Arcam, Musical Fidelity questions...

This information may assist you in choosing between different Arcam products. Arcam has either stated or suggested that technological advance is the reason for the ring dac used in the FMJ 23 not being continued in the FMJ 33 and FMJ 36. I know I’ve read at least one magazine review where that view was stated as the company’s explanation. However, I’ve read elsewhere (sorry, can’t recall where) that the ring dac was abandoned because of its high fail rate in manufacture, which added to its cost and constrained supply. Of course, if the latter explanation is true, it has no bearing on YOUR choice of Arcam player. As a personal observation, the FMJ 33 was being designed and coming to market just when the impact of cheaper Chinese manufactured components was beginning to be felt, so European and North American manufacturers like Arcam were becoming ever more conscious of cost.

You probably already know from your own research that the ring dac was designed by dCS, the maker of the very highly regarded and expensive Verdi/Purcell/Elgar “stack” of digital front-end components.

The following two points should have been included in my original post:

1. It’s perfectly possible that dac design has advanced in the time since the FMJ 23 was introduced, so that the ring dac has been equaled or surpassed by the dacs in the FMJ 36. It’s also possible that other aspects of the design/parts of the FJM 23 have been improved on.

2. The only way to resolve the ring dac/FJM 23 issue is a side-by-side comparison of the FMJ 23 with the FMJ 33 or 36. Personally, I’d love to hear a shootout between all three. At 1/3 the cost of a new 36, the used 23 is certainly cheap. If you believe that you won’t give up much with the 23, I’d buy and use it while seeing where digital front end audio goes. It’s a truism that digital is the area of audio that is evolving fastest and has the greatest obsolescence.