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.
Nilthepill & Tvad - Nice try, and I completely understand. However, if the DCS, Meridian, Meitner or Resolution Audio players had been the winner, this thread would read like and ad in their favor.
BTW - You have just volunteered your systems to be the site for the repeat blind AB comparisons...
While I find the comparison session and this discussion interesting, I cannot fathom how any of the "findings" are transferrable to anyone else's situation. Yet, there are numerous comments expressing how useful their efforts have been. Could someone please explain how the listening preferences of a few people one afternoon in San Diego is useful to their specific situation.
Onhwy61: I wouldn't say that the results from the testing are exactly/directly transferrable to my situation, if by that you mean that I *know* now that I would prefer the same player(s) in my system. Saying that is, for me, not the same as saying that the testing done is not useful to me. Do we not all take in others' opinions (about many things, not just audio)? That doesn't mean we all "swallow" information whole, or make purchases based on one piece of information (although I realize that sometimes some people do). So, I find this information useful because it tells me what a group of (apparently) serious and thoughtful audiophiles thought of a few high-end players. I can digest it, gather more information, do my own listening accordingly, etc. - as I see fit. There is also an additional "data point" from this experiment: on another day, in another room and system, the order of preference - of the top three players - was the same. To summarize: it's not as if I now know exactly what player to purchase (if I had the financial resources); it's that I have more information to "chew on" and digest than I had before. If someone comes along and says he thinks the Resolution player is better than the APL, I will take in that information and consider it too.
Just one more thought: often the comments on forums are something like "I heard X player at Wonderful Audio, and my Y player blows it away"; or "I compared the X and Y players, and I think the Y player is MUCH better". *No* additional information is given, or later we find that other variables were not considered at all. I think this may be one reason that many of us are appreciative of the experiment that was done with the five players; i.e., more -and likely more reliable - information than what we typically get. I might prefer the EMM (after all, 3 of 10 votes went to it over the APL); but at least I'm narrowing the field of my players to consider.
Ctm cra: thanks for your comprehensive and thorough answers. You guys clearly thought through a lot of the issues, and were trying to do this "right".
Onhwy61 - the value of this shootout, at minimum, will help those who can afford ultra high end CD players - possibly by adding one or more players to their list of must-demo units prior to making their purchasing decision. If I were in the market for a player in this price range, I would make sure I listened to the APL NWO2.5T (and others) before making my purchase.
This thread is amazing. These guys out on the west coast take the inititiave and devote considerable personal time to do one of the better head to head evaluation tests that has been done in recent memory and they get directly and indirectly backslapped with nitpicky, not so subtlely critical, posts from people who come across as a bunch of anal-retentive, towel-folding old women. I'm sure this thread has incented countless other audiophile groups to do more such tests and publish their results...NOT.
"Just out of curiosity, why is it that Petewatt authored the thread and has not been heard from since, and Ctm_cra is answering all the questions concerning the session?"
Great question! Our buddy Pete is frolicking in the sun somewhere as he travels. He left the day after his last post and asked that I follow-up and respond to the questions. Pete said he would check in from time to time as his ability to access the internet allows. At least two other participants, other than me, have already chimed in. I can step aside if you like, but it may be a while before Pete can post.
If you had been with us, you too can answer the questions, which would be great actually. I could use a break, especially since there appears to be a few members interested in hearing about this event. So next time we'll save a spot for you ;-)
In fact, we are currently planning our next blind AB comparisons. Will fill you in on the details once the test subjects and logistics are ironed out.
I say, I like the idea of the NEXT one being at Tvads place, he has been the Audiogon Att'y of record for sometime now. He has uncovered many truth's and is real good at descovery of the facts, just the fact M'am.
Ditto here. Ctm_cra it was just a joke (i made reduntant disclaimers, if you noticed). Tvad's pharse 'Tag Team' inspired the joke. But I think only one person should front the thread. It is easier that way to avoid mixed up story. And you are doing great job in giving out really detailed description of the shoot out. Keep it up.
711smilin, hey I haven't seen your posts for a while. Where there another shootout, I would hope to be present myself, but would also recommend the Memory Player as well as the new Accustic Arts dac and transport. Too many digital frontends and too little opportunity to hear them compared.
"It was impossible for Alex's presence to exert influence on the test subjectsÂ…"
So, none of you have ever heard of this famous horse intelligence/psychology/body language with worlds acclaimed smartest animal of the 1800's, a horse, able to do mathematics, and was quite the savant….but only when the “teacher” was in the room:
That aside, you gents claiming to have "The truth" and absolute "facts" on "the best" and "winner" pieces of gear are a trip! HOME AUDIO and the gear is a personal, subjective and highly biased, leisurely hobby. You are NOT defining pi, sequencing genes or uncovering the existence of x-rays here! Even if you fancy yourself some great audiophile expert, a golden ear, or an all-star “truth-hearer” in the "field" (lol), you're still the only one who really cares about you and what you hear. The guy next door (big assumption that he has a stereo not bought at Best Buy aside), only cares what he has, what he hears, and what he likes. Getting offensive or defensive on either end on anyone else's review is, at least to me, just amusing. Why not use it and all "reviews" for what they are, a very rough guide, and decide what is best for YOU the only way possible...actually listening to the gear. It's more fun that way anyways, right?
Disagree and wanna debate on golden ears and golden gear related to the topic? Great! Why not ask why it is that we audiophools don't all use the digital gear that recording engineers use to master/make/mix the music with at home? Why is it that music made on the EMM/dCS/Benchmark or whatever piece of a-d and d-a gear is, to some audiophiles, not what is actually ON the discs, aka true fidelity, revealing what the engineer intended? How is it that we expurts and our glittery gear with our coloration-of-choice trumps this gear with which the music was created, master, mixed, engineered, approved, etc on, as it should, in the most strict sense, be of the highest fidelity to the original recorded performance? Why do we scoff pro reviewers who actually engineered the track when the praise a piece of gear as outstanding, being true to the original, as being buffoons, as our superior piece of brand XYZ gear “kills” it in some aspect, as is a frequent attack against the likes of dCS and the Benchmark DAC-1 by the real experts, the “online-all stars” [why is that so funny to me}? Could it merely be personal preference in a subjective, highly personal and (evidently) emotional hobby? Hmmm :)
Fun read, either way! Thanks for the “review” and the comments above!.
Socrates, please don't confuse the recording process with reproduction process. For example, DSD is a great format for recording/archiving, but it's a REAL challenge when it comes to reproduction (D-A conversion) because of the huge amount of in-band noise which calls for the use of FIR and Analog low -pass filters. Every filter design will sound very different.
If you theory was correct, then Ed Meitner of EMM Labs would stick to the off-the-shelf Burr-Brown DSD1700 DSD DACs for his products and will not go into the deep trouble to design his own DSD DAC/filter which, according to many audiophiles and recording engineers, is quite better performer compared to the older non-Signature model.
If you take SACD that was made 3 years ago and play it on EMM Labs non-Signature D-A combo and then on a Signature D-A combo, you will get quite different sound, apparently much better with the new Signature edition. Why is that? According to your theory many should buy non-Signature and Signature EMM DACs and keep track about when the particular SACD was recorded so they can hear the sound the way it was intended. :-) Also, many should have a Teac DVD-RA1000 too. :-)
As for your other theories, you may also have an explanation why 15 audiophiles using 4 totally different audio setups concluded the same results?
Onhwy61 - the value of this shootout, at minimum, will help those who can afford ultra high end CD players - possibly by adding one or more players to their list of must-demo units prior to making their purchasing decision. If I were in the market for a player in this price range, I would make sure I listened to the APL NWO2.5T (and others) before making my purchase.
Agreed, and if I were in the market for a $25K front end you better believe that I would spend the $ to fly wherever I had to, to hear the players in a system that was similar to mine, or have them shipped in.
Socrates - Thanks for your post. I would really like to respond. However, I just do not quite know how to [no joke and with a very sincere approach] without the risk of this thread going off to tangents, that although related, would take the focus away from what Pete and our group intended in sharing our findings with this community.
You raise some VERY IMPORTANT topics: 1) digital gear that recording engineers use (i.e. - gear with which the music was created, master, mixed, engineered, approved, etc on,), 2) what the engineer intended, 3) coloration-of-choice, 4) pro reviewers who actually engineered the track.
To these I ad the following: A) on a given track, if the mastering engineer is different from the recording engineer, whether or not they share the same goal(s) B) one's definition of the "live event" (as simple and as personal as this is, it really needs to be further clarified/defined by each audiophile) C) one's goal in setting up his 2 channel system relative to how one defines B) above.
I have great interest in all these topics and the potential controversies surrounding them. So if you are in the southern Calif. area please email us and schedule a time listen to some great music, perhaps attend a live event, grab some chow, have some wine (or microbrew or fine port, tequila, rum or single malt), and continue to discuss these excellent topics.
I do want to say that in sharing the process and results of our comparisons with members of this forum, our goal is NOT to declare some absolute '"truth" and absolute "facts" on "the best" and "winner[winning]" pieces of gear'. Additionally, none of us have claimed, in this thread or elsewhere, that we are 'some great audiophile expert, a golden ear, or an all-star “truth-hearer” in the "field"'. As to what all these comparisons ultimately mean? Well, my take on it appears in the last three paragraphs of my reply to Essentialaudio on 03-02-07.
We would, however, like to accomplish more than just amuse or entertain forum members. In fact a secondary, but VERY IMPORTANT, purpose of ours is to obtain suggestions on what improvements can be implemented when we do this or similar future blind evaluations. Some of the above discussions have helped us in this regard. So we look forward to hearing your and the other members' recommendations.
Greetings, I wanted to thank the forum members who independently contacted some of the participants involved in this comparison. They provided excellent suggestions we can use in our next blind evaluations.
Pete says hi. He contacted me from a cruise ship, from which he admits, "It's very difficult, expensive and slow to stay [on the internet]". Best regards!
As the author of this thread, and with the passage of a few weeks,I would like to make three retrospective comments.
First of all, I want to thank all of you for your inputs, views and opinions. Unfortunately for me, almost immediately after my original post, I left the country for a month-long cruise. And given technical difficulties, black-outs and the high cost of internet communications at sea, I was unable to participate in the dialogue that ensued. Having said that, I feel that we are all fortunate that ctm_cra, who was the prime technical architect behind the blind shoot-out, did such an extraordinary job of filling in all the details and answering your questions.
Second, in my opinion, the value in this exercise is not just the comparison of top-of-the-line CDPs as objectively as possible. I stongly feel that our blind shoot-outs (and we've done more than one in San Diego) point out the fact that, though difficult to set-up and administer, such comparisons are not beyond the compentence of knowledgeable audiophiles. Perhaps, this observation will not go unnoticed by professional reviewers and editors in both print and internet published audio guides. The fact that these guides have been very reluctant to do so-call "double blind" comparisons before may or may not have anything to do with philosophical or financial considerations. I just think that this is an idea whose time has come.
Finally, having participated in this experience, I cannot tell you how much pleasure I derived from the opportunity to listen to some of today's top CD/SACD players. As I said in my original report, the dcs standalone, the EMM/DCC and the APL NWO 2.5T were all were deemed to be outstanding. But the fact is that one did come out on top -- the APL NWO 2.5 -- and it did so in convincing fashion in the eyes of the consensus of our group. I mention this in part because I recall one excellent question raised in an earlier post: i.e. if one player is viewed as clearly superior, wouldn't we expect to see one or more of the participants in the shoot-out purchase it? Well it's now been six weeks since the event, and I can report that three of the participants have since ordered 2.5T's from APL. One was the Meitner owner, another brought both the dcs and Meridian players, and myself (I traded in my APL Denon 3910 with custom linear power supply).
LOL! If you find a $500 player that "trounces" the Meitner or APL PULEAZE let me know what it is. I've never heard a $500 player that bettered the above (or the Reimyo for that matter) but if it did I wouldn't - erm - "hesitate" to buy the less expensive player. I DO buy with my ears.
There are plenty of audiofools and God knows digital playback for modestly priced gear has come a long way but I kinda doubt a $500 digital giantkiller would languish in obscurity.
Personally, I've never heard an IPOD that sounded as good as my Cary CDP - much less a Meitner or Reimyo - on acoustic music of any kind. But if there's one out there do tell.
Parasound is generally good sounding gear. I'm not a Wilson fan, however.
Dear Rackon - We did not set out to "find a $500 player that "trounces" the Meitner or APL". Our goal was to compare top-of-the-line CDPs.
As an FYI, a non-voting, non-manufacturer participant did compare an Opus 21 player (and I do not recall at the moment if it was stock or modded) to the Reimyo, and he preferred the Resolution Audio player. The Opus 21 is the same player that outperformed the players specified in my 03-05-07 post to Arthursmuck. So we had no problem including the Great Northern Sound modified version in the lineup.
Having said that, it would have been great to have included the Reimyo, the latest Audio Aero Capitole, the best offering from Ayre, etc. So this could mean that another evaluation session is in order. I know someone already mentioned the top of the line Teac units and the single box Meitner. Feel free to recommend other top shelf players, including transport/dac combos.
I just fell upon this thread -- with all due respect to the test organizers / participants, I want to explain why I believe that the test tells us next to nothing about the digital components under test (Nilthepill, jfz, Guidocorona and Newbee are all on to something).
First, no hi-fi component is more dependent upon warm-up than a CD player. CD players generally need one to two days to reach thermal stability, and over the course of warm up, their sound can change dramatically. As for this test (as reported), giving a CD player 20-25 minutes to warm up will not tell you what it really sounds like -- absolutely not, especially given the importance of power supplies in high-end players. What we've been told is which player to buy if you intend to treat your components like a rack system.
Second, if there is any question as to whether the players under test had adequate break-in, then the test is flawed. The sound of components can change dramatically up through 500 hours, and most continue to open up and change through 1,000 hours.
Third, six hours of listening parsed between five players is not enough time for a person to become accustomed to the performance of a component -- months are required. Anyone who has lived with a fair amount of spare components will tell you that the new kid on the block sometimes get sold or goes into the closet after yesterday's favorite goes back in the system. The performance of hi-end components in high-resolution systems is subtle and confounding -- preamps and CD players in particular -- and what sounds preferable this week can become unsatisfying next month.
I fully assume the good faith of the participants and note they appear to have tried hard to put together a controlled comparison, but with all due respect, this is not the way it works.
I would like to add some generic comments to the discussion.I beleive that shot out based on one listening session,can be highly misleading,results can be effected by individual tastes,ear fatigue,and social interactions.I do not own the digital source players which were used in the SD run off,however I have now lived with my three principle sources EMM SE transport and dac ,Zanden signature transport and dac,and Reimyo dp777 .I listen to all three all the time they are all hooked up at all times and I listen for many hours.Note my system is a five channel,and can be seen on the audiogon form.My own conclusions are that the differences are very subtle the largest single difference is the quality of the recording.Some sacd recording sound great through the emm open detailed etc,other sacds sound harsh while the red book sounds great on the zanden.Overall for extended time listening ie,3 or more hours the Zanden is to my taset most natural and closest to live.The EMM though does surpass in some sacd the red book version of the same cd as played on the Reimyo.Just a note I listen to primarily classical recordings at a sound level,using the radio shack sound pressure I listen at around 80db+ or- 10db at the listening position.
In response to recent comments regarding how valuable the SD shootout was, with respect, they are blindingly obvious. I am sure the participants would'nt claim they are the final word regarding the players tested. Of course players need to be warmed up for a long period, of course you need prolonged listening sessions. I suspect the same comments apply to many"professional" shoot outs you find in the audio press. That does not make the exercise futile, the effort wasted. It is just another piece of data for the rest of us to use in making equipment choices. Inspired by the SD event, I am trying to get a similar shoot out running in the UK. It will cover an even more difficult subject to test, phono stages.
If I had $ 22.000 to spare now I do not know if I would buy the APL front end.. I believe the shootout was well done and the results probably correct for the participants. The APL is probably one of the best CD players on earth.
But there are more things in audio where you can spend your money on, and probably get more satisfaction out of it. Speakers is #1 for me. Then comes the amp and at the end the CD player.
For about $6.000 you can get a very, very good CD player today. With the $ 14.000 left over if you did not choose the APL, you can buy yourself over 1000 CD´s. You can enjoy 1000 hours of new music. If you want to read other shootouts, here is a link to matrixhifi, a spanish hifi enthusiasts web page where shootouts are done comparing diskmans with top CD players and Mark Levinsons with Yamaha amps. Very interesting and depressing at the same time. http://www.matrixhifi.com/ if you understand spanish or if english only go to http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm Choose red zone. How about this shootout? Maybe all these guys are deaf or only listen to boomboxes all day and have deformed hearing.
Eljaro, thanks for the link - very interesting reading! And an obvious question that falls out of this is "why was the Sony DVD player not included in the San Diego shootout"?
As far as how much to spend on a CD player, that's all about individual choice. For example, there would be plenty of people that would think that it would be insane to spend $6k on a CDP and would suggest you could spend $500 and invest $5.5K in CDs! LOL.
Eljaro - Your points regarding value and relative priorities when it comes to making audio product purchases are well taken. I previously mentioned that I cannot afford any of the gear we compared (the least priced unit being just under $6k), but I and the rest of the participants could not pass up the opportunity for hear them against one another. Our caparisons were not an exercise to address affordability, nor were they an attempt to justify the prices of certain components.
Hens - We were crazy enough to evaluate the top-of-the-line digital players that we could get our hands on. This also partially explains why other top quality players were not included. We now a significant list of other quality players and we will consider adding the Sony DVD unit when we get another opportunity. Anyone within driving distance to SD is welcome to join as a host, moderator, guinea pig, set-up guy, or observer (must bring a CD player to be evaluated).
Ramy - Thanks for providing a tong-term perspective on the three highly regarded units you own. Please post your findings if you have the opportunity to spend a significant time with a dcs, APL, or other top-of-line offerings from TEAC, Ayre, Audio Aero, Sony, etc.
Here is an another idea, since you already have three excellent digital players are you willing to host similar blind comparison? The other participants can bring one or more of the top three of players we ranked and perhaps others that were not available to us at the time. If we revisit this, we will try to include the Zanden and Reimyo units.
David12 - It is great to hear that you will compare phonostages in a similar manner. I will certainly look forward to the results. Perhaps I could be swayed to go on my first UK visit. On the other had you may want to consider SD as alternate location :-)
Ctm_cra: I have found your contribution to this thread to be most edifying and I decided to go back through your other threads. After reading them, I am most impressed by the depth of your knowledge of so many different audio products and the number of people in the business that you know. In fact, there are a lot of audio industry veterans posting on Audiogon who would do well to have the knowledge of high-end audio products and connections that you demonstrate in your threads. This one is an example:
I wish more knowledgeable hobbiests like you would organize or participate in these "shoot-outs" -- it serves as a counter-balance to the shilling of riffraff manufacturers, distributors, dealers and their cohorts found in too many threads on this forum.
Ctm_cra: apart from the point I tried to make that the most expensive or best player in the world will not make you necessarily happier (especially if is has made a big hole in your pocket or bank account), I believe it to be exciting and interesting to participate in such a shootout and be able to hear gear which you would maybe never get your hands (or ears) on. I would also like to hear what the difference really is comparing CD players from say $1.000 to $25.000 and to be able to evaluate what those thousands $ really bring in in sonic improvement, and if that improvement is justified for ME. Because the primary consideration is always: it has to be good for MY ears and for MY pocket. You may come out of the shootout wanting the top player no matter what or you could conclude that those thousands of $ more dont really cut it for YOU and that you could as well be very happy with the less expensive unit.
One very important aspect in CD payback is how the music sounds: If you do a shootout with only two pieces of music, and only classical at that , it is possible that you end up choosing the more analytical unit, which as we all know is not the one you can listen to for hours in a row without reaching auditive fatigue.
The more musical Cd players seem often less precise but are more comfortable to listen to. In my opinion a shoot out would be more down to earth-like if it included more type of music and where the participants would choose which music playback they like best. In a direct comparison of only two players you probably force your ears to hear "beyond the music" searching for clues and differences, and those tend to be in the analytical domain, not musical.
Ctm-cra, I would be happy to host more players for a "shotout".I do agree with Eljaro as far as different kind of music may favor other cd players.However as far as less precis may be less fatiguing,or mor analytical may sound better for classical I am not convinced.At the danger of repeating myself I still beleive different cd recording may sound better on very specific cd players.For example the Mozart requiem on Dorian,with Labadie sounds better on the Reimyo than the Zanden,which is unusual.I do not have a rational explanation. I would be very interested in comparing some of the cd players on the market .
I was being tongue-in-cheek regarding the Sony DVD player and FWIW, despite it being unlikely that I would be in the market for a CD player at this sort of level, I found the shootout extremely interesting as it's good to know what's happening at the pinnacle of redbook playback.
If there was to be another shootout, it would be great if the Nova Physics Memory Player could be included. I think this would add the dimension of the pinnacle of rebook playback in a music server based system. This is definitely a direction I would be interested in for the future, if the playback was up to the highest standards plus the ability to store my music in one location.
Eljaro - No argument here when it comes to your ears, eyes (yes aesthetics matter) and your wallet being the ultimate judge of an audio component. I think this is well understood... but perhaps not well practiced (myself included) ;-)
I am sure portions of the following have been published in print and online. Pardon the lengthy approach but your post provides a great opportunity to discuss the importance of software selection.
So when it comes to our use of only two pieces of well recorded (minimally mic'd, uncompressed, no “effects” applied, careful mic placement, etc.) acoustic pieces to compare the equipment, I agree that a broader representation of music would be more ideal. However, the logistics of the event simply prevented the introduction of one more recording. As simple as this would have been, we barely got through the two selections we had to work with, and this took nearly 6 hours to complete. We were lucky to have some time for additional experimentation after we completed the blind comparisons.
As to fatigue, I already posted that we took plenty of breaks since careful level matching needed to be done prior to evaluating each pair of CD players.
Having said all that, the participants agreed upon the two selections ahead of time. There were number of reasons for going this route. We could have chosen any acoustic performance, but we selected classical because it covers a broader spectrum of instruments and voices than say a guitar/vocal piece. It could also have been a highly regarded album that is the result of an outstanding recording studio project, however only a couple of participants have ever been in a studio and only one of us has ever experienced a recording session (in both control and recording rooms). We could have also included a live jazz, folk or rock album and there are many good ones. However, most of these are recordings of amplified instruments and voices through PA systemsÂ… just way too many variables to account for.
Further, our concern for the tricks (mixing, multi mic, compression, reverb, etc.) applied to most studio and live projects often result in an unnatural sonic presentation making it tough to evaluate what sounds “real”. Don’t get me wrong, there are studio recorded albums that are outstanding and thoroughly enjoyable. It would be interesting to see how the results compare when evaluating these players with such recordings. However, even the very best of them would not be my first choice if I had limited time to compare CD players of any gear.
If an audio component or system reproduces a well recorded acoustic music in the most impressive and believable manner, then I know I am going in the right direction. HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: You will only know if the component or system is performing well if you go to enough live performances so you can relate these experiences to what you are hearing from your gear. In this way you can more accurately evaluate the quality of the recording, the naturalness of the instruments & voices and nuances (harmonics, textures, dynamics, micro and macro passages, phrasing, etc.). Furthermore, when well recorded acoustic music is done right, I can accept that I can better evaluate the CDs from studio recording efforts (not the other way around). In this manner, it is the live event or how you experience it that becomes the reference, not the recording and it is the combination of keeping this live event perspective in mind along with the well-selected recordings used that will reveal the less precise, more analytical, and more generally, the inferior players.
Too often audio gear is selected based on which ones make our favorite recordings sound good, but the listener rarely goes out to a live concert. Despite owning different systems and having varied musical tastes, all of the participants have been to multiple concert and symphony halls and cathedrals. The orchestral and choral (with small instrumental ensemble and organ) pieces selected served us well as the means for the group to evaluate the performance of these players.
We are in the beginning stages of planning the next San Diego Shoot-out. The emphasis this time will be on comparing the best digital source from the last shoot-out (the APL NWO 3 Universal Player, which won going away) with a top of the line vinyl rig.
We will also be implimenting a more rigorous double blind set up procedure and simultaneous secret ballot voting to insure absolute impartiality.
Facinating - actually compare a vinyl rig and digital. But do you really need a 'blind' set up. How would you ever get a comparable system - there are so many identifible varibles in vinyl. Differences in cartridges alone, even optimally set up would be great. Then there is the problem with sources (LP's) and all of the possible issuesincluding tracing sounds of the stylus in a groove during tiomes when no musical info is present to mask it.
I'll look forward to reading the results of further investigation/shoot out.
Pete, please make sure you have the Playback Designs player at the shootout, as you Know, I owned the 3.0GO, and sold it due to liking the playback design as well, if not, just a bit better. It also costs less than 50% OF the APL. On top of it, you can talk to the importers, unlike trying to TT Alex, who seems to have become a MUTE.
I was in contact with Alex right after your original shootout here. I ultimately ended up getting your APL Denon. I had told Alex that I did not like the 6H30 tube and he told me he would consider updating this one and only unit to support the ECC99. Ultimately, he decided to provide this as an upgrade for all Denon players. I understand this APL player is only one of two that also has the switching PS as used in the Esoteric-based players.
This APL player was very good with the ECC99 but the AMR 77 player had far greater clarity and less grain in the upper frequencies. This brought on much more harmonic information. And the AMR's bass was much more controlled and extended. I expected more from the APL player but it might also have been because the AMR is really that good. Alex was convinced that bypassing the built-in volume control and simplifying other aspects of the circuit and putting the very latest DACs would make the APL Denon competitive to the AMR. I still have not gotten around to having these updates done to this player.
A few months ago, I tried a tube-rolling experiment. With the new Aria preamp supporting a variety of 6v and 12v tubes in the line stage, I tried many types including several 6922 tubes, the 6H30, the ECC99 and the E180cc/7062. The latter tube in the Aria was high above all the rest - it was not even close. And so I tried an Amperex PQ pinched waist 7062 in the APL Denon and never before had I heard one tube change be as dramatic as this. The smoothness, openness, dimensionality (especially in depth), harmonic textures, etc., were so far beyond the ECC99. The APL Denon's sonic weaknesses I had experienced with the Denon vs. the AMR were now gone. I played with other E180CC tubes and got a little more dynamic contrasts with those but the Amperex had a smoothness that made it the clear winner for me. A return to the ECC99 was impossible as the presentation was incredibly flat after hearing the 7062. The ECC99 significantly removes much of the player's capabilities. This tube discovery undoubtedly saved me several thousand $$ in a CDP upgrade.
I reported my finding to an A'gon member who owns the APL 3.0. And I sent him a pair of the Amperex tubes. His observation echoed mine. But upon him contacting Alex, Alex told him that he should not use this tube in the 3.0 as it draws more current and the PS could ultimately fail due to the lower current driving regulators. But I have had no problem with the APL Denon player perhaps because there is only one tube here vs. two in the Esoteric-based players. And unlike reports by others that the APL Denon player runs hot, the one here runs cool.
I have also heard that Alex is looking to support another tube but I don't recall which one. With the latest round of updates for the Denon-based machines, and the E180CC/7062 tube, I would wager that it could be neck and neck to the ECC99 based 3.0 in some areas and perhaps even outperform it in some key areas. The 7062 tube is really that good. And I wish Alex would locate a pair to hear for himself as replacing a couple of voltage regulators to higher-power versions should be a snap for him.
Hi John, I had the opportunity to compare the AMR to my APL Denon with the upgraded 32-bit DACs and tube (ECC99 I think). To my ears, the APL has MUCH better and more controlled bass than the AMR. I didn't take notes, but as I recall, the APL overall was better sounding in my system than the AMR. I do distinctly remember the bass on the APL being much deeper and more controlled than the AMR. But the version of the AMR might have been the first version, before the most recent update.
I will say this, the AMR is engineered AMAZINGLY well. It is a very impressive piece of gear. But as impressive as it is, I prefer the sound of the APL Denon.
According to blind tests there is NO difference between a $300 and a $10,000 CDP. There is NO difference between a coat hanger, used as speaker cable and a $ 5,000 boutique cable. So, there is NO need to buy those expensive products... Back to basics!
Mr CTM- I couldn't agree more with your assessment. If the individuals had been shown to have attending live performances(acoustic and/or "plugged in") a few times a month/over a few years, had been trained in how to listen and analyze sound/timbre/voice(YES- It takes some instruction), and attended the recording sessions of the music they were listening to via the given CDPs: I might(personally) give credence to their opinions. Even at that: Opinions are still always subjective.
Rodman99999, I agree with you 100%. If you are not attending to live acoustic performances, opinions don't have much credence. Even better is to compare the reproduction with actual live performance in the room. Of course this is not 100% possible but the tonal balance, bass, dynamics and bloom can be compared and best is the one that comes close to mimicking cues from the live performance.
Hi Gary - Thanks for the insight on the 32-bit version of the APL vs. the AMR. Your results are encouraging.
I only heard the AMR for 4-5 hours late one night in my system vs. the APL. And this was with the APL powered on for several days and the AMR only warmed up that evening. The reoccurring comment on A'gon that digital gear needs to be on for 48 hours before it can be "evaluated" meant nothing here as the AMR was off and running in just an hour of warm-up with stunning performance over my 24-bit APL player.
This AMR demo was a courtesy of an AMR dealer from out of state who was in town and stopped at my house with the player for the evening to play some music. I really REALLY liked the AMR player. Even if the APL's bass performance was the clear winner, and that was not the case of mine with the 24-bit chipset, the AMR would still easily have been my preference. And yes, build quality of the AMR is most impressive. Had it not been for the recent discovery with the 7062 tube in the APL, I would have likely changed over to the AMR by the end of this year. I guess now I need to get the APL player into the queue for the 32-bit update.
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.
