Tvad, the issue is still alive and well even though it is related to an event that happened 3 years ago -- because it reveals how we still think about audio matters today. Mrtennis, consensus in the case of the shoot-out was elicited by a skewed set-up. Subjectivity, as you rightly point, out is a very big factor regarding sonic preferences. But hearing the best sound, or even "the better" sound that a given player can can produce can affect subjectivity very strongly. If the pizza lacks basic ingredients it cannot be enjoyed as much as when it has special spices and herbs added. Newbee, how can you be bored at improving the sound of your system? I disagree than no one cares. If this were true why do my postings elicit such a strong reaction? And why do people with EMMs email me with questions about what I did to improve my EMM and my system? They have an EMM at home. They want to know how to elevate the sound that it produces. That's what it is all about. A dead issue? Far from it. We all, myself included, of course, have a lot to learn and we can help the learning process for others by making these postings -- and by making shoot-outs part of that learning process. The issue is alive and well because it pertains to every system owned by each person reading this thread and the entire audiophile community who have not read it. The issue is how to maximize the performance of your system. This is something I am always working on and have had great success in doing. I am surprised at the sonic improvement that the changes I have made to my system have created. I am happy that others are benefiting from my experience. A power conditioner is a very important part of improving the sound of the EMM. This does not diminish the sonic results of adding a power conditioner to it. It is possible that a different power conditioner might have produced superior results with the EMM. IMHO, the Synergistic Research PowerCell 10SE does just that. I find it interesting that Alex is now talking about "two winners". Actually there was a split vote of 7 to 3 in favor of the APL which I find interesting. If the vote had been 10 to 0 in favor of the APL that would have told a different story. I assume that the power conditioner used at the movie director's house was not the PowerCell. I may be wrong. If it was not the PowerCell this shows that even though someone may think a certain power conditioner may be the best with his system he or she may be mistaken. I had an excellent power conditioner in my system -- from one of the top makers who produces a very expensive line of equipment -- before I installed the PowerCell. It was night and day after installing the PowerCell. And, furthermore, there is a LOT more that I did to my system than just adding the PowerCell that transformed the sound. This does not change the fact that APL makes world-class equipment. This fact is not in question and I have never stated otherwise in this thread. The gist of what I am saying is that where the APL may perform well with no power conditioner or "tweaks", other players may need them to optimize their sound. While this speaks loudly in favor of APL it does not diminish the sonic improvements that are the result of this process with other players. APL guts the Esoteric and does "mods". You might call my approach "external mods". In both cases the word "modification" or "change" is the operative word. Alex states I am "insulting everyone at the shoot-out". I believe I have been polite through-out this thread so it is a mystery to me how my remarks can be construed as "insulting" -- unless the meaning of the word "insult" is broadened to include calling into question the set-up used to arrive at the outcome. The set-up was obviously highly flawed. Alex would like us to accept the outcome of the shoot-out because his APL was the "winner". I do not doubt the merits of the APL line (even though earlier in this thread Alex himself ironically denigrated the APL 2.5 that was used in the shoot-out). But the set-up of the shoot-out remains highly flawed. Which does not mean that the same outcome would not have resulted from a better set-up. Of course, I am not "the only one who knows" about the benefits of various external modifications. That is not the point. The point is the extent to which such modifications can transform the EMM which is the point that is ignored by not only Alex in this thread but also by others. If the EMM had been elevated in the shoot-out the vote might have been closer, IMHO, and there would have been more positive comments about the EMM, as well. For all I know other participating CD players in the shoot-out might have benefited from "external modifications", as well. But my experience is with modifying the EMM so I confine my remarks to what I know. Fplanner, I think that being a zealous audiophile is a wonderful thing. How it could be considered absurd is beyond me -- after all this is an audiophile forum, if I am not mistaken. Are the zealous to be excluded? As regards "doing EMM any favors" may I point out that I have absolutely no ties whatsoever to the audio industry. In any case, how could pointing out that the EMM can be elevated to a much higher level be bad news for EMM? It is like saying that modifying the Esoteric is bad news for Esoteric. I don't think that Alex would agree. On the contrary, I think it is very good news for EMM to know that their player has much more potential than is obvious. This good news has the potential to attract more people to the EMM CDSA SE, IMHO -- people who might have turned away after a first pass because I assume that the EMM CDSA SE has a much broader customer base than their new model -- the far more expensive $25,000 EMM XDS1. If I had the budget I would be looking at the latter or an APL model to replace my EMM CDSA SE. Unfortunately, I am not in that league.
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