2. digital
  3. 1172688055

Blind Shoot-out in San Diego -- 5 CD Players

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.

Pete

petewatt
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
Lots of hand wringing and nitpicking over a listening session, IMO.

Agreed but the shootout suggests large and earth shaking differences in performance from several extremely expensive and extremely high quality players....to me this is at complete odds with accurate audio reproduction....how can they possibly sound so vastly different (unless there is deliberate sound coloration or major flaws from the various designs)?

I read the conclusion again...it attributes all the qualities of the audio at the listening session to the CD source (as if nothing else influenced the sound; speakers, music selection, room acoustics, amp, listener preferences...)

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.

Furthermore the shootout approach had to arrive at a clear winner (five identical players marked A, B, C, D, and E would also have resulted in a clear winner too, despite there being no differences!)

Unfortunately this sort of hyperbole is rampant everywhere in high end audio reviews, so it is pleasant that a few skeptics have spoken out (even if they weren't there and don't know what really happened and so are just expressing doubt). This makes Audiogon a great and balanced resource.

In conclusion: I do not doubt that each of these players tested are simply excellent! I am not trying to knock the winner (APL product) in anyway. I have no doubt that the APL product tested, in all probability, sounds absolutely fantastic! However, I remain somewhat skeptical that the other products are "dimensionless" in comparison.
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Bob_reynolds - I am definitely no expert in this area. So please pardon any of my obviously ridiculous and laughable remarks.

The SPL analyzer we used can measure to 0.1dB accuracy and the preamp was able to adjust level offsets for each unit. It has a high quality ladder attenuator using well-matched vishay resistors. The experience from past evaluations told us that we may have to settle with a level discrepancy of as much as 1 dB. However, in this shootout, we got really lucky. On 3 of the 4 pairings, we got virtually matching levels, thanks to the averaging function of the SPL meter. Only one pairing was off by an average of as much as 0.5dB and this is as close as we could get. In this pairing it was interesting that the player with the lower volume setting won decisively with a 9-1 vote.

Thanks for your tip on measuring voltages at the speakers. We will try this. However, due to the very nature of uncorrelated pink noise (UPN), I would suspect that the voltages will fluctuate the same way when one takes SPL measurements. When measuring voltages at the speakers using UPN, I know of no voltmeter that has an averaging capability, yes? Level matching to within 0.1dB is extremely difficult, what source media is used to achieve this? If it is a pure tone then we have another problem of using a limited/narrow frequency. One of the the advantages of SPL readings using UPN is that a braoder spectrum of frequencies is measured. Have you experienced situations where even though the voltages were matched at the speakers, the volumes still differed at the sitting position when music was played?
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Guidocorona - If this opportunity comes up again, please let us know who can provide a TEAC P03/D03 combo. It would be a treat to hear this player.

Burn in on the APL player is on the order of about 300-500 hours because of the extent of modifications. Alex confirmed that he had about 350 hours on it prior to our evaluation. The Meitner's owner also confirmed that it has surpassed the burn-in time requirement. The DCS and Meridian are regularly used, but I have no specific info to provide. The same goes for the Opus 21.
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Jfz - You bring up a very intriguing proposal...

"Wouldn't it be great if each of these players (or at least the top three) could be used in each of the 5 individuals' systems for a week or so? I'd love to hear their thoughts after that."

I would gladly participate in this exercise. So Alex and the owners of the Meitner and DCS please consider letting your units go for a week at a time to allow the voters of the blind comparisons to do more listening experimentations and additional comparisons across a broader spectrum of quality acoustic recordings... let me know ;-)

As to the warm-up of players, the time constraints of evaluating 5 players meant that each unit had only about 20-25 minutes or so to warm up once it was placed on the rack and powered up, level matched, disc loaded, connections double checked, the setup blanketed for the blinded eval, then gathering the group back into the listening room. The advantage went to the DCS player, which had the most warm-up time as it remained in the system against the first two players. Interestingly, the Meitner was only on for about 20-25 minutes (vs. greater than 2hrs for the DCS), and it beat the DCS. Similarly, the APL unit was only on for 20-25 minutes (vs. greater than 1 hr for the Meitner) and the APL won.

As to potential interactions of having other players plugged in simultaneously... The PS Audio P300 has a set of two well-isolated duplex AC receptacles. We made sure that the players were plugged into different duplexes. The players were one rack position away from the preamp, one above and the other below. Each player was no less than 9 inches away from the preamp, which has an outboard power supply. The input selectors on the preamp have superb isolation and careful attention was taken by the designer to match the inputs, down to carefully matching the components used (including the lengths of wiring). Throughout the sessions, we heard no sonic anomalies that would lead us to investigate any system issues having to do with two players connected and playing simultaneously.
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Scottr - During the experimentation phase, the group unanimously preferred the APL over the Meitner using redbook. The difference between this and the blinded comparison (involving the same two players) is that the Meitner was connected to the AC regenerator and the APL unit was plugged directly to the wall, and both units were connected to the amps. We then switched to an SACD recording keeping the optimal AC connection the same as in the redbook comparison and unanimously concluded the same.

In another previous post I mentioned that the DCS had a more lively/dynamic presentation than either the Meitner or the APL. Recall that this took place during the blinded comparisons when all players were connected to the AC regenerator. What would have been great to do if we had more time was to also experiment with the DCS to see if it was better when plugged direct to the wall or to the PS Audio P300. Next, it would have been good to compare the DCS at its best AC connection against the APL plugged direct to the wall to see if the gap in liveliness/dynamics remained. My recollection of the DCS performance relative to the in-wall-plugged APL and even later when it was directly connected to the amps was simply too far removed for me to make a definitive vote. Am I asking for another session to take place? You bet I am.

Pete mentioned above that "when we auditioned a limited number of SACDs, the performance on both units was even better"... I find it difficult to agree with this because we did not first play the CD layer then adjust the player to playback the SACD layer of the same disc. It would have been great to do this. Until I hear this for myself I cannot make the conclusion he made.
More to discover