Aqua 'La Diva' ($9k) or Gryphon 'Ethos' ($39k) versus. Pro-Ject CD Box RS2 T ($3k)?
What sensible rationale is there for buying either of the two above-mentioned VERY COSTLY CD spinners (Aqua ’La Diva,’ a CD-only transport, and the Gryphon ’Ethos,’ a CD player with built-in DAC) when we can get the same pure Red-Book CD digital output from the Pro-Ject CD Box RS2 T for FAR less money?
What is a potential buyer getting for their significantly increased expenditure other than fancy packaging and possibly a boost to their egos from ownership of a prestige brand-name item? The one component (and a crucially-significant one at that) which all three of these products have in common is the new Philips-based Stream Unlimited CD Pro 8 CD player mechanism. Aside than that, what one appears to get with the two far-higher-priced components is little more than pure window-dressing, not substantive gains in performance over the CD Box RS2 T.
It is little wonder that one reviewer of the RS2 T thinks of it as nothing less than a "giant killer," in that it makes it nearly impossible for any level-headed purchaser, even one with the means to spend lavishly, to rationalize spending thousands of dollars more on these two competing products (or on others like them) when one can get the same sonic results (which from most reports are splendid) from the humble little CD Box.
Any thoughts? Do we audiophiles finally have good reason to come to our buying senses? To me, Pro-Ject Audio Systems may have struck a true winning vein with their CD Box when prospecting for gold.
"I have not heard either one of the two far-more-expensive alternatives, and I am curious as to why they are so much higher-priced than the CD Box." Why? Because they sound a lot better, that’s why. If you are happy with the CD Box, be grateful. By the way, you do realise the Gryphon incorporates a high quality DAC. A DCS Dac plus the CD Box will cost more than the Gryphon. What is comparable to a Gryphon is a Playback Design. |
@ laoman: Are you saying that the two higher-priced machines sound better because YOU have auditioned them and can personally vouch for their sonic superiority, or are you saying so because you BELIEVE that, BECAUSE they cost more, they SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY sound better? Whenever you make a strong, definitive statement like this one, you owe it to your readers to stand behind your assertion with some form of proof.
@ david_ten: The Aurender ACS100 is a purpose-built CD ripper, costing far more than a standard PC, so it stands to reason that we can PRESUME that it does its job in a higher-quality manner of execution, far better than we should expect a standard, run-of-the-mill PC, to do. |
“I get "purposeful." High-quality manner ripping??? Please explain....” IMO, The differentiator is Aurender’s proprietary CD ripping software, which is custom engineered to work with ACS100 internal high-quality TEAC CD-ROM drive. The ripping software’s sophisticated error detection and correction ensures accurate rips that are technically superior to rips made on a general purpose computer. One can argue that a PC or laptop CD-ROM drive is perfectly capable of bit perfect rips but we both know results can possibly varies by ways of how these identical processes of CD ripping are executed to nth degree. |
I recently purchased a la diva mk2, I also own a CEC tl5 and was lucky enough to home demo the project rs2. Firstly, each transport, in my system was preferable to my antipodes ex/cx solution, even with the ridiculously convoluted chain I seem to have acquired. (Melco switch, spdif converter, linear supplies, high end Ethernet cables, usb etc) the CEC is excellent, but does give up some detail to the other two transports. the project is a crazy good transport for the money, really exceptional, and was very close to the Aqua. I had the Aqua on a 30 day return at the same time I had the project. Straight out of the box the Aqua dug up even more detail than the project, but it done it in an almost distracting non musical way, pushing the detail forward in an unnatural way. The Aqua dealer told me that the unit does require around 200 hours burn in. After about a week, the Aqua seemed to have settled down, and I had a week of direct comparison. IMO the Aqua had a slightly lower noise floor, I could distinguish slightly more detail, the sound stage was slightly bigger, but also had more depth, that was probably the most distinguishable feature. Both are a joy to listen to but I opted for the Aqua, it is the best digital playback I have heard to date. However, bear in mind I was using stock psu with the project, may have been different with their upgraded power supply. Also I used the coaxial spdif output on all transports. I have not heard the Gryphon, it is way out of my price range, but it would be fun to see what, if anything, those extra bucks get you. Slightly off topic, but I would like to add, that while I have no doubt that in the fullness of time server based playback will exceed cd transports, in my opinion, on a £ for £ basis, and contrary to popular opinion, it is no where near cd at the moment! I was someone who jumped on the server and hires bandwagon, and it wasn’t until I had an issue with my home network and borrowed a transport did I realise what I was missing. I hear lots of people say their server is way better than their CD player, but when you drill down they are often comparing a £10000 plus server setup against the digital out of their CD player. Maybe I exaggerate slightly, but my point is people rarely compare like for like, value wise, these two technologies.
|
