Audio Research Ref: CD8

From my expirience, CD-7 requires about 400h of break in time. The difference is not subtle.

Since CD-8 shares basic architecture with CD-7, my guess is that it will also furhter improve. Pls keep us posted.

I just sold my CD-7 and should have CD-8 at the end of January.

76doublebass - I would rather get used Ref CD-7 and Ref-3 if your budget is somehow limited - that would cost you close to the new CD-8, but you would get much more improvement in sound quality for your dollar.

For those who haven't seen it yet, there is a pic of an topless CD-8 on stereophile web site:

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/audio_research_cd8/

How that translates into volts ?

BTW - 24h is prolly not enough. It took my CD-7 400h of continuos play to fully break-in.

Ossocao is talking about an earlier upgrade, which came preinstalled on all players sold from some point in 2007 upwards.

AFAIK CD-8 uses the same DAC chip as CD-5.

Many people here saying CD8 is better than CD7, but how manny of them had a PS CD7 fault and don't know about it.

I'm pretty sure my did not have this problem after ~ 800 hours (my came with the upgrade 6H30 board installed from the factory). Not long before I sold the player, I have put a brand new set of tubes (all 7), just to see how much the original tubes deteriorated with time, only to find out no real difference in sound quality between the two sets.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the CD-7 was one of the best, if not THE best CDP I have owned so far - both sound quality and reliability wise.

Just got the CD-8 today.

Here are some inside images of the new design with 6550 tube in the PS:

Inside View 1
Inside View 2

The DAC chipset used is 24/192kHz capable PCM1792 from Burr-Brown:

Inside View 3

Now I'm gonna leave the player in a repeat mode 24/7 for the next 10 days or so before I start any listening. By then the player should already have around 240h of play time, although based on my expirience with CD-7, I reckon that it will need additional 200h to fully break in.

During the last days the CD8 has become somewhat bright, sibilants seem enhanced. I hope that after burn in the tonal balance becomes fuller again!

This is the same rollercoster I expirienced whan I was breaking in my old CD-7. The sound was changing from dull to bright and vice versa.

This is why I resisted the temptation to listen the the player fresh out of the box. Based on your expirience with CD-8, I may even extend the initial burn in from 10 days, to full 20 days. It will give me more time to play with the dCS Puccini I still have on loan.

Output caps are custom made for ARC. The thick black tape is indeed for vibration damping - the hole player is full of it, not only the caps.

Anyone cares to post images of his upgraded CD-7 ? I wonder how the managed to fit the 5881 tube inside the CD-7, which has a bit different PCB layout.

But I'm compelled to say that I am a bit underwhelmed at the layout of the PCB inside the CD8. I know that sound is the ultimate goal and I don't mean to dis your nice player. It's just that the tube analog section doesn't seem isolated from both the PS sections or digital sections.

The DAC chip is not a problem. In most players it is placed very close to the analog stage. The "dirty part" is the display, transport and its servo board, and those are situated as far as possible from the analog section for an integrated player. 6550 tube, as noted before, in not a rectifier tube. ARC had to stuff a lot of parts inside the box, and taking that into consideration, they did a remarkable job.

Can anyone post pics of the upgraded CD-7 with 5881 tube installed ?

C'mon, don't be lazy ! Support audio community !

I have already done my part and posted images of the CD-8 ...

Here is a pic of an upgraded CD-7 I got from a fellow member from Sweden:

Inside image CD-7 with 5881

I have had a chance to listen to the CD-8 for the first time this past weekend.

One thing I was affraid of was that the CD-8 will be brighter than the CD-7. It is not. It is much more transparent, but it is not brighter. It still has a lot of bloom and texture that made the CD-7 so special.

Compared to the CD-7, CD-8 allows you to hear much deeper into the recording, soundstage is deeper, there is more resolution and air, image outlines are much better delineated. CD-7 sounds as if it was a bit of of focus.

I have no bloody idea. Looks pretty standard though. IMO any would work.

CD-8 review (by Roy Gregory) has appeared in HiFi+:

http://www.audionord.se/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/arc-cd8-hf_-iss64small.pdf

Dave, you cannot make general statements like that. Ref 3 and CD-7/8 sound very different to each other, in terms of overall balance - and both are tube based, and both use 6H30 tube.

There is a general consensus that the Ref 3 is a much better preamp than both Ref 2 and Ref 2 mk II, although I can understand that some ppl, in some systems may actually prefer the Ref 2 over Ref 3 for its specific "flavor".

Now it is a good time to get an used CD-7 IMO. S/H prices have dropped to ~$5k, even for low mileage units - I would argue that it would be difficoult to find a better player for the money.

Sure, CD-8 is even better, but twice as expensive.

CD-8 is based on the latest BB PCM1792 chipset.