Jafox, Right out of the gate I bashed the way the shoot-out was set up. I stand by my stance. Disrespectful? Not at all -- unless you call challenging the set-up disrespectful. Ignorant? Well everyone has the right to his and her opinion. The word ignorant connotes not knowing what you're talking about. I don't believe this applies to me because I do know what I am talking about when it comes to improving the sound of the EMM because I have done just that. Whether you "buy" it or not is irrelevant. The fact is that I have done it. What you found "of value" in the shoot-out I found to be of entertainment value and nothing more. Your reference to tubes is a digression. You have lost the plot. Taking "a lot of time" is exactly what I am saying the shoot-out did not do. "Connect -- listen to a couple of classical pieces -- raise your hands" is not my idea of anything "of value". It was a one-size-fits-all set-up. What value was there in it -- except to the maker whose machine was declared "the winner"? Nothing at all was elucidated about the true value of the machines in the "test" because the potential sonic virtues of each player were not tested. The "test" was skewed by its rigid set-up. Yes, what I am precisely saying -- not implying -- is that I have turned "a dimensionally flat component into sudden magical 3D". Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. This is precisely what I have done. Which is why the shoot-out was valueless because the way it was set up, having the EMM transformed right in front of you would have been unimaginable. The fact that it didn't happen at the shoot-out proves that the people who set it up were woefully lacking in knowledge about the EMM's potential as well as imagination. I never said or implied anywhere in this thread that you should have tried "everything out there" or you should have tried "every cable and tweak out there". You are putting my words in my mouth and that is a cop-out. What I said was that there was no attempt to make the shoot-out anything but a one-dimensional event. That's what it was -- a one-dimensional event. I have the proof before me right here at home in my listening room. The EMM you heard was not the EMM you might have heard had you had enough imagination and taken the time to make the shoot-out a really great event. In defense of the shoot-out you compare it to magazine reviews. This is totally irrelevant. If magazine reviews are skewed -- which most are -- and the shoot-out was no different then how can that possibly justify anything at all -- except that in both cases you are justifying a dumbing-down effect. Everyone in this thread is not "well aware of finding ways to improve" the EMM. That's for sure. They may not even be aware of special ways to optimize their own equipment. If those at the shoot-out had been "well aware of finding ways to improve" the EMM then no one would have accepted that it be presented in a one-dimensional way that minimized its potential. How can there be "value" in a shoot-out that minimizes the true value of one of the participants? The shoot-out was not a first pass at anything. This is re-writing history. It was set up to declare a "winner" -- to eliminate all comers -- not as a first pass. On the contrary, it was set up to appear as a last pass. An earlier poster in this thread suggested that those who are expert in optimizing each participant should have presented to the group an optimized version of the machine being entered in the competition. Now that makes sense to me. You would not have to change the least tweak or cord. Each machine would be brought in ready to go. If Roy Gregory who I have not heard of before has the guts to suggest going to all the trouble of doing what you claim I "require" but which I never even implied requiring then he's the sort of serious audiophile I'd like to know more about. It sounds like he is not daunted by a "daunting effort". I think the folks at Synergistic Research would be amused by your comment that you consider synergy a "tonal bandaid". IMHO, this comment of yours is more than ample proof that the now-famous shoot-out in San Diego really was valueless. How any serious audiophile could possibly make such an obviously preposterous statement is beyond me. The skewing that this attitude brought to the shoot-out is quite revealing and it is one that I am sure many of those who have been following this thread will be interested to know.
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
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
- ...
- 297 posts total
- 297 posts total