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
ryder
1,689 posts
 
Wow more than 70 replies in 3 days. That's a record I guess.

Tlday wrote:

Interesting that the last to be tested was the preferred. Results might change if the order was different. Psychology always affects perception.

The best and most expensive will always be saved for the last, and it usually comes out tops.
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Thank you for the correction Ctm_cra. Actually yours is rather a clarification, as I had no prior hypothesis of the relative state of any of the test machines. I should like to point out that a TEAC UX-1/X-01 derivative with 200 hrs of playing time on part of the circuit and 20 on the balance is not at all a well broken in device. . . likely 80% of break in is still ahead. How many hrs of playing time had been logged on the other contenders? Next time the shoot out is conducted I suggest all units be fully broken in. The condition would harden your findings.

Bravo for choosing several excellent orchestral examples, of which at least the Bernstein is delightfully bruitistic. I also suggest next time some subtler selections, from jazz and especially chamber music, be included to gage low level detail, microdynamics, harmonic development, etc. . .

Now on the Wilson/IPOD test. . . I have been present at such an event and was not fooled for a minute. .. is it perhaps because I listen to music only through my ears?
earflappin
87 posts
 
Jafox, I couldn't agree with your last post more strongly. Extremely well put.
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Tlday wrote -

"Interesting that the last to be tested was the preferred. Results might change if the order was different. Psychology always affects perception. Also, once the group decided that the last choice was best, was this player then compared back against all of the previous? If A if preferred to B, B over C and C over D, it is not 100% sure that A will be preferred over D."

Your points are spot on! Sorry for not addressing it sooner. If we had more time we would have gone back to compare The APL to the Opus, Meridian and DCS. If we were to do this again, we will do just that.

Ryder wrote -
"The best and most expensive will always be saved for the last, and it usually comes out tops."

The most expensive player evaluated is the latest version of the Meitner and it did not win. Also, recall that each player was assigned a letter code written on a piece of paper and placed in bag. The order of the players was determined by the consecutive order of letters pulled from this process. By chance it turned out the Meitner and APL were last. None of the voters knew the letter assignments, however, until after the comparisons were complete.

The premise of the most expensive item being last and winning has not been the case in previous level-matched digital comparisons we've done. From my own personal experience, this is also not with speaker cables, IC and PC, phonostages and amps. It just happens to be true for cartridges and preamps, but this is my experience only and of course the quest for excellent, high value products continues. ;-)
Post removed 
More to discover