Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
And I have not ruled out a Naim...I love all things Naim!
My thoughts on three CD players: Naim, Musical Fidelity, and Jolida
- Thread starter Mr. Lin
- Start date
And I have not ruled out a Naim...I love all things Naim!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
My ultimate goal is to get a Nait 5i integrated amp, which the previous owner of my Naim CD player told me results in a "simply magical" sound when combined with the CD5i-2. He urged me several times in our correspondences to get a Nait amp as soon as possible.
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
An update:
Recently I've been regularly switching back and forth between the Naim and the Musical Fidelity CD players, and I have some more thoughts, particularly on the A3.5.
My general conclusion in the review was that the Naim is superior to the other two, and it's clearly my favorite as well. This hasn't changed. However, my opinion of the Musical Fidelity A3.5 is now somewhat higher than before.
I've been listening exclusively to classical music, and my tastes are generally for small-scale works, chamber music, and solo piano, or harpsichord (I'm officially a harpsichord junkie now, if you can imagine such a thing). I'll cut to the chase here and explain what it is I heard that prompted me to write this. A couple nights ago I was listening to Bach's Toccatas played on the harpsichord by Peter Watchorn, Haensler Edition, Bachakademie, through the Naim. After a short listening session I switched over to the Musical Fidelity. To my surprise, there was more "air," and more detail. Apparently it's in the area of micro-dynamics that the A3.5 shines, and probably why I've found it such a fine choice for listening to classical music. More noticeable were the clicking sounds made when Watchorn struck the keys, and a bit more realism in each note, compared to the Naim. This was a very small difference, mind you, but as I've said over and over on AK, small differences can be very significant. Then there was a sense of openness, with an airiness around notes in the upper frequencies. I noted before that the A3.5 has a somewhat restricted sound stage, but what I believe I heard was the instrument pushed back a bit, that is to say, the perspective of where the instrument is in space.
The Naim, on the other hand, and as previously described, has a more direct and up-front presentation. With the A3.5 it seemed like I was hearing more of the resonances caused by the room in which the recording was made, which IMO was not a bad thing at all.
My conclusion here is basically that the A3.5 reveals more of the micro-dynamic, tiny details in a performance than the Naim does. What it lacks when compared to the Naim is the tight grip on the music, the impeccable timing (which also works wonders with harpsichord music, as anyone familiar with the instrument can imagine I'm sure), and the richer, more organic overall sound. Yes the A3.5 presents instrument timbres somewhat more realistically, but in the end I think the Naim still gives you a more compelling reproduction of the recording, at least with most types of music. When it comes to classical, it's a toss up, a trade-off (isn't everything?), and my mood would probably dictate what I want to listen to at any given time.
Right now, as I listen to Webern's Complete Works For String Quartet and String Trio, it's the Musical Fidelity A3.5
Recently I've been regularly switching back and forth between the Naim and the Musical Fidelity CD players, and I have some more thoughts, particularly on the A3.5.
My general conclusion in the review was that the Naim is superior to the other two, and it's clearly my favorite as well. This hasn't changed. However, my opinion of the Musical Fidelity A3.5 is now somewhat higher than before.
I've been listening exclusively to classical music, and my tastes are generally for small-scale works, chamber music, and solo piano, or harpsichord (I'm officially a harpsichord junkie now, if you can imagine such a thing). I'll cut to the chase here and explain what it is I heard that prompted me to write this. A couple nights ago I was listening to Bach's Toccatas played on the harpsichord by Peter Watchorn, Haensler Edition, Bachakademie, through the Naim. After a short listening session I switched over to the Musical Fidelity. To my surprise, there was more "air," and more detail. Apparently it's in the area of micro-dynamics that the A3.5 shines, and probably why I've found it such a fine choice for listening to classical music. More noticeable were the clicking sounds made when Watchorn struck the keys, and a bit more realism in each note, compared to the Naim. This was a very small difference, mind you, but as I've said over and over on AK, small differences can be very significant. Then there was a sense of openness, with an airiness around notes in the upper frequencies. I noted before that the A3.5 has a somewhat restricted sound stage, but what I believe I heard was the instrument pushed back a bit, that is to say, the perspective of where the instrument is in space.
The Naim, on the other hand, and as previously described, has a more direct and up-front presentation. With the A3.5 it seemed like I was hearing more of the resonances caused by the room in which the recording was made, which IMO was not a bad thing at all.
My conclusion here is basically that the A3.5 reveals more of the micro-dynamic, tiny details in a performance than the Naim does. What it lacks when compared to the Naim is the tight grip on the music, the impeccable timing (which also works wonders with harpsichord music, as anyone familiar with the instrument can imagine I'm sure), and the richer, more organic overall sound. Yes the A3.5 presents instrument timbres somewhat more realistically, but in the end I think the Naim still gives you a more compelling reproduction of the recording, at least with most types of music. When it comes to classical, it's a toss up, a trade-off (isn't everything?), and my mood would probably dictate what I want to listen to at any given time.
Right now, as I listen to Webern's Complete Works For String Quartet and String Trio, it's the Musical Fidelity A3.5
Old_Tech
Yer-isn't!
I can understand the attention to detail in the music that has you drawn into both of these players. I for one enjoy hearing open air, the sound of a pick or bow string on an instrument, even someone in the orchestra having a little fart. The realism is always good with machines like these and it sounds like you have done some very critical listening.
I want to say that you love both players equally and have been carefully listening to and admiring the attributes of both. You did a nice job with this review not only on these players but in general discussing things that are important in the sonics and behavior of a good CD Player.
thanks Dave
I want to say that you love both players equally and have been carefully listening to and admiring the attributes of both. You did a nice job with this review not only on these players but in general discussing things that are important in the sonics and behavior of a good CD Player.
thanks Dave
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
Thanks for your update. I read your reviews with attention since my enjoyment field is also classical music, and value therefore all of your insights.
I don't know if this is applicable but in all three of my CD players, there is a particular placement of my speakers which results in the best presentation of imaging/soundfield depth. When I first put in the new Marantz, the soundfield seemed a bit smaller than I expected. After much experimentation, I ended up with my speakers about a foot and a half farther into the room, with no toe-in. This same placement resulted in a wide soundfield in my previous player, but no depth. With the new player, it resulted in a much bigger soundfield, with lots of depth. In fact, it now sounds huge. If I hadn't moved my speakers around I'd have had a much less enthusiastic response to this new player. It's the strangest thing, and really surprised me how much difference it made from my previous speaker placement (which sounded good). Luckily my vinyl rig seems to work equally well with the speakers placed like this.
guiller
Toscaninichus Australis
While reading your comments I was worrying about this! Lucky you!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
I can understand the attention to detail in the music that has you drawn into both of these players. I for one enjoy hearing open air, the sound of a pick or bow string on an instrument, even someone in the orchestra having a little fart. The realism is always good with machines like these and it sounds like you have done some very critical listening.
I want to say that you love both players equally and have been carefully listening to and admiring the attributes of both. You did a nice job with this review not only on these players but in general discussing things that are important in the sonics and behavior of a good CD Player.
thanks Dave
Thanks Ron, that's nice of you.
I'm glad it's helpful. Classical music and hi-fi go hand in hand, I think. Certainly most of my highest sound quality CDs are classical CDs, a genre (if you could call it that) in which many new releases on compact disc still sound excellent. Imagine that!
I think it is applicable John. Note that much of my listening with these CD players is with Grado SR-325i headphones. That gives me the benefit of hearing the minutest details, but of course there are benefits to listening with regular speakers too. In fact, yesterday I was listening to a variety of CDs with the Jolida CDP through my modified Triangle Stella speakers, and it struck me again what a royal pain this new room is (I moved recently). What works for one thing, doesn't do it for the other. The Stellas are wonderful little speakers (and they're very little), but if they're not placed correctly it's obvious you're listening through such a small transducer.
In the future I'll do more extensive listening through a variety of speakers with all three CD players - hopefully once I've straightened out the other spare room. Unfortunately I'm going to be flat broke for a while, otherwise I'd be purchasing a pair of Stax electrostatic headphones, which I'm sure would be much more transparent than what I'm using now, and give even further insights into the CD players in question.
I just moved as well, or rather, a few months ago. It's frustrating when you're trying to audition new gear and you don't have a room figured out, so you don't know if it's the room or the gear causing the problem. I think I've figured it out but who knows. I should have tried my headphones but I'm not at all used to their sound, either. I have maybe five hours on them at most (ATH-ad700s). Stax...now, with those, I'd have a lot more time on them.
MikeCh
Super Member
Nice detail in your descriptions.....I wish I could articulate my feelings as you have above. :thmbsp: Both CDP's you're comparing seem like VERY nice units indeed. Thanks for sharing.
Mike
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Due to the way things are set up right now I have to do most of my listening on headphones. I find this works very nicely with these CD players and the medium itself. When I get my setup together I have a feeling it'll be mostly lps being played. I haven't listened to a record in a long time, really just because my turntables aren't set up.
Thank you Mike!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Another update:
Sometimes you just feel like tubes. Yesterday was one of those days, so I put the Naim aside and broke out the Jolida for the first time in a while. After a brief listening session with a pair of Pope 12AX7 tubes installed (same as Dutch-made Amperex Bugle Boy and extremely rare), which are some of the best tubes I own, I decided to pop off the top and put the crown jewels back in: NOS 1950s RCA triple-mica-black-plate 5751 tubes. Say that three times fast.
Last year a rare mix up by Upscale Audio resulted in me acquiring a pair of the above-named tubes as an apology, and a very, very generous one I might add. I tried to go through some of the same things I've been listening to on other CD players to hear the differences. I noticed the Jolida imparts an almost luscious sound on certain orchestral instruments, making them pop out a little. There's texture (most important thing to me), but it's almost a little overblown and artificial. There's detail, and at the time this was the only good CD player I owned, I thought it was quite a lot, but compared to the other two CD players in question here, it's lacking.
Most disappointing, to my surprise, was how the Jolida handled female vocals. It's hard to put my finger on the problem, but something was missing, almost a thinness in the voice. Listening to Emma Kirkby sing 400 year old consort songs by William Byrd left me unusually restless, listening hard for something that I was used to hearing. Well, moments ago I quickly switched over to the Musical Fidelity A3.5 CDP and discovered what was missing: coherency. Somehow - and I have no idea how - with the Jolida the strings and Kirkby's voice were not flowing together, it sounded rather disjointed. Moreover, with the A3.5 Kirkby's voice sounded closer, more like it was in the room, more intimate. Now, I'm not one of those guys who's trying to recreate live sound, I think that's silly, but in this case we're talking about chamber music, and a woman with a wonderful voice. The fact of the matter is the A3.5 created a much more emotionally engaging experience, it's that simple. There's more detail, the sound is smoother and more liquid, it just sounds right. I should switch over to the Naim and see what happens, but I'm done experimenting for the night, now I'm going to just listen to music.
However, let's get a couple things straight: The above may sound like a damnation of the Jolida, but I don't want anyone to think that the 100 doesn't still have it's merits. The problem, I think, is that it seemed to be more engaging with some CDs than others. Listening to Telemann's "Wassermusik," for example, there was excellent imaging, or instrument separation, yet that level of imaging translated to a lack of coherency on other CDs. Still with me? If you're really following my rants about these CD players you'll recall in the very first post here I noted the Jolida has what can be described as an "intoxicating" sound (not my words, that's from Six Moons).
What's my point?
Last week my brother stopped by for the evening so we could sit around and chat, and this gave me the opportunity to utilize some of my fancy toys. I chose the Jolida for one reason: initially it has the most ear-catching sound. Full bass, three-dimensionality, detail, crispness. I figured my brother wouldn't be listening critically, and my girlfriend never does. I played Bonnie Prince Billy's "The Wonder Show of The World," and it sounded excellent. For entertainment purposes, the Jolida delivers, and it made for a pleasant evening.
The Jolida also seems to do particularly well with solo piano music, presenting you with a rich, warm tone that's downright cozy.
So what am I saying, is it all special effects? Well, not exactly. I think the Jolida is a great CD player, and if I had to live with it forever I would consider myself lucky, but the fact remains that the other two CD players are more refined, and they perform better. The Musical Fidelity A3.5 is easier on the ears, sounds more realistic, controlled, coherent, and detailed. The Naim, well it's most of that and some other very special things I'm not going to get into again because I'm getting tired of typing.
Once again, please bear in mind the Jolida 100 CD player I'm referring to has undergone numerous modifications by myself. Still, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone in the market for a CD player in that price point, and used at around $450, it's a great deal.
Any questions?
Sometimes you just feel like tubes. Yesterday was one of those days, so I put the Naim aside and broke out the Jolida for the first time in a while. After a brief listening session with a pair of Pope 12AX7 tubes installed (same as Dutch-made Amperex Bugle Boy and extremely rare), which are some of the best tubes I own, I decided to pop off the top and put the crown jewels back in: NOS 1950s RCA triple-mica-black-plate 5751 tubes. Say that three times fast.
Last year a rare mix up by Upscale Audio resulted in me acquiring a pair of the above-named tubes as an apology, and a very, very generous one I might add. I tried to go through some of the same things I've been listening to on other CD players to hear the differences. I noticed the Jolida imparts an almost luscious sound on certain orchestral instruments, making them pop out a little. There's texture (most important thing to me), but it's almost a little overblown and artificial. There's detail, and at the time this was the only good CD player I owned, I thought it was quite a lot, but compared to the other two CD players in question here, it's lacking.
Most disappointing, to my surprise, was how the Jolida handled female vocals. It's hard to put my finger on the problem, but something was missing, almost a thinness in the voice. Listening to Emma Kirkby sing 400 year old consort songs by William Byrd left me unusually restless, listening hard for something that I was used to hearing. Well, moments ago I quickly switched over to the Musical Fidelity A3.5 CDP and discovered what was missing: coherency. Somehow - and I have no idea how - with the Jolida the strings and Kirkby's voice were not flowing together, it sounded rather disjointed. Moreover, with the A3.5 Kirkby's voice sounded closer, more like it was in the room, more intimate. Now, I'm not one of those guys who's trying to recreate live sound, I think that's silly, but in this case we're talking about chamber music, and a woman with a wonderful voice. The fact of the matter is the A3.5 created a much more emotionally engaging experience, it's that simple. There's more detail, the sound is smoother and more liquid, it just sounds right. I should switch over to the Naim and see what happens, but I'm done experimenting for the night, now I'm going to just listen to music.
However, let's get a couple things straight: The above may sound like a damnation of the Jolida, but I don't want anyone to think that the 100 doesn't still have it's merits. The problem, I think, is that it seemed to be more engaging with some CDs than others. Listening to Telemann's "Wassermusik," for example, there was excellent imaging, or instrument separation, yet that level of imaging translated to a lack of coherency on other CDs. Still with me? If you're really following my rants about these CD players you'll recall in the very first post here I noted the Jolida has what can be described as an "intoxicating" sound (not my words, that's from Six Moons).
What's my point?
Last week my brother stopped by for the evening so we could sit around and chat, and this gave me the opportunity to utilize some of my fancy toys. I chose the Jolida for one reason: initially it has the most ear-catching sound. Full bass, three-dimensionality, detail, crispness. I figured my brother wouldn't be listening critically, and my girlfriend never does. I played Bonnie Prince Billy's "The Wonder Show of The World," and it sounded excellent. For entertainment purposes, the Jolida delivers, and it made for a pleasant evening.
The Jolida also seems to do particularly well with solo piano music, presenting you with a rich, warm tone that's downright cozy.
So what am I saying, is it all special effects? Well, not exactly. I think the Jolida is a great CD player, and if I had to live with it forever I would consider myself lucky, but the fact remains that the other two CD players are more refined, and they perform better. The Musical Fidelity A3.5 is easier on the ears, sounds more realistic, controlled, coherent, and detailed. The Naim, well it's most of that and some other very special things I'm not going to get into again because I'm getting tired of typing.
Once again, please bear in mind the Jolida 100 CD player I'm referring to has undergone numerous modifications by myself. Still, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone in the market for a CD player in that price point, and used at around $450, it's a great deal.
Any questions?
Last edited:
Old_Tech
Yer-isn't!
I think taking a short break from the Naim has been an interesting venture. The tubes in the Jolida have brought forward tone and body in some of your instruments that's certain. The extended listening you enjoyed with company was certainly engaging. I think you have taken a little break from the top shelf Naim and A3.5 and heard new sound.
The A3.5 really fascinates me especially the vocals you mentioned. A friend has the A6 Integrated and he says the vocals are right in front of you.
Again we need to remember the nature of some of our CD's and keep the reference handy when switching players.
I spent some time with my Magnavox CDB-650 last night and was just stunned by it's definition and imaging so I am going to run with it for awhile.
Thanks for the follow up on these three jewels.
ttyl
Ron
The A3.5 really fascinates me especially the vocals you mentioned. A friend has the A6 Integrated and he says the vocals are right in front of you.
Again we need to remember the nature of some of our CD's and keep the reference handy when switching players.
I spent some time with my Magnavox CDB-650 last night and was just stunned by it's definition and imaging so I am going to run with it for awhile.
Thanks for the follow up on these three jewels.
ttyl
Ron
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Much appreciated guiller, I'm glad it's useful to someone.
My opinion of the A3.5 has evolved since I got the Naim. At first I thought it was disappointing when put up against the Naim, but more careful listening reveals some very special capabilities that I didn't completely notice at first. I consider the A3.5 the poster child for upsampling, controversial as it is with CD players, Musical Fidelity are firmly in the upsampling camp. The benefits are a warmer, smoother sound, and much more detail. There's also some airiness but I'm not convinced that's attributable to the upsampling.
Of course, these are not revelations to anyone but me, it's been known for a long time.
Ron, when you switch back over to the Marantz you'll probably be sweating. Will it prove itself far superior to the Magnavox? I'm sure it will, but the differences probably won't be "in-your-face," so you'll have to listen closely.
Thanks for the update...this continues to be a very interesting thread. My tubed CD player sort of jives with your description of the Jolida. It's a great attention getter, and great for background music. Over time in critical listening you notice, though, that it obscures a whole lot of detail in the name of a big, blooming soundstage. Fun but not for the long haul. (it's an AMC cd-6 or something like that).
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Thanks!
Interesting, I didn't know you have a tubed CD player too. Funny that you've noticed similar sound characteristics. This is kind of like what I went through with phono cartridges: I'm amazed at one, then I climb the ladder and realize there's that whole extra level of refinement possible, and it's hard to go back. I was warned though, namely by Big Erik, who has a similar cartridge.
I don't think I could bring myself to sell the Jolida though, because of the personal touches I put on it, it would be too hard to let go. So it will stay primarily for social gatherings, or when I feel like listening to something really psychedelic and want some extra space and "pop."
I'm really intrigued by the TNT review of the Astin Trew tube CD player. The reviewer seemed to be very impressed by it - plus it uses 6922 tubes, which I think are superior to 12AX7. Ah well, chances are I'll be sticking to solid state CD players in the future.
Come on everyone, keep dumping your audiophile CD players and CD collections as you switch over to a pc/DAC system! Please!!!
The AMC was my main player before the Marantz, though it was briefly unseated by my Sony CD recorder after I discovered what a great stand alone player it was...which led me to think that even greener pastures awaited, and opened the door for the Marantz. The Marantz is what I wanted the tubed CD player to sound like..all the imagine and timbre but none of the 'buffer'. I don't want to mask anything, I don't want things glossed over...but that's what the tubes in the AMC seem to be doing. I always liked it but had nothing to compare it to. One thing I might try to do is roll some new tubes in there. I don't even remember what it has, but have acquired some 12AX7s that I can put in there.
I'm listening to the Marantz as I type. I wish I would have known a player could sound like this.