Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:13:19 +0100, "SoundSweeper"
wrote:

Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

My parents have a quite old bottom of the range Cambridge amplifier,
which I modified a little while ago to reduce the sensitivity on one
input. Its build construction and the components used were perfectly
adequate for audio. It has run reliably for some years and was a very
good buy.

I have one of their DVD players and replaced it with a Pioneer in my
main system. This was not because of the sound quality - which was
fine - but because it had a few ergonomic rough edges. (For example,
it flashes "NO DISC" when first switched on, which is irritating and
it is not possible to switch it to standby from the front panel.)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"SoundSweeper" wrote in message
...
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

They sell them in Richer Sounds which seems to suggest they are cheap - or
there is a vast surplus and no one really buys them!

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and
DVD) I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

There is no reason not to buy Cambridge.

My very first system consisted of a cambridge amp and cd player. I used them
for a year before deciding to 'upgrade'. I spent several years and thousands
of pounds before I found a system that gripped me as much.

It is very nice gear for the money. Don't listen to anyone that starts
talking about Richer Sounds either - thats where I got them and very
reasonably priced they were..


--
MrBitsy

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and
DVD) I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

There is no reason not to buy Cambridge.

My very first system consisted of a cambridge amp and cd player. I used
them for a year before deciding to 'upgrade'. I spent several years and
thousands of pounds before I found a system that gripped me as much.

It is very nice gear for the money. Don't listen to anyone that starts
talking about Richer Sounds either - thats where I got them and very
reasonably priced they were..



Well, damn me Ray - no sooner than I mention your name (elsewhere) up you
pop!!

:-)

What's the kit these days?

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Hi Barry,

I went through this about a month and a half ago. Here are the CD
players I had a listen to -

1. Rega Apollo
2. Cambridge Audio 540C V2
3. Marantz CD - 5001 OSE
4. Rotel RCD-1072


The Rega was a floor model with a few hours of running others were all
brand new boxed. Here is my verdict -

I played the following -
1. So What - Miles Davis,
2. Rumble in the jungle - Max Roach
3. Making music - shakti.
4. Dark side of the moon - Pink floyd.

Marantz was crap...sorry to say that even though I am a big fan of
their OSE range. The Rega was smooth but subdued at very high and low
frequencies.

Cambridge and Rotel were my final contendors. Both had the necessary
details I was looking for. But the Rotel outperformed the Cambridge in
bass.

The initial few seconds of 'So what' has Ron Carters bass rumbling
which was more accurate on Rotel than Cambridge. So I picked up a
Rotel.

Asthetically the Rotel looks more solid to the Cambridge or the Arcam
and priced around the same mark.

The sales guy was kind enough to throw in some $180 worth of Eichmann
cables for no extra cost.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

MB

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Okay everyone, thanks for the info.
I will check Rotel again, but the Cambridge design is initialy just a bit
more ... lets say ... more sexy (?)
Today, I'm going to check some amplifiers/players.

Cheers...

"max graff" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
Hi Barry,

I went through this about a month and a half ago. Here are the CD
players I had a listen to -

1. Rega Apollo
2. Cambridge Audio 540C V2
3. Marantz CD - 5001 OSE
4. Rotel RCD-1072


The Rega was a floor model with a few hours of running others were all
brand new boxed. Here is my verdict -

I played the following -
1. So What - Miles Davis,
2. Rumble in the jungle - Max Roach
3. Making music - shakti.
4. Dark side of the moon - Pink floyd.

Marantz was crap...sorry to say that even though I am a big fan of
their OSE range. The Rega was smooth but subdued at very high and low
frequencies.

Cambridge and Rotel were my final contendors. Both had the necessary
details I was looking for. But the Rotel outperformed the Cambridge in
bass.

The initial few seconds of 'So what' has Ron Carters bass rumbling
which was more accurate on Rotel than Cambridge. So I picked up a
Rotel.

Asthetically the Rotel looks more solid to the Cambridge or the Arcam
and priced around the same mark.

The sales guy was kind enough to throw in some $180 worth of Eichmann
cables for no extra cost.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

MB

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

I spent several years and thousands
of pounds before I found a system that gripped me as much.

It is very nice gear for the money.

Hi

I had a similar experience and came to the same conclusion.

When downsizing last year I had to get rid of a lot of gear and change
to a smaller system. I listened to the standard solid state/CD/DAB mixes
from Arcam, Musical Fidelity and others at about £1500 all in and came
to the conclusion that the Cambridge Audio kit was at least as good in
terms of sound quality and substantially cheaper.

Regards

David

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Keith G wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and
DVD) I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

There is no reason not to buy Cambridge.

My very first system consisted of a cambridge amp and cd player. I
used them for a year before deciding to 'upgrade'. I spent several
years and thousands of pounds before I found a system that gripped
me as much. It is very nice gear for the money. Don't listen to anyone
that
starts talking about Richer Sounds either - thats where I got them
and very reasonably priced they were..



Well, damn me Ray - no sooner than I mention your name (elsewhere) up
you pop!!

:-)

What's the kit these days?

Same as when we last spoke - those speakers are keepers!
--
MrBitsy

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and
DVD) I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

There is no reason not to buy Cambridge.

My very first system consisted of a cambridge amp and cd player. I
used them for a year before deciding to 'upgrade'. I spent several
years and thousands of pounds before I found a system that gripped
me as much. It is very nice gear for the money. Don't listen to anyone
that
starts talking about Richer Sounds either - thats where I got them
and very reasonably priced they were..



Well, damn me Ray - no sooner than I mention your name (elsewhere) up
you pop!!

:-)

What's the kit these days?

Same as when we last spoke - those speakers are keepers!



:-)

Good, but I never thought I'd ever hear you use that phrase!!

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

I have two each of the cambridge Azur 640A amp and the Azur 640T tuner
(DAB/FM). I bought them about a year ago and I would not do so again.
I have one pair at work and the other at home.

One amp (at work) is operated using the buttons and they are starting
to wear out - not always responding when pressed. The other (home) is
operated using the remote and is still OK). I have no complaints about
the sound quality.

I had a lot of trouble with the tuners. the original ones kept
dropping the signal (and not recovering it). Richer Sounds replaced
them three times. Eventually, on the Cambridge Audio discussion forum
I found out that this was a known bug in V2 of the software. CA
eventually replaced them when a V3 was released. The technical
discussion forum on CA's website was very useful but became
increasingly critical and eventually CA closed it down.

The fact that CA did not recall all of the old 640Ts, indeed that they
continued to sell them with the known bug, put me off CA.

If you DO buy a 640T check it has version 3 of the software or better.
To do this, press and hold the info button for a few seconds. It then
comes up with the version numnber in the screen. BTW, version 3 has
another bug - the back light of the LCD siaply comes on at a random
time while the unit is switched to standby.

Robert

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"Robert" wrote in message
ups.com...

SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry

I have two each of the cambridge Azur 640A amp and the Azur 640T tuner
(DAB/FM). I bought them about a year ago and I would not do so again.
I have one pair at work and the other at home.

One amp (at work) is operated using the buttons and they are starting
to wear out - not always responding when pressed. The other (home) is
operated using the remote and is still OK). I have no complaints about
the sound quality.

I had a lot of trouble with the tuners. the original ones kept
dropping the signal (and not recovering it). Richer Sounds replaced
them three times. Eventually, on the Cambridge Audio discussion forum
I found out that this was a known bug in V2 of the software. CA
eventually replaced them when a V3 was released. The technical
discussion forum on CA's website was very useful but became
increasingly critical and eventually CA closed it down.

The fact that CA did not recall all of the old 640Ts, indeed that they
continued to sell them with the known bug, put me off CA.

If you DO buy a 640T check it has version 3 of the software or better.
To do this, press and hold the info button for a few seconds. It then
comes up with the version numnber in the screen. BTW, version 3 has
another bug - the back light of the LCD siaply comes on at a random
time while the unit is switched to standby.



One thing that seems to be consistently overlooked is that most (if not all)
of the common/popular Japanese 'midfi' names like Technics, Pioneer, Rotel,
Sony (et al) performed solidly for *decades* with little more problem than
the occasional noisy switch/lever which, I suspect, was down to lack of use
and is fairly easily sortable in any case....??

Many modern makes (includes NAD, for instance) simply can not claim the same
long-term reliability, it seems and I'm pretty certain the current cheap,
Chinese stuff won't prove to have the legs for the long distance either, but
that's just a guess....

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Keith G wrote:

One thing that seems to be consistently overlooked is that most (if not all)
of the common/popular Japanese 'midfi' names like Technics, Pioneer, Rotel,
Sony (et al) performed solidly for *decades* with little more problem than
the occasional noisy switch/lever which, I suspect, was down to lack of use
and is fairly easily sortable in any case....??

Many modern makes (includes NAD, for instance) simply can not claim the same
long-term reliability, it seems and I'm pretty certain the current cheap,
Chinese stuff won't prove to have the legs for the long distance either, but
that's just a guess....

Are replacement remote controls easily available for current models?
They wear out pretty quickly so having a spare or two could treble the
life of your equipment. I suppose the same goes for potentiometers in
non-standard sizes.

--
Eiron.

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Keith G wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
ups.com...
SoundSweeper wrote:
Hi UK Audiofreaks,

I'm considering to buy a stereo set (CD player, Amplifier, Tuner and DVD)
I've heard that Cambridge might be a good choice.

Is there a reason why NOT to buy this brand ???

Thanks,

barry
I have two each of the cambridge Azur 640A amp and the Azur 640T tuner
(DAB/FM). I bought them about a year ago and I would not do so again.
I have one pair at work and the other at home.

One amp (at work) is operated using the buttons and they are starting
to wear out - not always responding when pressed. The other (home) is
operated using the remote and is still OK). I have no complaints about
the sound quality.

I had a lot of trouble with the tuners. the original ones kept
dropping the signal (and not recovering it). Richer Sounds replaced
them three times. Eventually, on the Cambridge Audio discussion forum
I found out that this was a known bug in V2 of the software. CA
eventually replaced them when a V3 was released. The technical
discussion forum on CA's website was very useful but became
increasingly critical and eventually CA closed it down.

The fact that CA did not recall all of the old 640Ts, indeed that they
continued to sell them with the known bug, put me off CA.

If you DO buy a 640T check it has version 3 of the software or better.
To do this, press and hold the info button for a few seconds. It then
comes up with the version numnber in the screen. BTW, version 3 has
another bug - the back light of the LCD siaply comes on at a random
time while the unit is switched to standby.



One thing that seems to be consistently overlooked is that most (if not all)
of the common/popular Japanese 'midfi' names like Technics, Pioneer, Rotel,
Sony (et al) performed solidly for *decades* with little more problem than
the occasional noisy switch/lever which, I suspect, was down to lack of use
and is fairly easily sortable in any case....??

Many modern makes (includes NAD, for instance) simply can not claim the same
long-term reliability, it seems and I'm pretty certain the current cheap,
Chinese stuff won't prove to have the legs for the long distance either, but
that's just a guess....


Going back about 5 years or so, radio stations stopped buying
"professional" CD players like the Denon DN950s as for about 10% of the
price they could get a Marantz or consumer Denon that would do the same
job. They found that the main problem with the consumer players was that
the buttons (normally start, stop, track select, pause open/close) would
fail within a year or so, and, if they were naughty, would get it
replaced under warranty. However, some stations modified the players to
remote the controls to the desk, and these then worked for years. What
this indicates, is that even cheap consumer equipment can be
electrically very reliable, but is let down by mechanical failure in
things like buttons and knobs.

As Ebay shows, there are lots of '70s hi-fi out there still working
well, so there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the cheaper stuff, it
does rather depend on whether it has been kindly treated mechanically.

S.

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"Eiron" schreef in bericht
...
Keith G wrote:

One thing that seems to be consistently overlooked is that most (if not
all) of the common/popular Japanese 'midfi' names like Technics, Pioneer,
Rotel, Sony (et al) performed solidly for *decades* with little more
problem than the occasional noisy switch/lever which, I suspect, was down
to lack of use and is fairly easily sortable in any case....??

Many modern makes (includes NAD, for instance) simply can not claim the
same long-term reliability, it seems and I'm pretty certain the current
cheap, Chinese stuff won't prove to have the legs for the long distance
either, but that's just a guess....

Are replacement remote controls easily available for current models?
They wear out pretty quickly so having a spare or two could treble the
life of your equipment. I suppose the same goes for potentiometers in
non-standard sizes.

--
Eiron.

The NAD HTR-2 Remote Control is able to handle all Cambridge RC functions
(and other brands as well). At least this was what they told me in de shop.

Grtz

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

If you DO buy a 640T check it has version 3 of the software or better.
To do this, press and hold the info button for a few seconds. It then
comes up with the version numnber in the screen. BTW, version 3 has
another bug - the back light of the LCD siaply comes on at a random
time while the unit is switched to standby.

Hi!

This is interesting.

I bought a 640T just over a year ago and the backlight of the diplay was
permanently on. I was told that this was a bug and that Richer Sounds
would replace the tuner when a new version came out. I too noticed
signal drop now and then but didn't bother too much since the unit was
to be replaced.

A few months ago the tuner was replaced and I have had no trouble with
the backlight or signal drop. The software version comes up as version
1.00 so maybe all new firmware has been installed?

Regards

David

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

One thing that seems to be consistently overlooked is that most (if not
all) of the common/popular Japanese 'midfi' names like Technics, Pioneer,
Rotel, Sony (et al) performed solidly for *decades* with little more
problem than the occasional noisy switch/lever which, I suspect, was down
to lack of use and is fairly easily sortable in any case....??

Many modern makes (includes NAD, for instance) simply can not claim the
same long-term reliability, it seems and I'm pretty certain the current
cheap, Chinese stuff won't prove to have the legs for the long distance
either, but that's just a guess....

Are replacement remote controls easily available for current models?
They wear out pretty quickly so having a spare or two could treble the
life of your equipment. I suppose the same goes for potentiometers in
non-standard sizes.



Remote controls are generally available (from what little I know) for most
commonplace/popular equipment but, like printer inks, I believe they are
usually disproportionately expensive (at 30+ quid a go) when you take the
cost of the original item (or its modern equivalent) into account.

I ought to mention that, having mentioned that I got 3 identical remotes
with 3 pieces of kit, I believe the cheap Argos 'Acoustic Solutions' stuff
now offers the remote seperately?? (Just in case I had started a rush or
summat?? :-)

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote

Going back about 5 years or so, radio stations stopped buying
"professional" CD players like the Denon DN950s as for about 10% of the
price they could get a Marantz or consumer Denon that would do the same
job. They found that the main problem with the consumer players was that
the buttons (normally start, stop, track select, pause open/close) would
fail within a year or so, and, if they were naughty, would get it replaced
under warranty. However, some stations modified the players to remote the
controls to the desk, and these then worked for years. What this
indicates, is that even cheap consumer equipment can be electrically very
reliable, but is let down by mechanical failure in things like buttons and
knobs.



Claiming warranty repairs on domestic stuff that has been used in a
professional/industrial context is a bit naughty as it is generally excluded
in the terms of the guarantee/warranty but it goes on all the time - some
years back it was the norm to see domestic handtools in daily use on
building sites and I was amazed at how well some of the battered little
things stood up to it.

Nowadays, the really cheap stuff is very good for light/occasional DIY use
but I can't see it lasting 5 minutes in the same environment. What doesn't
help is the huge step-up in price to the proper, 'professional/industrial'
equivalents!



As Ebay shows, there are lots of '70s hi-fi out there still working well,
so there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the cheaper stuff, it does
rather depend on whether it has been kindly treated mechanically.


Sure, or in the case of the handtools I mentioned above, how well the
operatives know how to use them.

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

Robert asked

Are replacement remote controls easily available for current models?
They wear out pretty quickly so having a spare or two could treble
the
life of your equipment. I suppose the same goes for potentiometers
in
non-standard sizes.

IR remotes operate at various carrier frequencies and use various
coding systems.

A search reveals that the 640R uses RC5 code, so I guess Cambridge
will use that system for all its stuff.

RC5 is the most common standard, established by Philips. Any RC5
remote with the appropriate buttons should work. Or learning remotes
are widely available. Check Maplin, for example. They tend to ugly and
horribly cluttered with stuff you don't want. Cambridge make one like
this:

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summar...rning%20remote

cheers, Ian

Why NOT Cambridge ???
 

PS

I assume a learning remote would need something to teach it. You'd
still have to find an RC5 unit to grab the codes from.

Ian