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
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Raquel - Thanks for the vote of confidence. Perhaps you and others can assist me with a current dilemma. See here:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1177856152&openflup&38&4#38

Best regards!
eljaro
27 posts
 
Ctm_cra: apart from the point I tried to make that the most expensive or best player in the world will not make you necessarily happier (especially if is has made a big hole in your pocket or bank account), I believe it to be exciting and interesting to participate in such a shootout and be able to hear gear which you would maybe never get your hands (or ears) on.
I would also like to hear what the difference really is comparing CD players from say $1.000 to $25.000 and to be able to evaluate what those thousands $ really bring in in sonic improvement, and if that improvement is justified for ME. Because the primary consideration is always: it has to be good for MY ears and for MY pocket.
You may come out of the shootout wanting the top player no matter what or you could conclude that those thousands of $ more dont really cut it for YOU and that you could as well be very happy with the less expensive unit.

One very important aspect in CD payback is how the music sounds: If you do a shootout with only two pieces of music, and only classical at that , it is possible that you end up choosing the more analytical unit, which as we all know is not the one you can listen to for hours in a row without reaching auditive fatigue.

The more musical Cd players seem often less precise but are more comfortable to listen to.
In my opinion a shoot out would be more down to earth-like if it included more type of music and where the participants would choose which music playback they like best.
In a direct comparison of only two players you probably force your ears to hear "beyond the music" searching for clues and differences, and those tend to be in the analytical domain, not musical.
ramy
141 posts
 
Ctm-cra,
I would be happy to host more players for a "shotout".I do agree with Eljaro as far as different kind of music may favor other cd players.However as far as less precis may be less fatiguing,or mor analytical may sound better for classical I am not convinced.At the danger of repeating myself I still beleive different cd recording may sound better on very specific cd players.For example the Mozart requiem on Dorian,with Labadie sounds better on the Reimyo than the Zanden,which is unusual.I do not have a rational explanation.
I would be very interested in comparing some of the cd players on the market .
hens
173 posts
 
Ctm_cra,

I was being tongue-in-cheek regarding the Sony DVD player and FWIW, despite it being unlikely that I would be in the market for a CD player at this sort of level, I found the shootout extremely interesting as it's good to know what's happening at the pinnacle of redbook playback.

If there was to be another shootout, it would be great if the Nova Physics Memory Player could be included. I think this would add the dimension of the pinnacle of rebook playback in a music server based system. This is definitely a direction I would be interested in for the future, if the playback was up to the highest standards plus the ability to store my music in one location.

Keep it up,

Hens
ctm_cra
86 posts
 
Eljaro - No argument here when it comes to your ears, eyes (yes aesthetics matter) and your wallet being the ultimate judge of an audio component. I think this is well understood... but perhaps not well practiced (myself included) ;-)

I am sure portions of the following have been published in print and online. Pardon the lengthy approach but your post provides a great opportunity to discuss the importance of software selection.

So when it comes to our use of only two pieces of well recorded (minimally mic'd, uncompressed, no “effects” applied, careful mic placement, etc.) acoustic pieces to compare the equipment, I agree that a broader representation of music would be more ideal. However, the logistics of the event simply prevented the introduction of one more recording. As simple as this would have been, we barely got through the two selections we had to work with, and this took nearly 6 hours to complete. We were lucky to have some time for additional experimentation after we completed the blind comparisons.

As to fatigue, I already posted that we took plenty of breaks since careful level matching needed to be done prior to evaluating each pair of CD players.

Having said all that, the participants agreed upon the two selections ahead of time. There were number of reasons for going this route. We could have chosen any acoustic performance, but we selected classical because it covers a broader spectrum of instruments and voices than say a guitar/vocal piece. It could also have been a highly regarded album that is the result of an outstanding recording studio project, however only a couple of participants have ever been in a studio and only one of us has ever experienced a recording session (in both control and recording rooms). We could have also included a live jazz, folk or rock album and there are many good ones. However, most of these are recordings of amplified instruments and voices through PA systems… just way too many variables to account for.

Further, our concern for the tricks (mixing, multi mic, compression, reverb, etc.) applied to most studio and live projects often result in an unnatural sonic presentation making it tough to evaluate what sounds “real”. Don’t get me wrong, there are studio recorded albums that are outstanding and thoroughly enjoyable. It would be interesting to see how the results compare when evaluating these players with such recordings. However, even the very best of them would not be my first choice if I had limited time to compare CD players of any gear.

If an audio component or system reproduces a well recorded acoustic music in the most impressive and believable manner, then I know I am going in the right direction. HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: You will only know if the component or system is performing well if you go to enough live performances so you can relate these experiences to what you are hearing from your gear. In this way you can more accurately evaluate the quality of the recording, the naturalness of the instruments & voices and nuances (harmonics, textures, dynamics, micro and macro passages, phrasing, etc.). Furthermore, when well recorded acoustic music is done right, I can accept that I can better evaluate the CDs from studio recording efforts (not the other way around). In this manner, it is the live event or how you experience it that becomes the reference, not the recording and it is the combination of keeping this live event perspective in mind along with the well-selected recordings used that will reveal the less precise, more analytical, and more generally, the inferior players.

Too often audio gear is selected based on which ones make our favorite recordings sound good, but the listener rarely goes out to a live concert. Despite owning different systems and having varied musical tastes, all of the participants have been to multiple concert and symphony halls and cathedrals. The orchestral and choral (with small instrumental ensemble and organ) pieces selected served us well as the means for the group to evaluate the performance of these players.

Kind regards,
More to discover