'm sure you'll come across lots of info on how the clock improves the sound, definitely worth investigating.

Regards
Gary

 

If you want warmth allied with a good sense of timing it's also worth checking out the Unison Research Unico CDP. A valve hybrid CDP that is very good for the money (£1,200).

Very powerful sounding. Huge soundstage too.

 

Interesting suggestion. Are these old enough to be found secondhand/ex-dem? I thought they were newish.

Dunc

 

I've seen ex-demo Unico CDP's going for around £900ish recently. Check out the free ads at http://www.hififorsale.com

I think I saw Unico's for sale there just the other day.

 

ummm, my understanding of the 518 (as an owner) was that it took a digital input and gave a digital output, so how were you proposing this be connected to the 507 in the absence of a seperate DAC?


cheers
Matt