Hands-on: Cambridge Audio MXN10 review

[ad_1]

This week Cambridge Audio unveiled two new affordable music streaming devices, the limited edition AXN10 and the small form factor MXN10.

After being invited to the company’s offices for the official unveiling, we had the chance to get a first look and hear about the two new streaming devices. This is what we discovered.

Pricing and availability

(Image credit: Future)

The AXN10 is a full-sized limited edition, which is set to retail for £549 / $599 / €599 at launch.

Meanwhile, the MXN10 (pictured above) is much smaller and slightly cheaper, with Cambridge Audio confirming it will retail for £449 / $499 / €499. It puts the pair at the affordable end of the market and in direct competition with the award-winning Bluesound Node 2i, which is currently our top affordable option in our best music streaming software guide.

Design

(Image credit: Future)

As we prepared to check out the two streamers in Cambridge Audio’s office and listening room, the company confirmed that they were nearly identical internally, the only difference being their size. The spokesperson at the event went so far as to say “The only difference, really, is that the bigger one has more air.”

Visually they look similar, and they both feature gray metal frames and are screen-less with simple source control up front. The only difference we found was that their insert layout is slightly different around the back due to their different sizes. They do, however, feature identical connections with one pair of RCA line level, one coaxial and one optical on both. There is also a physical ethernet connection for people who want to connect it directly to their router.

(Image credit: Future)

We really liked the look of the smaller MXN10, with its small dimensions (52 x 215 x 191mm) making it wonderfully discreet and an ideal choice if you’re looking for a space-saving streaming device. In fact, Cambridge Audio claims to have designed the streaming device to be very small in an effort to entice buyers looking for a space-saving way to stream to “old-fashioned hi-fi.” At first glance, I achieved this goal. In fact, it was so discreet that our journalist thought it was a Mac Mini, spying it out of the corner of his eye as he entered the listening room.

Features

(Image credit: Future)

Under the hood, the two are identical at the component and connectivity levels, from what we saw in the demo, which included looking at abstract circuits for both.

Both feature a wide range of streaming options including AirPlay 2, Google Chromecast, and Bluetooth 5.0.

The proprietary StreamMagic streaming module is also located at the center of both modules. This is the technology (and companion app) from Cambridge Audio that acts as a control center for your broadcast from your smartphone. It works in exactly the same way as the five-star Cambridge Audio CXN (V2) (it’s also a What Hi-Fi award winner?), which isn’t a bad thing.

Both models have the same ESS Saber ES9033Q DAC inside, allowing them to stream high-resolution audio files up to 32-bit/768kHz PCM and DSD512 files. Live streaming support for Spotify Connect, Tidal, and Qobuz is built into both. The only weird omission we noticed is that it doesn’t have native MQA support for Tidal Masters streams.

Voice

(Image credit: Future)

Commenting on sound quality with real authority is impossible until we’ve been able to get broadcast devices into our test rooms and use them for so long.

But during the demo, we got to hear them playing The Buggles’ Video Killed The Radio Star and Taylor Swift’s The 1 streamed from Tidal with the two boxes connected to either an AXA35, CXA61, or (slightly older) Azur 351A stereo amplifier.

As an added layer of complexity, the audio was played on PMC OB1 speakers, which are more expensive than we’d expect buyers looking for a streamer at this price to own.

Despite this, the sound was impressive during the demo. We were particularly impressed listening to Video Killed The Radio Star with the MXN10 connected to our 10 year old Azur 315A. Although the speaker is a little dated, the sound was nicely detailed and had a pleasant resolution. There was a decent space around the vocals and the instrumentals, which made it fun to listen to.

Interestingly, when listening to the same track with the newer AXA35 connected, the audio performance between the two wasn’t audibly different when switching between the two streamers. We’ll be curious to see if that’s the case when we properly test a couple of streamers during our full review.

preliminary ruling

(Image credit: Future)

We only had a very short, sweet opportunity to look at and listen to the Cambridge Audio MXN10 and AXN10, but there’s no denying there’s a lot of potential in the streamer. Although they have very utilitarian designs, they are incredibly competitively priced considering the hardware and features that they offer.

The MXN10’s smaller dimensions also make it a potentially attractive option for buyers who want to upgrade an older system, but don’t have a lot of space. We’ll be curious to see how it performs with proper testing when we get it for review.

more:

Also consider the Bluesound Node 2i

Read our Cambridge Audio CXN (V2) review

Best music streaming software: Upgrade to a wireless system

[ad_2]