Three CD players

Affordable and good sounding

By Michael Jones

October 2005

Cambridge Audio Azur 540C, $599. Marantz CD5400, $599. NAD 521BEE, $499

These three players are the least expensive, most affordable CD players available in New Zealand. Sure, there is a model from Denon and possibly still one from Sony, but those units are some five or six years old. The Cambridge, Marantz and NAD are current models, recently developed for a competitive marketplace.

The Marantz CD5400 has been available for around a year, but is likely to remain available for several more months. This is Marantz’s entry-level player – a more affordable version of the CD7300 that I reviewed over two years ago.

This is the third version of the NAD 521, with the original 521, the 521i and now the 521BEE under the AudioEnz spotlight. The BEE stands for NAD designer Bjorn Erik Edvardsen, who oversaw the design. The 521BEE includes a Burr-Brown Sigma-Delta 20-bit digital to analogue converter and separate power regulators for the analog and digital sections. NAD say that the 521BEE can handle CD-R and CD-RW discs, an area where some earlier NAD players had problems.

Cambridge Audio’s Azur range has been a huge success for the UK-based company, with the 640 CD player and amplifier impressing AudioEnz reviewer Brent Burmester last year. The 540C includes a DAC from Wolfson and an acoustically damped chassis and an aluminium front panel.

Style and features

No doubt about it – the Marantz CD5400 was the best looking machine on offer here. I’d go as far to say that it looked as if it could sell for twice the price of the NAD and Cambridge. The finish and “feel” was that much better.

NAD’s 521BEE has the brand’s standard dark grey gun metal finish with small round buttons. It’s easy to use, except that I often hit the Play button when I wanted to open the disc drawer.

Cambridge Audio’s Azure 540C looks all but identical to the 640C player that tickled Brent Burmester’s fancy several months back. The player is available in both black and silver.

Back when CD first came out, the features on offer were remarkable (compared to a turntable or even cassette). These days, CD bells and whistles have become normal, so I won’t spend any time on them.

Except for the Marantz CD5400. Of the three players here the Marantz is the only one with a headphone jack. Just as importantly, the headphone jack is usable as it also comes with a volume control.

Sound

The three players were auditioned over a period of three weeks, both with direct comparisons and a period of each player being the prime CD player in my system.

Plus with this group test I introduced the AudioEnz Listening Panel, a group of guys from the AudioEnz forums who came along to drink my beer, subject me to their bad musical taste and pontificate on about the three CD players!

Even at these low prices, there were noticeable differences between the sounds of these three CD players.

The Marantz CD5400 impressed the listening panel with its open and effortless reproduction of high frequencies. Come Away With Me from the first Norah Jones album is a great example. The cymbal work from the drummer is beautifully portrayed – you’d be hard pressed to find better this side of $1000.

The Marantz had similar overall characteristics to every Marantz disc spinner I’ve heard over recent years: high resolution of detail throughout the upper midrange and treble with very low grain, couple with a smooth and warm tonal balance. But with this comes a flaw; a temporally “slow” sound and a diminution of the music’s pace and timing.

The NAD is another quality player, but its strengths and weaknesses are the opposite of the Marantz. Where the 521BEE excels is in its portrayal of the musical rhythm and momentum. Where the Marantz is slow, the NAD is upbeat. Where the Marantz seems to split apart the rhythm section, the NAD puts it all back together. I noticed that one of the listening panel’s feet began tapping along with the music while the NAD was playing, while his feet were still with the Marantz.

Tonally, the NAD was not as warm and approachable as the Marantz, but it was by no means lean. While the NAD thumped the Marantz in pace and timing, it lost out to the CD5400 in the reproduction of the upper frequencies. Where the Marantz as clean, open and detailed, the NAD was a touch hashy and lacked resolution. Against the Cambridge the NAD sounded good in this area; it was the superior performance of the Marantz in this area that showed the NAD up.

There’s a good reason that the Cambridge 540C is mentioned last – because no one had a great deal of enthusiasm for this CD player in comparison to the NAD and Marantz. Yes, it’s a competent CD player. And I’m sure that, away from comparisons with these two players, it will seem fine. But there’s no magic, as can be found with the other two players under test. You can read more on the 540C in Brent Burmester’s review in this issue.

So which to buy? There’s not a clear cut winner (there usually isn’t) but the Marantz and NAD stand out. If clean and open higher frequencies are more important to you, then the Marantz makes sense. If foot-tapping rhythm is more important to you, then the NAD makes sense. Want it all? Then good luck to you – I’m still looking for that combination myself!

Marantz: old versus new

One of the listening panel brought around for comparison an older Marantz CD52 mk2, which sold for some $1000 or so back in the early 1990s. After a bit of a listen to the other players we plugged in the CD52 and compared it to the modern model.

The CD52 was well reviewed in its day (not by AudioEnz, alas) and well regarded. But compared to the modern Marantz CD5400 is sounded grainy and harsh! This is definitely one area where modern CD players have improved markedly over the years.

Yet there was still one area where the older player beats the newer. The CD52 brought out more of the drive and momentum in the music than the newer CD5400.

Compared to the Pioneer 676

Late in the time frame of this review I had the opportunity to compare the NAD 521BEE to the Pioneer 676 universal player, which Michael Wong so rightly praised in the January issue. Can this superb little universal player beat the NAD at its own game? The answer is no.

Everything is better with the 521BEE. Compared to the NAD the 676 was a little hashy, with less overall resolution an opaque treble and spongy bottom end which doesn’t time as well.

Overall the 676 is (was, now that it’s been replaced) wonderful value – so much so that I bought one for myself. But if listening to music is your thing, then a dedicated CD player makes sense.

Wrap up

I’ve always been a proponent of buying a dedicated CD player over using a DVD player for CD playback. But over recent months I had wondered if that was still true, after my experiences after purchasing a Pioneer 676. The exercise in reviewing these three CD players has been enlightening, in showing this writer that a dedicated CD player is still the best bet for a music oriented system.

Of the three players, the Cambridge is the disappointment, particularly after the the marvellous 640 model. The NAD and Marantz show that there is still plenty of life left in dedicated CD players at this end of the marketplace.