Cambridge Audio One CD player

[makropulos]

I may well be the last person not to have noticed this before, but in case not, I thought I'd say something about the strange things are happening with CD players, even ones from reputable makers. I recently bought a brand new all-in-one Cambridge Audio 'One' for our garden room, with a decent pair of speakers (not for 'serious' listening, but the overflow CD collection lives in there and it's nice to be able to play it in situ on something respectable). Having set it up (a matter of a couple of minutes), I inserted a CD of the Brahms string quintets and all seemed very well. The next day, Leon Fleisher died, and I put on his (amazing) Rachmaninov Paganini Rhapsody with Szell. Nightmare: at every track change the thing stopped, inserted a silence and then moved on –rather like the worst of mp3 tracks on iTunes. I couldn't quite believe my ears, since even the cheapest CD players never had this sort of problem in the past. I gather part of the original red book requirements for all players was that 'Gapless play' was always enabled – i.e. none of these hiccups. I wrote to Cambridge Audio who replied that this equipment –which costs just under £400, so hardly bargain basement –does not 'support gapless playback'. And nor, it turns out, do quite a few CD players now on the market, from good manufacturers. The last machine I bought –the one I use all the time in the house –is a Denon with which I've had no problems of any kind. It's splendid, does the job and just works. I got that about five years ago and see no reason to change it, but especially not now that 'gapless playback' has become a feature rather than a requirement. I'm afraid the Cambridge Audio machine is going to be taken out of service as soon as the gapless alternative (actually a similar all-in-one from Denon, made in about 2015) arrives from eBay. I'm not very au fait with technical developments as I always assume things are just going to work –but in the case of CD players, it seems that's no longer the case. Weird and irritating. In a follow-up response, Cambridge Audio said they 'might consider including a gapless playback feature' in subsequent versions. I wonder if others have had similar experiences?

[Dave2002]

I haven't had that experience with CD players. I thought that strictly the original inention was that CDs should have index points for pieces like the Rachmaninov variations, but hardly any CDs use those. I did have one once - I think it was of Daphnis and Chloe - unfortunately now lost I believe - which may have only had one track, but lots of index points. Since players have "always" managed to play tracks for works like this in a gapless way, CD makers seemed to give up on index points, and now I'm not sure if any CD players even support that feature.

There are features in the original specification for CDs which are hardly ever activated, and I don't know if they are included in players now. One such is the additional compression/expansion in the analogue domain, which Sony wanted to have included. I only ever saw one CD where the light on my original player lit up, showing that those circuits were activated. I think CDs from Japan were more likely to exploit that feature.

Conversely to your experience, I had some mp3 tracks of variations which drove me mad, so I bought the equivalent CD which played as I wanted. I think that was a set of variations by Boris Blacher.

If this is a new "trend" it is definitely something to be "unwelcomed".

[Bryn]

I haven't had that experience with CD players. I thought that strictly the original inention was that CDs should have index points for pieces like the Rachmaninov variations, but hardly any CDs use those. I did have one once - I think it was of Daphnis and Chloe - unfortunately now lost I believe - which may have only had one track, but lots of index points. Since players have "always" managed to play tracks for works like this in a gapless way, CD makers seemed to give up on index points, and now I'm not sure if any CD players even support that feature.

There are features in the original specification for CDs which are hardly ever activated, and I don't know if they are included in players now. One such is the additional compression/expansion in the analogue domain, which Sony wanted to have included. I only ever saw one CD where the light on my original player lit up, showing that those circuits were activated. I think CDs from Japan were more likely to exploit that feature.

Conversely to your experience, I had some mp3 tracks of variations which drove me mad, so I bought the equivalent CD which played as I wanted. I think that was a set of variations by Boris Blacher.

If this is a new "trend" it is definitely something to be "unwelcomed".

If gapless play of Red Book CDs was part of the standard, surely there is a case in law that this Cambridge Audio device is described falsely as a CD player. I am in the fortunate position of having purchased an Oppo multi-source player shortly before they went out of production. That not only plays CDA discs gaplessly but FLACs burned to CD-R or written to USB sticks play losslessly too, replete with a display notification to that effect.

[richardfinegold]

I may well be the last person not to have noticed this before, but in case not, I thought I'd say something about the strange things are happening with CD players, even ones from reputable makers. I recently bought a brand new all-in-one Cambridge Audio 'One' for our garden room, with a decent pair of speakers (not for 'serious' listening, but the overflow CD collection lives in there and it's nice to be able to play it in situ on something respectable). Having set it up (a matter of a couple of minutes), I inserted a CD of the Brahms string quintets and all seemed very well. The next day, Leon Fleisher died, and I put on his (amazing) Rachmaninov Paganini Rhapsody with Szell. Nightmare: at every track change the thing stopped, inserted a silence and then moved on –rather like the worst of mp3 tracks on iTunes. I couldn't quite believe my ears, since even the cheapest CD players never had this sort of problem in the past. I gather part of the original red book requirements for all players was that 'Gapless play' was always enabled – i.e. none of these hiccups. I wrote to Cambridge Audio who replied that this equipment –which costs just under £400, so hardly bargain basement –does not 'support gapless playback'. And nor, it turns out, do quite a few CD players now on the market, from good manufacturers. The last machine I bought –the one I use all the time in the house –is a Denon with which I've had no problems of any kind. It's splendid, does the job and just works. I got that about five years ago and see no reason to change it, but especially not now that 'gapless playback' has become a feature rather than a requirement. I'm afraid the Cambridge Audio machine is going to be taken out of service as soon as the gapless alternative (actually a similar all-in-one from Denon, made in about 2015) arrives from eBay. I'm not very au fait with technical developments as I always assume things are just going to work –but in the case of CD players, it seems that's no longer the case. Weird and irritating. In a follow-up response, Cambridge Audio said they 'might consider including a gapless playback feature' in subsequent versions. I wonder if others have had similar experiences?

I read audiophile forums, and I’ve owned multiple CDPs, and I have never heard of a player not doing gapless play, nor have I heard of this feature not being standard. My assumptions on the purchase would have been the same as the OP.. At the very least CA should have added some way to switch between gapless and and (gappy?) play.
With streamers, this issue is common, and can vary by the disc

[Dave2002]

Is it now too late to return as "not fit for purpose"? If bought online I think the various sales of goods acts, and EU Directives might still have some force.
Maybe if it only affects a few CDs, and is considered as an "occasional" unit, one could tolerate this, but it really does seem rather shoddy. Personally I think that £400 or thereabouts to spend on this moves it into the category of "worth asking for a return and a refund (at the sellers expense of course)", but others may think differently.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Many thanks Makropoulos for alerting us to this. We need to be even more on our guard when buying replacements.....

If it were me I would try demanding a return and refund. If its described as a CD player (plus all the other capabilities) it needs to play them in the way we are entitled to expect - or for specific wording beforehand alerting us to that not being the case. It used to be the Sale of Goods Act - needs to meet the description - but checking Gov UK online might show its been incorporated into other UK legislation. I've found in the past that retailers (the responsibility is theirs, not the manufacturers) will suddenly take notice/agree when I mentioned that legislation. Warranties, manufacturer's "support" /offers are a distraction - the failure is between the seller - retailer and the buyer.

I would be prepared to press quite hard, including a small claims court claim - not least on the principle that Cambridge audio are likely to take the issue a lot more seriously when they take a loss selling it as "returned goods". Its a shame - it has mulitple capabilities and looks smart. It suffers from the blindness of audio designers / providers (see car music systems (no CD players)) that all music comes as a single "track".

[makropulos]

Thanks for all the helpful replies –lots of good points and useful ideas, and I appreciate the advice. It is indeed unfit for purpose, and I think I will take the matter up with the retailer and see what happens. More to the point, I hope it will be a salutary warning to anybody else buying the newest generation of audio equipment to check that the machine they buy has this absolutely basic capability. A bit of googling revealed that a good number of current so-called CD players do not 'support' gapless playing –i.e. they do not function as we expect CD players to function (in this case, failing to play continuously through whatever track points there may be on the disc).

[HighlandDougie]

I realise that it's a bit of stable doors and bolted horses but, in seeing if there were any reviews of this "player" which mentioned this idiosyncracy, I came across this:

"Is there anything else I should know?

It's worth noting the Cambridge Audio One does not support gapless CD playback. This is a minor feature of CDs most will only encounter rarely. Usually there is a small pause between when one CD track ends and another begins. Some tracks - perhaps most commonly found in musicals - are designed to lead directly into the next track without a pause. This is known as gapless CD playback, and not having this feature means the Cambridge Audio One will have a small pause between these tracks."

from, of all places, Which? Magazine. Why on earth, though, would anyone at Cambridge Audio, which produces some well-designed kit, have thought that anyone would want "gapped" playback?

[Petrushka]

I have a Cambridge Audio amp and, while it gives much pleasure with frequent use, the above tale of woe would certainly make me think twice about getting anything from them in the future. More to the point, I would be looking elsewhere.

[Dave2002]

Thanks for all the helpful replies –lots of good points and useful ideas, and I appreciate the advice. It is indeed unfit for purpose, and I think I will take the matter up with the retailer and see what happens. More to the point, I hope it will be a salutary warning to anybody else buying the newest generation of audio equipment to check that the machine they buy has this absolutely basic capability. A bit of googling revealed that a good number of current so-called CD players do not 'support' gapless playing –i.e. they do not function as we expect CD players to function (in this case, failing to play continuously through whatever track points there may be on the disc).

Indeed, and do be firm with the retailer. If you decide to keep the unit - which is perhaps not the best thing to do - you should ask for compensation, and don't take the first offer that is given. However it probably would be best to ask for a complete return - and also still ask for compensation for your wasted time as you'll still have to find a unit which does satisfy your purposes. Don't give up if at first you get stonewalled with a "No" - often the walls crumble fairly quickly if you decide to push things hard.

Sadly consumer organisations are not often too much help these days - as many firms seem to reckon they are toothless tigers, even though they may have a wide audience.

Contacting your MP may make a difference, but again I'd suggest that often firms will ignore a threat to do that, and it's been a long time since I actually did that and had success.

If you make a list of all the hours you have wasted, plus cost your time at something like £50-£100 per hour (of course you are a professional .....) you should be able to persuade them of the financial downside to your inconvenience. Also, you might want to suggest charging them for storing equipment which isn't functional, and charging them to take it away. Be creative, and see if you can get a good solution.

Also you suggested you would "see what happens" ... that's a bit feeble. Decide what you want, and ask for it forcefully, otherwise the retailer will manipulate you. You also need to decide whether to buy another unit from the same retailer - at a good price or with a discount, or go elsewhere.

[Bryn]

A decade or so ago I spent what for me at that time was a small fortune on a Cambridge Audio Azur multi-format disc/USB player (a poor man's Oppo). I was surprised to find that its USB compatibility was very restricted. Basically mp3 but not FLAC. When I contacted them regarding this lack, they simply responded that they had no plans to update the firmware to handle FLACs. After only a few years of limited use (I was working 6 days a week and looking after a mother with dementia) it ceased to play CD-Rs. It remained fine with stamped CDs, DVDs, Bluray and even DVD-Rs but Cambridge were, again, unhelpful. These days I am wary of purchasing from Cambridge Audio or Richer Sounds.

[Pianoman]

If Makropoulos bought this from Richer Sounds there shouldn’t be a problem returning or swapping. I have a number of these ‘all in ones’ dotted about the house, but all are either Denon or Marantz and have no issue whatsoever with gapless play. It’s unbelievable in this day and age and Cambridge Audio need to be shamed throughout the music/ hifi press!

[makropulos]

If Makropoulos bought this from Richer Sounds there shouldn’t be a problem returning or swapping. I have a number of these ‘all in ones’ dotted about the house, but all are either Denon or Marantz and have no issue whatsoever with gapless play. It’s unbelievable in this day and age and Cambridge Audio need to be shamed throughout the music/ hifi press!

Couldn't agree more! It is unbelievable. Second hand Denon replacement on its way (n.b. not the nearest equivalent current Denon model as that does not have gapless play either –I was really shocked to discover that). In related news Richer Sounds thoroughly decent about return of the Cambridge Audio One.

[makropulos]

Indeed, and do be firm with the retailer. ...
Also you suggested you would "see what happens" ... that's a bit feeble. Decide what you want, and ask for it forcefully, otherwise the retailer will manipulate you. You also need to decide whether to buy another unit from the same retailer - at a good price or with a discount, or go elsewhere.

You're quite right –that did sound pretty spineless. Complete refund from Richer Sounds now fixed with one short and friendly email exchange with no nonsense about a substitute. No complaints with them - in this case it's the machinery that's unfit for purpose, not the retailer.

[Bryn]

You're quite right –that did sound pretty spineless. Complete refund from Richer Sounds now fixed with one short and friendly email exchange with no nonsense about a substitute. No complaints with them - in this case it's the machinery that's unfit for purpose, not the retailer.

Except, is not Cambridge Audio pretty much part of the Richer Sounds stable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Partnership