Kjenner ikke spilleren, men her noen sitater jeg fant på nett. Håper det kan hjelpe.
Nr.1
Last Saturday I collected it and have listened to both MF A3.2 and Arcam CD72 in comparision.
My first impression on MF 3.2 was it looks beautiful and matches very well with my MF A3 amp. It's built like a tank and its size is big so I couldn't put it in my hifi cabinet where Arcam used to be placed. The good thing is now I can use only one remote control for both amp and cd player getting rid of one. Also it comes with a free classical cd album which is a bonus.
In terms of sound quality my first impression was it sounds bright, sharp, cold sometimes slightly rough edge, something like digital sounds. I found Arcam rather sound musical, slightly more weight and less bright, warmer, more fluid.
The more and more, however, I listened carefully comparing A B for a lengthy period the more I was convinced MF doesn't sound bright or digital though still in burn in period.
I am not sure whether it digs out more notes from cds than Arcam but one thing I clearly noticed was MF sounds clearer than Arcam. It's like a pixel resolution in a large screen or for example asuming each note is a cotton thread MF's using a finer thread than Arcam, which results MF's sound seems thiner and less weighty but more analytic than Arcam's. Due to much compact and clean somehow sharp sound it excels Arcam in seperation of each instruments and vocals. I can pick up more seperate notes, which I cannot easily pick up through Arcam.
John Rutter's choir I can hear more Alto and bass part clearly and Symphony Espagnole by Edouard Lalo when it is crescendo it doesn't sound muddled, instead tries to mantain clean notes of individual instruments.
However Arcam has a little bit more weighty sound, because each note sounds like a thicker thread than MF and sounds slightly blurred (only compared to MF), which ironically results in better blending of choir music and make it sound more musical and fluid. In Acram main melody stands out amongst any other sub vocals or instruments but MF sounds busy and a little bit less focused due to very good seperations of notes and noticing so many different notes in the same time.
Being used to be a church choir conductor I normally prefer a blending sound however end of day it's a matter of personal preference. Also it's quite exciting to hear more notes.
As a conclusion I would say Arcam and MF are both very musical and highly recommended. Considering the price of Arcam less than a half price of MF I think Arcam is a great player. I am sure some people find it rather sound better than MF. Also not many people will notice the difference easily including myself unless they compare direct AB.
I guess high end gears reveal more netural sound rather than coloured sound. Again how do I know what the original recording sounds like unless I listen to them at live concert?
A question is whether it is worth spending more than a double amount of money for MF than Arcam. For me yes it is. I rather enjoy high resolution analytic sounds. I wonder how Arcam's bigger brothers CD82, 92 sounds like comparing to CD72.
I totally agree to a few forum member's comments that there is no better way to demo it yourself. The more expensive gear doesn't mean it sounds better to your ears. You need to find a right one just for yourself before you throw away a lot of money.
Nr. 2 til Nr. 1:
Hi William,
Found this thread so registered to reply.
I am getting the A3.2 CD this week for £500 too (same deal I expect).
I was a little worried by your impressions of the player sounding bright and a little sharp.
I read various reviews of the player and all have said that it sounds very clean and natural with a very smooth top end.
I read one that said MF recomended that it needs to be burnt in for 300 hours, so perhaps it will sound better in a few weeks time.
I chose the player due to price and because I heard it was very natural (something I miss from my NAD S500 which I downgraded to Marantz CD-7300).
I'm hoping it will sound good on my system though.
Can you tell me you had any problems with the player recognising CD-R's?
I'll post back when I get it this week and let you know what I think.
Nr. 3 til Nr. 2:
I owned the 3.2CD for a while and it played my cd-r's no problem.
Nr. 1 til Nr. 2:
Hi, Choirboy
Welcome to the forum!
Initially I was bit concerned about its sound wondering if I had made a wrong purchase. First few days it gave sound that was clean and analytic but surely not warm or rich as reviewed in Gramophone. Treble sometimes was very coarse and sharp particularly in violin and trumpet as if it needed some grease on it. It really irritated my ears.
Well, it's been a week since I bought it. Now it's sound is quite different already. Having listened to various cds and even the same cds repeatedly coarseness's gone and getting more balance and netural. Noticably it's openess and treble details, refinement are amazing. Particularly when you listen to orchestra performance I am sure you will enjoy and appreciate it more than ever.
As you said it needs to be burnt in for a while to get its best performance. Nevertheless I don't think MF sounds warm as I experinced the same thing both from MF A3 amp and A3.2 CD. It's rather netural, cleaness and transperent, which I feel is very musical but sometimes misinterpreted as bright sound by some people including myself.
I recently bought Audioquest Topaz interconnect from a forum member to test it's sound and am waiting for delivery. Even though this cable has notorious, contradictory reviews for its laziness, congestion, etc, I am curious to see if it can add extra warm sound without sacrificing details. I heard that copper cables tend to sound warmer than silver ones. Actually I heard this cable before and liked its smoothness. If it didn't work then I will re-sell it. I will let you know the result comparing with QED Silver Anniversary Spiral.
I played quite a few cd-r and had no problems since, so you won't have any problem either.
I admit now it's a significant upgrade from Arcam72 in terms of sound quality, and am quite happy with it. I hope you will enjoy as I do. 500quid for a brand new A3.2 is a real bargain! Please let me know your comments.
Til slutt svar fra Nr.2 etter litt mer innspilling:
Well I have the A3.2 CD now for over a week and my impressions are very favourable.
Indeed it is exceptionally smooth and valve-like, treble is well separated and free from grain. Bass is tad rich and bloomy but that probably has more to do with my Van Den Hul cabling than anything else.
It has a clean sound, pure and tactile. It is a little bit *polite* but again I think that is a question of cables in concert with the Sonus Fabers.
Some things I like about it are the fit and finish which are first class (the draw mechanism is smooth as a baby's bottom), the machine noise is non existent, the display can be turned off (to improve sound) but it's nice when you skip to tracks and it lights up briefly to let you know where you are on the disc, CD Text and it's nice the way the remote can control my MF pre and power too!
Bad points, no HDCD or SACD and the fact that the display only stays off when playing a disc means I have to stick a book or something over the display when I'm sleeping (it's very bright!). Bit annoying but only a minor point.
OH and my last gripe is the way that MF refuse to incorperate headphone sockets on their equipment (especially amps!!!!)
Short of buying a headphone amp I have to run my headphones into my mindisc separate and press record to hear the signal.
I love MF products but that kinda grates!
Her plukket jeg ut de som jeg trodde ville ha mest betydning for deg.
Her er en link til den gjeldende tråden:
Musical Fidelity A3.2CD or A3.24DAC
Kanskje dette kan beroliggjøre deg litt. Virker som det blir bedre etter hva disse erfarte i allefall.
Håper du blir fornøyd til slutt.
