John, I understand your point, and I don't disagree. The only thing I might add is that I do think it is possible to put together an audio system that is faithful to the sound of live music and that does not require any of the components to do any "smoothing" per se. The notion that an audio system needs to have something in the chain to achieve some masking or smoothing of the sound implies that there is something inherently unmusical, unnatural or flawed with the recording/mastering/pressing process or the software format itself.
I'm not sure that's the case. Personally, I try not to introduce any component into my main system that has the effect of masking or smoothing over anything. Components that mask or smooth things over tend to compromise resolution, clarity and transparency.
As for the AMR CDP and the EMM Labs gear, there seems to be a basic assumption underlying some of the posts here that the EMM Labs gear is inherently more resolving. However, I have not found this to be the case. I have found both the AMR CDP and the EMM Labs separates to be very highly revolving components, and I have not personally found that one has an edge over the other in this area.
I would agree with the general notion that the EMM Labs gear tends to sound more analytical, while the AMR CDP tends to sound more musical. However, I doubt anyone has any real basis to assert that either source is inherently more neutral or more accurate than the other. As some have pointed out, that's a difficult assertion to make since we all lack a reference "neutral" benchmark.
I am very interested in trying the Payback Designs CDP to hear for myself how it stacks up. The advances that have been made in digital playback in recent years are really very encouraging.
|
Interesting discussion about how to achieve the best sound. I feel that a high-quality source that is faithful to the recording is the place to start. I would give equal footing to the source and the speakers. I've invested more in proper set-up for the source than in any other component in 3 different systems.
What goes in between the source and the speakers should not smooth or mask, but help let the source realize its greatest potential. This means quality components, attention to power, cabling, connections, and isolation. Many high-quality components respond quite favorably to optimization and tweaking. The concept of a cable that removes information, without taking the proper pains to set-up correctly, seems to be going in the wrong direction.
As a generality, going from around the 5k to 10k price tag for digital results in a 3-fold improvement in performance. |
08-05-08: Cincy_bob
John, I understand your point, and I don't disagree. The only thing I might add is that I do think it is possible to put together an audio system that is faithful to the sound of live music and that does not require any of the components to do any "smoothing" per se. The notion that an audio system needs to have something in the chain to achieve some masking or smoothing of the sound implies that there is something inherently unmusical, unnatural or flawed with the recording/mastering/pressing process or the software format itself. You are correct Cincy_bob, however, IMHO the digital format IS basically flawed. FWIW, I see that you are using Jena Labs cables and darTZeel amplification, which are wonderful components, but many would consider "smoothing". What one may consider "accurate" another may consider "bright" or "smoothing" depending on the ancillary equipment. For example, Jena Labs Valkyre were my reference cables until I purchased my reference speakers, Verity Audio Parsifal Encore's. At that point the Valkyre's sounded too warm and lifeless. The Verity's are notoriously warm speakers, so combining them with warm cables was a no-no. Silversmith cables added much more life and "accuracy". The bottom line is that most of us use "smoothing" components/cables at some point in the chain, especially when digital is the primary source. When someone calls their single component/cable "accurate", it's usually because it mates well with their other "not so accurate" components/cables. Cheers, John |
In my opinion the AMR does not lack resolution at all. I had the chance of auditioning it in my system. It is a very good player indeed. On the other hand it still sounded somewhat colored to my ears. I just dont get it why a source should have tubes...It doesn't make sense to me.
Regards,
Michael |
I'll say it in a different way.
EMM LABS approach:
We believe in cd playback and we try to get the best out of it.
AMR approach:
We believe cd playback is flawed by design and we use tubes to get a better result. |
here is a relevant question:
when listening to the amr vs the emm, in which case is the timbre of an instrument rendered more like the actual instrument ?
from what i have gleaned, the amr will be less timbrally inaccurate than the emm.
both players are inaccurate, as no component is perfect. one may create a more natural representation of reality than the other. that is the player i woould want to own.
is the amr the last word with respect to timbre ?
perhaps there is another player to compete with it, such as the audio aero capitole mk 1 and the lector 7 mk 1. |
by the way, "analytical", is not a synonym for "accurate".
if the emm is analytical, it is significantly colored. how is that a basis for recommending it for purchase ?
who would want to own an "analytical" sounding component ? |
Audiohifila,
Don't hate, it's never pretty. |
Read the reviews here and at the Audioasylum of Playback Designs MPS-5. It's gone head to head with a couple of Emms in those reviews. I'm taking mine to Austin in September to A-B vs. a dcS stack. A new owner wrote me a couple of weeks ago that it put his AMR on the UPS truck.
I can tell you it's excellent, but until I do some more A-B that's pretty much the limit, except that it's equally great sounding in either balanced or unbalanced mode. It has the advantage of being a SACD/CD combination player and it's got digital-in in several formats.
Dave |
John, this is an interesting discussion. I suspect we might be defining the term "smoothing" a bit differently. I took the term to imply a veiling or lack of resolution. However, I sense that you might be using the term to refer to a slight shift of the tonal balance to the warm side of the spectrum.
I would agree that the Jena Labs cables add a dose of warmth. You might have noticed that I have replaced all but one pair of the Jena Labs cables in my system. I will likely replace the one remaining pair of interconnects in the near future.
The darTZeel electronics are more of an enigma to me. They are the only solid state amplification devices I have experienced that preserve the rich harmonics you hear in a live acoustic music event. Are they adding or "coloring" something to achieve that? If so, then that implies that the recording/engineering/pressing/playback process robbed the music of something in the first place in that the end result is music that, to my ears, is more faithful to the live event. Is it possible that most other solid state electronics are the colored components that bleach some of the natural harmonics out of the music? Maybe. I think these are difficult questions to answer due to the lack of a reference point.
Mrtennis, I agree that "analytical" does not equal "accurate." I chose my words carefully in my earlier post. I should also emphasize that, while I find the EMM Labs gear to be more analytical than the AMR gear, I have found the EMM Labs gear to be among the least offensive in this regard. There are a lot of high end digital sources out there that are more analytical sounding (which, to me, means less natural and less organic sounding) than the EMM Labs equipment.
Mrtennis, to respond to your question, I do find that the AMR CDP has greater timbral accuracy than the EMM Labs gear. By comparison, the EMM Labs gear exhibits a bit of digital glare and a bit of a processed, unnatural sound in fortissimo passages, has slightly overripe bass, and has a bit of a hyped "in-your face" presentation. The AMR CDP does the best job I have ever heard from a digital source in the reproduction of massed strings. It gets all the sweetness, textures and wood resonances that you hear in a live orchestral performance. I have not yet personally experienced another digital source that manages to reproduce massed strings with this degree of timbral accuracy.
That being said, I think the EMM Labs gear is among the best digital sources available. I'm being very critical in picking apart one of the top performers in a field of digital sources that, in my opinion, all still have a long way to go to match the performance of a top-flight analog rig. Prior to hearing the AMR CDP, I accepted the digital glare/hardness in peak orchestral passages as an inherent weakness of the digital format. I could not detect the other shortcomings I mentioned until I was able to conduct a direct comparison with the AMR CDP.
I hope to have the Playback Designs CDP in for comparison within the next week or so. My evaluation will center on classical music, which probably comprises about 80% of my listening and which I regard as the most challenging style of music to accurately reproduce (particularly large scale works involvoing a full orchestra). Dcstep, the guy who sent his AMR packing made his evaluation using exclusively rock and R&B recordings, which leads me to wonder whether there might be a different outcome to the extent the evaluation is done based on acoustic music. I should have the basis to judge for myself soon...
|
I was impressed with the ayon cd player as well as the emmlabs two unit stack but the playback design is easily better.
I have hear good things about the amr, the dcs puccini and the new meridian and if anyone gets to do a shootoff that would be great..... |
Well, I'll be able to tell you about two out of those three. I've already had a one month home demo of the Meridian 808.2i and as noted above, I have been promised an in-home demo of the dcs Puccini in the near future. AMR is unlikely as we have no dealer here and they refused an in-home demo as they indicated that they were selling every unit they were producing and didn't need to demo the player to anyone (besides I'm not that big on tubes). |
The amr does not do sacd right which if true is unfortunate and deal breaker since i have 200 sacds! |
The Meridian doesn't either, they're DVD-A guys. |
That's right, Audiohifila, the AMR cannot play SACDs. However, with hybrid discs, I prefer by a wide margin the sound of the AMR playing back the PCM layer to the sound of the EMM Labs SE separates playng back the SACD layer. Since nearly all my SACDs are hybrid discs, it was an easy decision for me to go back to a digital source without SACD capabilities.
Nonetheless, once the Playback Designs player arrives, I guess I'll be back in the SACD game...
|
Bottom line is that both the EMM and the AMR are great players. The rest is system and "ear" dependant! |
I´ve bought the Nagra CDP - a great sounding and very well build cd-player with the most accurate sound I´ve ever heard from a cd-player. It´s for sure nothing for overly bright systems or all tube lovers. But in combination with tube amplification the cdp is a dream machine (at a very high price point). Unfortunately none of my emails was answered by playback designs. Bad customer service I would say. The amr was to warm in my system but played very well in a friend system with solid state amplification. |
Synergy Frankiet. Synergy.
At that price level you have to audition these components in your rig to determine a great match.
Keep us updated with the sound of your system.
Enjoy |
Playback Designs MPS-5 player is certainly worth an
audition. I'm amazed by its ability to sound so smooth
and dynamic with just the right about of resolution. Customer service is very good. Jonathan
and Andraes were very responsive to my questions and
concerns. |
