2. member-reviews
  3. 1161011915

Review: Raysonic 128 CDP CD Player

Category: Digital

My motivation for posting this is only because this is a new product on the market of which folks should be aware. It was recently reviewed by 6 moons if you're interested. I purchased it as a potential replacement for my CAL Alpha/Delta.

FWIW, I listen to Classical, Jazz, and pop vocal. No head banger stuff. Sonic preferences are for neutrality in all components - so long as they are 'tube based'. :-) While I can tolerate a bit of an uptilted bass so long as its undistorted, I can't tolerate exagerated high frequencies. I require transparency and smoothness. I can tolerate a bit of roll off so long as the signal is clean and clear.

I have had the Raysonic for about 3 weeks and it has just passed its breakin phase. Initially out of the box it was very rolled in the highs and full but dull in the bass. I'm still using the factory tubes (EH's). I did try different types and it is easy to change the units tone with different brands (whats new here!)

In comparison to my Wadia (direct to an amp) the Raysonic is as full but not as tight in the bass, as smooth in the mid range, and clearly not as extended in the highs. Compared to the Wadia thru a pre amp the gap closes quite a bit but the Wadia is still tighter and more extended.

In comparison to the BAT the bass is deeper and tighter but the mids and highs in the BAT are much more open and 'airy', perhaps a bit more transparent.

In comparison to the Cal units which it replaces it is sonically fuller in over-all tone, not as forward, and much smoother. I can't think of a single issue in which I prefer the Cal units, which have been long time favorites of mine in their price range.

And, in comparison to all three units, the Raysonic seems to have a greater dynamic range. I'm not talking speed, nor am I talking about absolute low or high frequency extension, I'm referring to the difference in the spread between the quietest and loudest sound.

I suspect this unit would have a high level of appeal not only to tubophiles, but to SS folks who want to avoid some of the more obnoxious effects of digital done wrong.

I'm keeping it!

Associated gear
Primaluna 3/5 pre-amp/amp
Tyler Linbrook Signature Systems Speakers

Similar products
Wadia 302
Bat DK5
CAL Alpha/Delta
newbee

Showing 3 responses by newbee

newbee OP
4,794 posts
 
What tubes you should use will depend on your priorities and associated equipment.

I've used 6h23's, NOS sovteks, EI's, New and NOS Teslas. With the Primaluna stuff w/6550 I like the stock EH tubes. With KT88's I like EI's and 6h23's. This CDP is not dull in the highs, its just not edgy, harsh, or 'bright'.
newbee OP
4,794 posts
 
Hi Groberts3

Wish I had an easy answer to your question - so much on your end results depends on the rest of your system that its hard to predict how any one piece of equipment will actually interface with your other components.

FWIW I just listened to 4 different digital front ends in one system (all tubes) - the BAT, the Cal Delta/Alpha, the Wadia 302, and the Raysonic. The Cal, Wadia, and Raysonic were all very similar in linearity, tonally speaking. The Wadia was very clean and smooth - no added 'tube' artifice in the highs. The Raysonic was similar with a bit more high end detail (not up-tilted highs) and sounded just a tad more forward, something I can easily control with tube selection if I chose to do so. The Cal was similar to each except that it was more compressed, had slightly brighter highs and less bass.

Now to the BAT. I found in this system, compared to the above units, and playing only one recording of solo piano music which is a recording of a long love for me from LP's thru CD's, the BAT had slightly softer but fullish bass, and a slightly recessed mid-range which created, IMHO, a 'sense' of brightness in the highs which actually wasn't there. What seemed apparent is that the BAT is a bit resessive in the mid range. This is not the first time I noted this 'balance' and over the first years I had the BAT (1998/9) the CAL actually 'sounded' better because of my preference for its balance in the system I was then using.

Now, to make your decision more difficult, I have another system which I have set up (all tubes) in which I have changed out the factory designated tubes, KT88's, and have inserted SED 6550's. These tubes change the sonic's of this system by smoothing out the upper-mids and highs, restoring tonal balance, and reduces any bass bloom, giving a tight and deep bass. In that system the BAT sings!!!!!!!!! Clean, clear, smooth and much more balanced.

I don't know if this will make any sense to you, but my conclusion is that the Raysonic will sound much more balanced in a SS (assuming that is your system) than the BAT.

I hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask further questions if you think I can clarify anything.
newbee OP
4,794 posts
 
Jackthecat, If you want to hear an excellent tube in this unit (and a lot of other units as well) try Bugle Boys (Amperex - Holland). You only need to use 2 of them. You put them in the inner or outer sockets, depending on whether you are using RCA's or XLR's. They have a beautiful mid range, to die for, warm but not syruppy, very good highs but not 'bright'. Bass seems natural. Not thick or boomy. Just a very natural sounding tube. Down side - they aren't cheap. FWIW, I'm into classic and jazz. I don't know how a PRAT enthusiast would view these tubes, but then I don't know why they would even be using a tube unit in the first place. :-)
More to discover