Brent, I am in fact delighted you joined APL and that you are heading the company's transformation into a successful OEM. I did witness a marked reduction in public customer gripes on the APL forum over the last few months. and am confident you will be able to address the few residuals over the next several weeks. I also understand the need to purge the forum from old diatribes that were at the time all but festering. On the other hand, myself working for a large company, I do appreciate that the market communications specialist attempts to 'move things in a positiv direction' are most invariably perceived by the outsider as 'spin', or at least as artful redirections, and that this alternative perception is not of necessity flawed.
I do not give a terrible amount of credit to editorial reviews, and unfortunately I have not listened to the UX-1 myself. I have selected the X-01 based on my own listening experiences and comparisons with several other reputed players, such as the APL 1000 and several others, rather than any editorial reviews. I am however thoroughly familiar with X-01 and X-01 Limited. In addition, audiophiles in the know, habitually posting to these pages, while conceding that the UX-1 yields a significant fraction of the performance of the original X-01 in RedBook and SACD, tend to indicate that there still exists an appreciable gap between the two models in audio performance. As such, in my view, the X-01 Limited and even more so the P03/D03 combo are at this time more valid benchmarks against the APL NWO family than the UX-1, while the X-03 SE should be used as a benchmark against the APL 3910, which according to what I have been reading on the APL fora, has recently been discontinued.
The UX-1's audio design is essentially a stripped down version of the X-01 design, rather than the two devices having 'identical topologies', with the UX-1 sporting half the number of DACs than the X-01. It is fair to point out however, that both devices are differentially balanced in the audio section, as you can read on the UX-1 page on the TEAC site: "A Burr-Brown 24-bit D/A converter is used as the audio D/A converter on all channels. In addition, a two-chip-per-channel differential configuration is
used on the front L/R channels for improved linearity."
Yes, I also remember reading the report of the X-01 being removed from an audio booth at CES. Was the X-01 brand new or was it fully broken in? As I stated so many times, a brand new X-01 sounds hideous, and only after 500 hrs of break in the device is significantly good, with optimum performance being yielded somewhat after the 800 hours mark. Yes I do agree that the APL was a very good unit for its time and at its price point. It is also true its sound was engagingly sweet, and captivating, if slightly euphonic. Conversely, the X-01 is said to be accurate but 'merciless', with awesome macro and micro dynamics. I will take merciless anytime over slight euphony, but I do recognize that this is entirely a personal preference and decision. And about the X-01 sounding 'mechanical', I am quite befuddled. I have not heard a single CD player sounding mechanical in recent years, perhaps with the sole exception of the Accuphase DP-77, which while not exactly mechanical, does sound like a very expensive music synthesizer to me.
Looking forward to the opportunity of eventually hearing a member of the NWO product family in person,
Best,
Guido