DACs: Burmester vs. Meitner vs. dcs

after hearing all three at the Stereophile show in San Francisco this past weekend......it is not close; the Meitner was a good deal better than the other 2 on redbook.....and light-years better on sacd. i went back to these rooms multiple times to really get a feel for the sources......ultimately since they were in different systems my conclusions are provisional. also consider i am a Meitner owner and therefore not completely unbiased.

the Meitner is not only more natural sounding and dynamic than either of the other two......but also has more detail and body......very analog-like......and a much more complete soundstage.

both the dCS and Burmeister are certainly excellent......but just not at the level of the Meitner.

Dolphin, good question. i have heard both the Burmeister and dCS at CES both this year and last. i also have had the dCS in my room about 2 years ago......so my opinions are not only based upon this past weekend. i feel (especially on the dCS which i have heard multiple times in different systems) that the characteristics of both products are consistent thru the systems i have heard them in.

even more important; i strongly feel that all the systems i have heard these products in are sufficiently high-resolution that it is reasonable to compare the level of information presented by each product. i admit to not likeing the Burmeister preamp/amps/speakers but it is still quite high in resolution.

if you were to review my past posts you will see a common thread of specific qualification on my opinions as to the context of them. if i say an opinion is provisional-----it means that i believe it strongly enough to write it-----but not all the facts are yet in. my opinion in this case is more than a hunch or a feeling......clearly the Meitner does things that are unique......and i have heard the Meitner in enough different systems and compared to enough different digital sources to be confident with the truth of it.

i respect your skepticism toward any conclusions reached at shows......i share that skepticism. i think that my indication that my opinion is provisional and that i am a somewhat biased Meitner owner allows any reader to judge the credibility of my post for themselves.

those guys wanting to make decisions about these products are asking me about my opinion on a regular basis. i have had the opportunity to hear these products multiple times and have had high-performance digital products in the past. so i do feel i have a reasonable context to comment.

Mes....are you saying i am a little delusional?

just because you had a 6 month 'train wreck' don't think it has to happen every time.

btw, what does it mean when the acoustical designer and the contractor want to kill each other?

actually, so far it seems to be ok. but then again my contractor hasen't seen the detail yet of the acoustical features. since the room will be quite large (29.5' x 20.5' x 11') it won't need much baffleing or bass traps. only a few between the joists in the ceiling. they have a clean sheet of paper.....that should reduce the amount of treatment required.

my contractor has done a 4 million dollar commercial project with me so i think he is up to it.....we will see.

sm2727, i also live in Seattle.....own the EMM labs gear.....and use into my Placette passive. i have had the dCS gear in my room and to my ears the Meitner simply goes to another level (the dCS running nude and the Meitner into the Placette). the BAT VK-51SE (which i have had in my room) will restrict ultimate performance with the EMM labs gear compared to the Placette (and the Placette is $1000 retail).

the Burmester has outstanding Redbook performance.....and i have only heard the 001 once.....but i have heard the top Burmeister combo a few times. the Burmeister does equal the EMM labs in detail.....but the EMM labs goes to another level of filling the soundstage and really openning up the music compared to my perception of the big Burmeister. also, the way in which the 16/44 is upconverted to dsd on the EMM labs gives redbook a much more 'non digital' feel compared to the Burmeister. the firewire interface on the dCS combo is inherently full of jitter and results in a certain 'digital' feel here too. i am splitting hairs here a little but at these perfomance heights those little hairs are important.

any of this gear is excellent.....but there is no doubt that the EMM labs is at least equal to these others on redbook and absolutely smokes anything on sacd. and it is cheap to run the EMM labs thru the Placette passive to get all the performance any digital meduim is currently capable of.

the problem with me is that all i have been doing lately if 'futzing'.....i have started construction on the room.....Rives is finalizing the plans.....maybe i'll be into the new room in Mid-July.

seriously, show me better than the Placette and i'll change. so far not in my room. the DCC2 may be better than the DAC6/Placette combo.....but that has yet to be proved to my ears.

Tireguy, do you still need that manual?.....sorry....i just realized i forgot to fax it.....i just haven't been myself since i 'blew-up' my room...

you read my mind......i kinda need a 'spin cycle'. Maytag is bringing out their own amplifiers.

actually, the Tenors are said to perform better on 220v....and so do some other amps. it's cheap and easy to install now.....even if i never use it.

i have already found a discrepency between a measurement that my contrator gave the acoustical designer and one's i had given them (3 times). they started designing for the wrong height. i caught it by asking questions (which, as an anal SOB, i do constantly). we will see who tries to pin the wasted design time on who. the acoustical designer didn't consult the measurements i had provided him and the contractor had miss-communicated the height.

i have used this contractor for 20 years on 10 or so projects....he is a good guy and knows his stuff but it is my responsibility to make sure i get what i want. as long as i am clear on the design.....it will be right.

i appreciate that i get the benefit of the learning curves here.

Sm2727, i've been running my emmlabs DAC6 thru the Placette for the last year.....it has outperformed all pre's that it has been compared against in that configuration. the Placette is mean't to be completely neutral to the source (as long as a short i.c. is used between it and the amps).

as you would expect, emmlabs is selling DCC2's and Switchman's.....it would make sense that they will recommend those. to be fair, i have not compared the DAC6/Placette to the DCC2.....it could be better. but i have compared the DAC6/Placette to the DAC6/Switchman 'I' preferred the DAC6/Placette.

YMMV

no Keith, i have not; even though Guy has recommended it to me. Guy also mentioned that my particular system 'might' not benefit from his active unit since i use very short i.c.'s from the RVC to my amps and my system seems to have great dynamics as is.

i feel no need for a change.....so why bother? OTOH, if the opportunity presents itself i'll likely try it.

maybe.

i will rethink my passive approach (or at least be open-minded to an active pre). in my old room (12' x 18' with very large dynamic speakers) i was in the extreme near-field, i had the walls covered with lot's of absorbtion, there was plenty of dynamics, and plenty of bass energy in that small space. i didn't get any feeling that the passive approach left anything out. in my new room (21' x 29' x 11') i 'might' get better bass and dynamic balance with an active pre.

i 'intend' to accomodate multi-channel music. since the DAC6 is multi-channel i will install conduit for the center channel, side channels and subwoofer interconnects and dedicated power outlets for each speaker location. i would likely get an emmlabs Switchman to distribute the multichannel and integrate it with my Jena Labs switchbox as an additional input. i plan on having 2 positions for my listening chair. a 2-channel position and then a foot or so forward, a multi-channel position. this will allow me to have all the speakers equadistant from my listening chair for multi-channel. the rear speakers won't be able to be at 110 degrees, but it will be the best compromise possible with a 2-channel priority (i would need a 25 foot wide room for 110 degrees--which would result in too large a room. i might have mobile absorbtive panels i can use to optimize multi-channel since 2-channel needs more relective energy to be optimized than multi-channel.

otherwise i expect to use the same gear, cables, power cords, racks, etc. i will have an additional set of ST Optical cables run to my seating position so i can have the digital transport where i can switch discs without getting up. in my other room it was narrow enough to reach without getting up. that is one great thing about optical connections....there is virtually no loss of signal regardless of length.

i am currently debating whether i want some sort of 'power-regenerator or just go with my previous 'simple' approach. Rives Audio recommends the big Equitech Balanced A/C power unit......i like simple (20 amp dedicated circuts, 10 guage romex 'home runs' all equal length, Jena Labs cryo's duplex outlets, on both sides of the panel). stay tuned for that.....

one little point. i will install my duplex outlets upside down for my Tenor amps since my damn Elrod Statement power cords currently require a full twist to go from amp to outlet. the Elrods sound so glorious i can't complain too much......but it would be nice if they thought of such issues when they make big, unweildy power cords. i am also adding 220v outlets for future possibilies.

Mejames,

i have no knowledge of any 'special' 220 volt outlets.....i would guess that they are typically more 'robust' than a standard 110 duplex outlet....the plug arrangement is certainly more secure with more contact area. i have a few friends that have had their power cords modified for these 220 volt applications.....there are no real challenges since the power cords already have the construction to handle it....it is just a matter of the plug.

my guess is that in many cases 220 volt operation will bypass some parts of the power supply that are necessary for 110 volt operation......this probably will lower noise and improve dynamics to some small degree. (my lack of legitimate knowledge of things electrical has likely got me over my head here......ultimately i'll deciede by listeneing).

i know when i owned my Levinson #33h and later #33 amplifiers......that changing to 220v would have improved the performance......i had heard those with 220v and they were better.

for me it is more a matter of doing this while my room is being constructed and the walls are openned up......i haven't done enough 'homework' to be certain this is something i want to do. having 220v outlets will allow me to try products from other parts of the world that have that as their native voltage.