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

Showing 10 responses by jafox

jafox
1,449 posts
 
Thank you Pete for putting forth the effort to share the results of your listening session.

The whole idea of these threads is to share our experiences with our fellow audio friends. But with all the whining about level matching to .1db, how much distortion these players have, how can all the "top" players really sound that different, that a manufacturer was there, that the system and music played were not initially noted, etc. etc. etc., who really cares!!!!! The initial report was very interesting. Can we not thank Pete for his willingness to participate and leave it at that?

Even when components are not precisely level matched, it is very evident as to the sonic signature of two products...no matter what the rest of the chain as long as the system is of a highly resolving nature to begin with. Just throw on a 400hz test-tone, match levels with a Radio Shack SPL to 0.5db and put the politics aside! We don't need a fancy test bench of Tektronix and HP gear to evaluate CD players in our home. I just don't see the necessity for us to use our engineering educations to fairly evaluate audio components.

I too think Alex should have dropped off the player and returned later just to keep the focus to the listeners. But with the evaluators all hearing these players compared to each other for the first time, any player could have ended up by the group favorite. So quit whining about a manufacturer being at the session, already! And who cares if the speakers are Pipedreams, SoundLabs, Avalons, etc. The relative differences of the players will ultimately come out the same.

As for how all these players can sound different with one coming out clearly the prefered winner, well, maybe the other players should get a demoted rating? Afterall, Stereophile is loaded with Class-A components and how can so many be rated the state-of-the-art? After having personally heard many such components directly to each other along the years, it is clearly evident that many such products never had any business being rated so highly.

Just like the threads that cover Dartzeel, EMM, Von Schweikert, various power cables, Triplanar vs Schroeder tonearms, etc., people get all upset when their beloved favorite product gets threatened by a newcomer that is the new "king". Can't we all come away from this report with greater incentive to hear all these for ourselves, in our own system, and not put forth so much effort to tear holes in the evaluation? It certainly gives me less desire to share findings if I have to spend days defending each step I took with responses back to my thread.
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Hello Pete,

I was in contact with Alex right after your original shootout here. I ultimately ended up getting your APL Denon. I had told Alex that I did not like the 6H30 tube and he told me he would consider updating this one and only unit to support the ECC99. Ultimately, he decided to provide this as an upgrade for all Denon players. I understand this APL player is only one of two that also has the switching PS as used in the Esoteric-based players.

This APL player was very good with the ECC99 but the AMR 77 player had far greater clarity and less grain in the upper frequencies. This brought on much more harmonic information. And the AMR's bass was much more controlled and extended. I expected more from the APL player but it might also have been because the AMR is really that good. Alex was convinced that bypassing the built-in volume control and simplifying other aspects of the circuit and putting the very latest DACs would make the APL Denon competitive to the AMR. I still have not gotten around to having these updates done to this player.

A few months ago, I tried a tube-rolling experiment. With the new Aria preamp supporting a variety of 6v and 12v tubes in the line stage, I tried many types including several 6922 tubes, the 6H30, the ECC99 and the E180cc/7062. The latter tube in the Aria was high above all the rest - it was not even close. And so I tried an Amperex PQ pinched waist 7062 in the APL Denon and never before had I heard one tube change be as dramatic as this. The smoothness, openness, dimensionality (especially in depth), harmonic textures, etc., were so far beyond the ECC99. The APL Denon's sonic weaknesses I had experienced with the Denon vs. the AMR were now gone. I played with other E180CC tubes and got a little more dynamic contrasts with those but the Amperex had a smoothness that made it the clear winner for me. A return to the ECC99 was impossible as the presentation was incredibly flat after hearing the 7062. The ECC99 significantly removes much of the player's capabilities. This tube discovery undoubtedly saved me several thousand $$ in a CDP upgrade.

I reported my finding to an A'gon member who owns the APL 3.0. And I sent him a pair of the Amperex tubes. His observation echoed mine. But upon him contacting Alex, Alex told him that he should not use this tube in the 3.0 as it draws more current and the PS could ultimately fail due to the lower current driving regulators. But I have had no problem with the APL Denon player perhaps because there is only one tube here vs. two in the Esoteric-based players. And unlike reports by others that the APL Denon player runs hot, the one here runs cool.

I have also heard that Alex is looking to support another tube but I don't recall which one. With the latest round of updates for the Denon-based machines, and the E180CC/7062 tube, I would wager that it could be neck and neck to the ECC99 based 3.0 in some areas and perhaps even outperform it in some key areas. The 7062 tube is really that good. And I wish Alex would locate a pair to hear for himself as replacing a couple of voltage regulators to higher-power versions should be a snap for him.

John
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Hi Gary - Thanks for the insight on the 32-bit version of the APL vs. the AMR. Your results are encouraging.

I only heard the AMR for 4-5 hours late one night in my system vs. the APL. And this was with the APL powered on for several days and the AMR only warmed up that evening. The reoccurring comment on A'gon that digital gear needs to be on for 48 hours before it can be "evaluated" meant nothing here as the AMR was off and running in just an hour of warm-up with stunning performance over my 24-bit APL player.

This AMR demo was a courtesy of an AMR dealer from out of state who was in town and stopped at my house with the player for the evening to play some music. I really REALLY liked the AMR player. Even if the APL's bass performance was the clear winner, and that was not the case of mine with the 24-bit chipset, the AMR would still easily have been my preference. And yes, build quality of the AMR is most impressive. Had it not been for the recent discovery with the 7062 tube in the APL, I would have likely changed over to the AMR by the end of this year. I guess now I need to get the APL player into the queue for the 32-bit update.

John
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Thanks Tvad for your post. I tried to make it clear here that the 7062 tube was not supported by Alex.

I have great respect for Alex and his work but to say that the sonic changes of the 7062 are due to its non-linearities and thus colorations compared to the ECC99 do not reflect my observations in the APL Denon nor the Aria WV. If colorations here implies several layers of haze and grain are removed and much lower level detail coming to the forefront, compared to the ECC99, I'll take it.

As for the added output impedance, it's a non issue with the input impedance of the Aria WV. Alex is a proponent of his players straight into the amps. This was not the preferred case when I had the Callisto Sig, Bent TVC and now with the Aria WV as well. And a number of NWO owners I have corresponded with have all preferred their players into their line stages as well.

For those with APL Denon players running the ECC99, enjoy and feel comfortable. But after hearing the 7062 and then again trying the ECC99, I would move on from the APL before I returned to the ECC99. It might be a readily available tube, as is the 6H30, but neither of these tubes is my cup of tea.
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Tvad: Maybe Alex can replace "those" resistors with higher-wattage models and beef up a couple regulators too so that you can hear what the player can really do. 8-)
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Sabai: Ok ok ok ok, you made your point. Now let go. Be proud of your discovery of the EMM and leave it at that!
jafox
1,449 posts
 
How did this thread go from a report on the differences between CD players at one's home to a report over three years later on how phenomenal Sabai is at assembling an audio system? Ugh!
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Yes Sabai, I have followed your comments here. And right out of the gate, you wasted no time to bash the report of the shootout. I found it rather disrespectful and ignorant as you disregarded much of what I and others found to be of value.

I could understand if the shootout was a tube preamp loaded with various tube types. My own experience tells me that it can take months to find a tube set that brings such a product to a new level, often never even being heard by its designer. But the shootout was CD players not loaded with tubes.

Adding/trying all sorts of combinations of footers on all the players could take a lot of time. I have heard the benefits of such products (Stillpoints) on the APL player and the Aria/Counterpoint components. They brought on greater decays which can not be explained but I heard what I heard. But they did not turn a dimensionally flat component into sudden magical 3D. This is what you are implying here with your experience and I just don't buy it.

Of course cable changes make a difference here, whether ICs or PCs. But again, there's just no way anyone can be expected to have the time or opportunity to try everything out there. How is this report different from any audio magazine review out there when a comparative product is brought into the picture? The shootout went far beyond any magazine review to report how the players sounded in one system in their stock format, no footers, tweaks, etc. Once the baselines had been achieved, another round could have been made for each player to try various ICs and PCs. But considering all that had been done and was reported, I was very appreciative for the time that Pete took to share with the A'gon members here.

As for this report here not doing "any justice" to a component, again, how is this different from any other review. All such a report can do is expose the rest of us to an introduction to a product. It is up to us to get the product, try it in our system. And if we sense it may stand out from the crowd, live with it longer and go through the refinement process of tube-rolling, various cable trials, footers, etc. Using your philosophy of needing to try every cable and tweak out there before a review/report is made, all such reports from the past are null and void.

I am one of those who tried a power conditioner (RS Haley) on the APL Denon player and got quite a boost in performance. I also concluded that the system sounded better with the player into a line stage (Aesthetix Callisto Sig) or the Bent Silver TVC. And then my discovery of the tube change on the player too. This was contrary to the view of Alex P.

Explaining how I improved the sound of my EMM is offered as proof.
Everyone in this thread is well aware of finding ways to improve the performance of each component in their system. We were all "there" before you joined this thread.

but proof that you can do a lot with it to take the sound to a much higher level -- which the shoot-out made no attempt to do. That's all I am saying.
No, essentially what you said was that the shootout was worthless since it did not go through months and months of time to try out all the combinations of external products to "optimize" each CD player. And I do not agree with your conclusion. I simply saw the shootout as a first pass of the products in review.

Perhaps one thing to do in the future when such a shootout is made is to contact each manufacturer to get the recommended footer (if any) and PC and perhaps the IC. But unless those cables are tonally coherent (neutral) and the rest of the system is as well (highly unlikely except in the top-tier of systems), cable changes are likely to just be complimentary to other flaws in the system....a concept often referred to as synergy but I consider a tonal bandaid.

The only reviewer out there that I know of that comes even close to doing what you "require" is Roy Gregory of HiFi+. It's a daunting effort to do this each and every time a product is evaluated.
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Sorry Mr Tennis but I disagree. There might be 1000s of great italian restaurants out there but there are maybe a dozen "great" CD players out there. And to read about a comparison of a handful of these I find to be of great value.

these tests are just entertainment.
Hello! The threads here are all about entertainment.
jafox
1,449 posts
 
Come and get it. 3D and synergy and it's best.
More to discover