I’m about 2 weeks in on the HAPZ1 now. It’s had a decent burn in, so I thought it was time to do some serious A/B with my ModWright Sony 5400, hereafter to be referred to as MW 5400. For this comparison, I pulled everything out of the rack, then turned the backs of the sources forward to facilitate rapidly swithching the ICs. The HAPZ1 was powered through a VooDoo Vector Dragon from my Audio Magic MiniRef, while I used an MAC digital power cord for the MW 5400 per se (my normal Audience e wouldn’t reach with everything pulled out of the rack) and a VH Audio AirSine for the MW PS 9.9 power supply. This had a new production Gold Lion 5AR4 rectifier, which I prefer even to the old mullard GZ34 rectifier. For the first installment of this A/B, my system was configured as follows: Each source fed my Coincident Statement Line Stage preamp via a 2M VH audio spectrum AG IC. VH audio Symmetry (Ag) balanced IC (3M) fed my Cary 500.1 MBs, which drove Coincident Triumph Extreme MK II monitors through Audio Magic Liquid Air speaker cables. I chose the Coincident monitors over my Magnepan 3.7Rs for the first part of this comparison because they are wonderfully (or brutally) revealing of upstream components. They are fast, coherent, articulate and have great timbral accuracy. I chose 3 CDs for tonight’s comparison. All music files were ALAC prepared using iTunes. Everything was powered up and sat idle for about 2 hours, then was used for background music for another 2 hours prior to serious listening.
Shostakovich string quartet #7, Pacifica Quartet. This is a 24 bit PCM recording on Cedile Records. I listened to the entire quartet twice using the HAPZ1 and once using the MW 5400. The HAPZ1 exhibited better spacial localization and separation of the 4 instruments. There was more air and hall ambience, and the cello was reproduced with more bite and faster attacks. Pizzicato was sharper and faster. The MW 5400 presented with a somewhat darker, richer tonality, and rendered the cello a bit more “wooley” sounding. I much preferred the HAPZ1 with this music.
Brahms, Cello sonatas Op 36 and Op 120 #1. Wispelwey (1760 Guad) and Lazic, Steinway D. (Channel Classics SACD). The MW 5400 was a runaway winner with this music. A bit of grain present in the HAPZ1 was gone, and the 5400 had a wonderful, warm, analog sound that was just gorgeous. The 5400 had less air, and attacks were not as fast, but this was not missed at all. The 5400 was just more musical. Both sources were on a par, with the piano centered and the cello just to the left of center. This is a very good recording without excessive hall ambience.
Strauss, Vier Letzte Lieder, Luisi/Harteros/Dresden State Orchestra, Sony SACD. I chose this work because I also have a redbook copy of this recording. In the event that I preferred the MW 5400, I wanted to be able to compare the redbook CD on the MW 5400 to the HAPZ1 Alac file. Again, the MW 5400 gave a smooth, warm, analog sounding account. I noticed that the German was a little tough to pick out. I noted the brief horn solo in “September” as being particularly pretty, as was the violin solo in “Beim Schlaffengehen.” The HAPZ1 did something right here that I could not quite put my finger on. The German was marginally easier to pick out. Neither the horn nor the violin solo were as pretty through the HAPZ1, yet it all came together better somehow through the HAPZ1.
Tomorrow night I’m going to run through the same drill with another 3-4 CDs. I also want to run a similar evaluation using the Magnepan 3.7R’s. I’d like to defer drawing any firm conclusions until I’m done with that comparison also, just to see if any of tonight’s observations would go differently with a change of speakers.
Shostakovich string quartet #7, Pacifica Quartet. This is a 24 bit PCM recording on Cedile Records. I listened to the entire quartet twice using the HAPZ1 and once using the MW 5400. The HAPZ1 exhibited better spacial localization and separation of the 4 instruments. There was more air and hall ambience, and the cello was reproduced with more bite and faster attacks. Pizzicato was sharper and faster. The MW 5400 presented with a somewhat darker, richer tonality, and rendered the cello a bit more “wooley” sounding. I much preferred the HAPZ1 with this music.
Brahms, Cello sonatas Op 36 and Op 120 #1. Wispelwey (1760 Guad) and Lazic, Steinway D. (Channel Classics SACD). The MW 5400 was a runaway winner with this music. A bit of grain present in the HAPZ1 was gone, and the 5400 had a wonderful, warm, analog sound that was just gorgeous. The 5400 had less air, and attacks were not as fast, but this was not missed at all. The 5400 was just more musical. Both sources were on a par, with the piano centered and the cello just to the left of center. This is a very good recording without excessive hall ambience.
Strauss, Vier Letzte Lieder, Luisi/Harteros/Dresden State Orchestra, Sony SACD. I chose this work because I also have a redbook copy of this recording. In the event that I preferred the MW 5400, I wanted to be able to compare the redbook CD on the MW 5400 to the HAPZ1 Alac file. Again, the MW 5400 gave a smooth, warm, analog sounding account. I noticed that the German was a little tough to pick out. I noted the brief horn solo in “September” as being particularly pretty, as was the violin solo in “Beim Schlaffengehen.” The HAPZ1 did something right here that I could not quite put my finger on. The German was marginally easier to pick out. Neither the horn nor the violin solo were as pretty through the HAPZ1, yet it all came together better somehow through the HAPZ1.
Tomorrow night I’m going to run through the same drill with another 3-4 CDs. I also want to run a similar evaluation using the Magnepan 3.7R’s. I’d like to defer drawing any firm conclusions until I’m done with that comparison also, just to see if any of tonight’s observations would go differently with a change of speakers.