dCS versus ARC/Meitner
Jonathan Valin -- Wed, 04/23/2008 - 03:05
Although I haven't made extensive comparisons yet, I've now had the plesure of hearing the dCS stack, the Scarlatti, and the new top-of-the-line single-box dCS CD/SACD player, the Puccini, played beside my longtime SACD reference, the Meitner DAC6e, and my CD reference, the ARC CD7. As I noted in a different thread (see http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=3438&start=50, p. 2), the dCS gear is capable of making CDs sound extraordinarily lifelike. No, it doesn't do "bloom" and "dimensionality" as well as a record player (although it does it better than other digital I've heard) and you still get a (reduced) sense of a "ceiling" (both in air and extension) in the top end, but...this aside, both the Scarlatti and the Puccini are remarkably "analog" in timbre and transient response, making voices and instruments sound quite persuasively "there." In comparison with the ARC, which came closer to analog virtues than anything I'd heard before the (much more expensive) dCS, the Scarlatti and Puccini simply have more "there" there--more information with lower apparent distortion. This isn't to say that the CD7 isn't still a great player; it is. But the dCS stuff definitely beats it out, making it sound just a bit "vaporous" by comparison.
I'm not yet ready to pass judgment on the dCS's performance with SACD vis-a-vis the Meitner, save to say that the two are as different as tubes and solid-state (and, indeed, rather resemble these different gain strategies in the way they present information). I'd be curious to hear from readers who've also had experience with equipment from both companies.
When I tested the Meitner (EMM Labs) CDSA, I thought one of its exceptional qualities was on regular old red-book CD. Since that is likely to be a lot of anyone's collection, how do you compare the dCS and the Meitner that you have?
Tom,
I have a different Meitner DAC than you do. Perhaps more critically I have a different transport than you do. The combination I use isn't good on CD, so saying that the dCS kills it isn't saying much. OTOH, on CD the dCS is also markedly superior to the ARC CD7, which is my reference. Both the Scarlatti and the Puccini make CD sound a good deal like SACD, with the understanding that SACD sounds more like "analog" (which is to say it has many of the virtues of analog playback) through dCS gear than it does through Meitner gear.
I'll be hearing the MBL CD/SACD DAC/transport this week, which ought to be interesting.
Jon
I have noticed on SACD, the dcs may has a less "ringing" sound compared to other SACD players. This "ringing' gives a characteistic less detailed impression and one first cut one might prefer a non dcs and conclude that dcs is less detailed.
Increase the volume of dcs on some low husky locals and u will notice that there is less reverberation compared to othe SACD players. Listen to this again and again and meanwhile listen to Vinyl. Then ask oneselves deep inside which is more analogue.
This could have given the generalisation that dcs is tube like and the other transistor like.
dcs official reply is that the Ring DAC is the most linear DAC and would give the most accurate reproduction. (Then again I do not really understand Ring DAC function in a DSD as Ring DAC virtues are great for Red Book but for Scarlet book - I am not sure what it does.)
So would want treat the ringing and reverberations of other SACD as more detailed or less analogue ?
I think the review should be done direct from the dcs without the preamp. This gives a whole different perpespective to music. It will show that preamp is a liability.
TAG,
That is a very intelligent comment you made about the absence of "edge enhancement" (or ringing) with the dCS on SACDs. I think I agree with you (and may quote you in my upcoming review, with your permission), although I must admit that, on SACDs, I initially had to make a bit of an "attitude adjustment" because, though fuller in tone color and more three-dimensional, the dCS didn't sound as vividly detailed as the Meitner DAC I am used to.
Jon
With the Meitner CDSA, I notice a sense of edge enhancement, but I also can hear more actual detail (e.g. brushes on cymbals versus more of a splash) on red book CD. This is not in comparison to the dCS (which I haven't heard), but other non-SACD based D/A converters. I wonder if there is some tradeoffs here? After all different filters have different frequency and time responses.
JValin
I have no objections on you quoting me.
Tmartin
You hear more details (brushes on cymbals versus of a splash) on red book CD but are these real details or not ?
U need to benchmark this say with live music or perhaps an expensive Vinyl rig (if u think vinly is absolute).
Ask yourself this question : Does the cymbals in a live Jazz band brushes that much as your hear at home ?
Or splash is the more live presentation ?
My judgment that they are "real" details is based on specific instruments sounding more like real, live instruments, as described in my example. Brushes and cymbals are real objects with real sounds, and in my example, light jazz ensemble brushwork does not sound splashy. As a reviewer, part of my job is to regularly attend live concerts and do my best to know what real instruments sound like (i.e. the absolute sound). Admittedly, this isn't as easy as it sounds, since specific instruments, specific playing styles, and specific environments (including near omni-present amplification) affect these sounds.
I have another test for whether detail is real. If one device presents more information (e.g more hall reverberation) and another device presents less information, it is likely (not certain) that the device presenting more information is presenting real information. That is because information loss is a common attribute of hi-fi systems. This test has to be put in the context of an overall natural presentation, but then it is quite revealing.
In the case of the Meitner the difference in the sense of realness that I hear isn't subtle. As I commented in my review, Esoteric players that convert red book to SACD also do better on these sorts of sounds. But the Esoteric I reviewed as not quite as accurate in this regard as the Meitner.
That said, the Meitner either 'enhances' the leading edge of transients a bit or reveals leading edge enhancement elsewhere in the recording chain. That observation is not per se inconsistent with the CDSA player revealing more actual detail, especially if the latter is the case. I will leave it to those who know more about filter math to explain why this might be so if the former is the case, but I have heard moving coil cartridges with a slight hf rise emphasize leading edges while also delivering superb actual detail (perhaps b/c they also have extended hf response). Given the challenges of reproducing near 20khz frequencies from red book CD (with a theoretical limit of about 22k, but a practical limit below that), it seems to me that sonic tradeoffs are likely in filter design (and to this point the Esoteric has less edge 'enhancement' than the Meitner, but also less realistic hf resolution). Thus the dCS is also fascinating, but might simply make different tradeoffs?
I am nowhere near engineer enough to be able to join in a conversation like this with any technical expertise. All I can do is report on what I hear and what I read.
In the case of the dCS Scarlatti and Puccini, I hear more rather than less information, but that information is also being more fully integrated into far more realistic-sounding musical wholes, rather than being spotlighted as individual musical elements (e.g., "great pop on the plucked guitar strings," "lifelike sting on cymbals and bells in the high end," "tremendous impact on timp and bass drum in the bottom octaves"). The best analogy I can use here is to video: dCS's presentation of CD (upconverted to DSD) and SACD is, in comparison to other CD/SACD playback I've heard, like the difference to the eye between a Blu-ray disc played back on a 1080p-native screen and an over-the-air 720p/1080i broadcast upconverted to 1080p. Like the Blu-ray disc, dCS' playback looks smoother, more fully integrated, less piecemeal, more realistic as a whole, where the upconverted 720p/1080i signal, though it may have several details that "pop" out at you and catch your eye, is less "holistic" (and ultimately, and in spite of any particular exceptions, less detailed). Indeed, one of the things that the dCS gear has taught me is that, in digital, what we've often (not always) extolled as "great detail" was, in no small part, the absence of other details. For instance, while my reference ARC CD7 has a tad more "bloom" and perhaps a tad more "dimensionality" than the dCS (thanks to the CD7’s tube linestage), it too is "missing" realistic details (dots in the overall picture that aren't being as fully lit, like stuck or dead pixels on a flat screen), which the dCS captures. That's why I said that the CD7 sounded—in spite of specific areas where it still impresses (as with bloom and dimensionality)—overall a little "vaporous" or "grainy" compared to the smoother, more solid, more fully "filled in," more lifelike presentation of the (much more expensive) Scarlatti and Puccini.
As for what I've read...dCS claims that its unique, patented, five-bit "Ring" DAC retrieves more information more linearly than any other DAC. I have no way of proving or disproving this; all I can say for sure is that the Scarlatti and Puccini (on upconverted CD and SACD) are providing more information that is being more fully and realistically integrated into sonic wholes, and that, as a result, voices and select instruments sound far more "there in the room with you" than they have before with CD (a bit less so with SACD—for which see my upcoming review in Issue 183 of TAS).
Your excellent, as usual, description of the difference between the dCS and CD7 parallels the difference I hear between the CDSA and the Esoteric. My sense is that the dCS goes another step in the direction that the CDSA goes, by removing a bit more of the grain. Can't wait to hear it.
Having had the opportunity to hear in short succesion the Scarlatti and now the Paganni stack ( both with clock which makes a very big difference in my opinion) I have to agree that these units give you the feeling of hearing more in to the recordings. They do this without you feeling that the information is being forced at you but rather the space in and around the instruments and proformers is more natural and distinct. When listening to recordings on cd that are complex and perhaps difficult to unravel I have found these components do a really amazing job and in a few cases have found recordings that I was not enamored with to be much better. An example is the Robert Plant and Allison Krauss track 3 and then 11 where at first listen ( not on dcs ) sounding very confused and muddy on the dcs it unravels the acoustic bass instruments to the point that I now enjoy the tracks.
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
It will interesting to see how Robert Harley's review of the Spectral SDR 4000 stacks up against the ARC, Meitner and DCS gear. Then again, I think he has more experience with the Levinson, Meridian and Esoteric gear if I recall his reviews correctly...
This unit is supposedly Keith Johnson's greatest achievement and last statement on redbook CD playback.
Keith Johnson spent five years on the development of the SDR-4000 Pro. The digital filter is the ultimate implementation of the HDCD filter, realized with custom software on a DSP platform. The current-to-voltage converter, which is virtually always built around an op-amp, took two years to develop as a discrete Class-A circuit. It's a masterpiece of design.
I hear you Robert, and I know how fanatical Keith Johnson and the entire Spectral design team is about there components (I own there DMC 30SL preamp and DMA 150 Mk II amplifier). The questions from my point of view are:
(1) How will all of this genious and research compete with the state of the art CD players and D/A converters out there (notably the ones this thread is based on, the ones that you reviewed in the past, and Spectrals own previous SDR 3000pro/2000pro combo)?
(2) Given that Spectral gear tends to perform best in an all Spectral system, how does the SDR 4000 pro performs when front ending an all Spectral/MIT system versus one that is not?
As an aside Robert, do you plan on reviewing the rest of the Spectral system on addition to the SDR 4000 pro - namely the DMC30SS preamp, DMA 360 amplifers and the Spectral (or Oracle) MIT dedicated cables? I actually posted this last question in the SDR 400 pro thread which you can ignore if you decide to answer it here...
Thanks!
Good questions Syd,
Having once apon a time a Spectral dealer I would tend to guess that the powers that be ( not KJ) might have a difficult time letting go of their precious children to do something that they may not approve of. ( I am being so nice here) . They are a very difficult company to deal with. ( another understatement).
I hope your M3 is treating you well, mine did for a long time untill it was time to get something else. I do want to drive the new one one of these days.
Spectral has way to many rules for most of us! What speakers are you using? LOL I ask because I wonder if they would approve. Private joke. If it is a good component then why does it have to work only with other spectral gear and specialized cables? I understand the amp because of its input inpedance but a cd player should be universal in its use.
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
I had the SDR-4000 Pro in a non-Spectral system for about six weeks. My system now is the SDR-4000 Pro, Spectral DMC-30SS preamp, and a pair of Spectral DMA-360 power amplifiers. Loudspeakers are Wilson Alexandria X-2 Series 2. The entire cabling is MIT Oracle MA (interconnects and speaker cable).
I'm reviewing the X-2 first, followed by a complete review of the Spectral electronics and MIT cables. The Spectral review will include an extensive interview with Spectral founder Richard Fryer and Keith Johnson.
Elliot is correct; Spectral is very discriminating in lending review equipment. The last offically sanctioned review in the US of Spectral equipment was my review of the SDR-2000/SDR-3000 about ten years ago.
Although the SDR-4000 Pro was extraordinary when used with other electronics, it took the DMC-30SS, DMA-360, and MIT Oracle MA to reveal its full potential.
Robert Harley
Hi Robert.
I write you from Denmark. I self use a dma 150 mark 2.
It es the best amp i ever owned.I newer heard the sdr 4000
cdplayer.Just heard i sould be the best ever made of CD.
I use at the moment a Holfi Xandra MP. It plays High ridge formats
as sacd 2 or 5 channel,and Cd ofcorse.I realy like to know hov good
the test of a whole spectral setup sounds.You have just testet the
sdr 4000 in the absolut sound.
I hope to hear from you.
Best regards
Michael Bladt
Hi Robert.
I write you from Denmark. I self use a dma 150 mark 2.
It es the best amp i ever owned.I newer heard the sdr 4000
cdplayer.Just heard i sould be the best ever made of CD.
I use at the moment a Holfi Xandra MP. It plays High ridge formats
as sacd 2 or 5 channel,and Cd ofcorse.I realy like to know hov good
the test of a whole spectral setup sounds.You have just testet the
sdr 4000 in the absolut sound.
I hope to hear from you.
Best regards
Michael Bladt
Elliot,
The speakers I am using are the Avalon Eidolons (original version) and I do have the Oracle V1.1 MIT cable along with the spectal amp and preamp. I guess you could say I drank the Spectal "kool aid", but for me it was worth it. Having grown up in the IT industry, having a carefully engineered integrated system had a lot of appeal to me as a concept (this is the very same concept I use in IT consulting), and since the sonics really took my breadth away (obviously the most important consideration here), it was a no brainer to go that route for me at the time. I did do quite a bit of listening to competitive systems/components before deciding on the Spectal/Eidolon combo. I am also not the kind of person that lives on Audiogon buying and selling compenents all day long to try out the latest gear. I tend to build a system over a period of years and then enjoy it for a while until I feel that it's time move to the next level.
It has been quite some time since I've put this system together, and it still performs quite well. I will admit, however, that I have heard some really terrific stuff over the last several years that easily competes with and/or surpasses what I have put together.
Regarding my M3, it's still cooking. I also had the pleaseure of driving the new M3 for several hours (with repeated 80-160 mph runs across alligator alley as part of a BMW transport crew). The new M3 is a masterpeice! With $4.50/gallon premium gasoline (and rising), however, I think I will stick with my 21+ mpg e46 M3 for the time being.
It was good running into you at the Revel Suite this past CES... Let me know when your new shop is up and running. I'd love to come by and say hello.
Robert,
That's one hell of a system you are reviewing. I can't wait to read all about it - Happy Listening!
I'm not surprised that it took the full Spectral system to fully reveal the performance potential of the SDR-4000 pro, as that falls in line with Spectrals full system optimization strategy. I also remember your review of the previous SDR-3000/2000 combo. I beleive I still have the issue of Stereophile(?) where it appeared...
The only odd duck in all this are the amps. The DMA 360's have been around for at least 8-9 years, yet the SDR 4000 and DMC30SS have been released within the last year or two. I can't help but wonder why Spectral hasn't updated its amplification so that it is as "current" (no pun intended) as its preamp and digital front end.
Both really nice systems and now I know why that RH has the cd player. It would take an "approved " system before the spectral crew would agree to let the kids come out and play. THe new place should be ready in August I hope although construction and permits in Florida are extremely unpredictable and the things they find to slow you down are unreal. I turned my M-3 in off lease a year ago and the new M was not out and I was not ready to pay in the 100k area for an M-5, M-6 or a porsche. I have a new vette now and I love it. I definetly will think hard if we have 5 or 6 dollar gas for the next go round.
BTW good answer there RH on the discriminating comment. I have a lot of stories for another place and another time about doing buisiness with Mr. Fryer. You need to drink the electric cool aid to survive. I have too little patience and too much N.Y.er in me to survive. BTW it was Revel that was the straw that broke that relationships back! Ask me when you stop buy if you are interested. Watch that speed on the alley LOL !!
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
There's a lot to be said for the system approach. Spectral treats the playback chain as a single system that happens to be housed in separate chassis. I'm not surprised that you chose Spectral/MIT after auditioning many systems, and that you've kept it for a long time. I lived with an earlier version of the system you have (in 1995) with Avalon Radian HC loudspeakers.
With this new system driving the new Wilson X-2, the soundstaging, resolution, timbral realism, and sense of making the music come alive is unparalelled, in my experience.
It's interesting to see that sydsM3 and Elliot are car enthusiasts; many in high-end audio also appreciate great cars. I just moved from a Honda S2000 to an Infiniti G37. I'm sure you know about our free on-line car-enthusiast magazine Winding Road [url]www.winding road.com[/url]
Dear Robert,
Auto's are certainly a thread of commonality that runs with most of my high end audio clients. I think that audio Industry could put on one hell of a car show all by itself. I have seen Winding Road and perhaps you should do more cross advertising, it couldn't hurt for sure. Our clients have everything from a Saleen S7 to a Porsche Carrera GT, Maybach to Rolls, Ferrari to Bentley GT's. I think its an area that is not explored enough in the marketing of the Industry.
JV uses ARC as a system, HP uses VTL as a system yet it seems that Spectral is the only one talked about that way. Curious???
On the topic we are doing a shootout with the Scarlatti and the Paganini both in dsd and then with an outboard upsampler. I have heard both but never in the same place at the same time. Taking a ride to the west coast tommorow to try this.
It would be really interesting to have the DCS, Spectral, ARC, EMM, Esoteric all in one or two systems and see what happens. I think the readers would enjoy that for sure.
.
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
Robert,
I have been a subscriber to the Winding Road since issue #1 and love it! It's a really well done car magazine (and I read just about all of them). I have turned on many of my "gear head" friends on as subscribers already. High performance sports cars, road racing, track events, etc, that's the other hobby my disposable income goes into. I've had to to make choices like deciding on whether to get a Brembo big brake kit + a double adjustable coilover suspension (roughly $10k) to track prep my car versus getting a new peice of audio gear in that price range. These kinds of choices presents an interesting dilemna for those of us who are passionate about both hobbies (and don't have unlimited means).
Come to think of it, this might be an interesting topic to write about in TAS or the Winding Road some day.
Regarding your Wilson X-2/Spectral "statement" system, all I have to say is boy oh boy... I wish I was privileged to hear this system myself. Perhaps they will team up at CES next year for all to hear?
I remember when you got the S2000 (around the time we had dinner at RMAF 2 years ago with Jon and Chris as I recall). Your new Infinit G37 has got to be one hell of a machine (and more practical with having a back seat). I've seen them rolling down the highway and they look great with a real aggressive stance. I've also heard nothing but rave reviews about it.
Enjoy!
Elliot,
Great choice on the new vette (C6 I assume). That's a great car, and if I didn't need a back seat, one that I'd be driving as well (especially the Z06 or the even crazier ZR1, which are already all presold with crazy premiums).
You should bring your baby down to the Tower Shops car show on Friday nights (University Blvd. just sout of I595) and show it off! There is a whole vette section that shows up every week. I think you would enjoy it.
Regarding your place, are you still at Commercial and US1 until August, or are you out of that space already? I would like to hear the Revel story when you have some time.
I also agree with you that a Spectral, EMM, DCS, ARC, Esoteric, etc. digital shootout would be one hell of an interesting topic to write about and even more interesting to hear with our own ears! If there are enough people in the area with this gear, maybe we can figure out how to do this in South Florida?
Yes it is a C6 coupe. I wasn't going to pay over list for a Z06 and the Zr-1 isn't available yet and I am not in the price catagory. I bought my C6 for 500.00 over cost and that was almost 40k less than the Porsche I had ordered and then cancelled. I am happy with the choice in this economy for sure. I have most of the gear or will again I should say when the new place opens, I had a EMM CDSA, ARC REF7, DCS Paganini and availability to a Scarlatti. I have done most of those already with the two DCS pieces tommorow at a friends home. I am not the car show show my car off type of person but rather I like to drive the monster when and where I can. We moved into temp. quarters accross the street and should be in the new one in late July or early August.
I doubt the companies mentioned ( one in particular) would allow such a shootout. What system would be used? What speakers? What cables?
There was a time when a lot of the reviewers could all hear the same products and comment it seems a long time ago now.
I am hoping the Z06 prices come down and if the new store does really well perhaps?????
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
I guess the only way to do the shootout without the manufacturers getting into a tizzy is to have people who already own the gear agree to do it using someones system that all would agree on. Perhaps this is a project for a consumer to undertake, or see what Robert ends up using as comparison's in his forthcoming review of the SDR-4000.
Enjoy the vette Elliot. You should still conider coming to the Tower Shops one Friday night if not to just chill out, check out all the different cars (new and old) and hang out with like minded car folks. It's a great way to decompress after the week. For me it's like therapy...
Syd/Elliot -- do you want a shootout (winner take all ranking) or a comparison?
I don't necessarily see the options as mutually exclusive. You should be able to have a shoot out with a winner and a comparison of the contenders in the race. Check out this post on Audiogon on a digital shoot out that was conducted in San Diego earlier this year.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1172688055&read&keyw&zzdig...
There was one overall winner, but there were also very informative comparisons made as well. It is interesting to see how they set up the ground rules for the shootout, and how it was conducted. This is only one example, but it might be useful to consider when/if you decide to do one in TAS.
If I was forced to pick one though, it would the winner take all scenario as it really forces the issue of
to finish my previous post - "... it really forces the issue of making a decision and stating the reasons for it."
Quote:If I was forced to pick one though, it would the winner take all scenario as it really forces the issue of making a decision and stating the reasons for it
Let me ask you something, Syd: What is the best speaker?What is the best amplifier? What is the best preamplifier, phonostage, turntable/tonearm/cartridge? I can tell you what I think I is best for me, given my taste in and experience with live music, my taste in and experience with canned music, my taste in and experience with hi-fi systems, my listenting room and ancillary equipment, etc. But that is only what I think under very specific conditions. For instance, the current generation of dCS players are "the best" I've heard. (Note: Neither of the current-generation dCS players, the dCS Puccini and the dCS Scalatti, were part of the blind-listening shoot-out that the chap on Audiogon conducted.) Does that make dCS indisputably "best?" Indisputably no. For one thing, I haven't heard every contender for top honors in digital playback (and given the speed with which new products are introduced, how could I?); for another, I have a very specific bias when it comes to what I consider the lifelike presentation of any recorded media, what could be called (somewhat unfairly, since I consider it "realistic") an analog bias. While I attempt to make allowances for those who don't have these same biases in my review of the dCS gear, it is a fact that I prefer CD players that combine some of the salient qualities of LP playback with the salient qualities of digital playback. Now, if your taste and experience in music and gear run parallel to mine, and my track record of picking "worthwhile" products strikes you as reasonably good, then what I think may matter to this extent and this extent only: It gives you a reasonable direction to look in.
To put this flatly, I don't want or trust ten or twelve strangers telling me what is "the best" audio gear for me on the basis of blind listening tests. I want to figure that one out for myself after very, very careful listening and cross-comparison (although, as noted, I wouldn't turn down some expert direction-pointing along the way from listeners who like the music I like and hear equipment the way I hear it). Just as essentially, what is "best" for me almost always amounts to a group of products in which one or two or three stand out a bit more than the others at various price points and, often, at the same price points. On any given day, given a certain very high level of fidelity, I might reasonably prefer the set of virtues of "Best Product B" to the slightly (or wholly) different set of virtues of "Best Product A" or 'Best Product C." The point being that sonic virtues are sets of qualities, and which set I prefer depends to an extent on the kind of music I'm listening to, the other equipment I'm listening with, and, frankly, the state of mind I'm in. This isn't willy-nilly, of course. If I couldn't make a persuasive musical case for each of these products, I would be a very poor and capricious listener.
No shoot-out, blinded or sighted, is going to give you one indisputable winner that does everything you want a product of its kind to do and that fits your listening biases on every kind of music. I just don't think that's possible or even reasonable to expect. I do think that there are, on rare occasions, exceptional products that stand out from others of their type (in dynamic two-ways, the Magico Mini II, for instance). Does that make these stand-outs "the best of all?" Absolutely not. (Given the right amplification, preamplification, and front end), I would prefer the Magico Mini IIs on Joan Baez singing "Matty Groves" or Heifetz playing the Kreutzer Sonata ahead of just about everything else I've yet listened to (save, perhaps, for the huge and ultra-expensive and ultra-unobtainable Symposium Acoustics Panorams), but I wouldn't prefer them to the MBL 101 Es on most rock 'n' roll and a fair amount of large-scale classical. Does that make the Magico Mini IIs less "best"?
The way this tiny section of the world works is pretty much the same way the entire world works: It gives you choices, often very good choices, but all of them somehow limited. What you want to do--and what you can do (at least for yourself and others like you)--is weed out the bad or less good ones. Then, always and forever and insolubly (blinded or sighted), you're going to have to pick what makes best sense to you.
Tom, Syd and Jon,
When I talk about a shootout type comparison I meant that all the top contenders ( that can reasonably assembled) be listened too by one or more of the reviewers to see where they differ and how they all sound with some basis of comparison. I agree with Jon the best is a concept that really can't be universal and if it isn't live music then how can it be the best. I would like to read about them and how they are alike and are different and maybe even some opinions of what might be the best value and which might be the cutting edge in sound today. I am also not a believer that a db blind test is the way to compare everything. I have had this discussion with someone from that group over cables and do not agree with this methodology as the defining truth. I also don't believe there is one best.
I just got home from Sarasota where I took my Paganini to compare with my friends Scarlatti in his system. His system is not the best and in fact is not as good as what I am using or what my other friend who came along has however the results in this comparison were very easy to hear. One was clearly better on all types of music and the difference in transports was dramatic and to me surprising in the distance between them. I will leave the reviewing to the reviewers but todays experience was interesting and a lot of fun.
No blind tow second switch can prepare you for what we heard. I know that there are many that listen to cables like this and in my humble opinion it is just a waste of effort. I can't deteremine what I like by listening to a single note. I can't even name that tune in one note!
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
Hey Jon, your points are well taken and I will address your questions (I focused on what looked like the biggies to me).
1. Regarding the Audiogon shootout with stangers, my only point was that it is the only data point I ran across where something like this was attempted (for better or worse). How those who read it interpret it or plan to use it, is up to them. People can dismiss it out of hand, or take away from it what they will. The interest for me personally was in the fact that it was attempted. I haven't endorsed there methods, but I do give them credit for the "attempt". Again, we make our own interpretations and we can take away from it what we will. Personally, I found it to be interesting reading.
2. I was expecting pushback on this "winner take all" option for many of the reasons you outlined. In light of this, let's posit the following: If you state all of your assumptions, objectives, non-objectives, and any other caveats you feel are necessary to support a decision within whatever parameters and scope you need to frame a decision, I would still like to know what that decision is (for you, Robert or whoever took this on if it were to be a one person project), and the reasons for it.
You may ask what is the value in this for Syd? Since I can only speak for myself, the answer is that I have been following your work since ("Fi"), Robert's (since Stereophile), and others in TAS for quite some time and have gotten a real good idea of the reviewers "tastes" in equipment and music as it were. I have also been able to "relate" my own tastes to different reviewers over the years and have been pretty good at filtering what I may or may not like to hear based on that. I do not base buying decisions, but I do base auditioning agenda's on this method. That's why I would like the reviewer to pick their winner (or if the term "winner" is misleading, the one they would have if they could only choose one). It just make the whole "relating" exercise that much more meaningful for me. As I said in my earlier post, I don't see this as being mutually exclusive to having a comparative analysis done for the contenders as well.
3. Just to be fair, Tom did present the "winner take all" option in his question to me and Elliot earlier in this thread. Perhaps he can weigh in on what he hand in mind for this option?
I agree with Syd that I think a lot of readers would like a winner-take-all approach. By that I mean something like "We tested 8 preamps, and here they are in rank order: winner, second place, etc".
My concern is that starting with this shootout format in mind, we bring a false view of reality to the table. As Syd says, you can still do a comparison while doing a shootout. But, for those who focus on the shootout, some damage is done to reality.
That damage is this: in many cases it is simply not true that one product is hands-down better than another. In these common situations, one product is better in some circumstances and not in others.
Perhaps we are being too persnickety about mis-interpretation. On the other hand, Elliot as just one example has been quite vocal about responsibilities to the industry overall. I think that extends to readers, as well.
Perhaps we can expand on Syd's original idea -- how do we keep the focus brought about via shootout with something that is mainly a comparison?
Perhaps we can look at how some of the car magazines do there shootouts? Many of them have there "Best Sports Car" or "Best Drop Top" shootouts, etc. where they do put them in rank order while focusing on the comparisons along the way.
That's just my two cents worth... I'm interested to hear what other's have to say on the matter.
Tom,
A review is afterall only one man's opinion. We live in a world that everyone wants the fast answer, I have no issue with a shootout format however you at TAS have to be responsible and careful how you do it. In order for it to be ranked I think you would have to have multiple "rankers" for the result to mean anything significant otherwise it is just a single sample of "one mans opinion."
Please make sure that if you do this that all these products are in production please. :lol:
I do think readers like to see the awards and results along with the reviews however I personally don't like blanket lists like some other publications give. The combination of one from column A and one from column B may be easy but it does not mean the results will be audio heaven.
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
The way most of the car magazines do shootouts is to throw reality to the wind. As a real example, I have the Audi R8 and Porsche GT3 on test. To pick one as a winner is interesting, but in a way is absurd, because they are really different cars for different driving situations. Which is better: Chocolate Cake or Fettucini Alfredo? Of course I can pick one, and lay out my reasoning, as can any other writer.
I am not as confident about Elliot's "it is just one man's opinion". There is the idea of all of this being sanctioned by the institution.
Again, maybe there are ways to address these things. And, in the end, "give 'em what they want" is a fine philosophy. Just trying to be sure this is what folks really want (from this and other threads I think it is).
I'd like to move part of this to the TAS editorial feedback section. Can you comment there?
I agree with Elliot that a panel review is the way to go versus a one man (or woman) review. It would be much more meaningful to me and probably most readers in my opinion. I would also add that if it were possible for the panel to be listening to the same system(s) in the same room(s), that would add even more meaning to the review. Of course that raises the issue of the reviewers not being in the familar surroundings of there own systems and listening rooms, let alone the fact that they are geographically dispersed. I still think there is merit to the idea though. Having a distinguished panel of reviewers gathering for a shootout/comparative analysis on state of the art "anything" using one or more common systems and listening rooms would be my vote for setting the foundation for something like this.
This thread brings up the larger question of the review’s responsibility to the reader and the reader’s responsibility to himself.
Reader like shootouts that name a clear winner; it makes life easier for them. But as Tom Martin and Jonathan Valin have pointed out, the product the reviewer liked the best and would choose for himself is not necessarily the product that will be best for all readers. The reviewer’s responsibility is to accurately describe the product’s sonic signature (every product has one) and assess the unit’s strengths and shortcomings. The review should expand the reader’s way of looking at the dilemma so that he can make the best choice.
Concomitantly, the reader’s responsibility is to come to grips with what tradeoffs he’s willing to make and which he isn’t. The reviewer can’t do that for the reader; the reviewer can only help him think about the problem. Readers think they want the reviewer to tell them what to buy, but in reality the reader grows by being forced to think about the problem for himself. It’s like the old adage “Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he can eat for a lifetime.”
I recently went through this experience myself as a consumer. I was in the market for a sports coupe between $35k-$50k to replace my Honda S2000. I narrowed the field to a BMW 335, the new BMW 135, and an Infiniti G37. When I saw that Winding Road was about to publish a head-to-head comparison of the 135 and the G37 (just as I was about to make a purchasing decision) I anticipated it eagerly. On first reading, I was disappointed by the comparison; it didn’t name a clear winner, concluding “Each car is well worth the asking price.” It seemed like a cop-out.
But subsequent readings revealed that the author did a masterful job of pointing out the virtues and limitations of each car. Paragraph after paragraph described in detail how these two ostensibly similar cars are actually aimed at different drivers with different value systems. The review forced me to confront my own value system and decide what I really wanted in a car. The review defined the question, and forced me to grow as a car enthusiast. Had the comparison chosen a clear winner, I might have missed an opportunity to gain this insight.
There’s a direct parallel with audio reviewing. How can the reviewer know if a particular reader values deeper bass extension and dynamics over a smoother and more open midrange? The reviewer should point out which product has the deeper bass extension and which has the better midrange, and encourage the think about the question within a larger context.
Gentlemen: I added the germane parts of the above to "Shootouts vs. Comparisons" in The Absolute Sound section of Editorial feedback below. Could you post any comments on this issue there, so that readers interested in the overall topic can see them (and this thread can revert to dCS/Meitner discussions)? Here is a link to jump there:
http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=3932
Thanks.
Robert,
Your brief on the responsibility of readers to come to terms with various trade-offs (and their desire not to do so) captures an aspect of the expert-layman dynamic in a way that I couldn't quite put words to before
The layman (non-expert or "reader" in the case of magazines) just wants to be told what to do, what to buy. We want simple answers.
The responsible expert says, "there is no easy answer. There is no one answer to your question."
The layman often gets frustrated with the expert's attempt to explain the trade-offs. They suspect the expert is simply ducking the tough questions. (And they sometimes get lost in the expert's discussion. And frankly the layman sometimes doesn't want to put forth the energy that the reviewer is demanding.)
The idea that a good reviewer (or expert communicating to a lay audience) forces the reader to come to terms with his own values--man, that's a piece of gold right there. I keep telling folks that you audio writers capture some amazing stuff. Here's an example. What's interesting to me is that we all become laymen at some point. We may know cars, but we don't know audio or we don't know real estate. So even experts enter the layman's position when they venture outside their specialty.
By the way Robert, one question I have is why the layman is so reluctant to come to terms with his values. If you are willing, I would love to hear what values you came to terms with and how you decided on the right car for you.
Phillymanhere:
I copied your post to the TAS section on Shootouts vs Comparisons, so that readers there can also read what you wrote since it is on that topic.
Just checking in to see if any further thought has been given to how a digital comparison/shootout might be incorporated into a future issue of TAS...
Jon,
Any further thoughts on the Scarlatti?
Elliot Goldman Front Row Center- High End Pompano Beach , Florida
The issue of The Absolute Sound with Jonathan's Scarlatti review is at the printer. It mails in about ten days.
This is for Robert Harley. Don't know where else to put it. I have a G35 but finally changed my tires away from the stock Michelen Pilots to some much better tires. I highly recommend if you want to enjoy your car to get some sticky tires and not use the all seasons that probably still come with it. I couldn't PM you to let you know, but it is like upgrading from a Meridian 508 to an EMM playing SACD. Actually it is more than that. I am using the newest Dunlop Sport Star Extreme Summer that is amazing. It is like a new car and the rear doesn't need the limited slip all the time.
Robert Hartley,
When will the reveiw of the SpectraL 4000 Pro be run in TAS?
re not stand alone DACs but CD/SACD players....i feel that any player that lacks digital input severely reduces the relative value offered to the consumer...with hard disc based music servers proliferating such ability to access the DAC functionality within a player increases the value greatly. Meitner CDSA made a critical mistake in this...I use the DCC2 but also am considering other DACs or one box players...though I must admit since starting using the Sooloos server, I find myself playing less CDs or SACDs for that matter due to the sheer user functionality and fun factor, re-discovering your entire music library. Others may differ and of course still no DSD based memory for this etc...but still the conclusion is the same: all one box players should have digital inputs and audio reviewers should test this and comment on how the internal DAC performs when they write their reviews, Indeed I think audio reviewers should have hard disc based server ready for all such reviews thereby using it a controlling variable (the source is always the same not this transport to that one) over time, thus establishing a better benchmark to make comparisons. Robert Hartely...are you hearing this? Please!
I have just set up a PC-based music server that's loaded with Reference Recordings HRx high-res files. After I have a bit more experience with servers, I'll end up with one on a permanent basis as part of my reference system.
I can say that the server I'm using now (built by Goodwin's High-End) playing 176.4kHz/14-bit files of Keith Johnson's recordings decoded by the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC ($5k) is unquestionably the best source I've ever had in my system---and by a large margin.
Hey Robert, kudos...though perhaps its the high rez digital files that account for your gushing? In any case, it would be interesting to hear from you about using the server hooked up to the Esoteric gear including the master clock you praised awhile back or another external DAC solutions and comparing it with the server's internal DAC....Would love to see you going down this path and keep experimenting with various DACs and using the server as the primary source.
Hi!
Am currently using the older DCS gears--Verdi, Elgar Plus, Purcell, Verona and considering to up-grade. Having been following JV's review on the DCS, RH's Esoteric, also most recently on the Burmeister, have resulted the shortlist below, in order of my preference :
-DCS Scarlatti (not heard of Paggani as mentioned by Elliot. Is it positioned above/below or as successor??).
-Esoteric P01, D01 +Clock.
-EMMS LAB (top of line).
Excluded Burmeister coz i wanted the flexibility to be able to play both red book and sacds as well. And as I'm not one who frequently changes equipment, would prefer if the gears I buy now be able to withstand the test of time longer than most other competing makes, ala the classic Levinson and DCS gears.
Aside of some quibbles with the Verdi's optical units which needed to be replaced 3x in my 6yrs of use, i'm very pleased with their overall sound performance (using ALL Siltech's G6 cablings--digital IC-AESBU, FW Classic MkII for sacd and Power Cords plugged into a PS Audio 1200).
Helpful pointers in this thread towards the right direction of an up-grade will be appreciated as most dealers here do not carry the top-of-line gears in stock I therefore must tap on all meaningful resources to aid in my making decision before finalizing on choice of gears to live with--long term!
Though some advice is, with current state of digital advances, to keep what i have now, jump into the hard-disk/server format first using my current set-up, and invest only later in the next generation after Scarlatti, P01/D01 etc. :?: :lol:
Post new comment