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
Tvad wrote -

"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.

Kind regards.
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.
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 subjects…"

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=384

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!.
Tbg, I do not care anymore, I am done in my digital chase. I am smiling, and happy. No more shootouts for me. Hope you can get there soon, too.