You can hear the drive while playing the first three or four tracks

Before I had a Denon 580.
The difference is grat. The music sounds more brilliant.

So - do not look at the CD-Player - just hear and enjoy :-)

Detail, balanced palette

None at this price.

The 7se, now with a 24.96 DAC, is an excellent component for entry to middle range "high end" systems. It is quite detailed and avoids being brassy or overly sweet. It presents a wide range of instrumentation quite well, electric & acoustic, ensembles, orchestras, guitar rock, vocal performances, etc. In short, it never falls flat on the job. I thus would be surprised if it failed to complement almost 1-5K system. (My system:

Magnapan IIIa's
Bryston 4Bst Amp
Bryston BP-20 Line-Stage
Arcam Alpha 7SE (now Alpha 9)
Yamaha CT-7000 FM Tuner
BEL interconnects
Tara Labs RSC Prime Speaker Cable
Richard Grey Power Treatment)

Some folk don't like the basic, almost brutish design, nor the plastic face plate. Cosmetics aside, these "limits" appear to have no sonic impact, and I can't see degrading the component b/c it fails to be glamorous. Some suggest it looks flimsy, but IMHO, "flimsy" needs to mean something sonically for the charge to mean something. After all,w e're npot flying the thing, we're listening to it.

In short, if $600 is your budget, you can't go wrong with this unit.

Having said all this, I must confess I scooped up a used Alpha 9, and it operates on a whole other sonic level. However, I did so given hi-fi-consumption-itis and not any dissatisfaction with the alpha 7se.

Clarity, airiness, good separation

tonally inaccurate, much too sweet. Lack of pace.

I bought the 7SE to replace an old Marantz CD46. Was surprised at my disappointment. Femail vocals and strings were overly sweet and tonally very inaccurate, Bass on the Marantz was more realistically defined and the skin of drums was very realistic on the CD 46. The NAD 540 was altogether superior to both the Marantz and the 7SE, having a wider and deeper soundstage and much more pace and attack. Although the bass on the NAD 540 is thumpier than the Marantz, it has more realistic timing and attack. Perhaps Arcam have downgraded the recent 7SE's to push the newer Diva range. So maybe I was unlucky. But there is no doubt that the NAD 540 is a high end piece of equipment far outweighing the Arcam. I'm sure there are really good 7SE's around but other audiobuffs too have noticed the oversweet tone like having tea with 9 sugars.

Similar Products Used:

Marantz 46, NAD 540

Clarity of sound, punchiness and definition, price

None at the price

After spending many hours searching for opinions on CD players, I eventually shortlisted the Marantz 6000KI, Arcam CD72 and the Arcam 7SE. I listened to all three through a NAD C350, and Monitor Audio Bronze 3's. I tested each with mainly classical music, and began with the Marantz. Dull is the only way I can descibe it. Nothing excited me about the sound, which was fair enough, which I would assume it should be for a £500 player! I switched down to the CD72. Suddenly the music leapt to life, soundstage became a whole lot clearly and I felt drawn into listening more. I thought the decision had been made, but then I listened to the 7SE. Admittedly, the sound was a little more withdrawn, the soundstage was a little more hazy, but the punchiness and vitality still remained. I really couldn't justify spending the extra £150 for the only slightly better CD72. A fine all round player.

Similar Products Used:

Arcam CD72, Marantz CD6000 KI

This player presents music very well. It plays CD-Rs and is very good value for money.

The build quality is not as good as the newer Diva range or the older Deltas. It does need a good support and sympathetic cables to get the best from it.

This is really just an update on my review from 16-10-2000.

With a different interconnect the brightness and occasional lack of drama are no longer apparent. The sound is rich and warm but rhythmic and precise. The timbres of instruments are rendered well and the sense of the recording's acoustic is good. IMHO you need to spend a lot more to get a player that sounds more than just slightly better. Using cones to isolate the chassis will bring its performance up to the level of players costing twice as much. If it is partnered well it sounds great.

I have altered my ratings as the price has fallen making it better value for money. Performance-wise, I've got no complaints but I realise that there are better players available.

System used;

Arcam 7 SE
QED Qudos 4 three metre interconnect
Myryad MI120 integrated amplifier
QED Silver anniversary 5 metre speaker cables
Epos ES14 speakers

Similar Products Used:

Arcam Delta 170 transport and Black Box DAC.
Arcam Alpha 9
Samsung DVD player.

Great definition, good positioning and stable sound

Over emphasised bass, richer than real sound and dull treble

Just a note to comment on the latest (last) 7SE having a sound balance that is a long way from neutral. It has unnatural amounts of bass and unclear treble, which become obvious the more I listened to it. Because my equipment is quite neautral any bias in the source shows up.

Given the lack of features and no CD Text I'm amazed it has done so well on this review database.

In 1992 I bought a Marantz CD54 14-bit player with class A transistor amp output which sounded like this one.

I know it works well with the Arcam 8R and latest Mission speakers as a combo. But I don't use those.

In summary I don't think this is worth the money, but it can match other equipment that is fast and bright sounding.

Similar Products Used:

Sony CDP-XB930E, Marantx CD6000OSE, Rotel RCD951, NAD

Great sound right across the sound spectrum. Never sounds harsh. Unbeatable value for money.

They don't make them anymore. Some might say dull, cheap looks.

I originally had my heart set on the arcam cd 72. I liked its looks and had heard great things about its sound. I had also heard good things about the other products mentioned above. I went into the store with the intention of testing the cd 72 against the nad and marantz players, but there was the 7se for sale at half the price of the cd72. I had to give it a chance at only £200, it was originally priced at £350 after all. Arcam recently revamped the cd72, the reason being the sony transport used was no longer manufactured. Apart from the transport changes, a clock and improved analogue filters, the cd72 is essentially the same internally as the 7se, both use the same brown burr 24 bit filter. The new transport makes no difference to the sound quality, bear in mind the old one was good enough to be used in all the alpha models upto the alpha 9.
The first player I listened to was the cd 72, I loved the sound, a deep warm bass, excellent timing, great detail and strong midrange, the treble never sounds harsh or fatiguing to listen to.
2nd up was the 541. Again this was a nice player, it did'nt quite match the cd72 for timing, it was faster and had a bit more attack, but that is not to say it was too upfront. It was similar to the cd72, which is to be expected as it uses the same dac, but it seemed a little less sonically exciting next to the cd72, but we are talking about small differences here. I went to put on a disc that had been happilly spining on the arcam, oh dear, it was jumping a little on the nad. I had heard about this problem before with nad players. I don't need an oversensitive transport mech.
3rd came the Marantz, again this was a nice player, but it could'nt match the arcam for timing, the marantz was detailed but sounded less natural than the 72 or the nad. It had plenty of bass and slam, but the treble could get a little too harsh for my liking at times. The dac in the Marantz is only 1 bit. If this makes no difference, why do almost all higher end players use 1 or more 24 bit dacs?
I had almost made my mind up to go for the 72 but I thought I'd give the 7se a listen to see how much difference there was between it and the 72. Is it started up I realised I could almost have been listening to the cd72 all over again. I switched back and forth between the 72 and the 7se and there was a slight difference; maybe. The only difference I could make out was a little more definiton, I must stress, A LITTLE, and again possibly a LITTLE more bass slam. That was it. It compared very well alongside the Marantz and Nad player and sounded better, if only slightly.
The only difference that was not slight was the price, I had strained to hear a difference between the 72 and 7se but the 7se was half the price of the cd72. Time for a reality check. I bought the 7se and have been delighted with it ever since, I have a player with the basically the same sound as a player of twice the price, ok it may not have the good looks of the cd72 but I don't buy a cd player for the way it looks, its sound I care about and the 7se is unbelievable for £200, its unbelieveable for £300 and even £400.
Go and get one before stocks run dry. This player won best overall cd player 2 years running in the what hifi awards,1999 and 2000. This was not for nothing, it also comes highly recommended by hifi choice, these publications are notorious for disagreement. No chance of that with this great player.

Equipment used,
Mission m74 speakers
Nad 370 amp
Qed silver ann cable
Ecosse ca1 interconnects.

Similar Products Used:

Arcam cd72. Marantz 6000ose le. Nad 541.

good sound. copes well with most types of music

very cheap finish. scratches very easily. have seen better finishes on players a third of the price

tends to like light rock. doesn't cope that well with heavy rock. breathed life into carly simon. overall not bad, but better finishes available at the price

Similar Products Used:

cambridge audio cd6

great sound, very smooth, natural,& detailed. Well built.

none so far

Seemed laid back at first, but the more I use it the more I realize it is accurate and very natural sounding. No "hi-fi" sound here. Excellent soundstage. Well recorded vocals are "in the room". Very low level detail is impressively clear and distinct, on a par with the XA1ES which is very good at this sort of thing. But in other respects, the 7SE is better than any of the others at being natural and musical sounding.

My preamp has some compatibility problems at the CD input with some CDP's. This one seems to work very well with anything and has saved me having to replace the preamp. I am using Tara Labs interconnects after trying several others.

Similar Products Used:

Onkyo DX-220, Sony XE-500, Sony XA1ES, Rotel 971

detail, detail, detail, musicality, transport

can sound bright and or thin with the wrong equipment

In terms of overall technical rightness, the Arcam CD72 sounds fab- no surprise since it's the most expensive. Between the NAD 541, Marantz 6000, and Rotel 971, buy the one that best suits your ears and system. They're all quite good. The only way you're going to know which one is right for you is by home demoing these units. I can't believe, from reviews below and elsewhere, that people actually demo different CD players at different stores plugged into different amps/preamps/processors/AV receivers and interconnects/speaker wires and hastily make a decision as to which CD player is best. You have to plug two different CD players into the exact same unit and use the same wires in order to get a good idea as to which one is better. Bringing the units home is even better because one unit might do better with your room's acoustics....
I recently home demoed the NAD 541 with the HDCD chip in it vs. my Arcam 7SE at home plugged into the same components and wires because my friend was demoing the NAD for himself at his place... Anyway, I listened to some classical, rock/country, and rock that I am familiar with and found that the 7SE had more natural sounding vocals and instruments. I was surprised that my Dire Straits Best Of CD, which is an HDCD CD, sounded significantly better in the 7SE than the 541 with the HDCD chip. As mentioned before, the vocals sounded more natural. As well, the snare drum hits sounded like thuds with the NAD, but sounded like a thuds and you could hear the tssst (the striking noise) with the Arcam. As I mentioned in the Strengths area above, this CD player has detail, detail, detail! As much as any CD player costing twice as much as the unit and under.
Still, the NAD beats out the Arcam in soundstaging size and speed. Although, I find the 7SE fast enough and natural. In conclusion, the 7SE's sound is warm and refined, yet has sparkle at the top end that makes it wicked with vocals. The mid-range and bass are great too.
The 7SE's European made Sony transport is one of my favourites. NAD's transports are downright slow compared to the 7SE's. The Marantz 6000 and Rotel 971 have quick transports but the dischandling is odd on both units. For instance, you have to press the previous track button twice... fast... on the Marantz in order to hear the previous track. The 7SE's is more intuitive and does what you expect it to do.
Anyway, the right sound is what we should all be after. As I mentioned before, try to find the CD player that sounds the best with your system, for your ears... regardless of how fast the transport is or how ugly the unit is... maybe you like a huge soundstage and therefore like the NAD better...

Similar Products Used:

NAD 520, NAD 541, Rotel 971, Marantz 6000 OSE, Arcam CD72