Review Cambridge Audio EVO 150

[Deleted member 48437]

Hey, the OP lead me to a new thought. What if the problem I am experiencing is resolution? What if the Cambridge CXN was able to decode higher (in reality not spec) than the internal dac on the new EVO 150? Is there a way to measure that?
Tomorrow I will plug in a CD player or my NAS and check that!
My brother says his music sounds like he is in the front row. He used an Arender, USB to high res re-timer then a PS-A dac. He uses an older high power McIntosh and Celestions. A light is coming on that this just cd be the culprit??

 

[Killingbeans]

Does that make more sense?

Not likely. When people talk about "high resolution" files, it's actually only a question of ultrasonic information and ridiculously high dynamic range.

The former is not audible, and most tweeters can't reproduce it anyway. The latter is bottlenecked by both the reproduction gear and the source material.

 

[Deleted member 48437]

Are you saying that beyond 16/44.1 there is mo audible difference to you?

Not likely. When people talk about "high resolution" files, it's actually only a question of ultrasonic information and ridiculously high dynamic range.

The former is not audible, and most tweeters can't reproduce it anyway. The latter is bottlenecked by both the reproduction gear and the source material.

 

[JSmith]

Are you saying that beyond 16/44.1 there is mo audible difference to you?

See if you can tell any difference between 8-bit and 16-bit audio first.

The 16-bit v/s 8-bit Blind Listening Test

Can you hear a difference? Of course... you can't.

www.audiocheck.net

JSmith

 

[Killingbeans]

Are you saying that beyond 16/44.1 there is mo audible difference to you?

I'm saying that it's very unlikely that any of us can hear a difference if both files are converted correctly from the same master, and the test is done blind.

Our ears can't detect anything worth mentioning above 22kHz, and you'd need to listen to a PA line array inside an anechoic chamber to make use of the extra dynamic range.

Also, the recordings, we listen to, makes both a moot point. Absolutely no information of importance at 22kHz and beyond, and none of them make full use of 16 bits of dynamic range. Most of them not even remotely so.

The only scenario I can think of, where so called "hi-res" files are useful, is when you need lots of headroom for heavy DSP. Hardly ever the case, unless you work in a studio.

 

[Deleted member 21114]

Are you saying that beyond 16/44.1 there is mo audible difference to you?

This might help https://archive.is/H9R1R

 

[Rottmannash]

By a Benchmark AHB2 and rest assured your amp isn't the problem. Or any well designed Purifi based amp.

 

[Deleted member 48437]

Very interesting article.

 

[4Real]

Maybe what you are telling is true, however this looks more like a very subjective review from an "audiophile" rather than a test supported by a rigorous approach. Have you performed all the testd at the same SPL from the two devices? Was it a blind test carried out multiple times with the help of an external operator? I also llike toroidal transformers, however on ASR you can find plenty of amplifiers with nice toroidal transformers that perform really bad (Naim, Hegel just to name two brands) and a number of Class AB or Class D devices with different type of power supplies with much better results.

lmao

 

[GiBo61]

lmao

Why arrogant (...In My Arrogant Opinion)?

 

[WillBrink]

Bench tests via Gene at AH if interested of the Delorean edition. Good, but not great (?) measurements:

Cambridge Audio EVO 150 Streaming Amplifier Review!

Our review of the Cambridge Audio EVO 150 DeLorean Edition streaming amplifier pleasantly surprised us with its objective bench test performance, features, user interface, and listening tests.

www.audioholics.com

 

[Endibol]

Lastly, for tonight. This is the misunderstanding. Sound is not in the electromagnetic spectrum. The electrical signals that travel in the electromagnetic spectrum that can result in hearing are only between 20 and 20 thousand hertz. The electromagnetic spectrum does not need a medium to travel through, sound does

We can calculate wave length from the frequency. Twenty hertz is 60 inches and very penetrating (lighthouse fog horn). It penetrates water, concrete and that annoying boom boom kid in the Honda at the intersection. Twenty thousand hertz has a wave length of 0.000017 meters (easier for me to calculate in metric units). It cannot penetrate anything well. Low energy. Cannot penetrate concrete. Keep in mind that this is electomagnetic spectrum. Actual sound is not but they become co-existent when speakers convert one to the other.

Could I please ask which amps you guys recommend for soundstage on a $6k budget? I would appreciate it if based upon what you have heard. I know so very little about that question, almost none. I must have fallen asleep that day in univ lol. Help me out guys? Th u for that one suggestion.

Are you talking about sound? If so, you are wrong. 20 Hz at 20 degree C in air has a wave length of approx 17 m. Speed of sound divided by the frequency. 20 thousand Hz has wave length of 17 mm under the same conditions.

 

[HLionel]

The 02 2024 the wiim amp Amplifier PReview has been test at https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/wiim-amp-streaming-amplifier-review.52372/
but i don't find
-Cambridge Evo 150 ( Hypex Ncore NC252MP Class D amp + Delorean edition )
-primare i25 ( DAC + Prisma)
-Naim Uniti Atom
-Marantz 40 n
-Galion TS A75
-Eversolo DMP-A8
-Schiit Freya+ pre maplifier
-NAD 778 ( 9 channels Dirac Live LE 500Hz) , M33 or M10 v2 ( BLu OS)
-Bluesound Powernode (2021)or 2i
-Arylic A50 or S50 Pro
when try to find date of amplifier preview test , there is not a lot new amplifiers !! all is about 2020 !
regard's

 

[gasolin75]

Shouldn't the user review have have been posted here ??

Amplifiers, Phono preamp, and Analog Audio Review

Reviews, tests, measurements and discussions of analog audio electronics.

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[smiba]

The Cambridge EVO 150 is quite a weird device software wise, depending on which input you use the audio will sound ranging from horrid to absolutely stunning. The software is quite messy and buggy.
I don't personally own this device, but a family member does and we've spend a full evening messing around and listening to it.

The following options were tried, and they all had a greatly different soundstage which I really struggle to explain:
Tidal (through app): Horrid quality
Tidal (Connect): Bad quality
USB: Good Quality
Amp only (Analog in, from Rega Planet CD Player): Good Quality
SPDIF (from Rega Planet CD Player): Excellent Quality

We even went so far as to rip the CD we were testing with with EAC, play it through a computer over USB in exclusive mode (with the right sample rate and everything) and it still sounded worse! I don't understand how two identical files, over different digital transport methods sound so different. No matter what we tried we could not get the soundstage over USB to the same level as the SPDIF input. It wasn't some audiophile nonsense either, the difference was clearly noticeable. Even did a bunch of A/B tests with the family member to be sure and they nailed them so we're not (totally) crazy!

Been kinda scratching my mind over this issue and the only thing I can come up with is that Cambridge's software is messing something up, causing the USB to sound worse.

I really wish a schematic or at least a diagram of how all inputs are routed existed for this product, because right now I just don't know.

Would love to know others experience with this device lol, my next idea is to just get a USB to SPDIF converter and use that to see if it makes a difference.

 

[Loooop]

The Cambridge EVO 150 is quite a weird device software wise, depending on which input you use the audio will sound ranging from horrid to absolutely stunning. The software is quite messy and buggy.
...

I have an Evo 150, purchased a few months after the presentation and I am very happy with it. It was the first streaming device that allows me to forget about its existence: it simply works.
I use it almost always with Tidal Connect or via HDMI as an amplifier for my TV to drive two Focal Aria 948 speakers. Never noticed any sound differences in relation to the input chosen.

 

[Alexx]

Sorry I'm asking here too since we're talking about Evo 150 I'll take advantage of it.

I need to buy a new Cambridge or Nad amplifier.

Models:
Evo 150
Nac 399
Nad M10-V3

Nad worries me, I always read about many complaints, excluding this aspect (maybe I receive a well-functioning product) as for sound and dynamics which do you think is better among the 3 models?

Neutral and detailed timbre (Jaz to Classic) current speakers Emit20 later Kef R3 Meta.
Thank you very much.

 

[pogo]

The Evo has no Dirac Live and that makes an audible difference.

 

[JeremyFife]

Sorry I'm asking here too since we're talking about Evo 150 I'll take advantage of it.

I need to buy a new Cambridge or Nad amplifier.

Models:
Evo 150
Nac 399
Nad M10-V3

Nad worries me, I always read about many complaints, excluding this aspect (maybe I receive a well-functioning product) as for sound and dynamics which do you think is better among the 3 models?

Neutral and detailed timbre (Jaz to Classic) current speakers Emit20 later Kef R3 Meta.
Thank you very much.

Just curious: why only NAD or Cambridge Audio?

If it's between these, then agree that Dirac (at least as an option) makes sense. Cheapest that gives you the power and features you want.

 

[smiba]

I have an Evo 150, purchased a few months after the presentation and I am very happy with it. It was the first streaming device that allows me to forget about its existence: it simply works.
I use it almost always with Tidal Connect or via HDMI as an amplifier for my TV to drive two Focal Aria 948 speakers. Never noticed any sound differences in relation to the input chosen.

My theory is that the only input which makes a difference is SPDIF (we've only tested coaxial, but I assume fibre SPDIF works the same) as this is a signal you can usually directly feed into the DAC without any post-processing by CPUs. But I can't verify this because Cambridge Audio does not publish a schematic, let alone a block diagram for this device.

There is an incredible difference in audio quality between the CD player (outputting over coax), and a .flac of that specific CD that the evo 150 is playing over USB. I usually say that I'm not one to fall for snake oil or more "bullshitty" audiophile stuff, but this is such a night and day difference. I really wonder if the EVO's software is flawed or has a bad audio pipeline in software.

Anyone in here tried to coaxial input yet on their EVO 150? I'm curious to see what others think