[pataburd]

While proficient with rendering micro-detail, I found the 6000CDT deficient on the macro-scale, resulting in an overly analytic, asynergistic and musically lifeless presentation overall: IMHO the whole is neither greater than--nor even equal to--the sum of its parts.

System: Audiolab 6000CDT-->JPS digital coax-->ifi SPDIF iPurifier-->Chord Qutest [green or red filter; powered with ifi Micro iUSB3.0]-->Neotech UPOCC copper interconnect-->ecp DSHA-3F headphone amplifier[-->Focal Utopia w/4-pin XLR cable]-->UPOCC power chord-->PS Audio P300 regenerator-->AudioQuest Ultimate Outlet.

Am contemplating the Cambridge Audio CXC transport, or the Pro-Ject CD Box RS-2 T, but will probably just bite the bullet, rip my CDs to lossless and use the USB out. Have had much better fidelity that way in general.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

It's difficult to blame your CD transport for crappy sound. It's a lot easier to blame the ton of crap you have between it and the Chord, and after it. That's just too much stuff.

You could try running the CD player directly to the Chord and running the headphones directly out of the Chord and then move on from there.

 

[pataburd]

How do I run the headphones directly from the Qutest?

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Sorry, I am not familiar with that one. I have the Mojo and have seen the Dave and Hugos. I was not aware that it has no headamp. Still, that doesn't justify the kitchen sink approach

 

[pataburd]

gimmeheadroom,
With the possible exception of the ifi SPDIF iPurifier, what else identified in the connective chain qualifies for the "kitchen sink approach"?

 

[pataburd]

Just ordered the Cambridge Audio CXC.
Deo volente, I might a/b it with the 6000CDT next week.
[Really don't care for the slot-loading aspect of the Audiolab, which obviates use of a good disc mat.]
Actually, after about 50 or so hours, the presentation over the 6000CDT is beginning to sound more integrated, less overly-individuated. The ifi SPDIF iPurifier does seem to help in that regard, too.
?Break-in? Its circuitry or mine?

 

[displayname]

Just ordered the Cambridge Audio CXC.
Deo volente, I might a/b it with the 6000CDT next week.
[Really don't care for the slot-loading aspect of the Audiolab, which obviates use of a good disc mat.]
Actually, after about 50 or so hours, the presentation over the 6000CDT is beginning to sound more integrated, less over-individuated. The ifi SPDIF iPurifier does seem to help in that regard, too.
?Break-in? Its circuitry or mine?

I'm excited to hear your comparison!

 

[adamos]

I’ve been curious about the 6000CDT because I see it mentioned a lot, however I’d also prefer not to have a slot loader. Currently I’m using a 20 year old NAD 512 CD player as a transport. It still works great and I’m happy with it but I was checking out options for the future just in case.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I have the 8300CD and it's killer. I love the slot loader a million times more than a tray. It has an ESS9018Pro DAC which is incredibly musical and also has USB DAC function including DSD.

 

[pataburd]

The [brand new] Cambridge CXC arrived today.
After listening to Pat Metheny, Letter from Home, on the Audiolab 6000CDT, I swapped in the CXC [having use now for the Herbie's "Super Black Hole" cd mat, which also arrived today].
Preliminary assessment leaves me decidedly preferring the Cambridge.
I have strewn together some notes from tonight's fairly brief listening sessions, and hope to get something organized/posted tomorrow, Deo volente.

 

[pataburd]

My Cut-to-the Chase:

As a transport, together with the other components of my particular listening set-up, I prefer the CXC to the Audiolab 6000CDT. The Cambridge, to my ears, sounds more musical, with appreciably better tonal and dynamic realism. In addition, with its tray loader, I can use a good disc mat [like the excellent Herbie's "Super Black Hole"] with the CXC and improve the sound even more.

Unfortunately, I do not have the Focal Clear on hand right now with which to a/b these transports as well. It could make a difference, given the Clear's less detailed and generally "warmer" quality. Whether it would potentially reverse my stated preference is doubtful, however.

One major disclaimer, though, and the loss of my unqualified endorsement as a result: the CXC unit that I bought CANNOT PLAY any of the CD-Rs that I have tried in it thus far [whereas the 6000CDT can]. That's a shame, since I have many CD-Rs in my collection. Many CDs and CD-Rs, I might add, that are not available [and may never subsequently become available] on any of the streaming platforms I have tried to date.

 

[displayname]

My Cut-to-the Chase:

As a transport, together with the other components of my particular listening set-up, I prefer the CXC to the Audiolab 6000CDT. The Cambridge, to my ears, sounds more musical, with appreciably better tonal and dynamic realism. In addition, with its tray loader, I can use a good disc mat [like the excellent Herbie's "Super Black Hole"] with the CXC and improve the sound even more.

Unfortunately, I do not have the Focal Clear on hand right now with which to a/b these transports as well. It could make a difference, given the Clear's less detailed and generally "warmer" quality. Whether it would potentially reverse my stated preference is doubtful, however.

One major disclaimer, though, and the loss of my unqualified endorsement as a result: the CXC unit that I bought CANNOT PLAY any of the CD-Rs that I have tried in it thus far [whereas the 6000CDT can]. That's a shame--and runs contrary to Cambridge's own product claim that the CXC does play CD-Rs, since I have many recorded CDs in my collection. Many CDs and CD-Rs, I might add, that are not available [and may never subsequently become available] on any of the streaming platforms I have tried to date.

After considering both, I went with the CXC. Just got it last weekend, and it's been wonderful. Very glad to hear that is the unit that stood out in your direct comparison.

 

[pataburd]

Prefer the CXC to the 6000CDT with the [electrostatic] KingSound KS-H-03/KS-M-10 combination, too. Will try to do final a/b-ing with Utopia, Clear and ATH-AD900X next week, Deo volente, although I seriously doubt that my current [and largely decided] preference will change.

 

[knowhatimean]

Hmmm, I've had the CXC for a few months now & I honestly haven't had any problems playing back my dBPa ripped CDs. While I normally think adding just about anything from Herbies is a worthwhile thing to use with any Disc player, the "Super Black Hole" ring might be interfering with the player's ability to recognize the CDr's disc code. The CXC uses a Servo to control the CD's spinning speed & the player has pretty decent clamping already in place. The "Super Black Hole" may be changing the height of the CDr's enough to hinder the laser's ability to read it. I do have some Herbies suggestions for the player though. Get rid of the CXC's feet & that bar underneath the front of the player.& get 3 Herbies Rollerballs & Holders. Place 2 of the Rollerballs & Holders underneath the Front of the Player & the 3rd Set centered underneath the Back of the Player

 

[pataburd]

Thank you for the insight.
Will try without the Herbie's "Super Black Hole" disc mat.
. . . but it sort of defeats the whole purpose of the mat(s). . .

Have been using RDC cones, or Herbie's Gabon ebony hemispheres, or Magnetic Floaters or Ginkgo mini-cloud isolation underneath the CXC all along, not the stock feet.