Anyone compare the the EMM Separates?? Is there is a difference in sound? I am curious as to CD & to SACD if there is a difference between the EMM Separates SE verision & the One box. |
Dgad...surely there are none. Only diff is with DCC2 u get preamp functionality and with DAC 6 more multi channel inputs |
Henryhk,
Too late. Spoke w. EMM. Each has a benefit & loss compared to the other. Hence balancing each other out. Lack of need for cables improves things on the CDSA. The separate power supplies is a benefit on the separates. Sonically there are people who prefer both. Me, I am now using the CDSA. Very nice, but needs time. I happen to like its musicality overall. Still Vinyl rules. Just more resolution. I will report back in a month or so when I know more. |
I'd be more interested in this player if it had digital inputs.
David |
Now there is the reason for the price difference between the 1 box & separates. No matter as SACD is its strong suit above all and no SACD has a digital out that is not exclusive to themselves.
I heard the 70K DCS setup. Very good but what you get from EMM is close enough. Obviously 2 separate systems, but compared both to Vinyl & vinyl is better to my ears. |
Deshapiro: I agree. That would be an elegant solution for people who like the Meitner sound and want to add a PC front end. If they somehow allowed a digital stream through the player's USB port, even better (wishful thinking...) |
Dgad, as you said you spoke with EMM, can you elaborate on exactly the difference in sound the for each? You mention only technical/design differences, but what are the sonic impacts...and are they noticable? We all know that power cables and interconnects can alter the sound. It's interesting to note that many comments written are similar, however the equipment its listened on is wildly differing!
One thing is true though, the burn-in time is 2-300 hours before the player stabilizes completely, for each CD and SACD circuits. Once that's behind you though, it's an absolutely remarkable player. It went miles past my prior player, Accuphase DP77, which was regarded in the German Stereo magazine listing as the topplayer since it came out in 2003. No doubt that for $10k this player is in a league of its own...despite some build/user frienliness weaknesses.
Regards
Henry |
Henry,
I haven't had the opportunity to hear the SE separates. Simply explained, they are basically the same except for very slight differences in power supplies (a single power supply used for both digital & analogue in the 1 box) and a single chassis w. no need for any connecting cables. It then gets down to money. That is a big difference. The SACD sound is certainly better than the non SE version. It is not huge, but a nice subtle improvement. It was excellent in the 1st place w. the separates. CD is still in the air as I don't find either truly special yet. I am still breaking in the CD section. |
Obviously if you don't need the pre-amp functionality and the greater number of inputs, the single box player is the way to go. I got my DCC2 and used it for the pre amp as well (pretty good by the way!) until I purchased the Darts. If I had to do it all over again, I would go for the single box player (which was not around at the time), save the money and invest elsewhere. The sonic differences are likely to be minimal if they exist at all...and both are extremely good! |
What is the purpose of the low and high gain settings? I can't imagine 4v is enough in almost any system. Some have said the higher setting sounds better, but not sure why that would be. Any thoughts? Consenus on the two settings? |
|
I do not see any need to give up my CDSA indefinitely. If something isn't broke, I won't fix it (especially in the audio arena). The CDSA is so articulate, I can understand lyrics I never could on recordings I've heard for decades.
But still the CDSA is natural. The strange digital artifacts on other players that I didn't know were there are gone on the CDSA. I have the metal-tray version, which is much quieter then earlier EMM transports. I do however, think the EMM SE separates (DCC2 + CDSD) are a little better, with an even more defined bass and slightly more forgiving in the highs of poor recordings. Both versions are wonderful.
I went through other players trying to save some money; I tried some Sonys, Accuphases, Meridians, some Mods, Playback Designs, old Calif. Audio Labs, and I just keep coming back to the EMMs. Nothing gives my the satisfaction of EMM, as it just gets to the heart of things for me. I've been playing with CD players since 1986.
The original DCC2/CDSD in 2004 had a special magic that finally convinced me digital had arrived and stopped my nostalgia for my old Vinyl days, but it still had some annoying glare. The SE versions fixed that and then I was hooked on EMM. |
Is there a sonic advantage to using the low gain setting assuming it is sufficiently loud? Better S/N, etc. |
Hello Pubul57,
I'm not aware of the technical differences but I do get better sound with my EMM Dac-2 gain setting set to the lower position.
best,
Tom |
I do too, but I wasn't sure if that had to do with the position of my attenuator being further advance to the 12-2 position, or if the lower gain setting had inherently lower S/N, as would be the case with a preamplifier (I think). |
Unless I'm much mistaken the option is there for system matching. If you've an active Pre with plenty of gain it'll probably sound better via the low gain. If on the other hand you've the likes of a passive Pre the extra gain may help to drive power amps which are usually designed to be run with more gain on the input signal. |
