On Saturday, February 24, a few members of the San Diego, Los Angeles and Palm Springs audio communities conducted a blind shoot-out at the home of one of the members of the San Diego Music and Audio Guild. The five CD Players selected for evaluation were: 1) a Resolution Audio Opus 21 (modified by Great Northern Sound), 2) the dcs standalone player, 3) a Meridian 808 Signature, 4) a EMM Labs Signature configuration (CDSD/DCC2 combo), and 5) an APL NWO 2.5T (the 2.5T is a 2.5 featuring a redesigned tube output stage and other improvements).
The ground rules for the shoot-out specified that two randomly draw players would be compared head-to-head, and the winner would then be compared against the next randomly drawn player, until only one unit survived (the so-called King-of-the-Hill method). One of our most knowledgeable members would set up each of the two competing pairs behind a curtain, adjust for volume, etc. and would not participate in the voting. Alex Peychev was the only manufacturer present, and he agreed to express no opinion until the completion of the formal process, and he also did not participate in the voting. The five of us who did the voting did so by an immediate and simultaneous show of hands after each pairing after each selection. Two pieces of well-recorded classical music on Red Book CDs were chosen because they offered a range of instrumental and vocal sonic charactistics. And since each participant voted for each piece separately, there was a total of 10 votes up for grabs at each head-to-head audition. Finally, although we all took informal notes, there was no attempt at detailed analysis recorded -- just the raw vote tally.
And now for the results:
In pairing number 1, the dcs won handily over the modified Opus 21, 9 votes to 1.
In pairing number 2, the dcs again came out on top, this time against the Meridian 808, 9 votes to 1.
In pairing number 3, the Meitner Signature was preferred over the dcs, by a closer but consistent margin (we repeated some of the head-to-head tests at the requests of the participants). The vote was 6 to 4.
Finally, in pairing number 5, the APL 2.5T bested the Meitner, 7 votes to 3.
In the interest of configuration consistance, all these auditions involved the use of a power regenerator supplying power to each of the players and involved going through a pre-amp.
This concluded the blind portion of the shoot-out. All expressed the view that the comparisons had been fairly conducted, and that even though one of the comparisons was close, the rankings overall represented a true consensus of the group's feelings.
Thereafter, without the use blind listening, we tried certain variations at the request of various of the particiapans. These involved the Meitner and the APL units exclusively, and may be summarized as follows:
First, when the APL 2.5T was removed from the power regenerator and plugged into the wall, its performance improved significantly. (Alex attributed this to the fact that the 2.5T features a linear power supply). When the Meitner unit(which utilizes a switching power supply) was plugged into the wall, its sonics deteriorated, and so it was restored to the power regenerator.
Second, when we auditioned a limited number of SACDs, the performance on both units was even better, but the improvement on the APL was unanimously felt to be dramatic. The group concluded we had just experienced "an SACD blowout".
The above concludes the agreed-to results on the blind shoot-out. What follows is an overview of my own personal assessment of the qualitative differences I observed in the top three performers.
First of all the dcs and the Meitner are both clearly state of the art players. That the dcs scored as well as it did in its standalone implementation is in my opinion very significant. And for those of us who have auditioned prior implementations of the Meitner in previous shoot-outs, this unit is truly at the top of its game, and although it was close, had the edge on the dcs. Both the dcs and the Meitner showed all the traits one would expect on a Class A player -- excellent tonality, imaging, soundstaging, bass extension, transparency, resolution, delineation, etc.
But from my point of view, the APL 2.5T had all of the above, plus two deminsions that I feel make it truly unique. First of all, the life-like quality of the tonality across the spectrum was spot-on on all forms of instruments and voice. An second, and more difficult to describe, I had the uncany feeling that I was in the presence of real music -- lots or "air", spatial cues, etc. that simply add up to a sense of realism that I have never experienced before. When I closed my eyes, I truly felt that I was in the room with live music. What can I say.
Obviously, I invite others of the participants to express their views on-line.
Hi John, now I'm intrigued by the Amperex PQ 7062 tube. Honestly, I haven't done any tube rolling since I've been quite happy with the APL Denon performance. I've been looking at other areas of my system to improve on.
Do you have any good sources for this tube? I did a quick Google search and came up with eBay sellers, but I'm hesitant to go the eBay route.
Mr Nil- Unfortunately, the difficulties of arranging a comparison like that, via a CDP, would be almost insurmountable. What with setting up and verifying the accuracy of a reference system, finding the best set-up and positions for the mics/musicians/listeners, the performance, recording, mastering(or not), burning/pressing and playback chain: What an ordeal. The best we can hope for? Opinions from educated listeners, that remain immersed in the sound of live music, and are intimately familiar with the "cues" you mentioned. Better yet- That attended the recording sessions and are familiar with the artists and venues on the discs they are listening to. Way too much to hope for. I'll just have to keep doing it on my own! Enjoy your music!!
Thanks Tvad for your post. I tried to make it clear here that the 7062 tube was not supported by Alex.
I have great respect for Alex and his work but to say that the sonic changes of the 7062 are due to its non-linearities and thus colorations compared to the ECC99 do not reflect my observations in the APL Denon nor the Aria WV. If colorations here implies several layers of haze and grain are removed and much lower level detail coming to the forefront, compared to the ECC99, I'll take it.
As for the added output impedance, it's a non issue with the input impedance of the Aria WV. Alex is a proponent of his players straight into the amps. This was not the preferred case when I had the Callisto Sig, Bent TVC and now with the Aria WV as well. And a number of NWO owners I have corresponded with have all preferred their players into their line stages as well.
For those with APL Denon players running the ECC99, enjoy and feel comfortable. But after hearing the 7062 and then again trying the ECC99, I would move on from the APL before I returned to the ECC99. It might be a readily available tube, as is the 6H30, but neither of these tubes is my cup of tea.
Tvad: Maybe Alex can replace "those" resistors with higher-wattage models and beef up a couple regulators too so that you can hear what the player can really do. 8-)
Grant- I had the same problem and it turned out only to be a dirty laser lens. Brent recommended one of those thingys with the little bristles to clean it. got one at Rat Shack. Worked fine. YMMV.
I too have had this same problem, been though the disc and am now on the 3rd laser assembly in my 3910. It will soon be just a backup for an Esoteric UX-1 I had upgraded to a UX-1P1. The difference in build quality is staggering vs the 3910. I am expecting much better sonics, video and dependability.
My APL Denon 3910 is on its 3rd laser. Alex has said that the Denon 3910 has a very unreliable laser. He also said that the newer Denon units have a more reliable laser, but I don't recall which specific model. It might be the 5910, but I'm not sure.
I came upon this thread a few months ago and have just re-read it. I have been in the process of upgrading my system so there was no point in commenting until major parts of my new system were in place, including a "cousin" of one of the CD players used in the shoot-out. IMHO the shoot-out was highly flawed. I am not saying that the APL was not the best of the lot -- and possibly by far. But there are so many variables that were not seriously considered in this shoot-out that it must be taken for what it is worth -- which is to say advisedly, IMHO.
Firstly, the set-up should have been stated at the very beginning -- all of the equipment, wiring, plugs and room treatments used. Secondly, there are so many variables that were not even mentioned or considered. I find this astonishing. It is as though you just plug 5 CD players into the same system, listen to a couple of CDs for a few hours and out comes your undisputed winner. Well, I don't see things in such a simplistic way. Everyone knows that personal preference can make a very big difference. Wiring and plugs can make a very big difference. The quality of recordings can also make a very big difference. In today's CD world there are remasters and there are remasters. For instance. I have a copy of the latest Beatles remasters that is supposed to be the very best ever produced. But it is not the very best. It is clearly surpassed by the Japanese Parlophone box set remasters. Then there is the all-important factor of synergy. Components that work well with one CD player can may sound awful with another CD player. And since when can the PS Audio Multiwave II+ be seriously considered to be a credible part of a high end CD player shoot-out? What if the Synergistic Research PowerCell 10SE had replaced it. What would the various CD players have sounded like? And what if different speakers had been used? Then there is the choice of music -- 2 well-recorded classical CDs. This cannot seriously be taken as a measure by which to judge the various attributes of a variety of high quality CD players. Also, the word "consensus" has been used to crown the APL as the undisputed winner. There was no "consensus". There was a 7 to 3 vote in favor of the APL -- a wide margin of preference. But what factors led 3 participants to prefer the EMM over the APL? If a different mix of amplifier, speakers, power conditioner, wires, plugs room conditioning and recordings had been used might the vote have been different? I believe these are interesting questions to consider. A real shoot-out should be a far more serious affair, IMHO.
Sabai - I thought the OP was very informative. If you run out and buy the APL blindly based on the SD Shootout, then oh well I hope it works out for you. But I would expect that most would take it for what it's worth - The APL was preferred by those people in that system and room with that music. Period.
Hello Sebrof and Mikedimitrov, good to hear from you. I live in a remote area overseas so unless I travel overseas to nearby countries I cannot audition equipment. That is my problem. I have to be guided by experience and intuition -- a good dose of luck also enters the equation, inevitably. To tell you the truth I would love to be able to afford an APL but I can't. So I have settled for an EMM CDSA SE -- a mint unit I bought at a very nice discount and brought back home from the UK. Sebrof, with all due respect, may I correct you? The APL was preferred by 7 out of 10 of those at the shoot-out, not by all 10 attendees. I have had Merlin speakers shipped over recently and have a Marantz PM-15 integrated amplifier -- the original 1994 model that I purchased recently mint on a Yahoo Japan auction -- also for a very nice price. I have an Audio Magic "The Q" power conditioner but that will soon be replaced by a Synergistic Research PowerCell 10SE. I will be adding a Rel T3 sub-woofer soon, as well, to bring the 30 to 50 Hertz range into the system. The Merlins are fantastic -- they are rated to about 50 Hertz. I have a Gabriel Gold PC, speaker cables and ICs, as well as a number of SR Master Couplers that I have re-terminated with Oyaide plugs and IECs. Since my Marantz PM-15 is a 100-volt model I am using them with a step-down transformer and to connect the Audio Magic to a Tesla Plex. That's about it for my system. The problem I have with the shoot-out arises from realizing how changing single minor element in my system can transform the entire system. I have been astonished at this. A fresh example came this evening. I simply changed an Oyaide P-079 plug for a P-037 on the end of the Master Coupler that links the Marantz PM-15 to the step-down transformer. The resolution was transformed and the sound stage became wider and deeper. With each small change the Merlins are showing just how good they can be -- and how good the EMM CDSA SE can be. It is the synergy of the system that is at the heart of what we are talking about here, not just one element. Changing a single plug can transform a system. How can a shoot-out using the same equipment and cabling for a few hours with a couple of good quality classical recordings possibly be taken as a serious measure of the potential of each of the CD players tested?
Sabai - My point was that these guys ran the test, however unscientific and however flawed, and posted their impressions. They have no obligation to anyone to do better than that. We must take the OP for what it's worth to us. The reason I posted is because so often, so very often, people post about how a component is the best or the worse, or their jaw dropped or whatever, with absolutely no reference to anything. These guys went above and beyond what so many posters do in my opinion, that's all.
The day after this shootout, we went to Hollywood and had another session at the house of a movie director. He has a dedicated “audio bunker” designed by Cardas and tuned by Rives Audio. This gentleman was the one who brought the Meridian and dCS, and since he liked dCS better, we did not try the Meridian again. The gentleman who owned the EMM Labs combo was very kind to attend as well. He brought some expensive power conditioner (sorry don’t remember the make) that he felt was the perfect match for his EMM gear. To our surprise, we got the same result as the one in San Diego.
One of the things we learned at those two shootouts was that the EMM gear sounded much better with power conditioner or re-generator, while the NWO was best when plugged direct to the wall.
Hello Sebrof, I understand but there was far more going on with this shoot-out, IMHO. The organizers had no obligation to do anything but since they went to the trouble to do the shoot-out and one of the manufacturers was present there was a certain importance attached to this by at least one party -- an interested party. I am not talking about scientific here, I am talking about taking many things into consideration that, to my eyes, were obviously missing, in order to do justice to all the equipment being tested. In this shoot-out no variables were considered. There were short listening sessions using 2 pieces of classical music and a show of hands. That was it. I call that flawed. It is like taking a day-trip to London and then going back home to tell your friends you have seen London. The shoot-out had so much missing and so much was left unsaid. If they were really interested in doing a serious shoot-out they would have chosen more than 2 recordings from the same genre, they would have had a choice of wiring (power cords with different plugs and IECs, interconnects, speaker wires), they would have had speakers from at least 2 different manufacturers, they would have had at least 2 high end power conditioners from 2 different manufacturers -- and they would have asked the maker who was allowed to be present to leave the room. There are a whole host of subliminal factors that can enter the picture in a situation like this. What if all the CD makers had been allowed to attend? Their very presence in the room would have changed the psychological ambiance, IMHO, even if they were all completely silent. The neutrality of a listening room is made up of more than sonic neutrality. If you call an event such as this a shoot-out that means you are looking to eliminate all the contenders except one. Well, I think that when you are considering high end CD players you need to take more care. After all, this shoot-out was organized in order to post the results on Audiogon, not just to share the results among those present. This was done for public viewing. True, the participants and organizers had no obligation to do anything at all -- but they should have done more to do justice to the equipment and to the readers on Audiogon. If I were organizing or participating in a shoot-out of high end equipment knowing that the results were going to be published on Audiogon I would have taken much more care. Not enough factors were factored into the shoot-out to give those reading about it a clear picture of the potential of the equipment being judged. It was the emphasis on elimination -- not on potential -- that was the focus of the shoot-out. This was the most serious short-coming of the shoot-out, IMHO.
Hello Aplhifi, Thank you for your comments. They reaffirm one specific point that I was alluding to. Some players do well when configured with a specific piece of equipment and others may do better with a very different set-up. So if you compare both 2 players with the same set-up you may not get the best possible results from both players for comparative purposes. It would be difficult to judge the relative merits of the specific pieces of equipment in each set-up -- including the CD players. Looking at cables and plugs I find there is a big sonic difference between various makers in my system -- and within the product line that each maker offers there is also often a very big sonic difference, as well. The synergy of each system -- the best that it can offer sonically -- is dependent on many factors, IMHO. I am sure I would be very satisfied with one of your products -- I have no doubt about that. But since they are beyond my budget I am doing the best I can to maximize the sonic potential of my EMM CDSA SE using various cables, associated equipment, accessories and tweaks. So far, I am very happy with the result. But if I ever had the opportunity to A/B with one of your APL players I might be in psychological sonic trouble -- wanting to have one of your APLs without being able to afford it.
I agree with you! This is the very reason why when the official part of the blind shootout in San Diego was over, I specifically asked to audition the winners EMM and the NWO without the power re-generator. To everyone's surprise, the NWO sounded much better, while the EMM clearly showed its need for power conditioning. So yes, it is very important finding the right synergy if you want to extract the best from your audio system.
Hello Aplhifi, Thank you for your reply. I understand this difference between EMM products and APL products. As you rightly point out, this is an important consideration when looking for a system that will best suit one's needs.
Hello Aplhifi, I appreciate your comments and observations. But the fact that EMM showed its need for power conditioning does not downgrade it, IMHO. Many systems need power conditioners to maximum their potential. The fact that APL does not need a power conditioner speaks highly in its favor -- but I don't feel this eliminates the sonic attributes of CDPs and systems that are improved with power conditioners. Regarding my earlier commments about how the sound in a specific system can change dramatically with a small change I just discovered the truth of this, once again, a few nights ago. The Totem beaks were not working at all with my Merlins -- Bobby Palkovic told me they wouldn't and he was right. So on a whim I decided to put the 4 beaks in diamond configuration on top of my Marantz PM-15 integrated amplifier. The result was a surprising improvement of low level detail, dynamics and sound stage. Who woulda thunk it. Then 2 nights ago I decided to put the 4 beaks in diamond configuration on top of my EMM CDSA SE. The results were not surprising -- they were dramatic. An incredible improvement in low level detail and warmth, bass, dynamics and depth and width of sound stage. I would NEVER have thunk it. I think this reinforces some of the points I have made about the San Diego 5-CDP shoot-out. What if the beaks had been added to the EMM or to the other units? What if other elements had been changed? IMHO, some of the votes might have been changed as a result and some of the comments may have changed, as well -- as dramatically as any dramatic sonic changes. None of this was considered in the shoot-out. The more I look at it the more I see that the San Diego shoot-out was really one-dimensional. It was conducted honestly and with good intentions -- but its short-comings stand out more than its merits, IMHO. Which is not at all to say that the APL is not a fabulous world-class player which I am sure it is.
Hi Tvad, The relevance 4 years later is the same as if the shoot-out were done today. APL and EMM and the other makers have all brought out improved models but that is irrelevant. What is relevant, IMHO, is that no matter what models are used for shoot-outs, and no matter what year the shoot-outs are conducted, they should include a lot more variables than the San Diego shoot-out. Otherwise they are what I call one-dimensional. They are designed to eliminate competitors -- to create a "winner", not to help the users of all models maximize the performance of their own units. The fact that I have recently been able to improve the performance of not only my own EMM CDSA SE -- far beyond what the normal EMM CDSA SE sounds like -- as well as my speakers -- has shown me just how limited the shoot-out was. The few variables and the short duration of the shoot-out with only 2 classical music CDs used for comparative purposes means that those reading the results should be careful in drawing conclusions. This is not to say that the APL is not at the very top of the CDP world but that with some attention to cables, plugs and tweaks the other models would have performed differently -- the EMM dramatically so. Some of the "votes" would undoubtedly have changed, IMO. Also, IMHO, because the APL sounds great without a power conditioner but other models may benefit from a power conditioner, this cannot be used as an argument to discount the sonic improvements produced by adding a power conditioner to some of the other models. In the end, it is the ears and the sound that count. I would really like to see another shoot-out using similarly-priced CDPs but with more variables in the equation -- including cables, plugs and tweaks -- and with a wide variety of music. What will work for one CDP will not work for all. The quality of sound of a CDP can be dramatically improved with attention to detail. But this takes time and a different attitude than the notion of "shoot-out". If it were less a shoot-out than a sonic comparison and experiment with a lot of variables then a lot more people would benefit from the exrecise -- not just the maker of the "winner" who would also deserve kudos, of course.
It seems the possible permutations, variables, and what ifs that could be tested or considered for assessing 5 players would make a real, complete, and absolute shootout almost impossible in real life, if not theoretically. I do think you have to take the test for what it is and with a grain of salt - the perfect evaluation and comparison is impossible, nor necessary IMHO.
Hi Pubul57, I am not talking about a perfect evaluation that would take all possible permutations into consideration. That would obviously be impossible. I am talking about a shoot-out that would use more variables, not all possible variables. I mean, why go to all the trouble in the first place of doing a shoot-out and then tell everyone "take it with a grain of salt"? And one of the makers is there in the room. If you go to all the trouble of doing a 5-CDP shoot-out then going to a bit more trouble to make it 3-dimensional rather than 1-dimensional should not take that much more effort -- but it would take more time -- using more than 2 CDs, using a variety of plugs and wires, and using some good tweaks. It would have to be organized very well. Then you would not have to tell everyone "take it with a grain of salt". You would be able to say "we did a really good job to maximize the options to allow each player to show its best possible face. Here's what we did ..." And then the discussion among the attendees would be able to include a comparison of the improvements to each unit when different elements were added or taken out of the set-up. That's what I mean by 3-dimensional -- not just a headline grabber "Here's the winner". I am not interested in a sound bite shoot-out because that does not do justice to the units auditioned. Each one has merits. Each one is considered high end. I want to know what enhances those merits -- what makes them more meritable. There are so many things that I have done to transform my own EMM CDSA SE into a whole new EMM that if more attention had been paid to some of these things during the San Diego shoot-out the results and discussion would have been MUCH more interesting and MUCH more informative for Audiogon members.
Sabai: Sandra Day O'Connor once said: one key lesson She learned throughout her career is that (and I am paraphrasing here) "once you made your point just shut up and go away"!"
the problem with such a test, is that the results cannot be extrapolated onto one's own stereo system, i.e., one would best listen to the same digital hardware in the context of one's own system--true for any component, to make a meaningful judgment.
Once upon a time, Donald Rumsfeld wrote the following verses:
"As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know."
11-09-10: Mrtennis the problem with such a test, is that the results cannot be extrapolated onto one's own stereo system, i.e., one would best listen to the same digital hardware in the context of one's own system--true for any component, to make a meaningful judgment.
100% true, that isn't going to happen for most, if not all of us. So can we extrapolate, not perfectly, but better than nothing, which is what we would be left with if we had to test all five units in our own system - unless, I really had nothing to do all day. I want to see more shoot outs with feedback from the groups, and I'll add my own grain of salt to the results, for I think they are far from being meaningless, as long as we don't take these things as definitive - they are not, and mowst of us know and accept that.
suppose you hear of a comparison between 5 similar components, e.g., cd players, and the number of listeners exceeds 100. suppose one of the players is favored by more than half of the listeners. do you think you would favor that cd player over another chosen at random within the same price range ?
in other words, what is the value of the results of a "shoot out" consisting of 5 cd players when there exist over 1000 digital soiurces (must include dacs and transports)?
it would seem to me the results are a microcosm of what is possible.
i would propose a different experimental design, impractical as it is, which would require more listening and a greater period of time to accomplish the results.
here it is:
select over 100 cd players or dacs/transports, listening to 5 at a time. from the first 5 select the "favorite.
from the remaining candidates, slecet another five and pick a favorite. at the end, there will be 20 favorites.
narrow down the twenty to five and report on those 5 out of one hundred.
my point is that 5 is too small a sample size to be very useful. there are many other digital "players" which could have been selected..
however, i will agree, the exercise is not useful, although the idea could be implemented to include more candidates, even if it requires months to complete the listening.
perhaps , there are some serious audiophiles who could perform a valuable service by comparing a large number of , say tube and solid state amplifiers, capable of producing a reasonable spl, in a given stereo system.
let's not try to get crazy here as there are many variables, but the idea of experienced listeners comparing equipment is of value if implemented using a larger sample size than 5. there may be some short cuts to reduce total listening time. it takes some clever people to design such an experiment.
I think the methodology you propose would be better, yes, but unfortunately it is not going to happen. The other thing is, that even if it were possible, and one were to buy the winner, you would still have no guarantee that this would be piece of gear that would sound best to you in your system, room, music. I think we have two choices, get decent gear without worrying if it is the best, just get that idea out of your head for sanity sake and enjoy music, or allow yourself to try lot's of equipment because it is fun to do so, again without thinking you will ever have the best - a dangeorus idea and pursuit IMHO. For me the Shoot-out is just fun, something to think about, and part of the audiophile dialogue.
What I have found as I have gotten older (52) is how much wonderful equipment there is that does not cost a fortune, finding those gems is a heck of a lot of fun.
When there were many audio dealers, you could hear equipment, but it was typically not a comparison and it was subject to the dealer's decisions regarding setup and with other speakers and equipment present in the room. But it was better than not hearing the equipment before buying it. Now, of course, very few of us have dealers within any reasonable distance. We are all now dependent on the comments of others.
I am fortunate to have a limited number of people whose opinions I trust and the opportunity to go to shows, such as the RMAF and THE Show to hear components. Of course, these demonstration have severe limitations, such as electricity at the RMAF seldom being above 110 volts and rooms being too small. The reality is that no shoot out will ever be of much interest to me. Were I involved, I would find it entertaining but little more than that.
The internet has killed dealers but has given us a broad universe of friends outside our community, whose opinions I find valuable.
Oops... my apologies folks... if anyone was slightly befuddled by my quote from the unwitting poetic opus of Donald Rumsfeld.... the post was meant for a completely different thread.
Guidocorona, thanks for clarifying this. I wondered what the fellow who saved us from the awful bird flu pandemic was doing on Audiogon -- and what he could possibly have against Totem Acoustic products.
Difficult to say of course... Mr's Rumsfelt vatic pronouncements are oft replete with sybillic fumiginosities.... uhrn, I meant to say ambiguities... Besides, who knows... the aphoristic bard may be a long-suffering closet audiophile.
If the bard is long-suffering I think it must be as a result of the failure of his long-promoted pandemic to materialize despite his best efforts -- not from being a closet audiophile. His efforts to induce disequilibrium in domestic bliss have been replaced by another non-closet audiophile -- a Napolitanic devotee of vol-antics -- a condition that may be permanently cured by being QT'ed at SR headquarters. There are no limits to what rearranging internal molecular structure with high tech audio equipment can accomplish -- at least that is how things look from the audio side at Synergistic Research who deserve our kudos.
Now whilst returning our unlamented hero to his private poetic devices.... TEAC America has just introduced the K-01 single box flagship player to the US market. Does anyone have plans to listen to it and compare it to various other top flight single box units?
Napolitana Volanta looks like she's already been consuming a lot of pasta -- looks like she needs a pair of good Horns and a power conditioner to cure her of what ails her sonically and otherwise. Maybe she'll bump into someone at a local audio dealer who can suggest some good power cords -- something high end like SR QT'ed may do the trick. On the component end she seems to be too digitally preoccupied at the moment -- she needs to look at something analogue, possibly.
When I commented earlier about missing "variables" in the shoot-out I am now able to expand on what I was talking about. I have the 1-box EMM CDSA SE. Without a power conditioner it is very resolving with excellent dynamics but the sound stage is unimpressive -- just plain flat. I have tried 2 power conditioners and have settled on the Synergistic Research PowerCell 10SE with the Galileo MPC. I just installed the SR last night, tweaking it with a set of SR MiGs underneath and 4 Totem beaks on top. A set of MiGs went under the EMM, as well. And I replaced the stock EMM fuse with a Furutech green T2A fuse from Japan. The sound coming out of the EMM is like night and day with the PowerCell installed and the tweaks. Frankly, you would not know it is the same player. So, my comments regarding variables and how the shoot-out was conducted stand. The shoot-out was one-dimensional and did not do justice to the EMM, and I presume this must be the case for the other CD players. The sound out of the EMM by itself is two-dimensional. The sound out of it with the PowerCell is 3-dimensional -- and a lot more. The shoot-out was essentially one-dimensional because it did not make any attempt to maximize the potential of the other CD players and judgments were made on the basis of a set-up that was clearly flawed. In fact, the observations of Petewatt at the beginning of this thread are exactly how I would describe the EMM + PowerCell in my system: "I had the uncany [sic] feeling that I was in the presence of real music -- lots or "air", spatial cues, etc. that simply add up to a sense of realism that I have never experienced before. When I closed my eyes, I truly felt that I was in the room with live music." Can the EMM + PowerCell rival the APL in these respects? You would never be able to find out given how the blind shoot-out was conducted. In retrospect I think the word "blind" is an apt characterization of the shoot-out itself. Saying that there was no attempt to make it a perfect shoot-out is really a cop-out. A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to set up the shoot-out. One of the makers was even present. It was set up to end up with a quick winner. This was not simply an informal Saturday night gathering of friends in the basement. The shoot-out did not do justice to all of the players that participated in this "competition" -- by a very long shot. All this having been said, the fact that the APL is a world-class CD player is not in dispute. My comments do not detract from its attributes in any way.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
