Cambridge CXN V2 - My new audiophile streamer and internet radio - detailed review
If you have only a Single SUB, connect both R & L RCA output of CXNv2 to SUB inputs.
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
Here’s an update on how I am using CXN in my system. I’ve gone through a few system configurations and have now settled with what I think is the best of those.
When I got it, I was using the CXN’s DAC and then routing the signal through a tube pre (Lyrita DHT) into the power section of my Audiolab 8200A. It was fine, but I wasn’t getting the right tonality and sound was too warm (probably a combination of the tube and my Castle speakers).
Few months ago I started experimenting witb pure solid state and started using the pre section of the Audiolab instead of the tube. The tonality improved (singer voices and instrument tones more true to life), but I was losing on the fidelity. Probably the dedicated tube pre gave cleaner output (inspite of the inherent tube distortion) than the Audiolab’s integrated pre.
Then I tried using the digital preamp of the CXN, and connected it directly to the power section of the amp. This gives a very clean audio, but perhaps clinical too. I mean to say it sounded kind of mechanical/analytical to me. Not harsh, but not musical (which both the tube and the SS pre were). I didn’t like it and reverted to using the SS pre. Remember in this experiment above I was employing both the DAC and the digital pre of the CXN V2.
Next I decided to use the Schitt Bifrost (basic version) instead of the CXN’s DAC (as the Bifrost was already with me as part of my desktop chain). I was now using the CXN purely as a streamer. And the Audiolab as integrated.
While the Schiit DAC is very musical and beefy in the bass, the fidelity went down again. I was getting echoey sound. Probably because the Bifrost DAC has much bigger soundstage and increases the reflections in my untreated room or some other reason I can’t find. So while there were things to like about this configuration, I couldn’t settle on it. All I can say is that the CXN’s DAC and the Schiit Bifrost DAC are quite different - the former being punchy and clearer, while the latter is warmer but fuzzier.
That is when I explored using the CXN’s DAC once again, but not it’s digital pre this time. So I needed something for the volume control. Luckily I had sourced a passive pre - the Schiit Sys (a very reasonably priced, less popular product) from a FM and decided to use it for this job.
And that’s when I got the sound I am happiest when with. The resultant chain is a simple one: CXN streamer and DAC -> Schitt Sys passive pre -> Audiolab 8200A power section. All RCA connections with the Lyrita interconnects (which I prefer over much higher priced ones in my collection for the naturalness of sound).
What I get through this is the most optimum combination of tonality, musicality and clarity. The tones are true to life, giving a more natural listening experience - this is probably because there’s no preamp adding its colour now (each active preamp has its color, even if you like it). The clarity is high as I am using the CXN’s DAC which is known for the same (unless you are after R2R DACs, this should should delight you in the price range - whatever it does with its upsampling and that algorithm produces a coherent and smooth, yet punchy sound). And the musicality is good too - my conclusion here is that it’s the CXN’s digital pre which impairs the musicality with its sterile/clinical reproduction).
So when I listen to my music now, I get to easily discern the sound of a sarangi, violin and shehnai in a jugalbandi, I am able to feel the different pressures put in each bol of the tabla, or distinctly make out the forward push and backward pull of the bow on the sarangi, and the singers voices remain sweet even at the high points, and there’s enough air between instruments. Of course all of this capped by the natural limitations of my budget speaker-amp-untreated room combo. I am listening to more music and am able to get more into the performances - I can chose to focus on details or sit back and flow with the overall performance. That’s a combo that was worth going after.
So I am staying with this configuration. Now, some of these findings could be specific to my chain, but there might be some generic learnings for other CXN users. If you are one, I’d suggest trying it as a streamer-DAC along with a passive pre (Sys isn’t easy to find in India now, but there could be pre-owned or other passive pres) and connect directly to your power amp (or power section of your integrated if it allows the same). See if you like the sound, it’s worth giving it a shot. I am glad I did.
When I got it, I was using the CXN’s DAC and then routing the signal through a tube pre (Lyrita DHT) into the power section of my Audiolab 8200A. It was fine, but I wasn’t getting the right tonality and sound was too warm (probably a combination of the tube and my Castle speakers).
Few months ago I started experimenting witb pure solid state and started using the pre section of the Audiolab instead of the tube. The tonality improved (singer voices and instrument tones more true to life), but I was losing on the fidelity. Probably the dedicated tube pre gave cleaner output (inspite of the inherent tube distortion) than the Audiolab’s integrated pre.
Then I tried using the digital preamp of the CXN, and connected it directly to the power section of the amp. This gives a very clean audio, but perhaps clinical too. I mean to say it sounded kind of mechanical/analytical to me. Not harsh, but not musical (which both the tube and the SS pre were). I didn’t like it and reverted to using the SS pre. Remember in this experiment above I was employing both the DAC and the digital pre of the CXN V2.
Next I decided to use the Schitt Bifrost (basic version) instead of the CXN’s DAC (as the Bifrost was already with me as part of my desktop chain). I was now using the CXN purely as a streamer. And the Audiolab as integrated.
While the Schiit DAC is very musical and beefy in the bass, the fidelity went down again. I was getting echoey sound. Probably because the Bifrost DAC has much bigger soundstage and increases the reflections in my untreated room or some other reason I can’t find. So while there were things to like about this configuration, I couldn’t settle on it. All I can say is that the CXN’s DAC and the Schiit Bifrost DAC are quite different - the former being punchy and clearer, while the latter is warmer but fuzzier.
That is when I explored using the CXN’s DAC once again, but not it’s digital pre this time. So I needed something for the volume control. Luckily I had sourced a passive pre - the Schiit Sys (a very reasonably priced, less popular product) from a FM and decided to use it for this job.
And that’s when I got the sound I am happiest when with. The resultant chain is a simple one: CXN streamer and DAC -> Schitt Sys passive pre -> Audiolab 8200A power section. All RCA connections with the Lyrita interconnects (which I prefer over much higher priced ones in my collection for the naturalness of sound).
What I get through this is the most optimum combination of tonality, musicality and clarity. The tones are true to life, giving a more natural listening experience - this is probably because there’s no preamp adding its colour now (each active preamp has its color, even if you like it). The clarity is high as I am using the CXN’s DAC which is known for the same (unless you are after R2R DACs, this should should delight you in the price range - whatever it does with its upsampling and that algorithm produces a coherent and smooth, yet punchy sound). And the musicality is good too - my conclusion here is that it’s the CXN’s digital pre which impairs the musicality with its sterile/clinical reproduction).
So when I listen to my music now, I get to easily discern the sound of a sarangi, violin and shehnai in a jugalbandi, I am able to feel the different pressures put in each bol of the tabla, or distinctly make out the forward push and backward pull of the bow on the sarangi, and the singers voices remain sweet even at the high points, and there’s enough air between instruments. Of course all of this capped by the natural limitations of my budget speaker-amp-untreated room combo. I am listening to more music and am able to get more into the performances - I can chose to focus on details or sit back and flow with the overall performance. That’s a combo that was worth going after.
So I am staying with this configuration. Now, some of these findings could be specific to my chain, but there might be some generic learnings for other CXN users. If you are one, I’d suggest trying it as a streamer-DAC along with a passive pre (Sys isn’t easy to find in India now, but there could be pre-owned or other passive pres) and connect directly to your power amp (or power section of your integrated if it allows the same). See if you like the sound, it’s worth giving it a shot. I am glad I did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very happy to see this Sachin !
I have always loved passive Pre's due to the tonal texture and details they bring out although this works this way only in cases where there is sufficient gain in the system. If not, it works the opposite way ie you lose the life in the system and thats the reason Passive-Pre are often debated and a hit or a miss based on the system
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
Useful insight there Arjun. Thanks. Seems my CXN provides enough gain to the Audiolab power. I don’t know the specs, but I need to raise the volume dial on the passive pre to about 11am to get max sound (average of 80 dB with highs touching 90 dB) that I could listen to in my room/house. What the passive pre has done at the other end of the volume spectrum is more interesting - I can now turn down to 55 dB average (with highs around 60 odd dB) late in the night and still be able to listen to the music without losing the nuances. This was one of my objectives that was highly discussed in a thread I had created for the purpose. I remember some FMs had suggested passive pre for low volume listening then:
What makes a system sound good at low volumes?
Firstly, I couldn’t figure out which forum to post this under, so posted here. Kindly move to a more appropriate forum if there’s one. I want to know what goes into making a system sound good (by that I mean clear, detailed and balanced, without losing certain frequencies) even at lower...
www.hifivision.com
metalmickey
Well-Known Member
i was using using the cxn as pre to my Cambridge audio power amp and yeah was missing out on the tube warmth which I was used to thanks to my yaqin but using the cx as pre have me tighter bass and mildly elevated highs which though was great but never got me involved in the music... sold the power amp and might sell the cxn v1 soon here...
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
Oh. Which amp do you use now? If it has a power amp input possibility, and if you like the CXN as a streamer, give passive preamp a try before you decide to get rid of it. Commercial passive preamps are available quiet cheap, there’s a thread on the same.
I currently have 2 passive pre-amplifier for my use (one is made for a FM and yet to be shipped). Both these pre-amps are different. One has an ALPS carbon composite type volume control and mine has an Allo stepped attenuator. Both are ladder type volume control and so the input impedance is same with the position of the volume control. What i noted that both dont sound the same to my ears. The one that has Alps is more mellow but with somewhat less detail but very pleasing and organic to your ears. The stepped attenuator which has E251 0.1% metal film resistance is more direct, upfront, more detail and yet very nice to listen. Its more of what you prefer at the end of the day. I liked both and listen to both of them alternatively (till the time i can do this).
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
Though this is a diversion from the thread, since it came up, I googled the two technologies and found this dense thread on Gearslutz.
Stepped attenuation vs. potentiometer - Gearspace
My Choice: Potentiometer I've been using an EricYam passive preamp (much cheaper than Goldpoint for anyone looking) for volume level on my monitors: Pa
www.gearslutz.com
What I could gather was that potentiometer is the cheaper and older way (Schitt Sys seems to have this) to control volume - it is also sufficient for most purposes. But where a higher degree of exactness (in volume levels, for example in mixing operations) is needed, stepped attenuators (costlier) could be used - they also result in lower floor noise. This tends to agree with your experimental findings. I still couldn’t understand why the potentiometer gives more organic sound than the stepped attenuators. Any theories?
The 3rd option is transformer based Passive Pre's which some people swear by. As in all things audio in the end it gets down to how its implemented , quality of components and how it fits into your system !Though this is a diversion from the thread, since it came up, I googled the two technologies and found this dense thread on Gearslutz.
Stepped attenuation vs. potentiometer - Gearspace
My Choice: Potentiometer I've been using an EricYam passive preamp (much cheaper than Goldpoint for anyone looking) for volume level on my monitors: Pawww.gearslutz.com
What I could gather was that potentiometer is the cheaper and older way (Schitt Sys seems to have this) to control volume - it is also sufficient for most purposes. But where a higher degree of exactness (in volume levels, for example in mixing operations) is needed, stepped attenuators (costlier) could be used - they also result in lower floor noise. This tends to agree with your experimental findings. I still couldn’t understand why the potentiometer gives more organic sound than the stepped attenuators. Any theories?
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
When one needs a voltage gain?
What is a passive preamp, exactly?
And what exactly is it for/does it do? Is it meant to be used in conjunction with a "normal" amp? Thanks :)
www.head-fi.org
Sachin, The potentiometer typically is made of carbon composite materials and they tend to give more mellow sound. But these can loose precision over a period of time and can get scratchy after prolonged use due to dust and moisture. But most high-end design use some kind of carbon composite resistors in their input stage where warmth and mellow sound is required.Though this is a diversion from the thread, since it came up, I googled the two technologies and found this dense thread on Gearslutz.
Stepped attenuation vs. potentiometer - Gearspace
My Choice: Potentiometer I've been using an EricYam passive preamp (much cheaper than Goldpoint for anyone looking) for volume level on my monitors: Pawww.gearslutz.com
What I could gather was that potentiometer is the cheaper and older way (Schitt Sys seems to have this) to control volume - it is also sufficient for most purposes. But where a higher degree of exactness (in volume levels, for example in mixing operations) is needed, stepped attenuators (costlier) could be used - they also result in lower floor noise. This tends to agree with your experimental findings. I still couldn’t understand why the potentiometer gives more organic sound than the stepped attenuators. Any theories?
Stepped attenuator typically use a 1% or 0.1% metal film resistors which are low noise and accurate. But they tend to be a little agressive on the topend and can be mistaken for resolution. It carries with it the signature of the resistor brand that you use. If you are lucky the MFR will be good else it could be a mismatch for your setup which would require compensating somewhere else.
Silver plated wire worked great with my Alps potentiometer, but I can't say the same with my Allo. They are a bit more agressive on the topend with Allo.
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
By the way, Tidal Connect is now available on CXN if you’ve opted for an early firmware update (you can select that setting in StreamMagic). Surely a significant audio quality update over AirPlay/ChromeCast if you use the Tidal app over phone or laptop. So now you aren’t entirely dependent on StreamMagic app for the best Tidal SQ (native play) on CXN .
audiofreakss
Active Member
Hi I have an Cxn v2 pm me if u r interested
D
Deleted member 15865
Guest
I am not sure if I understood the question correctly. But let me add what I know. If i take a digital signal out of the CXN and feed it to another DAC, I cannot use the CXN's volume control. I can use it only when the CXN's DAC is in use. Hope that helps.
I believe you are talking about Pre-amp section of CXN. CXN has only Digital-Preamp for Volume control.
Order now for just ₹19,990.00
Similar threads
