My CDP ramblings and the NAD C 565BEE

I’ve owned several players since the inception of the compact disc. But the following ramble begins in 2004.

Yamaha CDC-697
For $250 this is a pretty nice player. I was told at the time that it had a Burr-Brown DAC and it did indeed sound better than the players it replaced (save the McIntosh MCD7000). But after time, I found it’s awkward changer tray to be annoying and eventually sold it.

Memorex MVD2045
I ran across this player during a Christmas sale for $20 at a local dollar store.
Having worked on these cheapo players for friends, I knew a few bucks thrown at it would made it a reliable player. The reason so many of the cheap players fail is due to the cheap switching power supplies used in them. Despite the flimsy plastic case, it has a Sony transport & Amtek hdmi board. I replaced all electrolytics on the p.s. board, added a ferrite core to the cables off the transport and dampening material to the case. It did an admirable job with redbook and dvds, but the power supply still created some audible haze.

Oppo BDP-83 SE
It provided excellent performance with the few DSD/SACD and DVD-A discs I had on hand. But its 16-bit performance was disappointing. There was some sterility along with glare in the vocal region that left me cold. Thinking it may have needed break in, I let it play endlessly thru the trial period hoping the annoyance would go away, but sadly it never did. All that being said, it plays every kind of disc currently made and if Redbook isn’t your bag, go for it, as it excels with the other formats.

NAD C545 BEE
By this point I decided that I needed to focus on a dedicated Redbook player.
I have thousands of CDs and less than a dozen of the others. I looked at several players in the $800 to $1500 price range and read glowing reviews of both the NAD C545 BEE and C565 BEE. Two reviewers felt the 545 was the way to go, that the $499 price was money better spent over the 565’s $799 price tag. The 545 has Burr-Brown DAC chips, a two-stage slope filter, is a rock solid performer and does most things well. But I couldn’t help but wonder what I was missing out on. Was the 565 really that much better and would I finally see that final veil lifted? So on to the next…

Inside the C545 BEE



NAD C565 BEE
After two months of living with the 545, I decided that damn the torpedoes, I was going in and let loose a few more bucks.
The Sound Stage! review, seen here: http://www.soundstage.com/equipment/nad_c565bee.htm kept coming back to me. The reviewer strongly felt (as others had) that the 565’s are the cat’s meow and it was the one to get for those hard-earned audio bucks.
I hadn’t returned the 545 for exchange when the 565 showed a few days later, so this gave me the chance to audition them side-by-side. Although both models are built on the same heavy steel chassis, there were notable differences in construction and sound.

The 545’s have Burr-Brown DAC chips, whereas the 565’s have 24-bit/192kHz Wolfson WM8741 DAC chips in a "dual-differential" design and the 565 add USB and Toslink digital inputs. Obviously there’s a fair amount of additional circuitry, but there were a few things I didn’t expect to see that differentiated the two. First, the 565 has an aluminum knob on the right hand side that lets you track forward or backward and with a push, starts playback. The 565 offers five filters that alters slope, stopband and 96/192kHz upsampling.
Like the Sound Stage! reviewer (Doug Schneider) in the above link, I found Filter 2 to be the most pleasing, with upsampling off.
Both players are understated in their appearance, but the 565 takes it up a notch by adding aluminum/rubber feet and an aluminum front panel from the 545’s plastic. The 565 also has a shielded torodial transformer in a snazzy chrome-plated housing over the 545’s open-core (now, who’s going to see that?) and upgraded caps in the audio path.

As I mentioned earlier, there’s a stark difference between the sound of two players. While the 545 has a rock-solid sound, the 565 offers more depth and reaches a bit deeper into the bass regions. There isn’t any hint of hard glare or false swirly shimmering to the mid-band or top-end. (The 545 is very good this regard, but many CD players I’ve encountered over the years aren't.)

With both players set up I went back and forth, A-B’ing the discs I was most familiar with. While I feel the 545 bested the Oppo in clarity and resolution of 16-bit discs, the 565 took the ball and did a slam-dunk. I played:
Songbird ~ Eva Cassidy
Unauthorized ~ Dave’s True Story
Black Cadillac ~ Rosanne Cash
The Evening of My Best Day ~ Rickie Lee Jones
Abbey Road ~ The Beatles

I know exactly what to expect from all of these recordings, whether it’s thundering bass lines on the Rosanne Cash album or the
faintly distinctive crickets and bells from "side two" of Abbey Road. Between the two players, the 565 came up the clear winner offering a clearer window into the music and a three-dimensional presentation that the 545 only hinted at.

As a footnote…
I have a 32 gig USB Thumb-drive with countless hours of uncompressed music that I take along on road trips.
To my ears, the USB sourced material sounded very close to the discs from which they were taken. Nice.

Also, one of the things I came to appreciate with both the 545 and 565 were the well thought out remote controls. Buttons are arranged in a logical manner and they fit comfortably in the hand. In addition to all playback options, you have control of input selection (CD, USB, OPTICAL), the five slope/stopband filters and SRC upsampling (Off, 96kHz, 192kHz).
At this point, I think it's safe to say that I've finally found what I was looking for.

Inside the C565 BEE

Celt:
I really like your review and thoughts and appreciate that you took the time to put up pictures - I always love to see pictures of what people are talking about. The multiple heat sinks inside the NAD CD players look just like what's inside my fairly new NAD 326BEE integrated amp, which I'm very pleased with.

Anyway, I'm in total agreement with your approach to your CD collection. I've said this a couple times in recent AK threads on the topic of CD players: if you have a large collection of Red Book CDs, you want and enjoy excellent sound, and of course if you can afford it, my opinion is that it's a good idea to look into one of these high performance-type CD players. I'm also a supporter of buying based on reviews and opinions. As you've experienced here, with a bit of research one can narrow the choices down to a few models that are apparently impossible to go wrong with.

You're probably aware that some people claim the differences between CD players are small to unnoticeable. I'd agree they're sometimes subtle, but, like you've described, they have a huge impact on overall musicality and one's enjoyment of CD playback. It's amazing what you can get out of standard Red Book CDs!

One thing I've noticed going from good to better, and then even better CD players is that the sound becomes more refined and natural; it has a flow to it that lesser CDs don't do as well, and, like you said, an absence of hardness. That last one is the worst, IMO, although sometimes it's just in the recording and you can't escape it...

Just a year ago I would never have given a thought to buying anything by NAD. In that time my respect for them has skyrocketed, especially where value for the money is concerned.

Great read! Thanks, Dan, and enjoy your new player.

Mr. Lin said:

One thing I've noticed going from good to better, and then even better CD players is that the sound becomes more refined and natural; it has a flow to it that lesser CDs don't do as well, and, like you said, an absence of hardness. That last one is the worst, IMO, although sometimes it's just in the recording and you can't escape it...

Just a year ago I would never have given a thought to buying anything by NAD. In that time my respect for them has skyrocketed, especially where value for the money is concerned.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. The first player I owned that made it clear that there were audible differences between players was a McIntosh MCD7000 with a Nakamichi music-bank transport. While the transport was problematic (belt alignment issues), the DAC and associated circuitry made CD's sound musical and shed of edge and glare.

NAD's main problem from their early years wasn't as much design as who they picked to construct their products. I can't help but feel if they had chosen CEC or Foster Electronics, that their reputation wouldn't have become tarnished.
In the 90's I purchased a small NAD L40 CD/FM/Amp all in one unit that served me well for many years. It was well constructed and designed and had a noticeable upgrade in parts quality over the earlier units.

The CD format may be nearing the end, but the technology steadily keeps improving and it's revealed in many of the newer players.

Just for giggles, here's a few pics of the $20 Memorex MVD2045 hdmi DVD player.
If anyone wonders how something like that can be built and retail for ten times less the price of a cheap component CD player,
this will show you how. Still, it's amazing that so few parts can do so much and do it fairly well.
Add to that, it's picture quality is slightly better than that of my 2004 $350 Pioneer DVD-V5000! :sigh:
But that's a good demonstration of the technological improvements being made for lower price point electronics.

Great thread, Dan!

Very informative.. thanks for sharing!

Celt said:

Just for giggles, here's a few pics of the $20 Memorex MVD2045 hdmi DVD player.
If anyone wonders how something like that can be built and retail for ten times less the price of a cheap component CD player,
this will show you why. Still, it's amazing that so few parts can do so much and do it fairly well.
And it's picture quality is slightly better than that of my 2004 $350 Pioneer DVD-V5000. :sigh:

Click to expand...

Let me tell you something, on this subject: I have a Musical Fidelity A3.5 CD player, which was made five years ago, and retails at $1600. In your picture, replace the transformer with a small toroidal transformer, and that's basically how much stuff is inside the MF player. This is because of surface mount technology (similar to what's in the Memorex), and their particular approach to CD players, but still, when I opened it up I was surprised at how very little was in there!

By comparison, the chassis of my Jolida CDP is stuffed but for one small area on one side. However, it's performance is clearly inferior to the MF. So I guess it's about parts and execution.

Still, the Memorex doesn't look bad at all compared to other inexpensive CD players and DVD players I've seen the insides of.

Dan, just like the 565BEE your review is well thought out and very well constructed. The pictures really add to the understanding of your point of view. I was one of those whose impression of NAD was still tainted by the lack of QC from years past. This has opened my eyes about where NAD is today and I thank you.

Nice review and info. Thanks for sharing with us.

az

Mike Gibson said:

... I was one of those whose impression of NAD was still tainted by the lack of QC from years past. This has opened my eyes about where NAD is today and I thank you.

Click to expand...

I'm still skeptical about NAD's quality after dealing with two 502 CD players that would not stay running for any reasonable length of time. I hope that NAD has moved past that phase in its history and is offering reliable gear today, as few other audio manuacturers offer so much performance at such an affordable price point.

Excellent read, thanks for taking the time. I was riveted (and I really ought to be doing other things)

It's an effective reminder of all that goes into trying to extract every bit of fidelity from a Redbook CD. I agree that a quality, dedicated Redbook player is essential.

I just upgraded my Rotel player from an RCD-1070 to the older, but higher on the food chain RCD-991AE. So your thread is of particular interest b/c these matters have been on my mind.

Celt said:

The 565 offers five filters that alters slope, stopband and 96/192kHz upsampling.

Click to expand...

I think I understand upsampleing, but what do you know about the slope and stopband adjustment? My Rotel has seven degrees of adjustable dither to give it subtly different voicing. I'm curious to know what NAD is up to here.

And thanks again for the great post. I'm sure it will help many who come across it as they shop for one of these decks.

Brett a said:

I think I understand upsampleing, but what do you know about the slope and stopband adjustment?
My Rotel has seven degrees of adjustable dither to give it subtly different voicing. I'm curious to know what NAD is up to here.

Click to expand...

Well Sir, I'm still playing around with that. Basically, the different slopes and stopbands are so the user can make a recording or source that's harsh more pleasing to the ear (analog outputs only). I've played around with it a bit and the differences are fairly subtle.
I've attached a scan from the owner's manual that describes better than I can what the filters actually do.
The 96kHz, 192kHz upsampling is controlled by a different button on the front panel and remote, marked "SRC".

Very informative thread, Dan. Thanks!

I wonder have you consider any of Cambridge Audio players, such as 740C or 840C, before you picked the NAD.

Man, how did I miss this thread. I've been considering the 565 for my second setup with my 326 amp.

Just finished reading the thread...what a wonderful and informative thread. Your impressions of the Oppo player mirror my own. For Redbook playback I simply don't like it. The 565 sounds like a real winner and killer deal at it's going price.

kotofei said:

Very informative thread, Dan. Thanks!

I wonder have you consider any of Cambridge Audio players, such as 740C or 840C, before you picked the NAD.

Click to expand...

I did. But the logical and well thought out design of the NAD and two reviews claiming that it could only be slightly bested by spending $6000 was what won me over. I enjoy the player daily and have made use of loading a thumb drive up with my favourite albums and let the player shuffle thru them all day long. Sort of like having my own radio station if you will.
One thing it does that I failed to mention is that it will shut itself down after several minutes of inactivity.
My amplifiers do the same thing, so that's kind of convenient and neat.

Art K. said:

Man, how did I miss this thread. I've been considering the 565 for my second setup with my 326 amp.

Click to expand...

Warming up a bit to the 326 now, are we?

Celt said:

I did. But the logical and well thought out design of the NAD and two reviews claiming that it could only be slightly bested by spending $6000 was what won me over.

Click to expand...

Obviously they were correct about it being a good CD player, but those kind of comments in reviews of audio components always put up a red flag in my mind.

Mr. Lin said:

Obviously they were correct about it being a good CD player, but those kind of comments in reviews of audio components always put up a red flag in my mind.

Click to expand...

I think NAD (finally) did their homework with this one! :yes: The reviewer was comparing it to his $6200 Sim Audio player.

Mr. Lin said:

Warming up a bit to the 326 now, are we?

Click to expand...

I actually haven't listened to it since the last time I commented on it, except as an amp for the HT fronts. It would eventually go and be replaced by something else (perhaps even a bigger NAD) while the 565 would remain as my second digital source. Great looking player.