General Asylum: REVIEW: Cambridge Audio C500 Amplifier (SS) by shuvam

Model:	C500
Category:	Amplifier (SS)
Suggested Retail Price:	$500
Description:	Control amplifier
Manufacturer URL:	Cambridge Audio
Model Picture:	View

Review by shuvam on September 24, 2001 at 07:59:13
IP Address: 210.214.32.176

Add Your Review
for the C500

This is a control amplifier, probably the only model made by Cambridge
Audio. I have never heard it without its associated power amplifier
(the P500). Therefore, this review is not of the C500 by itself. You
have been warned.
The appearance of the amplifier matches that of all Cambridge Audio
products I have seen: matte black. The remote control only controls
the volume. The front panel has bass and treble, a tone bypass switch,
a balance control, and an input selector rotary switch. The
volume control is the sliding pot type, and is motorised (looks cool!)
when operated through the remote. A tiny LED on the volume knob would
have really helped detect the volume setting in a darkened room, but
has not been provided.
The rear has no balanced inputs; all inputs are standard RCA. There are
two sets of preamp outs for the power amp(s), letting you connect two
separate power amps if you want. (I guess bi-amp'ers would need those?)
There is only one tape loop, thus making it a bit inconvenient if you
have two record-playback devices (I intend to add a second such
component). It would also have been nice to have input selection
controllable from the remote.
This is a system which is very low on feature-jazz, and is excellent on
sound. All comments on the sound must be interpreted as being of the
C500 and P500 combo. (Talking about feature-jazz, you should see the
Yamaha amps. All-digital, all-singing, all-dancing interfaces.)
We (my wife and I) had decided to buy a Marantz PM6010 OSE after extended
auditions. We were investing in a music system of this quality for the
first time in our lives, and we had decided that the amplifier would
make relatively less difference to the final sound. So we had extensively
checked out speakers, believing that they would make the most difference,
and had listened to the Marantz based on Net.advice and reviews in mags,
but not really compared it to anything else closely. There was also
nothing else available in the one or two hi-fi dealers in Bombay in
that price range to compare it with. (One of them said NAD would be
in our price range and had interesting products, but he said he would
take a few months to get some samples. Another dealer said that Rotel
equipment would be interesting for us, but the Indian distributor
of Rotel was not very active; imports would take months. Sigh...)
When we went to pick up our system from the dealer's, he showed us this
demo set from Cambridge Audio that he had just received and asked us
to just listen to the system once. So we did an A-to-B comparison with
our speakers and just switching the amp, and we were floored. We
heard the Marantz we were about to pick up, and the Cambridge Audio
C500+P500, and a third amp, a brand called Ditton which I have never
heard of before or since. The Ditton was too bright, and was also much
more expensive, so we simply rejected it outright. The difference
between the Marantz and CA pre-power combo was far more startling.
The difference was not as obvious as with the Ditton, and that's what
made it interesting. Both the systems had lovely, quiet, clean sound.
But the Marantz PM6010 OSE seemed to have simply less music. In Indian
classical music, there's a stringed drone instrument called the tanpura,
with a sound incredibly rich in harmonics. With the Marantz, it was as
if the tanpura almost disappeared into the distance. With the CA combo,
the tanpura came alive. Rich, sonorous voices of Hindustani classical
singers (Kishori Amonkar) or the gravelly, gut-wrenching voice of
Leonard Cohen simply seemed to come alive. I guess it sounds silly,
but the Marantz seemed to simply reproduce less music from the same
source.
The CA pre-power combo was 50% more expensive than the Marantz we had
come to pick up. My wife and I had a very difficult 15 minutes figuring
out whether this extravagance was justified. She was convinced it was,
and thanks to her encouragement, we plonked down the money and brought
the Cambridge Audio system home.
We have had it for nine months now, and after about three months of
usage (about one to two hours a day), the system became decidedly
sweeter, more mellow. Incidentally, I've always kept the tone bypass
switch on. And when I've tried fiddling with the tone controls, I've
hardly ever detected any change in the sound. Is this good or bad?
The sound of the system is sweet, slightly warm, lovely in the details,
and makes the midrange come alive. We listen to a lot of melodic
music (Indian classical) which has very little orchestral complexity.
And of course, there's the Dire Straits, Deep Purple, and all kinds of
other stuff.
Two things about the system are remarkable. One: you can play it really
loud but it never sounds strained. You can play this way for an hour,
and not realise how loud it is, till you try to make conversation. Two:
you can listen for hours, even at high volume, and never feel tired. I am
beginning to understand what people say about listening fatigue. I have
always suffered from it, till I encountered this system.
Remember two points about this review: this is a review of my full system;
in particular, I've never heard this control amplifier without its
power amp. Secondly, I've never spent even 12 hours listening to any
other music system half as good as this. This is easily the best and
most expensive music system any member of my family has ever owned. So
I'm not your most knowledgeable reviewer. Sorry about that.
I've once heard a $30,000 music system, with Balanced Audio Technology
CD player, control amp, and monoblock power amps, and Dunlavy speakers.
I clearly remember how that system sounded different from ours. It was
more natural sounding, had far more subtle details (the sound of breath
with the flute, for instance) without the details ever sounding harsh.
The only word I can think of to describe the difference is "natural."
Would I spend $30,000 for that incremental improvement in sound, even if
I had the money? I don't know. I'd love to try valve hardware someday,
but that will be another story.

Product Weakness: Remote is a little too bare bones. Can't think of anything
else I'd expect for this amount of money.
Product Strengths: Excellent, relaxed, slightly warm, very liquid, natural sound.
No frills, solid build quality. Lovely understated looks. Lovely
midrange, lively, involving and musical.

Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:	Cambridge Audio P500 power amp
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):	N/A
Sources (CDP/Turntable):	Yamaha CDX396 low-end CD player, Nakamichi ZX-9 cassette deck
Speakers:	Wharfedale Pacific Pi-40 floorstanders
Cables/Interconnects:	home-grown, using Gotham cable and Monster interconnects. Speaker cable made of 300-strand OFC and Monster banana plugs.
Music Used (Genre/Selections):	Hindustani classical, hard rock, Simon and Garf, CSNY, Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Hindi film music
Room Size (LxWxH):	22 x 10 x 9 ft
Room Comments/Treatments:	brick and concrete construction, not much furniture, some curtains
Time Period/Length of Audition:	nine months
Type of Audition/Review:	Product Owner

Product Weakness:	Remote is a little too bare bones. Can't think of anything else I'd expect for this amount of money.
Product Strengths:	Excellent, relaxed, slightly warm, very liquid, natural sound. No frills, solid build quality. Lovely understated looks. Lovely midrange, lively, involving and musical.