2. digital
  3. 1027524661

My EMC-1 24 192 experience

After reading the Stereo Times review of this player against the SCD-1, I got goose bumps. This reviwer said the emc-1 made redbook cd's sound better than SACD on the SCD-1. I own the SCD-1, and on SACD it is wonderfull, but on redbook one knows that he is missing something. I tried the MF DAC w/ zero success. Last week I purchased a EMC-1 and immediately it was much better than the SCD-1 for redbook. There was more detail, warmth, air, and the sound stage was deeper and wider. I then played Take 5 on both players since I have them both on sacd and redbook. The sound is close, but the edge goes to the SCD-1. The sound is sweeter on the SCD-1, no doubt about that. With that being said, Is the EMC-1 worth the extra coin for listening to redbook CD's? Without a shadow of a doubt. Does it beat SACD? No, but it is close.

P.S. I forgot to mention how warm sounding this player is, all the harshness and rough edges of digital are history.
128x128hughes12
czbbcl's avatar
czbbcl
1,752 posts
 
What amplification are you using? I have an scd-1 and utilize a Conrad Johnson Premiere 16lsII (tube) pre-amp and MF2500 (SS) power amp player thru Thiel 3.6's. Upon comparing the two players emc-1 and scd-1 I thought the scd-1 held its own very well on redbook. Even when compared to several other (high-end) players. However, on SACD it was no comparision the scd-1 was much better.
hughes12's avatar
hughes12 OP
25 posts
 
I'm using a Theta Casblanca pre, a Pass Labs X350, and the speakers are Revel Ultima Salons. The speaker cable and the xlr from amp to pre/pro is Kharma Grand Reference.
jcbtubes
400 posts
 
Hughes- Your experience with SACD and the EMC-1 pretty much mirror my own. I bought into SACD, preferring the Marantz SA-1 to the SCD-1. In comparison to the EMC-1, the redbook performance easily went to EMC-1. The SACD performance was a toss up vs. the EMC-1 playback, but no clear winner. One disc the SACD slightly won; on another, the EMC-1 was superior. It was really recording dependent, not format dependent.

Ultimately, my redbook Goldmund separates outperformed the SACD playback. Does it make sense to have that much tide up into redbook playback gear? I've got a lot of CDs. For me, I can justify it. For someone else with little of no CD material, it may not be as clear cut an issue. So, I guess I'll be one of those old throwbacks that will wait for the so-called "superior" format while enjoying my vinyl and redbook collections. Of course, a great vinyl playback system will easily outperform the digital stuff!!! (I just had to stir the pot!!)

Remember, it's all about the music and the emotion conveyed by the illusion of the original performance. The format should be irrelevant as long as it serves the music. However, not all formats are equally successful at transforming listeners into participants. Find your own "truth", but don't discount the "old" formats. There may be very sound reasons (sorry!) why they are still around. Enjoy.
soix
8,707 posts
 
Jctubes--Nice post and I totally agree that the format should serve the music. Therefore I can see why vinyl still has a reason for being, but it's hard to fathom anyone lamenting the demise of CDs when SACD/DVD-A become the standard. Some "old" formats have a reason for being, while others are just old and inferior--remember 8-track?

Tim
More to discover