The dac ring dac outstanding,makes other players sound like listening through mud.Will never figure out why Arcam didnt make these forever,Wolfson dac,s or not.You want to find out how far digital has come listen to a old 855 and something newer and your answer will be crysyal clear.

please

Outstanding cd player.Crystal clear sound.No harshness,no grain,puts any lower Arcams to shame,maybe you do get what you pay for.Very easy to listen to,once you start to listen,you dont want to stop,thats the most important.Other parts of system is Legacy studio monitor speakers,Sonographe sc26 pre amp,Sonographe sa 250 amp

Similar Products Used:

Rotel 855,Cambridge Azur,Music Hall Tandberg,

- Beautiful midrange - Excellent highs (almost too good - a bit on the ear piercing side) - Fantastic soundstage - Great dynamics (one has to turn the volume down to allow for those high dynamic transient music passages) - No problems in reading any CDs I have thrown at it. - Very user friendly

- Bass not up to par with upsampled CD players. - Remote could use a few less buttons although I rather have one too many than one too few. - A bit pricey, but for a UK made product, probably should be expected. - The red HDCD indicator light is way too bright but can be solved with a piece of black tape.

My initial thoughts, on upgrading my Marantz CC3000 CD player, were to purchase an Arcam CD93 player, since I had the Arcam A85 integrated amp. But since the dealer did not have a CD93 in stock yet, I went on my quest to find another player. After numerous auditions, I settled for the Music Hall Maverick CD player with 24/96 upsampling. When this player started to act up, after only 1 week in service, my quest for a replacement player continued. Eventually, it led me back to the Arcam dealer and what a good fortune that was! From listening to the last Arcam CD92,that they had left, I finally found the CD player I was looking for. Out of the box, the CD92 was more than I could hope for. After about 35 hours of burn in, the player got even better. The sound produced by the player is extremely articulate with excellent midrange clarity and extended high frequencies. The soundstage and dynamics is second to none. The bass may be somewhat light in comparison to other players, especially those with upsampling, but is adequate for my type of listening. If the new CD93 has a better sound, then go for it. However, if you happen upon a CD92, whether it be second hand or not, I don't think you would be making a mistake in getting it.

Similar Products Used:

- Owned Sony CDP345, Marantz CC3000 (garbage) and Music Hall Maverick (sounds great but doesn't work all the time) - Auditioned Musical Fidelity A3.2, Creek CD50MK2, Linn Gemki, Unison Research Unico CD, Audio Analogue Paganini

Soundstage Detail Voice

Chassis Remote (too many buttons, same for DVD)

Arcam CD93 replaces model 92. This one does not decode HDCD. Arcam Ring Dac has been replaced by Wolson DAC (2 per channel). The detail is very accurate. The sound of this player is getting everyday better and better. After a few days of listening it really started to make my speakers (Infinity RS7K) "sing" better and better. After the first month of use this player made me change idea about the qualities and the listening pleasure that a CD player can provide to somebody who loves the sound of the LP. Long life to PCM and red book! I took 4 months for the choice of my new CD player, at the end I had to choose between the following brands: McIntosh, Rotel, Marantz, Roksan, Linn, Denon. I also took in consideration a few SACD players (denon sony and marantz). Arcam new CD93 player was (to my ears) the best price/quality-of-sound compromise. Every dollar of this product is spent for the sound quality, the chassis is not the best (not bad but could be better).

Vocals well rendered with lots of details. Infomation is well blended.

Very bad bass.

I am listening this unit since 2 weeks . after trying the Arcam CD72T during one month. I have burn the unit during 4 days before listening to it. Well, This player blend the information in a better way than the CD72T and is more precise with voices. It has a more neutsal sound too. But deep bass is very badly rendered compared to is youngest brother. This can be very annoying when listening to music solliciting this register. For 2000 CDN $ you may think twice before buying this baby. Verdict. This cd player is very far from delivering the material that is oldest brother does, so go with the youngest one (CD72) for the bass or the oldest (CD23) for the detail. System Preamp : Arcam 9C Amp : Arcam 9P Interconnect : Audioquest Viper Speaker cables : Audiotruth Forest+ Speakers : ProAc Tablette 2000

Similar Products Used:

Arcam CD23T, Arcam CD72T

Clarity Focus Depth Makes any CD enjoyable to listen to. Compatibility.

None, Even the remote on the Text versions has lost those shiney reflective buttons.

I previously owned the Diva 72 and and I thought that was a great player for £400. Instead of the 92 upgrade option I bought a new 92 with text with a 20% discount. I have heard players in the £1000 price range and this was by far the best 1 I heard. I have tried it with a Nad C370 amp and a Sugden A21a pure class A integrated and it sounded excellent with both amps. I find the Arcam is very nice to listen to and handles all genres of music very well. It`s focused and refined, and musical cohesion is superb. It looks nice too.

Similar Products Used:

Cyrus

Refinement, subtle detail

Built, cheap remote

At the asking price, the metalwork on this 12-pounder isn't anything to write home about. It looks and feels NAD but the sound more than lives up to the billing. Don't know if other Arcams are the same way, but my unit needed 50 hours to sound even halfway decent. Almost made the mistake of junking it after first couple of hours. Now, with over 200 hours logged with certain music I could swear I'm listening to my LP12. Weaknesses? Can sound a bit bland at times; bass lightweight compared to one other player (see below). Certainly nothing unusual at the price! During the run-in period I had on hand three other popular machines - Marantz DR17, Pioneer DV47A and Rotel CD971. All excellent players but they do sound quite different from one another. I would normally refrain from making subjective rankings in a public forum. But this being AudioReview.com and I did go through the motions, so it may be of interest to some of you. Rankings are from best to worst (worst doesn't mean bad, only in comparison with the others). The CD players playing HDCD disks (all three decode HDCD) did not change their relative rankings. Pioneer doesn't decode HDCD. Tonal Balance: Arcam, Marantz, Pioneer, Rotel Transparency: Arcam, Rotel, Marantz, Pioneer Dynamics: Marantz, Arcam, Rotel, Pioneer Tonal Color: Marantz, Arcam, Rotel, Pioneer Soundstage: Arcam, Rotel, Marantz, Pioneer Bass: Marantz, Arcam, Rotel, Pioneer Midrange: Arcam, Marantz, Pioneer, Rotel Highs: Arcam, Rotel, Marantz, Pioneer Built: Marantz, Rotel, Arcam, Pioneer For me, until I get something better Arcam is the best of the bunch. But the Marantz is also very good (it's built like a tank and burns CDs). You have only $1k to spend on a player? Buy the Rotel (or Pioneer, which is an awesome all-around DVD/SACD player). Got another thousand to spend? Spring for the Arcam or Marantz. Get the CD92 (or FMJ CD23) for refinement and detail (both have the dcs chip). Want drama and bass? Get the DR17 or CD17MkII (player-only version of DR17). These are powerful and smooth sounding machines. Incidentally, I disagree with Stereophile's ranking of the DR17 - anybody with half a ear (or brain) can tell you it belongs in Class B. The JVC they campared it with is a POC. Associate Equipment: Linn LP12 Valhalla Marantz ST17 Classe CAP151 Thiel CS 22

Similar Products Used:

Marantz, Rotel, Pioneer

Ourstanding musical imaging and sound stage.

None

Originally, I purchased the CD72. Although I knew of the CD92, I was a bit skeptical about spending the extra bucks. In short, I simply was not sure if the price differential would translate into a significant sonic difference. Jerry my audio consultant at Cinema & Sound in Albuquerque, assured me that I would not regret making the upgrade. A few months later, I traded my CD72 in for the more advanced CD92. Well, Jerry was right. What can I say about the guy, he’s a masterful expert of high end audio equipment. The upgrade to the CD92 was money well spent. Give it about 30-40 hours playing time for break in, and then look out. The overall sound quality is tremendous! The musical sound stage is much more open. I now hear things in the music never heard before. It's amazing! The difference between the CD72 and 92 is the digital converter. This makes all the difference. While the CD72 is good, the CD92 takes one to a whole new level in audio euphoria. Again, the CD92 is worth every dollar. Believe me, you;ll be hard pressed to find a compatible CD player in the $2000 - $3000 range. If you love music and appreciate high-end sound quality, then the Arcam CD92 is the first and only choice. End of story

Similar Products Used:

CD 72, Rotel

more clearity , detail, richer bass and a lot more natural sounding than the cracking CD72, a worthy upgrade

Although the remote is the same as the cd72, I notice arcam now use a slighly inferior material now when but side by side with the old remote

Having read a couple of lookwarm reviews about the cd92, I was initially very sceptical to upgrade from my cd72 which at that price is a truely amazing cd player. Since audioT was selling the last of the cd92(non cd text) for £500,it was too good to resist. A week before this, I read a review in Hifi news which was quite encouraging, the editor stresses the importance of letting it run in for about a week or so. At first it sounded very harsh but two things were immediately notice, the first was a lot more bass than the cd72,if you don''t understand when audiophiles talk about a cd player producing more bass, well here it is!!, now comes the real suprise!!! my girlfriend who wasn''t really listening to the music and hasn''t got a clue ,said this "Wow!!!, it sounds like the person playing the drums is in this room",she at the time was in the next room away!!!. Believe me this cd player makes the cd72''s music sound artificial and very engineered. After about 24 solid hours of play, the music really came alive, playing SADE''s latet album, I actually noticed on one of the tracks another vocal under the main one,which I had never heard before -this redefined the sound track for me. There is even more clearity compare to the cd72.

Similar Products Used:

cD 7SE, CD72 Used with alpha9 amp

Well built 2 pairs RCA out - drives 2 amps Great sound after 24 hrs break-in

Nothing to report at this point¿

Well my trusty Cambridge CD2 died after a long and distinguished life, and was replaced yesterday with the Arcam CD92. First impressions out of the box were....well ok, but not amazing. So I put it in reapeat and left it on overnight. In the morning, after 8 hours of run-in things were improving. Faithless came to life, with a new clarity, and a well defined bass. In fact I could here samples in the mix that I''d never noticed before. On with the run-in, and I left it on repeat all day whilst I went out. Now, after 24 hrs things are really sounding good. Jamiroquai really kicks in, with that great funky bassline, truly a revalation. It just gets better and better.....

Similar Products Used:

Cambridge CD2 Linn Genki Arcam CD72 Exposure 2010 CDr

warm, dinamic, detail.

none

This is the best CD player for the price.Excellent sound.

Similar Products Used:

Naim, Tag Mc Laren