Is the EMM DAC6e or DCC2 /CDSD the best out there?


Is this the best digital front end ever?

What about

Reiymo CDP 777?
dCS gear?
Audio Aero Prestige?

Any other contenders?
iujona
Yea, but Ludwig was using an old Garrard player in 1951 and you kept evolving until you reached the air bearing, linear track status for playback of your analog.

As memory serves, Ludwig was gone, long before (long gone?) the first Sony CD player ever hit the shelves.

Besides, I have it on good authority he did not cotton to the "Cool" Jazz movement, so I don't trust him.
I missed this thread for a few days. From my experience Mike is on the money. My analogue front end was always better than my Audio Aero. Unfortunately once my cartridge died I was without analogue for a while. I just listened to my Audio Aero and was basically unsatisfied. I then purchased my EMM setup. From memory, I was sure that my analogue would not equal the EMM setup. My previous cartridge, a Koestsu just didn't have the dynamics nor the extension to compete w. the EMM. I had to change phono preamps & cartridges which took a lot of time. Once my analogue system was put together w. now a VdH Condor & WN Audio phono section, my EMM setup was definitely still better sounding to me. But once my cartridge and phono stage began to break in everything changed. It became quickly aparent that analogue is better sounding in my system compared to my EMM setup. An analogue system that is compromised in any area will be bettered by the EMM setup. Especially in the bass and treble regions. In my system w. a Nottingham Hyperspace w. SME V & Condor I have incredible bass & midrange. My top end is just boardering excellent. In fact from the low end to the highs my analogue setup is equal to digital. In terms or musicality, image palpability, and harmonic integrity analogue is superior. Prior to my cartridge breaking in (still not done though 100%) we all felt the EMM was better. Once the Condor finally began to break in all my friends, only one of them an audiophile, the rest musicians prefered analogue to digital. When the LP was a poor recording obviously this was not the case. I don't know how anyone can conclude that any digital is better than vinyl unless they make the direct comparison in a system they are familiar with. That being said, I fully agree the EMM is good enough in most cases to abandon the pursuit of vinyl. The EMM gear is excellent and the sound is highly involving. I would easily accept the EMM setup as a parking place in terms of sources for most people. But my lowly analogue setup, not SOTA to all but for me in the ballpark, is better than SOTA digital of today.
Mike Lavigne

you and I are friends. You make this statement over and over and I don't think that I am naieve when it comes to high end stereo but honestly I don't know what the heck you mean when you say it

vinyl continues to reveal more and more as the system gets more out of the way.


Please explain so that I can understand.
Apologies for the typo Mike, yes I meant your SOTA--state of the art) analog rig.
As mentioned, I have no argument with the fact that you and your guests may find the SOTA to be superior to the EMM, and in fact I'd be interested in knowing more details of your comparative findings, e.g. ICs, PCS, and types of recordings used (redbook/SACD?), have you had many opportunities of comparing the same recording on vinyl and SACD ?

I have also no problem if you state that overall you truly prefer vinyl over digital and you find it more musical/satisfying, etc. . . That is a purely subjective statement, and therefore valid by definition.

The problem is rather in the generalization steps that lead you to make an unequivocal statement of superiority of one format over the other one--irrespective of direction I should add. My objection has nothing whatsoever to do with the music or the sound, but only with the process. You start with the postulation that (1) the EMM is the very best that digital has to offer, and (2) if SOTA is found to be superior to EMM, (3) SOTA must be superior to digital, and because (4) SOTA is the best of Vinyl. therefore (5) vinyl must be superior to digital.

The problem is in the postulation in statement 1, which to be valid must be held as a universally accepted truth--which in this particular case it is unfortunately not, as there does not appear to exist an objective unanimity on the subject.

Regardless, I'd love to listen to both your rigs some times, as I have not been fortunate enough to listen to either EMM nor SOTA! As for old Wittgenstein, I suspect he listened mostly to live music. There is a book called Wittgenstein's Vienna (or The Vienna Of Wittgenstein) which may shed some light on the subject. Have not read the book yet.

Guido
OB my friend;

sorry if my comment is not clear enough. i will try to expand on it.

when i say "vinyl continues to reveal more and more as the system gets more out of the way" i am describing my audio philosophy......which is......as one's system improves there is less and less between the content of the software (the music) and your listening experience.

in the last year i have changed everything in my system except my sources. when i first moved into my new room there were components that made their character and limitations known; you were here to listen at that time.

the speakers simply could not energize the room and low bass (under 40hz) was not evidant.

the new room was much more 'live'......as opposed to the slightly over-damped character of the old room. the Kharma Exquisites were still slightly soft on top and the tonal balance was not bad. but, the new VR9 speakers added even more high frequency energy. the additional bass energy of the new speakers combined with the additional high frequency energy really took the whole system out of balance. combine all that with my learning curve on all the adjustability of the speakers and i had taken 2 steps forward but one step back.

i was hearing way more information from my system but this additional info was causing problems.

my 3 year reference phono cartridge, the vdH Colibri, is the most explosive and life-like piece of audio gear i have ever heard. in my old room and old system; the Colibri was happy with the system. the 'old' system 'hid' the problems the new system exposed.

for a few months i was not sure what was causing what. did the Colibri have a problem? was it my phono stage or preamp? maybe the amps? i was not sure. maybe the room was too live......or i didn't have the speakers adjusted properly.

as i lived with the new speakers and tried to get the Colibri to blend into the new room and system i started to make some progress.

first, a friend brought over the Grand Prix amp stands.....WOW......everything got more natural, more detail, better more solid and articulate bass. i bought GP amp stands and racks......big improvement.

next, i bought some Jena Labs Fundamental 1 power cords for the subwoofer amps...WOW......the bass improved a ton in every way....tighter, deeper, and more articulate. in addition, the whole frequency range cleaned up.

i had been using both the Tenors and darTZeel amps with the Placette passive. i was still getting some edge with the Colibri. i finally assumed the issue was the Colibri and bought a Dynavector XV-1s to try. the edge went away but so did the vividness and dynamic explosiveness. i liked the XV-1s but missed the Colibri.

all along the digital had been 'happy'......there was no problem and i had felt that the emmlabs had somehow crept closer to the vinyl performance......especially with the XV-1s.

then the new battery powered darTZeel preamp arrived. this turned out to be the 'missing link'. to make a long story short; i was able to get the Colibri back into the system and now all that information that the Colibri had been killing me with became 'music'......the vinyl performance has leapt to a few levels beyond anything i have yet heard.

yes, the digital was also improved but not nearly to the degree. the potential of the vinyl format simply allows a much larger upside. if your vinyl system is capable of exposing enough information the comparison is no contest.

but to live at that level of information all must be right. when the rest of your system gets the hell out of the way......in other words......your speakers, amps, racks, cables, and room are synergistic, neutral and not limiting......then the most revealing vinyl components will reveal more musical information and deliver more musical satisfaction than any digital i have heard.

the improvements to my system did improve the digital; but the degree was considerably less and the final performance level was also less.

if you play around with vinyl for awhile at a fairly high level you will soon come to the conclusion that anything you do makes large differences.....sometimes amazingly large differences. why? IMHO it's because there simply is so much info in those grooves.

take 5 digital players at $5000 increments from $1000 to $26,000......the best one's at each price point. compare.

tweak them all. listen again.

do the same for vinyl.

at each commitment level for vinyl there will be clear improvements. and if you continue up the scale past $26k for vinyl there will continue to be clear improvements on up for awhile.

much past $10k all digital will be similar....and it will be more issues of difference as opposed to improvement. this is not a bad thing but speaks to limits of resolution.

as you continue to lower the noise floor of vinyl playback with more and more sophisticated gear more and more info is exposed. i don't think we are thru yet in this direction.

my digital and vinyl experience of the last 10 years is exactly that comparison.

i rest my case.

sorry to go on but the answer to your question is not simple.