Hi Leddo. I have a Cambridge CXA60 paired with a Cocktail Audio X10.
Usually, I rely on a digital connection (optical) which means the X10's onboard amp & DAC are bypassed. However, I have also listened to the pairing by way of standard RCA/phono interconnect cables, meaning I was relying on the X10's DAC with the CXA60's amp. To my ears, there was very little difference with, perhaps, a tiny bit more warmth on the latter.
The CXA60 doesn't have XLR connectivity. However, although the CXA80 has XLR, I demoed that in the same session as the CXA60 and truly hated the CXA80 sound. Obviously, that's a personal opinion and you may love the CXA80 (it's much more expensive).
The following is mostly lifted from feedback I gave to Cambridge directly, with a couple of updated tweaks:
--------------------------------------
I've had a Cambridge CXA60 since May 2015. In addition to a Cocktail Audio X10, I also have a TV connected via optical with a Linn Axis turntable making an occasional appearance, using an external phono stage. Speakers are Q Acoustics Concept 20s (bi-wired). Cabling for the speakers is standard OFC with basic (er, cheap
optical cables to connect the sources to the amp.
I had been using a Marantz PM6005 amp but became more and more aware that the tonal quality was compromised in the midrange. When the music got busy, the midrange became a bit muddled. In addition, some of the midrange sounded a bit compressed; i.e. a properly expressed piano strike might be described as a sphere whilst, with the PM6005, that same strike can sound as if is has been compressed from the top forcing it to sound “fat” at the sides. In fairness, I think the PM6005 is a reasonable amp overall but, in the end, the tonal issue drove the search for a new amp.
During the search, I demoed a Rotel RA-12, a Cambridge CXA80 and a Cambridge Audio Topaz SR20. I didn't demo any of the Yamaha amps with digital inputs because the number of such inputs was the same as the Marantz and I need more.
Soundwise, the Rotel sounded rather uninvolving (certainly not worth upgrading from the Marantz), the Topaz SR20 sounded cloudy and the CXA80 sounded as if it had been tuned to produce every last molecule of detail but with little thought given to the listening experience. To my ears, the CXA80 was VERY bright and shouty with some music being distinctly unenjoyable.
By contrast, the CXA60 sounded tonally balanced, didn't have the midrange issues of the Marantz and had decent bottom end extension without sounding boomy or muddy. In “direct” mode, I found the CXA60 did, on occasion, tend to brightness. I tweaked the treble downwards just a touch and found the tonal mix that worked for me. I know some think tone controls are for philistines; however, not all music is recorded with the same equipment or sound values and it's handy to be able to tweak overly dull or bright recordings. For that reason alone, I won't consider amps without EQ/tone controls.
The CXA60's soundstage is excellent, with plenty of detail, width and depth. Separation between and placement of instruments is good without leaving the music sounding cold or clinical.
For me, the presence of at least 2 optical inputs was important due to the sources I have. The coax option is also useful for anticipated future use. Will I eventually need more than 3 digital inputs? Not sure. I definitely don't need more than 3 (normal) line inputs, excluding phono stage. Ideally, an onboard phono stage would have been nice. On the subject of a phono stage, it may be of interest that I went for the “Pro-Ject Phono Box USB V” ahead of the “Cambridge Audio Azur” products (651P & 551P) because of the USB option.
There is no recording loop and some may find this annoying. I no longer need one, so it wasn't an issue for me.
The volume control should have a more prominent mark - the groove is nigh on impossible to see.
The remote control has relatively limited functionality. Options to change tone controls would have been useful, including the “direct” option. The “dimmer” option should have a couple more steps.
The full physical manual for the CXA60 was not included in the box - it is available online from Cambridge's website.
There is no read out panel on the front of the CXA60, such as there is on the Rotel RA-12. Some will like that, some won't.
In summary, compared to the PM6005, I find the CXA60 to have greater clarity in the midrange, deeper bottom end extension, slightly more detail and there is just a bit more control in the musical output but without sounding restrained. The Marantz is far from a bad amp and has more features than the significantly more expensive CXA60. However, the CXA60 wins in terms of sonic delivery and as I don't need a recording loop and was prepared to add an external phono stage, I replaced the Marantz.
With the PM6005, I was never far from thinking "so close, but not quite". After several months with the CXA60, I have no inclination at all to change the amp and it looks very much like it will be a "keeper" :eek: :chill:.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you demo the Rotel RA-12 and prefer it to the CXA60, make sure you get one from NEW stock that will allow +10 / -10 tone controls etc. Old stock only goes +4/-4. This is a real difference; not a Spinal Tap ("...look, it goes to 11...") scenario. Unlike the CXA60, the Rotel has an onboard phono stage.
Happy listening, whatever you end up with
.