And unfortunately the difference between a $300 vs $2000 component is frequently minimal.

Will it be powerful enough for the Kef ls50 meta?

It's all relative. Expensive ones are well over $5K, and the ones on yachts and in Architectural Digest can be over $10K. Probably less than 1 person in a thousand could distinguish between high-end and ultra-high end. As with many other things, it's a scam at that level.

I think its asinine

This one is $899... still a lot, but it never ceases to amaze me how some overdramatize and inflate a number:)

Thanks Steve!

I have the cxa 81 as my back up, great amp Very musical Cambridge did a great job with this line

@khaada1 how do you like this pairing? how would you characterize the sound?

I completely agree. I have the CXA60 and at the time everyone was hyping the Q Acoustics Concept 20’s. I had a demo with the CXA60 and also thought that they were dull and lifeless. The Richer Sounds manager recommended the Dali Zensor 3 and they are great for me.

​@@doifeelluckyzensor и oberon одно и то же, я сначала хотел, года два назад их, да дегег не было, теперь коплю на новые oberon 3.

Just bought the exact same combo.

did you try any others? thinking of going for the same combo. the audiolab 6000 maybe?

@@khaada1 did you try any others? thinking of going for the same combo. the audiolab 6000 maybe?

@@rohanhope4287 I did listen to the oberons in a dealer room which had them hooked to a yamaha amp. Also listened to the cxa61 to another dealer but combined with B&W 606 and Q acoustics concept 20. In the end I made up my mind for the cxa61 + oberon 5.

I tried CXA61 with Q Acoustics 3020i and 3030i, then with Dali Oberon 3. Oberon speakers had so much more clarity and precision across all frequencies so I picked them and returned Q Acoustics. It was easy decision.

And you wondered why I have a flat tummy...

​@@TheAudiophileMan😂

Are you still happy with this setup?

That's frustrating, I can't check because I had to return the unit but I think if you connect the head amp to the pre outs then that should crack the case.

Yep - you picked out the CXA61's characteristics there and your ears obviously like them :) And that's fine. That's why choice around this price point is important.

Hi, may I know what speakers you are using and room size you are in? Wanting to know which amplifier gives you more of punchy/agile bass as well as which one is ‘brighter’?

@@DC-gw7tz Bonjour, I used it with the B&W 606, in a 25m² room. I can't say if one was brighter than the other. Regarding the low end, maybe it was a slightly more present with the 6000A, but to me, the key differences between these two are not here. It's more a dilemma between great clarity vs wide soundstage. I sometimes miss the soundstage of the 6000A, but I'm sure I would miss the clearness of the CXA61 if I had chosen the 6000A...

@@mpolaud2600, thank you for your reply. great help to my journey to find an amplifier for the rp600m.

Why didn't you opted for axa35? It has tone controls but hidden in the menu. Great sounding unit but it s a big piece o kit, wide and deep. This new gen cx doesn t need t.c. because they have their own sound signature.

@@angelOcrisu I still love my tone controls.

@@thomasward00 Me too. It's always nice to adjust tge sound to your personal taste. I was just saying that higher tear equipment don t need tone controls because are intended to pure listening to their sound signature. It s a matter of taste in the end.

Thanks for your kind words. For me, I prefer the 6000A, the extra space, air and detail is produces. The Brio is excellent too. You won't be disappointed with any of them, to be honest. The 6000A I find offers the best tonal balance. All three would be valid upgrades.

@@TheAudiophileMan thanks so much for your response! i really appreciate you taking the time to respond to dozens of questions from different viewers of your videos. will definitely follow your advice! will let you know how it goes! thanks again!

Thanks Sujan! and thanks for your insight on the 61.

It’s no audiophile amp. Good enough for HIFI enthusiasts. It’s sure over priced.

x that amp you get after spending $25000 on experimenting. No pain no gain. My friends and acquaintances say that they never listened to a system as good as mine. The whole set-up costs $20,000. And speakers are only $1000

x My problem with listening to music has been this. How real or clean Sax or piano I could listen to? It’s a never ending story. I have moved away from loud volume. My power amp is only 18 per channel. But pre-amp provides a 10db gain. Plus 95db/m full range single driver speakers give provide enough volume. I think at medium volume, you could feel the instruments more. Well I took a huge risk with my set-up. If you ever are in London,

You are welcome to listen to my gear

I wouldn't, to be honest Dale because of the large price difference. The CXA61 is superior in sound terms but really, it should be at that price.

Another pairing for the cxa61 might be the Mission Lx3. For a lesser budget speaker, they pack a punch.

That’s very kind of you Bjarne. Thank you.

I'll certainly make a note for the future, Juan.

They are for listening options. You can have two pairs connected for sudo quadraphonic sound, or in separate rooms, or indeed, you could bi-wire your speakers, if they also have two sets of binding posts. You could even connect two pairs of subwoofers using the 'B' set of posts. A+B speaker outputs are very common.

Hi Ulises31, Interesting test: Which was better for you?

I've had my combo of CX-A60 and Tannoy XT6F for 3 years now and the pairing is very enjoyable. Many hours have passed by listening. Although, I'm now close to upgrading to a Hegel H120 integrated amp.

Cambridge.

I prefer both to the NAD and I cover the 61 vs 6000A in the video. Click here if you need easier searching on that one: theaudiophileman.com/cxa61-integrated-amplifier-review-cambridge/

@@TheAudiophileMan Thanks for getting back to me. So I stumbled on a Arcam FMJ A28 in mint shape for a song and grabbed it. Now to get my first speakers.

Audiolab 6000A

I'm not sure the comparison is wholly fair, Fabio. Any particular reason why you'd like to see that theme in action?

@@TheAudiophileMan I would like to know if it is fair and why? There is a huge demand for compact sound systems with promises of equivalent and even superior quality of the new active speakers.

I've already addressed this issue, fabio. Please check out this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j9qbhbaLqbjTemQ.html

@@TheAudiophileMan Thanks, I'll watch it at home ...

I'm afraid not.

I talked about that in the video.

The video provides a comparison between the two amplifiers. Hopefully you can make a decision from the supplied info.

@@TheAudiophileMan, Thank you for your reply. I understand the you prefer the tonal balance that the 6000a has over the CXA61. Though, may I ask which one would have a more punchy/agile bass? Also, which Q acoustics speaker would be the direct competition of Klipsch rp600m?

Probably the 6000A, although overall, the 61 has the greater overall focus. The 3050i floorstanders would be the price comparison although the lower cost 3030i would be a good option for standpoint play.

Indeed, yes.

I'm afraid I haven't. Pray tell...

The 6000A should be fine - not sure why you would have heard otherwise.

And I'm glad you've brought up this point James. Even if you download the manual from the Cambridge website: techsupport.cambridgeaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002695458-CXA61-81-Manual...there is no mention of the plugs. Well, I didn't see any mention. It's a simple point to address and Cambridge is not the only outfit to miss it. I'm not surprised that it caught you out. I remember when I first saw these plugs a while back and it foxed me too.

@@TheAudiophileMan Thanks for making me feel better. That said, I have had four eye operations and the nuances of vision escape me these days. I'm falling apart like a leper on a trampoline.

Sorry to hear about your health issues James and I wish you well in the future. Eye problems are no joke, I realise. That said, let us not lift Cambridge off the hook on this one. I feel that the manual writer 'assumed' the user would know about the plugs. One thing I was taught when I started out in journalism was this: never make assumptions when your audience is concerned. Take care of yourself and good luck for the future.

I actually contacted the store I bought it from. That was my one big surprise that the binding posts looked like solid cheap plastic. However, they informed me that there were caps. Once I took out the caps, banana plugs worked fine. I also found out that the manual does not recommend bi-wiring for lower impedance speakers. I initially did that and then stopped. I don't think the sound quality changed. The binding posts came close to me sending it back but once I pulled out the caps, it works fine.

Good for you. Cxa60 Is better.

The new firmware you're talking about, isn't it for 6000A PLAY only ?

The firmware I speak about is for Aufiolab 6000A

Quality amps don’t need tone controls

I like the 60, it remains a great second-hand buy and is ideal for a budget system, especially at todays prices (£300 or so in good condition?). I wasn't able to compare it to the 61 but, as I mention in the video, colleagues of mine have commented on the extra clarity from the 61.

@@TheAudiophileMan The Spendor A1's listed in the description are significantly more expensive than my Zensor 3's, but was wondering if upgrading to something in the £500-600 range would offer a good upgrade with the CXA60. Do you have any recommendations? I listen to everything from classical to heavy rock, electronic, pretty much anything. Thanks

@@TheAudiophileMan Also what sort of price point would you consider for an external DAC to offer a noticeable improvement? I appreciate you can't comment directly on the DAC in the CXA60.

Can I ask what sort of source you'd be plugging into a DAC and I'd need a budget figure on that - otherwise I'm entering 'how long's a piece of string' time :)

I'd look carefully at the Q Acoustic 3030i speakers for the 60: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h7hmmdeh18mVaJc.html

Technically, you should be fine.

Did you get them? How are they?

I had the CXA60 and the CXC transport and can vouch for this. It was glitchy with lights flashing when they shouldn’t do or the dimming unresponsive and erratic. I sold the amplifier on. I also found the mid range a little muddled too. I don’t regret it. Kept the CXC, although it too has its “moments” it seems to be happier now it is divorced from the CXA60.

@@johnbarleycornmustdie sorry you have been a victim of some of the negative aspects of the brand . I feel it’s a bit of a mine filed in this price range . I myself still consider the rega brio to hold its ground . Despite its lack of digital connection . But in fairness to Paul his remit is to judge it on purely on its merit. But regards this particular brand you are the best person to pass judgment . Best wishes and kind and kind regards Mike in the U.K.

@@amarcy5369 I eventually found my way to the Rega Brio (the 2017 incarnation) and it’s good and reliable. I agree some digital inputs would be welcome but it is does what it does well and does no more. I think it is common for some new amps with all manner of digital inputs and buttons to go wrong at some stage. I often see a lot of Arcam products being on sale as shop returns and I believe they also can prove glitchy, although I have limited experience of this brand. If Cambridge have sorted out the reliability with the new versions then all well and good. When I did have issues I found the Cambridge technical support to be very good and responsive but there were some things they couldn’t solve.

After watching the sound portion again, I think Paul is saying that the frequencies are not extended on the CXA61, but that the unit is very accurate within the frequencies it allows to be amplified. Whereas the Audiolab unit might allow even more detail at very high and low frequencies to get through, even with the possibility that those might include unwanted noises (or at least unintended by the music producers for listening). I'm not sure this is what Paul meant, but it would be a way to reconcile the "dog on a leash" with the "doesn't attempt to modify the sound" (within the frequencies that it does allow to be amplified). Personally I straddle the line between wanting an "audiophile" system and merely wanting good mid-fi (maybe "upper mid-fi" if that's a term). Reason being, I want my CDs (yes I'm virtually all CD in listening habits) to sound "really good" to me, from the actual musicians I enjoy most, whether it's The Beatles, Classical, Baroque, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, etc. I don't want to wind up listening to only audiophile recordings (Diana Krall etc.) due to not being able to stand how my legacy 1960's to 1990's recordings sound (or my less-than-audiophile live recordings for that matter). So the quality of source material is a factor too when choosing a system for music reproduction, including the two choices of integrated amps that Paul mentions prominently in his review.

@behexen250 Thank you, I think you are on the right track as far as what I like in audio. I've long wondered if someone could offer an adjustable stereo system, which could not only be tuned to the room acoustic's and the quality of the listener's ears, but which also could be adjusted depending on the quality of the source material. Too often I hear about audiophiles trying to get the clearest, most detailed system they can, only to wind up ONLY playing audiophile quality recordings because they now can't stand how their old formerly beloved recordings sound, warts and all. I realize that there have been components that allow various tweaks here and there, such as speakers that can have high-cut and low-cut switches, or equalizers, or units to enhance harmonics for a "tubey" sound or whatever. But what I'd like would be a central unit, presumably an integrated amplifier or pre-amp, possibly a DAC (or pre-amp/DAC), where a listener could adjust to get the best of all worlds - "sharpening" the analytics fully while listening to audiophile grade recordings, while "softening" or whatever is needed to make the beloved legacy recordings sound their best, most musical, etc. In terms of the Creek unit, I remember reading about that several years ago. It got rave reviews in the US press as I recall. I don't hear much about Creek Audio now, I guess they had one hit product and that was it, or maybe the founder left, or maybe it was the Chinese build that people saw as a negative, or maybe Creek is still good but not as well known. But that did seem to be the "it" product of its day, and I don't think Creek has had anything that is close to the high regard people had for the 5350SE. But I'm not so sure I'd want to buy a used component, especially one that old. On the other hand, $1500 for a new unit would have been beyond my grasp 20 years ago, and it's not exactly an easy lift today, so today's used discount would certainly be appealing. Also on the positive side, I like that it has 120 wpc at 4 ohms, which would probably work with my Martin Logan Motion 40 speakers. I understand that those speakers seem to be power hungry to yield their best sound, almost regardless of volume - though I'm not someone who blasts music at high volume.

Yes, I think the 61 can handle those speakers.

It depends on the price of the competition in your country but, all else being equal, there are better options.

@@TheAudiophileMan I think one competitor in Norway would be NAD C368, and that one is 850. I've seen CXA61 and C368 similarly priced elsewhere. The asking price for CXA61 is 250 more than the NAD, which seems a bit high imo.

@@TheAudiophileMan I have discovered that the Rega Elex-R costs exactly the same as CXA61 in my country. If you disregard the difference in features, how do you think they comapare with regards to sound quality?

Hurrah?

From what I've read, the units are designed to create a specific sound which, with some speakers, are quite exciting. The reviewer is quite right that this is not audiophile equipment, it is a specifically designed sound for certain people. If you like it and it works with your speakers (and I guess you aren't planning to upgrade speakers any time soon) it is great. For me, it works really well. Instruments sound very much as if you are in the same room and vocals are fantastic. If you want, you can add an eq either in your music source or say the Schiit Loki + somewhere in there. The bluetooth here is really good. If you are looking for a more audiophile type equipment, this isn't for you.

Talking out your ass again 🤣