I've had the Apollo for a while. It's very nice, very dynamic, but not the most 3D player I've had -- or tested. That would be the Arcam fmj 23, which is still a terrific player. However, having read Harley's review in TAS, maybe the Cambridge IS a better player! |
Sorry, Jimmy, to be so late in responding. Haven't been in here the last 2 weeks.
Sorry , I have not tried the digital inputs. I would imagine they would be quite formidable, but I haven't had time to try that yet. |
I'm buying a Cambridge in 2 weeks, when it arrives. I'll enjoy hearing it cold out of the box, as I did with my Hurricane amps, which took all of 30 seconds to reduce me to awe. It would be lovely to repeat the experience again. Given the consistent praise given to the top 3 (maybe only two octaves), it would be surprising that it should not be a dazzler, since the top octaves define clarity and a lack of confusion elsewhere (unless they're too hot). About the only thing I'm expecting is that the Cambridge is, perhaps, a "lightweight" - sounding player. There have been mentions of that in reviews, although it has been counterbalanced by mention of a very good upper bass/lower midrange, which is where a sense of "body" imbues images with solidity.
In any case, I'll have an Apollo AND a Cambridge simultaneously, and that, in itself, should be fascinating. It would be wonderful to have a player that could even match a $3000 player (which, if you all recall, was what the Lector originally cost before the importer, after seeing TAS' rave review, hiked up the price [eventually] to over 4k.
It seems that now, more than ever, High End means "High Priced." I've never seen so many 30k speakers, and so many daft reviewers saying "this is a bargain, considering the cost." They're screwed in the brain cells to even say such a thing when only 10 years ago, the majority of speakers were in the $15-25K range if they were "awesome," and only 10K if they were merely "fabulous" (WATTS excluded). |
I thought it was interesting that Hi Fi Choice, in its original review, talked about how fantastic the unit was, but in its "Ultimate Group" survery, the bass was picked out as 'lacking speed and control.' The reviewer, in the original review, said the bass was 'truly excellent, deep, powerful, tuneful, rhythmic and controlled." Huh? Talk about an about-face. Oh well, I haven't found that to be the case. Must be me... |
....how quickly time goes by....two weeks? Try 2 days. Bought an 840C from this site and am warming it up as we speak. Sent the Apollo back to have it checked out in anticipation of selling it if I prefer the Cambridge.
The Cambridge was not even out of the box, so it's cold, cold, cold.... For all that, one can still hear the transient response and hard consonants, such as hearing the "k" in "kick" expulsed as "kick-kuh" instead of just "kick" with the last "k" being softened. The brass has an actual leading edge now (and when doing listening using Mercury CDs, which were tipped up in the treble due to the peaky microphones) and wondering it if would sound harsher...so far, the answer is: not. But hey, this is after only 1 hour. It's distinctly more articulate than the Rega, that much is apparent. I'll fill us all in more after 24 hours.... |
Rotarius, you've heard all three players? I've heard the NAD, but not in my own system, and I find it hard to make assessments using unfamiliar systems. One never knows if they have the polarity right, or grounding correct,or the power cords touching the interconnects/speaker cable, all of which can kill one's ability to determine the traits of ANY component. Plus, room acoustics mask detail that would otherwise be apparent.
What was your experience when you heard the Apollo and Cambridge players? |
Rotarius, I'd agree with your conclusion about the Apollo, although I'd call it less 3-dimensional rather than lean. In my system, it has other appealing aspects,such as a cleanness and low noise floor. And it does play music, not merely sound.
I'm not at all sure I'm in agreement about the Cambridge player, though. (Incidentally, I see the poster mentioned the 740, and I have the 840C, so...). It differs from the NAD to my ear, in that the NAD has a very immediate presence, but not quite the same degree of inner detail. For example, while it has great microdynamics, it doesn't quite sound as though it's being played by a person. What I mean is, it doesn't reveal the "human" touch in the way that, say, an Arcam FMJ 23, which, whatever its faults, sounded as though instruments were being played by a human being. For me, that is more important than "good bass" (not that you said this), or good highs. I want to hear music made by human beings, and many components give one great sound, but without it sounding as though there's a person attached to the instrument. It is almost as though a spell was cast on the instruments, causing them to simply "play." The Cambridge, which, at 2 days, is slooooooooooooow to unfurl its abilities, sounds as though a person is touching keys, blowing, stroking, striking, and, in general, making music. Hard to quantify, but I heard live music several days a week (piano and flute) for years, and I observe a big difference between "sound-making" and "music-making." Of course, it's too early to tell, but the Cambridge has those aspects, if one listens to live music often. I'll just need to see if it increases in that ability. Time'll tell!!! |
A furthur thought: people sell things not because the item itself isn't superior to what they have, but sometimes because it doesn't SOUND like what they want it to sound like. People talk about "more bass" as though it means something, when it simply means they may have no idea what a real bass instrument, like a tuba, sounds like and may therefore want something exaggerated. That's why listening to the human voice is a better way of determining sound than other types of recordings, and opera is probably best, since one can always listen to a bass singer on several amps and tell which one give the best tonality, transparency, dynamics, both - macro and - micro and focus and bloom. And they are also not overdubbed. So, hard to tell about things by what shows up on the site. |
Day 6.... The Cambridge finally, FINALLY showed some break-in....it's akin to glacier movement... the presentation is relaxed and the tonality of instruments makes it easy to sseparate oboe,clarinet, flute,piccolo and bass clarinet from each other in a composition. Sounds rather unlike either a NAD or an Apollo to me, but furthur break-in (at least 48 hours more) will be allowed.
What I found interesting is instruments previously buriend or not at all apparent with an Apollo or NAD, such as in Lt. Kije, movement 1 around 2:52 - 2:56. There is an instrument doubling the strings. It's a piccolo, which I hadn't heard before -- even with vinyl. And it's presented with some air around the piccolo, not just a "sound in the back." Around 3:05 or therein, a player sneezes. I had heard this many years ago with my WATTS and vinyl, but have never heard it with CD (Not that I'd ever bothered to buy a $10,000 rig, but I had reviewed a CD player or two and never even noticed its there). Also,this is heard with the Arcam FMJ A-22, never, in my mind, a champion of low-level detail.
The most impressive thing is the timbre: this is NOT the timbre of a standard CD player. The Apollo does not have this fidelity to timbre, although it IS musical. When you can pick out instruments by how their sound is made, that's a different ballgame. Most players just make the sound and one happens to know what it is from memory (i.e., played it a thousand times before).
Lets see what else time reveals. |
Knownothing...you know plenty!
It's approaching the end of the first week, around hour 150...this player is astounding!
The player's ability to breathe music makes you laugh...just for fun, I played with the spikes on the stand under the (Usher) speakers. Of course, this says something for the whole system, Arcam FMJ A-22, Transparent MM cables, Nordost Valkryja, Shunyata Phython Helix VX and King Cobra V2 power cords, Usher 718s on 24-inch stands (very solid, but forget the manufacturer), a Finite Elemente Spider rack, Shunyata Dark Field Elevators (too new to analyze) and a highly acoustically tweaked room (ASC Walldamp, tube traps (16", 16" quarter rounds, 11 inch and 9 inch as well as sound panels,with a half round on the ceiling), the flutes would bloom into space with as little as 1/4 turn of the spikes, and lower instruments (contrabassons, bass clarinets, etc.) display a halo of air around them. And musically...just mesmerizing. One HEARS the composer's vision, not the imaging, the bass, the soundstaging, the "highs. You forget about those, although you can hear that if you choose to. I wonder what they'll sound like with the Hurricanes and ASL preamp or Modulus.
I hear what Mr. Harley means when he calls it "organic." If I read him correctly, it is less nubby cotton fibers: more a tapestry of finely-woven threads. Just beautiful.
And the Apollo? A terrific player, but not truly in the same category, nor is the NAD. The NAD sounds like very good digital, the Rega is more oganic, but the Cambridge makes your head swivel, even while reading a book ( a conscious way of "hearing" without listening, the same as closing your eyes in a concert hall. One still hears everything, but, generally, amazement is not a trait when hearing live music, unless the musicians are having a fantastic night. One does not expect "better" than live, although a great hall, like Carnegie, while sitting in the balcony, CAN bring tears to your eyes).
The Cambridge 840C, even at this stage of break-in, is a rare component that beathes the (genuine) sound of music. Listening for other than that misses the point. For all that, the bass is great, dynamics very good (as Harley said, not astounding, but, as somewhat who loves microdyanmics AND fortissimo passages, I'm still in love). Imaging is good, not yet killer, although on Dionne Warwick's cut of "The Windows of The World," when she sings "when men cannot be friends/their trouble often ends/but some have to die..." the word "cannot" comes out with a full aspiration as "CAN-notttt" instead of 'cahnnot," the hard "c" of "cannot sounding like a K as in "KICKKKKK." The consonants do not get lost or softened as they do with so many sound-reproducing devices. With many players it almost sounds as though they (the singers) are "swallowing" the hard consonant down in the throats the way it would sound if one was trying to talk with one's mouth full.
At this price, it's the same as being the millionth customer walking thru the doors of an establishment and finding out you're the winner of the grand prize... |
I agree with Phill that the Cambridge's strongest dynamics are not in the bass. While it HAS bass kick, it doesn't bulge out at you - or perhaps I should say it doesn't launch a wavefront of great power at you. The 840, and from what I read recently, the 840 amp and preamp are all of the same breeding. The sound doesn't quite let loose in the way the Rega Apollo does, but I will say the Cambridge is quite a bit cleaner than the Rega, although perhaps less exciting.
It is nice to hear the musical lines separated from each other, isn't it Phill? |
