Digital Drive: REVIEW: Creek CD50Mk2 CD Player/Recorder by ruffscruff

Model:	CD50Mk2
Category:	CD Player/Recorder
Suggested Retail Price:	$1345
Description:	CD Player - not tube
Manufacturer URL:	Creek
Model Picture:	View

Review by ruffscruff ( A ) on August 26, 2005 at 14:11:08
IP Address: 205.188.116.71

Add Your Review
for the CD50Mk2

Review of Creek CD50Mk2
Before I get to the Mk2 - I want to share some info hoping that it will give you a little idea of why I say, think and write the things I do. This is very long but intended to provide some entertainment, food for thought as well as my thoughts on the Mk2. If you don't want to read the whole thing - I summarized my thoughts starting with the NAD on the last couple of pages.
So - on with my stories. I'm a retired sixty year old, but in 1958 when I was just thirteen, turned the "one box" Symphonic mono "record player" my parents gave me into a stereo.
I was also at the very beginnings of taking accordion lessons as every little Italian kid did in those days. The bad part of that was I had to practice an hour a day. The good part was I had an instrument amplifier and it didn't take me long to put 2 and 2 together.
I'm going to "wander" a little here for the first time. I remember that summer when my dad said, "You're thirteen now, not a baby any more. So you're not going to hang around the house all summer watching TV - so what instrument do you want to learn to play?"
I think he also said - it couldn't be drums or horns! The reason I mention any of this is because I fought it a little and was never fond of playing the first few years. I mean how many holidays did I have to drag out the squeezebox to play "Lady of Spain" for my relatives?
Eventually - I got hooked up with some kids in school and started playing with some for dances, school plays, etc.
I realized much later in life that it was probably the best thing my parents did for me. Making me take those lessons. Music is the one thread woven through my life that has gotten me past any "crisis" that came along including a triple bypass operation at fifty.
The moral of that story? You have children? I know today we can only "make" them do so much, but if you can get them interested in learning how to play an instrument (which fortunately - or unfortunately) might lead to them building their own stereo systems . . . . well . . . . there are a lot worse things they could be doing.
I know there's a lot of sport activity these days too. I don't have any children and suspect most parents will disagree with me but I actually think there's too much emphasis put on "competition." I realize that might be a double edged sword since in today's world they do have to be prepared for a lot of "competition" - but I think we also need the music or other forms of "art" so once they come home from the world of "competition" they can somehow relax and prepare to do it again the next day.
To get back to making my first stereo - I saved my dimes, stopped by the local radio shop on the way home from school one day and bought a stereo cartridge. I knew I needed a couple of feet of wire and some kind of 1/4" female "goesinta" to connect it to my Ampeg and complete the job.

It happened that the wire came only in ten foot rolls and was four conductors. As it turned out - I didn't have enough money, but the guy was nice enough to peel off a few feet and gave it to me. I think that's when I started to think that "these music people" are all right.
I tore into the inside of the Symphonic my dad was at work and when he got home I had it all set up. The Symphonic was on one side of my bedroom and my accordion amplifier was on the other side. I had spent my hair cut money to buy my first stereo album by Lionel Hampton. "Lionel Hampton Swings" (PS 14002) and I still have it. I thought my dad was going to be very upset. He was a little that I had taken the Symphonic apart and drilled a hole for the jack - but you know, once he heard it was surprised at this "new stereo stuff." I guess he was cool.
From those days in 1958 until the late 70s I played keyboards as a professional (but part time) musician as well as spending a lot of time hanging out and helping at the local stereo store (long gone) so I've had many years of "listening experience" but never any formal training using the terminology I see today for reviewing things.
I never sat down with anyone who said to me, "You hear that?" . . . . "It's dark." OR, "You hear that?" . . . . "It's PRAT." I'm more comfortable with words like "smeared or blurred instruments," "harsh sounding" like fingernails on a chalk board, etc. To me, these don't need special training and even a beginner can tell when they hear them.
So the terms I'm going to use here are simple for a couple of reasons. First, I don't know a whole lot about using other terminology and second is if there's someone very new reading this, I hope to describe things so they too can understand what I'm trying to say.
Here's where I'm going to get into what I call food for thought and know it's contrary to what most people might think.
I should have said at the very beginning I welcome any questions, discussion or postings related to anything I say - that's part of the learning process for all of us. I can take it . . . . I'm pretty thick skinned and also know I'm a little stubborn and opinionated. But I'll be the first to laugh at myself - and I do often.
I happen to think the CD itself is the weakest link in the stereo system. We don't know what's really on it AND that's all I want to hear. I want to hear exactly what's on a CD. If it has distinctly wide stereo separation with a guitar on the left side only which might leave a "hole in the middle" - that's what I want to hear.
I don't want the CD player to analyze that and when it "sees" the guitar on the left side only, takes a part of the signal and moves it to the right to eliminate the "hole in the middle."
I'm not even sure a CD player can do that - but I suspect it can and might have some kind of "spec number" attached to it called "stereo separation" or something like that.
When reviewing a CD player, since we really don't know what's on the CD anyway, I wonder how any of us can say, "This player sounds better than that one." It might make a CD sound better, but again - if it's altering what's on the CD - as they all do to some extent - then I'd look for the one that alters things the least.
That brings me to the next thing I'd like to offer an opinion on and that is PRAT. Pace, Rhythm and Timing. I see that mentioned a lot lately when people refer to a CD player. They want one with good PRAT. I still want one that will reproduce exactly what's on the CD as accurately as possible whether it be a horribly mastered CD or excellent one.
I think the CD has more to do with PRAT than the player. If the CD itself has PRAT that's "off," then how can the player reproduce it with good PRAT?
I have a couple of Andrea Bocelli CDs and one by Enya (Yeah I know - you can laugh). If I put them on one of the players people say has good PRAT are those CDs going to have good PRAT? I think not, since the CD itself probably wasn't meant to have PRAT.
Sorry I don't really mean to beat PRAT to death, but think it's a much over used term with too much emphasis being put on it and confusing to someone visiting the site for the first time - especially since I haven't seen a good explanation of it anyplace yet. It just seems that a couple of companies and many of us have locked onto the phrase and use it a lot.
I'm going to wander once more here and to toss in another "item" I see a lot of talk about, yet goes pretty much unsubstantiated. That is the famous "pinched waist tubes."
I have never seen a tube manufacturer address this and I think I know why. Since I worked with various manufacturing processes over the years know a little about how things like the glass "envelopes" or bottles for tubes are made. I think the "pinched waste" is a result of the glass being pulled just a little too much during the process causing the middle to be a little smaller diameter than the top and bottom. The reduction in the middle doesn't exceed the minimum acceptable diameter for quality control so the tube continues on through the completion process.
It might be as some people say - that the reduction in diameter holds the mica and internals more rigidly in place which might equate to less microphonics and for some reason might even make the tube sound better. But the whole thing is done by accident. I don't think anyone can answer the question, "Did Siemens ever make a pinched waist E288CC?" Nor does every pinched waist tube sound as good as the same tube with normal waist.
OK - 'nuff of that - onto to the Mk2.
The player has over fifty hours on it and I liked what I heard right out of the box since the sound of the Cambridge 640C was still fresh in my mind. Now that it has those hours - not sure it's changed much but someone did suggest that it would take 200 hours to break in.
The two CDs I listened to a few times each are: Lyle Lovett, "Joshua Judges Ruth" and Diana Krall, "Live in Paris."
The only other CD players I can compare the Creek CD50Mk2 with are the NAD C540 and Cambridge 640C.

I know you're going to hate this, but when I got the Cambridge just a year ago said it was great out of the box and I immediately liked it since it took all the things I liked so much about the NAD and made them one notch better. It was like the NAD had a "veil" over it that I never noticed until the Cambridge removed it.
Well - now I'm saying the same thing about the Creek. Right out of the box it seems to have removed a "veil" over the sound that the Cambridge had and I never knew it until I heard the Creek. So that's the review? Not hardly!
In the year that I used the Cambridge - there was one thing that bothered me and another thing I could never put my finger on until I heard the Creek.
I never changed a single item in my system in the last several months I used the NAD, the whole time I use the Cambridge or now with the Creek. Speaker position is exactly the same, etc, etc.
That said - when using the Cambridge, I was very aware of a "hole in the middle" with many CDs - I didn't note the tracks on the two CDs I mentioned above and perhaps I should have. One of the "problems" (if we want to call it that) is that I didn't, and still don't know if the "hole" is exactly what's on the CD or not. I didn't have the "hole" with the NAD and don't have it with the Creek. So does that mean it's something the Cambridge "created?" or did the NAD and Creek detect the "hole" and compensate for it? I have a feeling the separation on the Cambridge is more than the NAD and Creek and that caused almost every CD to have that "hole in the middle" sound (or lack of sound).
The thing I couldn't put my finger on until I heard the Creek was that the Cambridge (as balanced from top to bottom as it was) seemed to be just a little "larger than life." That didn't bother me a lot, but I realized it was there as soon as I heard the Creek. The Creek is just a little more "lean" but not too lean. I think the Creek is giving a truer reproduction of what's on the CD than the Cambridge did.
Calling the Creek "lean" might be misleading - what I mean is it's not as "bloated" as the Cambridge. And even the Cambridge isn't offensive - just something I could heard pretty fast and I happen to like the Creek sound better.
This brings me back to the mid 70s when all we had was tape and LPs. The terms I grew up with for describing sound were much simpler than what we use today. I still use them because it's all I know. I do add an occasionally new term once in a while but it's the old ones that are still most important to me.
Since I talked so much about the "hole in the middle" I guess it's obvious - I don't care much for that - but again - if that's what's on the CD, I don't want a CD player to compensate for it. I think as bad as most CDs are today - they at least have the left and right channels mixed well enough so there shouldn't be a "hole."
So that's one of the first things I listen for . . . . no "hole in the middle."
Next and not listed in any special order is "soundstage width and depth." I use Magneplanar Tympani 1D three panel speakers. The measurement from the outside of one speaker to the outside of the other is 9 feet. Each speaker is about 40 inches wide and there's about 27 inches between them. When I sit, my head is about 8 feet from each speaker.
This pretty much gives me what I'd call a "wall of sound."
Remember - I want to hear exactly and only what's on the CD. So I listen to see if I can hear music from across the whole area in front of me. That would be the "width" I listen for.
And it has to sound like it's not coming from the panels but rather a foot or two in front of them and go back to the panels or behind them. That would be the "depth."
The instruments have to sound like individual instruments and not "smeared or blurred" together. They way I listen for that is to play a track and concentrate on one instrument at a time as well as I can. If something disrupts that - I play it back to see if there was another instrument that was supposed to over power it or if I think it happened by accident.
Lastly - the overall sound has to be "balanced" from the lowest to the highest frequencies. This is a little tough to put in one or two sentences, but what I mean here is that the bass isn't overpowering unless I think it's being used as some kind of "slam" thing or accent and that higher freqs like the tinkle of a wind chime isn't too loud or too soft - again unless it was meant to be.
Now - I'm going to list some tracks from the two CDs as I hear them on the Creek CD50Mk2, but in all honestly now sure what you're supposed to do with the info. I guess if you have the same two CDs and hear what I describe, it might mean your CD player is the same as the Creek? If you don't hear what I hear, that doesn't mean that your player isn't as good as the Creek - it might be that your player is indeed reproducing exactly what's on the CD while the Creek isn't?
First, some words on the Lyle Lovett CD.
Track 1: If I was ever going to use the PRAT acronym to describe a track - I think this track would be the one that has great PRAT, but as I mentioned earlier not sure if it's a function of the CD or the CD player.
Track 2: At the 40 sec mark - we hear the word "fantasy" - I remember not being able to make that out on the NAD but once I did, could easily hear it on the Cambridge and it's very clear on the Creek.
There are voices in the background of this track. I remember having to strain to hear them on the NAD they were almost distracting. The Cambridge made them more clear and easy to tell they were there because old Lyle says something about people standing around and talking. The Creek made them yet more clear and noticeably separated from the music and vocals - but not removed - again it seems like perfect "in balance" to me.
The rest of the tracks are not compared from one player to another, but only for the Creek.
Track 2: At the 5:09 mark there's a sound for 3 or 4 strokes and not sure how they're made. Either my sliding a finger on a bass string OR one of those African drums where they slide the hand inside it to make a short sound and frequency change. Again - if you have the CD and listen carefully you'll get what I mean unless your CD play makes it sound like there's no change in freq.
Track 4: From 0 - 46 secs there's some "bongo" that might be electronic, but it sounds very smooth and defined - it's not smeared and very distinct.
From 2:05 - 2:40 nice drum accents - very realistic.
3:26 - two very nice light cymbal taps and overall nice percussion on the whole CD.
Track 7: From 0 - 50 lots of finger sliding sounds from the wound guitar strings.
55 - 1:00 voices in the background are clear.
2:40 - 2:51 bass very nice and not overpowering.
3:16 - 3:26 only ten secs, but nice "slam."
4:13 AND 4:38 Lyle whispers "Halleluiah." Clear and easy to hear.
Track 12: Very nice bass - smooth - not overpowering. Piano and organ accents balanced. Made to be heard, but again - not over powering.
1:30 - 2:01 very nice guitar solo - balanced - nothing jumped out as being too loud or too soft.
Now on to the Diana Krall CD.
Track 1: If I was ever going to use the word "slam" to describe a track - the first track here would be the one. It's not a heavy metal kind of slam, but rather drums, bass and piano that work so well together on the beat that I'd still call it "nice slam." But once again - I must say, I'm not sure if it's coming from the CD, the CD player OR the rest of my system.
Also, the clapping at the very beginning of Track 1 and most of the rest of the CD sounds more live to me than it did on the NAD or Cambridge. It sounded OK on them, but now that I hear it on the Creek realized there was that "veil" again on the other players. The clapping did sound like a mass of people clapping and that's really what it is. On the Creek though the clapping might be coming from a different kind of background so that it sounds more like a lot of individuals clapping and all combined to make the mass of people. The clapping is just a little more distinct or not smeared on the Creek.
Track 2: 0 - 50, guitar and voice very nice. If you were in a club you'd be about 8 feet from her speaker and the room would be "pin drop quiet."
11 sec - the word "why" has some special quality to it.
28 sec - the word "I" - same as above.
39 sec - the word "you" - same as above.
Track 3: 55 - 1:30. Very nice brush work on the drums and beautiful transition to sticks on cymbals.
Track 8: Very nice vocal - voice is right there - clear not "veiled."
Well - that's about it for what I heard from the CDs and now that I read it over, not sure if it's a review of the CDs or the Creek????
In closing, I'll try to simplify the differences between the NAD C540, Cambridge 640C and Creek CD50Mk2. Of course some of these are more important than others, but I'm not going to "grade" them for that. You have to decide which things are most important to you and I'm sure there are more than I've listed.
NAD C540
Nice manual - appears to be good build quality and I never had a problem with it in the few years I used it.
Very professional appearance - front face, rear panel and read out.
Does not have "standby mode" but model has been replaced more than once so newer ones might have "standby."
Sound = nice.
Cambridge 640C
Very nice glossy manual - appears to be a little better build quality than the NAD and I never had a problem in the eleven months I used it.
Very professional appearance - front face, rear panel and read out.
Does have "standby" mode and male outlet on rear to allow use of aftermarket power cord.
Sound = very nice.
Creek CD50Mk2
Manual seems to be a simple copy - not glossy - but is clear - just not as professional as the others. There is a mix up in the two descriptions for repeating one track vs. repeating the whole CD.
Build quality is very nice and perhaps because of the metal silver face appears to be a little more "industrial" than the NAD or Cambridge - both of which were black and I think hard plastic.
I'd still say its very professional front face and rear panel. The front panel finish is smooth and consistent - but is brushed and might be a little coarser finish than the matte or very finely brushed finish we usually see on a piece of equipment - but it doesn't bother me. It's very nicely done - just a little different.
The read out is just a little brighter than I'm used too. Some people might like it since you can read it from further away. I don't find it offensive - just something I noticed.
Does have "standby" mode and male outlet on rear to all use of aftermarket power cord.
The Mk2 is only 9 inches deep. That didn't make me buy it, but I was very happy to see this since it gives me a few more inches of circulating air space behind the unit than I had with the other players that are the more typically 11 inches deep.
AND last but certainly not least - my first impression of the Mk2 was how "smooth" it sounded.
Remember nearer the beginning of all this I said I never sat with anyone who said to me, "You hear that? . . . . It's PRAT" or "You hear that?" . . . . "It's dark."
Well - I've read a lot in the AA and other places about jitter and people talking about replacing or modifying clocks and making other mods which in all honesty I know very little about.
I'm not into modifying anything but have done my share of soldering but only for replacing parts when needed. In any case, you might know the Mk2 is built around a CD mechanism like those used computers. Along with that they had to design some special kind of "buffering circuit" that holds the information for some fractions of a second before reproducing them. I guess it's this circuit design that's supposed to eliminate jitter.
Now - I'm not sure I ever heard jitter or could explain it to anyone, but I can say this. Now that I've heard they Mk2, they did something to make it sound as "smooth" as creamed corn. From that standpoint, it's noticeably smoother than the old NAD and Cambridge 640C.
It doesn't seem to have any negative affect on anything I hear. Being smooth doesn't mean anything is smeared or too mellow. The sound is more crisp and realistic (to me) than the NAD or Cambridge but was immediately audible right out of the box and I'm impressed (as well as very happy) with just how smooth and balanced the sound is.
OK my friends - as always - I welcome any questions and comments and of course I want to be corrected if I said anything way out of line. I'd hate for anyone to go out and buy the Mk2 based on just what I think. Read all you can and ask questions of others. Ideally you can get one to try in your system a few days - that's the true test.

Product Weakness: Manual is copy and not as "professional looking" as others might be.
Product Strengths: Smooth, yet distinct and well balanced sound.

Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:	Audio Research D400MKII
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):	Audio Research SP-3C
Sources (CDP/Turntable):	Creek CD50Mk2
Speakers:	Magneplanar Tympani 1D
Cables/Interconnects:	Monster interconnects and power for CD. Belden for speakers.
Music Used (Genre/Selections):	Light Jazz, Easy listening, Bennet, Krall, Lovett, Raitt.
Room Size (LxWxH):	12 x 11 x 8
Room Comments/Treatments:	Cork on 2 opposite walls. Floor to ceiling drapery on 2 opposite walls. 1" thick carpet. Acoustic tile ceiling.
Time Period/Length of Audition:	One week and still going!
Other (Power Conditioner etc.):	Tripp Lite LC2400
Type of Audition/Review:	Product Owner
Your System (if other than home audition):	www.eclectichighway.com You'll see link to system photos.

Product Weakness:	Manual is copy and not as "professional looking" as others might be.
Product Strengths:	Smooth, yet distinct and well balanced sound.