Tweet
Lately, I have been deliberating over my two Classe’ CDP players (CDP-202 and CDP-300) and weather to keep one or the other or both. My recent foray into the hi-def video world has added much to this personal impasse. Paramount to my concerns revolves around which CDP I consider to be the most beneficial. It would seem the 202’s strength lies in its audio abilities and the 300’s in its video abilities. But the question is which would be the lesser sacrifice?
DVD performance with the PS3 is merely okay but is seriously lacking in comparison to the 300’s upscaling and high-definition video processing capabilities. Unfortunately, my display is incapable of accepting its 1080p/60 output. Rather it needs a 1080p/24 input for optimal performance which the CDP-300 cannot, nor is planned too, provide. On the other hand, the PS3 has the hardware to support 1080p/24 and DVD video deinterlacing and scaling if a rumored firmware/software is released to unlock its hidden potential.
Again, it is speculative conjecture what Sony will do at this point. Which leads me to wonder what if they don’t add these features or can’t for reasons that go beyond the technical? I would like to avoid making a hasty decision to let go a fantastic DVD player that is the CDP-300 by banking on a rumor. So the question that was recently put before me was how close is the CDP-300 to the CDP-202 in two-channel audio?
Until the PS3 is upgraded, my CDP-300 remains a far and away better DVD player and is several factors more conducive to a quite environment. The PS3 is rather noisy. But given that I am more tolerant of video applications I am willing to overlook the PS3’s compromises provided that the 202 is a far and away better CD player than the 300 is. But what if the 300 approached 90+% of the 202 in two-channel audio? Could I sacrifice the 202 and still own a fantastic DVD player that also doubles as great CD player?
The surprising answer to this question was revealed this weekend when I conducted a close evaluation of the two players. In short I found the CDP-202 and the CDP-300 to be very different. (The CDP-102 which uses the same two-channel audio boards as the CDP-300 should have identical results.)
At this early stage of my evaluation I am unable to conclude weather one player is better than the other or which I preferred as each player is quite dissimilar from the other but I can describe without pause some of their most prominent characteristics.
Listening to the CDP-202 vocal and instrumental imagery had an airy bloom that reverberated deep within the soundscape. Instruments that formed the stage played together as a cohesive whole, none stood out from the crowd as to cry “here I am”. Vocals and overall midband presence zone was laid back and romantic. Treble was unfettered from grain and the bass snappy and articulate.
Listening to the CDP-300 vocals and instruments were cast forward and stood out in an expressive and expansive soundscape. Instruments were delineated and sounded as if they wanted to take center stage. Vocals and overall midband presence zone was forward and energetic. Treble was crisp if a bit overzealous and the bass prominent if a bit overhung.
I ran my evaluation over the course of two days, spending about two to three hours on Saturday and three hours total on Sunday, using a pair of 800D, a pair of CA-M400 and a CP-700. Using two DVD-A copies of Fleetwoodmac’s “Rumors” I was able to queue up both players to precisely the same track and play them back simultaneously and thus facilitate my own self-directed blind A/B test between the two.
I would start by randomly cycling between the two inputs on the CP-700 and without noticing which input I had selected would designated the first player I listened to as A and the other as B. I began with the premise that I would attempt to choose the player that I thought I was listening to after repeatedly reviewing the same track and moving back and forth between the players after about 20-30 minutes of listening. My first pass turned up the 300, the second the 202 and the third the 300. I was quite surprised to pick the 300 so I changed my premise to select the player I thought stood out more. In all three attempts I choose the 300 in near field testing. Puzzled by the results I decided to conduct far field testing and in both cases I again picked the 300. At this point I was so adept at choosing the player I knew to be the 300 that I could do it instantaneously and with 100% accuracy which was dumbfounding because I would have expected the 202 to be less introverted.
Searching for explanation to this madness I decided to neturalze the only discrpency in my setup. The CDP-202 was connected to the CP-700 with a pair XLRs from Kimber and the CDP-300 was connected to the CP-700 with a pair of RCA from CAT. On Sunday I swapped the XLRs for a pair of RCAs and ran the same battery of tests. This time I had a much more difficult time detecting the dissimilarities. The first run I picked the 202, same with the second and almost with the third. I was leaning to the 202 but picked the 300 in the end. Then I picked the 300 and then the 300 again. Once I acclimated myself to the new environment I was building the confidence I had before to detect the 300 but it was less obvious.
What I concluded from this preliminary exercise was the ability to discern the fundamental characteristics of each player. Now knowing each player’s individual personalities I am much better equipped to determine if one is more suitable to my tastes than the other as I continue my evaluation with different artists and genre’s of music. The next step is to evaluate the benefits and the performance of each during long term listening sessions and to provide a bigger brake down on the results. At this stage of testing I noticed the 202 to be more refined and comfortable to listen to but the 300 more stimulating.
Stay tuned.
DVD performance with the PS3 is merely okay but is seriously lacking in comparison to the 300’s upscaling and high-definition video processing capabilities. Unfortunately, my display is incapable of accepting its 1080p/60 output. Rather it needs a 1080p/24 input for optimal performance which the CDP-300 cannot, nor is planned too, provide. On the other hand, the PS3 has the hardware to support 1080p/24 and DVD video deinterlacing and scaling if a rumored firmware/software is released to unlock its hidden potential.
Again, it is speculative conjecture what Sony will do at this point. Which leads me to wonder what if they don’t add these features or can’t for reasons that go beyond the technical? I would like to avoid making a hasty decision to let go a fantastic DVD player that is the CDP-300 by banking on a rumor. So the question that was recently put before me was how close is the CDP-300 to the CDP-202 in two-channel audio?
Until the PS3 is upgraded, my CDP-300 remains a far and away better DVD player and is several factors more conducive to a quite environment. The PS3 is rather noisy. But given that I am more tolerant of video applications I am willing to overlook the PS3’s compromises provided that the 202 is a far and away better CD player than the 300 is. But what if the 300 approached 90+% of the 202 in two-channel audio? Could I sacrifice the 202 and still own a fantastic DVD player that also doubles as great CD player?
The surprising answer to this question was revealed this weekend when I conducted a close evaluation of the two players. In short I found the CDP-202 and the CDP-300 to be very different. (The CDP-102 which uses the same two-channel audio boards as the CDP-300 should have identical results.)
At this early stage of my evaluation I am unable to conclude weather one player is better than the other or which I preferred as each player is quite dissimilar from the other but I can describe without pause some of their most prominent characteristics.
Listening to the CDP-202 vocal and instrumental imagery had an airy bloom that reverberated deep within the soundscape. Instruments that formed the stage played together as a cohesive whole, none stood out from the crowd as to cry “here I am”. Vocals and overall midband presence zone was laid back and romantic. Treble was unfettered from grain and the bass snappy and articulate.
Listening to the CDP-300 vocals and instruments were cast forward and stood out in an expressive and expansive soundscape. Instruments were delineated and sounded as if they wanted to take center stage. Vocals and overall midband presence zone was forward and energetic. Treble was crisp if a bit overzealous and the bass prominent if a bit overhung.
I ran my evaluation over the course of two days, spending about two to three hours on Saturday and three hours total on Sunday, using a pair of 800D, a pair of CA-M400 and a CP-700. Using two DVD-A copies of Fleetwoodmac’s “Rumors” I was able to queue up both players to precisely the same track and play them back simultaneously and thus facilitate my own self-directed blind A/B test between the two.
I would start by randomly cycling between the two inputs on the CP-700 and without noticing which input I had selected would designated the first player I listened to as A and the other as B. I began with the premise that I would attempt to choose the player that I thought I was listening to after repeatedly reviewing the same track and moving back and forth between the players after about 20-30 minutes of listening. My first pass turned up the 300, the second the 202 and the third the 300. I was quite surprised to pick the 300 so I changed my premise to select the player I thought stood out more. In all three attempts I choose the 300 in near field testing. Puzzled by the results I decided to conduct far field testing and in both cases I again picked the 300. At this point I was so adept at choosing the player I knew to be the 300 that I could do it instantaneously and with 100% accuracy which was dumbfounding because I would have expected the 202 to be less introverted.
Searching for explanation to this madness I decided to neturalze the only discrpency in my setup. The CDP-202 was connected to the CP-700 with a pair XLRs from Kimber and the CDP-300 was connected to the CP-700 with a pair of RCA from CAT. On Sunday I swapped the XLRs for a pair of RCAs and ran the same battery of tests. This time I had a much more difficult time detecting the dissimilarities. The first run I picked the 202, same with the second and almost with the third. I was leaning to the 202 but picked the 300 in the end. Then I picked the 300 and then the 300 again. Once I acclimated myself to the new environment I was building the confidence I had before to detect the 300 but it was less obvious.
What I concluded from this preliminary exercise was the ability to discern the fundamental characteristics of each player. Now knowing each player’s individual personalities I am much better equipped to determine if one is more suitable to my tastes than the other as I continue my evaluation with different artists and genre’s of music. The next step is to evaluate the benefits and the performance of each during long term listening sessions and to provide a bigger brake down on the results. At this stage of testing I noticed the 202 to be more refined and comfortable to listen to but the 300 more stimulating.
Stay tuned.
Comment