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
foster_9
1,638 posts
 
12-26-10: Aplhifi
The NWO player used for this particular shootout sounds worse than a boombox compared to the current NWO-M so, in my opinion, it does not really matter what you have done or will do to the EMM box.

This might be true, but the statement represents this manufacturer as condescending and dismissive.
aplhifi
515 posts
 
Foster_9,

I have a great respect for Ed Meitner and consider him to be one of the digital audio geniuses.

But don’t you think that trying to compare the entry level CDSA to a cost-no-object digital boutique is also condescending and dismissive?

The EMM product used for this San Diego shootout was their top-line combo CDSD/DAC6 Signature, not CDSA. Let’s try comparing apples to apples.

So yes, it does not matter what Sabai has done or will do to his CDSA, it will never be as good as EMMs own top-line cost-no-object digital either.

I cannot understand what the reason for beating a long-dead horse here is, and with an entry-level product that was not originally used for this shootout.

Best wishes,
Alex Peychev
cbw723
89 posts
 
12-26-10: Aplhifi
The NWO player used for this particular shootout sounds worse than a boombox compared to the current NWO-M so, in my opinion, it does not really matter what you have done or will do to the EMM box.
This might be true, but the statement represents this manufacturer as condescending and dismissive.
Yes, and it gives you some idea of how objective a "blind" shootout would be in his presence.
sabai
2,027 posts
 
Pubul57, thank you for clarifying this. You're right, there are no absolutes. The thrust of what I am talking about is the extent to which a shoot-out is helpful for those reading these forums in evaluating equipment. I don't feel the shoot-out in question was helpful in this respect. It was not designed to be helpful. It was designed to declare a quick winner. What I am saying is that this is not good enough. It is easy to create a high-five shoot-out. It is not so easy to create a shoot-out that is as 3-dimensional as the music produced by some of the best CD players. Doing a really good shoot-out requires a lot more work than "bring the machines in -- connect them -- play a couple of classical pieces -- raise your hands -- that's it we're all done now". Foster_9, I somehow missed reading this posting by Aplhifi in reply to my earlier posting. It certainly sounds condescending and dismissive to me, as well. The only thing I can say in response is that it might not matter to Aplhifi what I have done to improve my "EMM box" but it certainly sounds more than a box to me and it certainly matters to me what I have done to enhance its attributes although it may not be at the pinnacle in the world of CD players. The fact is that I have had to wait quite a few decades to be able to afford a good music system. My system may not be the best -- I cannot afford the best -- but it is the best I can afford and I am very happy with the sound it produces. Enhancing its sonic virtues is important to me. It is a labor of love because I love music. Remember, music is in your heart and soul. It is not only in the equipment. I was thrilled with the music that came out of my transistor radio in 1957 no less than I am with my new system. I don't need the best -- which I cannot afford -- to be happy. I am not beating a dead horse. The fact that Aplhifi and others are still following and responding to my comments and those of others regarding the shoot-out shows the opposite -- this horse is alive and very well. What harm is there in talking about how shoot-outs might be improved in future so that they explore the potential of the players that are auditioned to help people make the best choices within their budget? A quick shoot-out that eliminates contenders is certainly beneficial to the winner -- but it is not beneficial to those who cannot afford the winner that has, ironically, become "worse than a boombox" according to the maker. And this kind of shoot-out is not beneficial to those who would like to know more about the salient points of some of the losers that might be more affordable than the newest version of the winner that is presumably the best out there -- and is even more unaffordable than the inferior version used in the shoot-out. This shoot-out elicited the strong bias of the maker who attended it and who could have subconsciously influenced the attendees -- and it also showed us that he is not very big on humility. He may produce some of the best CD players in the world but he has a thing or two to learn yet. What he is apparently unaware of -- or possibly does not care about -- is that his attitude may put off more people than it attracts. Running a good business involves a lot more than producing good products.
foster_9
1,638 posts
 
Mr Peychev, I see your point about this fellow Sabai's CDSA player versus the EMM transport/DAC in that shootout, versus the NWO and the current NWO-M. I believe however, that manufacturer's need to sometimes walk a fine line in how they make their point concerning their products. If not, the impression left behind can be unintended.
More to discover