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 2 responses by raquel

I just fell upon this thread -- with all due respect to the test organizers / participants, I want to explain why I believe that the test tells us next to nothing about the digital components under test (Nilthepill, jfz, Guidocorona and Newbee are all on to something).

First, no hi-fi component is more dependent upon warm-up than a CD player. CD players generally need one to two days to reach thermal stability, and over the course of warm up, their sound can change dramatically. As for this test (as reported), giving a CD player 20-25 minutes to warm up will not tell you what it really sounds like -- absolutely not, especially given the importance of power supplies in high-end players. What we've been told is which player to buy if you intend to treat your components like a rack system.

Second, if there is any question as to whether the players under test had adequate break-in, then the test is flawed. The sound of components can change dramatically up through 500 hours, and most continue to open up and change through 1,000 hours.

Third, six hours of listening parsed between five players is not enough time for a person to become accustomed to the performance of a component -- months are required. Anyone who has lived with a fair amount of spare components will tell you that the new kid on the block sometimes get sold or goes into the closet after yesterday's favorite goes back in the system. The performance of hi-end components in high-resolution systems is subtle and confounding -- preamps and CD players in particular -- and what sounds preferable this week can become unsatisfying next month.

I fully assume the good faith of the participants and note they appear to have tried hard to put together a controlled comparison, but with all due respect, this is not the way it works.
Ctm_cra: I have found your contribution to this thread to be most edifying and I decided to go back through your other threads. After reading them, I am most impressed by the depth of your knowledge of so many different audio products and the number of people in the business that you know. In fact, there are a lot of audio industry veterans posting on Audiogon who would do well to have the knowledge of high-end audio products and connections that you demonstrate in your threads. This one is an example:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1097183522&openusid&zzCtm_cra&4&5#Ctm_cra

I wish more knowledgeable hobbiests like you would organize or participate in these "shoot-outs" -- it serves as a counter-balance to the shilling of riffraff manufacturers, distributors, dealers and their cohorts found in too many threads on this forum.