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...
