Musicality. Depth, Detail, Involvement. Everything.

Too big to fit on my shelf so is residing on the floor. She won't be happy when she wakes up!

Just upgraded from Arcam 7 CD and amp, 8 tuner to CD92T, A85, P85, T61 divas. I can't believe the difference, mind you I have just bought £168 QED cable too. All I can say is wow, it's like James Lavelle is in my living room. Clarity, detail, imaging and sheer involvement. Beautiful. It's showing just how good my old Linn speakers actually are too.

Arcam truly must be amongst the best. Was listening to my mate's nice Musical Fidelity/Tannoy set-up the other day and it didn't sound as good as my old Arcams, let alone these. I think the upgrade bug has been sated (for the time being anyway ;-))

the sound

The fact that Arcam didnt renew thier licence with dsc and left consumers having to scrouch around looking for used,Cmom Arcam be the man,hook up with dcs again,cmon i dare you,do it.You had a good thing going with dcs you dropped the ball on the 1 yardline at the end of the Super bowl. Game over Score dcs with Arcam 100,Arcam without dcs 0

First off anybody that disses these players,must have problems in other areas of their stereo,because i hate to break it to them it isnt the cd player,these are classics,with unbeatable sound,and used a steal.Its pretty hard to find a decent cd player,now and in the past,sure you can find a average one,but who wants average not me

Similar Products Used:

Too many to name and none comes close to cd92t

All round.Musical,full bodied.Insightful

None

I love this player!!!! Combines liveliness and smoothness to produce an effortless sound.Particularly good with Vocals.Cannot really fault the player.Why pay more?My old Naim CD3 sounded like a box of nails in comparison The DCS Ring-Dac Arcams are the ones to buy.The Cheaper CD7,although good is not in the same league and the newer CD93 and CD33 do not use the same DAC.Apparently many prefer the CD92 and FMJ23.The FMJ23 is almost the same as the 92 with a few small tweaks to the power supply.

Similar Products Used:

Naim CD3,Linn Karik,Nad,Sony xb930

Balance, detail, dynamics

Dry texture

I was somewhat under-whelmed by this player. The sound is well balanced, clean & dynamic, but texture is dry and somewhat mechanical and not as musical or lush (read: expensive sounding) as others that can be had for similar or less money. For instance, a Marantz SA14 ($1600 used) sounded smoother and more substantial on redbook (on SACD it blew the Arcam away). Even the less expensive Rotel RCD1072 gave a sweeter and less forced presentation, but it wasn’t as dynamic. The 92T’s deep bass is weak compared to the Marantz. I also question the Arcam’s timing - everything sounds faster through it than the other machines. I don’t feel as relaxed listening to the Arcam for long periods. BUILT: This is the one area I am most disappointed with. Fair enough, the money went into the guts right? Wrong. The CD92T’s interior is second rate. Parts quality doesn’t measure up given the price – flimsy construction and lots of cheap ceramic caps. It has a plastic transport; the Marantz uses diecast metal. The CD92T has a small power supply compared to the Marantz and, believe it or not, RCD1072. The CD92T uses a conventional transformer for much of its circuitry; both Rotel and Marantz use hefty toroidal transformers (the SA14’s transformer is a thing of beauty). Also evidence of sloppy assembly inside the CD92T– fingerprints everywhere! Pieces of sorbothane appeared randomly stuck to the top of some caps (???). The CD92T is also lightweight for a cd player in its price class (12 lb); RCD1072 weighs 13 lb.; SA14 26 lb! Give Arcam credit for hiding the small power supply caps, they’re not easy to get to (modifiers take note!) ERGONOMICS: Nice faceplate and controls. But remote looks and feels like some generic device from Radio Shack. Layout is confusing and more than half the buttons don’t apply. The RCD1072 remote doesn’t win any awards either, but it looks like it was designed for the machine and all buttons are smartly laid out and functional. The Marantz remote is in another league altogether. Bottom line: The CD92T is a good player but no bargain. Obviously a victim of Transatlantic price penalty, it looks, feels and sounds more like it should be priced around $1000! In my opinion the Rotel will sound as good in most systems for less money. Absolute Sound is correct in naming Rotel product of the year. If you can afford the Marantz SA14, buy it. It is the best SACD player under $5K. The old Alpha 9 (essentially a CD92T wrapped in plastic) may be a bargain in its day. But its descendant is outclassed by its peers.

Similar Products Used:

Marantz SA14 Rotel RCD1072

clean, detailed, revealing

uninvolving, cheap chassis, generic remote

I call it the "other" system doldrums. That's when you have to fit a second/third/fourth room with gear that should approximate your "mother" system at a much smaller budget. It all began with the search for my upgrade for my 7 year old bedroom system comprised of a CAL Audio DX1 CD plyr, Integra 919, and B&W CDM 2 mini-monitors. The JFET output stages on my DX1 along with their Sigma Delta DACs just weren't doing it for me anymore as with the rest of the gear. I added a MF X24k Dac which kept me satisfied for a year but you know how it goes with this hobby. I decided to ship that system to the summer house and start anew. After extensive integrated Amp auditions I settled on an FMJ over the MF A3 and very sweet but very slow VTL. The perfect match was the Revel M20 over the Dynaudio 1.1, Nautilus 805, Veritas 2.1, and the ProAc Tablette. The CD92 was my second choice as i couldn't afford the CD23. I bought the CD Player and the Integrated and decided to use it with a pair of Maggie SMGc Speakers a friend had practically given me for free while I saved up for the M20s. I loved them and still do. I ended up not buying the M20s at all. The system couldn't play very loud with the maggies sucking up all the available current but as it really for bedroom use, it was and is perfect for light pop,jazz, standards, classical, ambient,downbeat or just anything you might want to chill out to. The CD 92 excels at detail and soundstaging and the upsampling function is able to push brickwall filtering way up in the audio band giving it the smoothness lacking in most digital products. For this purpose I'd give it a 5 of 5. However, I hooked It up to my lounge system comprised of Dynaudio 1.8 mk.2s, an ARC LS16 mk 2 and a Levinson 23.5 using the same MIT Terminator 2 arrays. This may be good or bad but depending on your taste it just had no sound of its own. It had no character. All the musical information was present but despite the ARC's tubes it just felt like it lacked soul. I am by no means a bass head but this CD player sounded a bit thin lacking that 150 - 250 Hz punch. It therefore lacks the versatility all players at this pricepoint should posses. I have got to bring it down to 4 of 4.

Similar Products Used:

rega planet, jupiter, sony9000es, DX1-x24k combo, Sony DVD777-MSB Link DAC combo, Sony DVD777-Proceed AVP2 combo.

Good tonal balance makes it brilliant all-rounder, digs enough detail, pictures wide and almost 3D soundstage

There is no stand-by. I also noticed that the cd92 suffers a bit from mains noise, but it might just be a general hifi issue.

I longed a new cd palyer for a couple of years, to complete my setup which already included an Arcam A85 and ProAc Studio 125. Given the outgoing and dynamic nature of the A85 and the smoothness of the 125s, I wanted to find a cd reasnably capable of combining fast transients and tight bass (for my pop/rock cd's) with good depth and smooth mids and highs (for chillout, acoustic, jazz, and classical). Having always been a fan of the beefy Marantz sound, but disliking the relatively lower level of detail coming from CD17s, I short-listed Arcam cd92t, fmj cd23, MF A3.2 and A324 dac. The benefit of having an Arcam combo was not only visual (for the good looks of the lounge style reception room), but I could expect soni synergies, and hopefully use only one remote. (It sounds silly, but when you have six remotes already and have not moved yet into multi-remote controllers, every little bit helps). The MF A3.2 has a very smooth approach to music, and acoustic instruments are nicely represented on the low and medium frequencies, while the highs are a bit veiled. Keep in mind I tested them with VDH 102 interconnects that are quite explicit at higher octaves. The A324dac was very dependent on the transport, which is a big big shame. Driven by my Sony DVD, it sounded a lot worse than my Technics sl480 cd player now worth £30-40 on eBay. When I connected the dac to the cd92, the sound flourished, easily adding a perceived extra 5-10 hertz to the bass and an extra silkyness to the high. Unfortunately I was only planning to buy one item, not a transport/dac combo. The cd92, compared to both the MF player and dac, had an extra sparkle on mid-highs, which was very appreciated on acoustic guitars, lead vocals, cymbals, and generally the whole air coming out of the speakers. Studio 125s make sure that natural reverb and high frequency harmonics are all well taken care of. "Michael Camilo and Tomatito" on cd now sound very real, and the high piano notes are not veiled as it happens on the MFs. One song I always use to test systems is "The host of Seraphim" from Dead can Dance. The cd92 gave it enough life and reality to make me steer toward the Arcam rather than the MF. But it's with fast transients that I found the cd92 superior to the MF. With cheap players and laid back one, even when we stop noticing, it's like we are missing the first 20-30 milliseconds of the beat, making drums and bass, and in general all percussive sounds, less impressive. The cd92 gave me back those lost milliseconds, and a lot of my cd's are now back to life, with a higher rhythmic coherence. I can finally enjoy Red Hot Chilli Peppers in all their grandeur, and start listening again (with real pleasure) to Pearl Jam and Black Crowes. The cd92 might just be a tad too bright on electronic music (from Depeche Mode to Orbital and Chemical Brothers), but its rhythmic capabilities make it very decent party animal if you are planning to play old 80s disco or techno-trance from Cyberdog cd's. The cd23 is all this + 5-10%, but being now both discontinued and being only the cd92 sold at discount, I could not consider buying the cd23 for an extra £525. At £675 it's a great deal.

Similar Products Used:

Arcam fmj cd23, Musical Fidelity a3.2, Musical Fidelity A324 dac

sound

workmanship

After reading several test reports, I originally decided to buy the Marantz CD 17 MK II. Unfortunately the CD 17 has over width (> 44 cm or > 17 “) and therefore it does not fit not into my hifi rack. Searching for alternatives, I discovered the Arcam CD 92 at my local retailer. In direct comparison with other devices and also in comparison to the high-praised Marantz, my ears decided quickly: In the given price range there is simply no other CD player, which sounds better. Fidelity, transparency and resolution could not be better. One hears suddenly – also on old CDs – subtleties which stayed in the concealment before! This might be a „disadvantage“ at the same time because the device exposes mercilessly bad recoding, mixing and mastering. Regarding the CD 92 features there is nothing to blame: - HDCD support - CD text - Coaxial and optical digital output - Twin audio output - Remote control To my opinion, the outer appearance is rather attractive: simple, no flourishes, clearly organized control buttons. Disadvantages: Unfortunately there are also some negative issues: - Right after unpacking I had to notice that the CD tray was inclined and I had to return the device to the distributor for repair - The remote control is overloaded with unnecessary functions, because it is usable also for a DVD player of Arcam - The display, in particular the HDCD indicator, is too bright (the display can be switched off completely, but do not be dimmed unfortunately) - The CD read in time appears to be relatively long - The quality of workmanship does not really match the price For those who are interested in technical details: - High resolution 24-bit dCS Ring DAC - Dynamic range 106 dB - S/N > 100 dB - Harmonic distortion (0dB, 1kHz) < 0.005% - Frequency range (± 0,5dB): 20Hz-20kHz Although I normally hate to explain sound quality by certain technical features (as “the XY chip of … results to clear highs”) I cannot deny that the ring DAC of dCS must be something special. Believing Arcam, dCS is a main supplier for professional studios. Conclusion: Top performance without criticism. The audiophile must accept the mentioned minor disadvantages or – pay much more. PS: Price above is in EURO!

Similar Products Used:

Speakers: Infinity Kappa 80 R Amp: Accuphase E 206

Dynamic. Clear treble but not too bright (certainly not "sharp"). Punchy bass but not boomy.

Remote includes too many extra buttons (for Arcam amps, DVD etc).

I wanted to upgrade from my NAD C541 and decided to choose between the Arcam CD 92T (US$1150) and the Marantz SA-14 (US$1475) as both had good reviews. I tried them both in two shops, starting with the SA-14 in each shop. Both times I would have been happy buying one until I tried the 92T. The music seemed to come alive with it. I was using a test CD and maybe the SA-14 had a slightly brighter, clearer sound on bells ringing but overall there was no contest. With "real" music (classical, jazz, vocal) the 92T had far more punch to it. The SA-14 sounded dull and boring by comparison - far too smooth. Everything was there except the excitment. Maybe on SACD's it sounds good but I have 1200 CDs and a few XRCDs and I'm not about to start replacing them. I didn't buy from the first shop as he was so eager to sell me the Arcam I thought he'd doctored the audition (e.g. crummy cables on the Marantz) but it was just the same at the second shop. I got a bit concerned that maybe the 92T would be too dynamic and I'd get tired of it after an hour but no; you can't tear me away! So I'd say if you want a good, entry level SACD player maybe get the SA-14. If you want a CD player go for the Arcam and save yourself some money. If you only play pop music stick with the NAD as electronic music doesn't have enough in it to warrant true hi-fi (IMHO). I'm using it with a Rotel RA-1060 amp and B&W 603S2 speakers with SciTech connects and cables (clearer than my old AudioQuest Diamondback and QED Silver Anniversary).

Similar Products Used:

NAD C541 (and older models) Marantz SA-14 (auditioned)

Balance; midrange

Built; slightly dry texture

Very good balance and marginally better than my friend's Alpha 8 but sounds a bit crude and unrefined compared with the very best. I had 2 Marantz players on hand, SA14 and DR17, and both sounded smoother and more dimensional and realistic, not to mention better bass. The thing that really bothers me about this player is the lousy construction ( a bit sloppy) and parts quality which I expected better for the money. Looks and feels more like an $800 player.

Similar Products Used:

Marantz SA14/DR17; Rotel 971