Arcam CD92T Reviews

Watch this item
Arcam CD92T
4.5 stars
Average rating for this product is: 4.5 out of 5

From 0 ratings and 2 reviews

Thumb up 100% of users recommend this product

Rate it Now:

Click on the stars above to rate this product:

Tweet This Item


Average Ratings for Arcam CD92T

  • Sound Quality5 stars
  • Features4.5 stars
  • Value for Money4 stars
  • Overall rating4.5 stars

2 Reviews For Arcam CD92T

  • simon tock Rank: Lance Corporal 19th Nov 2007

    Reviewer rating: 5 stars


    simon tock's review has yet to be rated - Be the first!
    Report this review



    Good Points: The sound is crystal clear with no coloration and no hiding for poor quality recordings. It has CD Text and HDCD capability. Nicely matches other products in the Arcam range, notably the excellent A85/P85 amplifiers.


    Bad Points: Load tray was slightly off true. This was a known problem/complaint with all the earlier Diva range of Arcam CD players and was apparently caused by the adhesive being to soft for the hard materials used by the manufacturer.


    General comments: In my view this was a far better CD Player than the rival machines (Cyrus, Roksan, Naim) for equivalent cost. It picked up 5 Stars from What Hi-Fi and top recommendations from the general Hi-fi press. What let this player down was the shortage of dCS ring DACS, which meant Arcam had to replace the unit with the inferior CD93 and later CD193 designs - which use a more conventional DAC arrangement. This is a really great CD player that will no doubt be highly regarded for many years to come.

  • mozza Rank: Staff Sergeant 16th Jan 2004

    Reviewer rating: 4 stars


    On average, people found this review very helpful
    Report this review


    I bought the Arcam CD92T at the same time as the A85 amp, to go with my Quad 21L speakers. I'd also listened to the likes of the Arcam CD82, Roksan's two players and the Musical Fidelity A3. I wasn't keen on the Roksan Kandy, but the MF did sound very good. In the end however I went for the CD92 because it fits better with the more detailed, laid back sound of the amp and speakers. The MF was also a lot more expensive, especially since the CD92 was almost half-price in the sales. In fact it was ...