|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
222.153.127.108
Does anyone have an update on the Mike Lavigne thread and detailed unbiased review that Audiogon have so taken off, cause they have no testicles!
Any independent reviews between the two versions wopuld be most helpful.
Follow Ups:
I was at Mikel's and listened to a comparison of Alex's modded Denon
and the EMM Labs gear. I ran out of time and could not stay for a direct Denon to amps listen. However, I did get to go back and forth a few times with each front end through the DarTzeel pre-amp. Both of these machines have their virtues. What all the vitriol is about I do not know. Do you like blondes or brunettes? The Meitner is more transparent and more revealing than the Denon, while at the same time being very musical. The Denon is warmer, richer and also very musical. So in some sense it becomes a question of system balancing.
How does the rest of your system integrate with these source components? Also, what is your taste in musical reproduction. Are detail, clarity and transparency very important to you? Or is a sense of organic-ness and warmth higher on your priority list? The Meitner is a solid state device. The Denon has tubes. These are very different sounding players. The Meitner is probably more "accurate". The Denon more "romantic". Both are enjoyable to listen to. I like warmth and musicality in addition to transparency and detail. I have chosen to try to achieve this through system balancing (Siltech cables for example add a bit of bloom and beauty). In my system I would chose the Meitner over the Denon, but I think a more fair comparison would be between the Meitner
and a modded Esoteric player - since the price points would be closer.
The transport mechanism on both of these units leaves a lot to be desired IMO. Hasn't anyone in the modern world seen what a Levinson
31.5 transport is like? Give me Meitner electronics, with a transport like the 31.5 and the same build quality as the Levinson and I am in line with my dough.
OK, due to popular demand......below is the original post from the thread i openned on AudiogoN. to be perfectly honest; i have no idea why it was any big deal.....or why the thread was deleted. i have done further listening comparisons with particular attention to redbook and my conclusions are very consistent.*************
sorry guys. after 8 hours on Sunday i was just not in the mood to sit down and get into this Sunday night. i had planned on doing this when i got home last night; the OWMBO (one who must be obeyed) had a different plan. my daughter is getting married in a month and it was determined that we needed to talk about that last night.
so the whole digital audio world was put on hold while i talked to my wife and daughter.
wadaya gonna do?
anyway; Alex and his wife arrived at 'the barn' about 11 am on Sunday morning......they had started driving from Fremont about 11 pm Saturday night. Alex came bearing a gift.....an unopened bottle of 12 year old single malt Macallan Scotch which was deposited in the pantry as Alex was going to be driving back that same night.
my friend 'Bud', a fellow EMM Labs owner, arrived a few minutes later. we determined that the first order of business was to compare the EMM Labs Signature DAC6e to the original DAC6.
the setup; both the DAC6e Signature and DAC6 were sitting on my Grand Prix Audio rack......on Formula Selves with identical foam compliance pads. both DAC6's had identical Jena Labs Fundamental power cords plugged into the same Jena Labs duplex outlet. to switch outputs i unplugged my 1 meter XLR Valhalla from one DAC6 to the other. i had set up the original DAC6 the night before and had it run all night to make sure it was fully warmed up for this comparison.
we did plug Alex's ALPHiFi Denon for warm up as soon as he showed up so later it would be fully warmed up.
back to the EMM Labs.
our original plan was to play one CD sampler disc and one SACD sampler disc and then quickly switch. we started down this road first with the Signature DAC6e and CDSD. we played a few cuts on the CD sampler; i then decided to add a couple other CD's including classical piano and small string quartet. we then played the SACD sampler and finally i added one more SACD; 'Sempre Libera'; by Anna Netrebko. this is a collection of Arias.
track 11 on this disc ("Ardon gli incensi" by Donizetti) has become probabaly my most played demo track. it is a very dynamic and open aria that features great singing and a glass harmonica that gives a system absolutely no place to hide.
Anna's crystal clear soprano will expose anything less than natural neutrality, smooth mid and upper treble and total clarity. there are a few moments where the glass harmonica seems suspended in space; any veils are exposed by restricting the texture and clarity of the glass harmonica. both Anna's voice and the glass harmonica can sound hard, rough or edgy if the system and digital player is lacking.
to be honest; for the rest of the day this 'track 11' became the test that we used to compare. if you have not heard this i highly recommend it......it is great music anyway but extremely useful to easily hear differences; and particularly differences that make lots of difference in long term listening satisfaction.....at least to me.
my personal sonic priorities start with 'veils removed while retaining naturalness' as most important. i want my gear to get out of the way and allow the music to flow with the least gear signature as possible while always sounding natural. "natural vividness" might describe it. others might want a bit of warmth or lushness; or maybe richness would be a better way to describe it. i have no problem with that approach as long as 'blurring' the clarity is not part of picture.
the DAC6e was better than the DAC6. the Signature had a lower noise floor; had better clarity and texture. there was more a sense of Anna standing there in front of me. the glass harmonica seemed to come to life and pulsate with texture and clarity. not that the DAC6 was not satisfying; it's just that the DAC6e Signature seemed to go further down that road..
i don't want to speak for 'Bud' or Alex; but to me it was obvious.
we then replaced the old DAC6 with Alex's Denon. the Denon was in the same place the old DAC6 had been and since it weighed about the same we used the same compliance pads and the same power cord. i did take the RCA Valhalla off my tt and use it for this comparison as Alex's Denon does not have XLR outputs and the DAC6e Signature does have RCA outputs.
we had decided to first compare the APL Denon with the EMM Labs Signature combo with the Denon used as a digital source and play it thru the darTZeel preamp. we played "track 11" thru both digital sources.
we all agreed that the EMM Labs had more detail. i preferred the EMM Labs as less veiled and more real. the APL Denon was simply not as open on top and as 'there' as the EMM Labs. Anna's voice had more definition and texture. the glass harmonica popped out more and was more real and alive sounding. i was more involved with the EMM Labs.
i will not speak for Don or Alex as far as their opinions beyond this. there is no doubt that the APL Denon is a very good digital source and a great value.
i'm keeping my EMM Labs.
we then moved the APL Denon to between my speakers and used it without a preamp directly into my darTZeel amps. there was a slight degree of improvement in clarity in this configuration from the APL Denon and likely a bit more dynamics too. this is likely the ideal way to use the APL Denon.
it was now about 2 pm.
my friend Bud then left and a few minutes later my friend Ted and his wife showed up. a word about Ted; he is very knowledgeable about digital audio design. he has designed DAC's and digital audio workstations.....and is also an EMM Labs owner. Ted owns 3000 SACD's......yes THREE THOUSAND SUPER AUDIO CEE DEE's.
anyway; we went thru the same drill with essentially the same results......except; Ted felt like there was less difference between the DAC6e Signature and DAC6.
this was what we thought on Sunday afternoon.
in the last hour tonight i have again gone back and forth twice on this same comparison to be sure of my perceptions. i hear more clarity and textural nuance from the DAC6e Signature......i hear farther into the soundstage with the DAC6e Signature......and things are a bit more effortless with the DAC6e Signature. but to be clear; the DAC6 is still pretty damn good.
based on my earlier comparison on Sunday i had said to Alex that the old DAC6 might not be as good as the APL Denon.....based on my more recent listening i would need to modify that to say that i clearly prefer the old DAC6 to Alex's Denon......based on my personal sonic priorities.
we did the same comparison for Ted with the APL Denon that we did with Bud; if anything Ted leaned stronger toward the EMM Labs than Bud.
I want to mention what a ‘class act’ Alex was. He was open and non-defensive about his Denon. He never forced his perspective and was content to sit back and allow this process to go forward. At one point we played some vinyl. I don’t want to speak for Alex but he indicated that he was impressed. he might have said something like ‘wow’ or maybe a little more.
at about 6 pm Alex and his wife said their goodbyes and drove off for California. Ted left with his wife an hour later.
it had been a long day; i felt the tug of the Macallan but instead went in to see the wife.
i hope this helps.
**************thanks to 'Shokunin' on AudiogoN for saving my post and sending it to me.
if i may (and here on the wild and wooley audioasylum i guess i may if i damn well please to) i would like to add an e-mail response i made to this question that further focuses my perceptions.
**************
As far as the difference; it is as I posted.First; I have not listened to a Signature Edition of the DCC2 so I can't comment on that except that I would expect it to be on par with the Signature Edition of the DAC6e.
The difference between the DAC6e SE and the original DAC6 is subtle only in the fact that the original DAC6 is pretty darn good.....it has been the best digital for the last 4 years. So the SE and original versions are not night and day different. OTOH there are important differences that mainly have to do with noise floor and improved naturalness. These differences result in hearing farther into the music, better bass articulation and better clarity. Piano's have more textural nuance, voices are less veiled, horns are more seamless and smoother. Everything is more analogue sounding.
These differences are consistent on SACD and Redbook.
As I listen to the SE edition longer the differences do jump out at me. I 'get' it. I originally went back and forth maybe twenty times between the two on all kinds of music and identified the differences. Now I am listening to the SE version and it is easy for me to hear the differences in how much more involved in the music I am.
Some might call the upgrade slight, some might call it clear......i would call it significant but not dramatic. It is simply farther down the same road and more refined.
If you never did the upgrade you should still feel that the original DCC2 is a fantastic DAC. But it can be a bit (or a big bit) better. In the context of my system it was easily worth it to me.
******************
please understand that my perspective is that these perceptions are just one person's perspective and everyone needs to draw their own conclusions.
Dear Mike,This is exciting. Could you help me with the following questions please?
1. What changes have been implemented in the Signature version?
2. Is the upgrade a risky and complicated procedure? If so, am I better off buying a new DCC2 Signature?
3. Is the original DCC2 still available along with the Signature version?
4. Is there a price increase for the Signature version compared to the original DCC2?Thanks for this exciting news!
Hi DkB:I know you addressed this to Mike, but I thought I might help out.
1. There is so much misinformation about differences in the the previous generation of the EMM Labs product that a decision was made to talk only about sonic differences. That truly is the only thing that matters.
People speculate that one unit with a black knob sounds better than another unit with a silver knob, or vice-a-versa. It is ridiculous. Changes are made due to availability of parts through vendors and sometimes that dictates what is used. No sonic impact equals no redesignation of model name. I recently was told by a customer that he was told that he needed to sell his DAC6e for a newer DAC6e because there were huge changes made and the unit he had was an "old" model. He was lied to. The only time EMM Labs will change a model is when the technology they have developed is significant enough sonically to demand the change, such as in the new "Signature Edition". In the DAC6e or DCC2, there were NO changes that demanded any new model designation. Some dealers may have wanted to dip into the same well many times and have out and out lied. That is the reason we have "cleaned house". We do continue to have a quality dealer base and they are all dealers who offer unsurpassed service and loyalty to their customers. At any time, if we hear differently, that particular dealer will be terminated. In the meantime, there are going to be those dealers that spin the truth to work for them, but the truth is they never properly represented the product.
To specifically answer your questions, what I hear differently is a much lower noisefloor which unveils textures and details that were not as present in the previous models. The dynamics and bass have greatly improved along with the musicality. The imaging is more precise as is the clarity in the higher frequencies. It is just more natural.
2. No, there is no risk. The unit is basically gutted and reassembled with the new parts. It is actually more work than building a new unit.
3. No, EMM Labs is no longer offering the non "Signature Edition" digital to analog converters.
4. The price of the DCC2 or DACE6e was 11.5k. The price of the DCC2eSE and DAC6eSE is 13.5k.
Hope this all helps!
Thanks for the helpful information Jonathan! I am very keen to send my DCC2 for the upgrade.You mentioned the upgrade involves gutting the entire DCC2. Apart from the chassis, will any components (transformer, capacitors, power supply) from the original DCC2 be re-used? Or will the internals be built 100% from the ground up with new parts?
My CDSD is about a year old. Does it need to be upgraded as well?
Many thanks for the clarification! I have contacted EMM Labs about how to send in my DCC2.
The only other thing that has not changed is the power supply. Everything else is changed.
Jonathan,You and others have said the CDSD signature is essentially unchanged, other than the faceplate.
Yet, the David Robinson review on positive-feedback, gives the impression that there was a sonic improvement when he replaced an older CDSD for the signature. Perhaps, the differences were just related to the signature DAC6e. The CDSD should not sound any better should it ? Makes me wonder about his review ?
HowdyI got to visit MikeL's house tonight and to listen more carefully to the EMM Labs DAC6 vs. the EMM Labs DAC6e Signature Edition. I say more carefully because I was there the Sunday before last but so many other things were going on that I couldn’t really give the systems a fair shake (especially since I was the one doing the cable swaps then.) This time Mike let me sit in the sweet spot and he swapped interconnects and optical cables back and forth whenever I asked. Also we spent a non-trivial amount of time setting up his (very adjustable) speakers to my taste. (I prefer just a little more bass than normal and a little less high, which sounds funny since I have the JMLab Utopia BE speakers in my system.)
Let me start with the conclusion. If you read my report about the DAC6 here a few years ago ( http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/125132.html ) you get a rough idea of the differences. There is just more refinement of the differences that matter to me. More detail across the spectrum, more articulation in the bass, more definition in the treble and more dynamic. It’s like a veil is lifted. I know this is the same story over again, but we’re all aware of the differences as our systems get better, it seems that there is always more to be discovered in good music. I also feel that I need to state that even tho there is more detail it doesn’t come at the expense of the flow of the music. In fact the SE perhaps has more ease than the DAC6. After listening to the SE the DAC6 just sounded a little hazy, covered, muted.
We listened mostly to SACDs that I brought with me that I knew well: "Take Five" on "Time Out" (of course :) ), "Sweet and Pungent" on "Blues in Orbit", "Knockin' Myself Out" and "Itchin' and Scratchin'" on "Vivino Brothers Blues Band", the "Moonlight Sonata" "Presto" on the Mari Kodama "Beethoven Piano Sonatas", "Star Wars: A New Hope" on "Great Film Fantasies", "In the Beginning" on "The Moody Blues: On the Threshold of a Dream" and various cuts on "Sam Cooke: Portrait of a Legend 1951-1964" Since I forgot my Shaggy SACD we played track 6 (I believe it's titled "Hope") on the yellow Shaggy CD (I don't know it's name offhand.)
It normally doesn't take me long to hear differences when playing "Take Five" but this set a new record: about 2 measures! Since I had hardly heard any difference on Sunday, I wasn't prepared for the added clarity when going to the DAC6e SE. I had Mike go back to the DAC6 again and then back to the SE. Yep, it wasn't my imagination.
On the Vivino Bros disk, the differences in the percussion (drum kit and washboard) were pronounced. I like using this disk because on many systems the washboard can sound like noise on the sax in some sections. Also on many systems the front to back separation of the instruments is lacking and once again the washboard can be indistinct. Not so with the DAC6e SE. One can not only hear everything in it's place, but you can easily imagine the motion of the hand strumming the washboard.
One of the things I wanted to check out was how the less well recorded tracks on the Sam Cooke album sounded. Some of the tracks are less than pleasant on my system ("Touch the Hem of His Garment" and "Just for You" come to mind.) On Mike's system they were a little more pleasant and the DAC6e SE pulled more out of the disc again. On the other hand on the DAC6e SE the "Just for You" track was more sibilant. I have to assume that it's there in the recording (which was my assumption all along, but hey, often you find your assumptions challenged in someone else's system.)
On the "Blues in Orbit" disc I had Mike go back and forth about three times. Each time I heard more differences, for example the stark contrast between the cymbal ticks in the intro and then the fuller use of the cymbals later. Compared to the SE the DAC6 sounded indistinct on the percussion in the intro.
I could go on, but the DAC6e SE is clearly a more and better DAC6. Don't get me wrong, the difference isn't earth shattering, it's not a difference in kind, just a non-trivial enhancement in the things I like most about the DAC6e. I've spent less on bigger differences elsewhere in my system in the past, but at this point I don't know how I could add the refinement and ease any other way than getting a SE of my own. (Perhaps I'll have to go back to work for a little to support my audio habit :)
It's a very welcome change from the numbing drone of technoid-one-upmanship that's taken root here of late. Yours and Mike1's observations are among the very best this board has had to offer....makes me wish I still lived on the west coast; must be something about the air out there.
"How refreshing to hear such well reasoned and objective commentary!"Oh yes... it's just so refreshing to hear an incompetent listener do a complete flip flop based on "further listening." It's so refreshing to read about his objectively reached conclusion on Audiogon turn into a completely different objectively reached conclusion on Audio Asylum based on nothing more than "further listening." Kind of like looking at a white piece of paper and saying "based on further viewing, I conclude that it is a black piece of paper." Based on what I've read, I can only conclude that Mr. Smith is a well-meaning but poorly trained listener who isn't worth listening to at all.
...they decribe how their perceptions evolve as they grope for objective descriptors for reproducers of subjective art. We're aware that in this hobby all we can do is to use our collective experiences to assemble systems that provide temporarily bases from which to explore an infinite set of variables. In doing so, I'll take Ted's or Mike's evolutionary "flip-flops" any day over robotic pronouncements of absolutes.I've seen so many here bullheadedly defend the corners they've painted themselves into that they devolve into ranting zealots; thus further distancing themselves from the art they purportedly seek.
I certainly wouldn't be able to hear music reproduced at the level I'm now hearing if I were locked into the first opinions I issued. I'm still learning and my tastes are still evolving, and I welcome the opportunity to learn from others further upstream in a similar boat.
HowdyPerhaps you are confused: I post here, not at AudioGon. Why would you assume anything about what I think based on what you read there? Perhaps you need to check your sources. Let me help:
My first post on the subject here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/432798.htmlIn the following note particularly my statements "I just don't like people spreading rumors, bad mouthing companies and ... " in response to Thom Y's post, "I just don't like people [...] putting words in my mouth." in response to Alex's post on AudioGon and "I'm not trying to be evasive, but I didn't have the time to properly listen to the differences of the equipment that was there and won't publicly comment till I have listened with a variety of material and plenty of time.":
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/432818.htmlHere's my implicitly promised A/B:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/225320.htmlPerhaps you were confused by Alex quoting me out of context on AudioGon (a copy of which is in http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/225315.html .)
If Alex hadn't misrepresented what I said I wouldn't have responded to Jwm's "I agree with Alex and find [the Meitner] lean in the mid's" in http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/225459.html saying "Alex's boxes never quite had the same boogie factor for me as the Meitner." I just don't like people quoting me out of context giving the impression that I feel something else than I really feel.
I always try to find something positive to say when people ask for my options and then if they insist on more details I try to give them constructive criticism. In the case of Alex's Denon I do indeed stand by my actual statement to him that "The Denon has more body in the bass (without loosing details) with makes the DAC6 sound leaner." (which isn't quite how he quoted me, namely "It is very interesting to me that the Denon has more body and more bass which makes the new EMM combo sounding leaner.") I also told him that I liked the musicality of the DAC6 better, that I thought that the Denon was rolled off in the highs (even tho Mike's system was tipped up at little at the time) causing the ambiance of the room to disappear and that the Denon seemed to be limited by its DACs and sounded quite "PCMish" (not in a good way.)
My wife's comment after Alex left the room was simpler: "Mike, keep the Meitner."
-Ted
P.S. Is that your real name or is it derived from the pool trick shot players "Stefano Pelinga" and "Francisco Bustamante"?
Well spotted. I saw those blokes on the telly recently - but Mike Massey was simply unreal.
Regards,
Geoff
HowdyMy wife doesn't understand why I watch pool, but she can't keep her eyes off of the trick shot shows when they are on :)
HowdyIf you ever get out here again look us up. We're always willing to entertain :)
I appreciate the time you, MIke, and Alex (plus others) took to perform the bake-off and to re-submit your opinions after the inappropiate removal on Audiogon. I also appreciate Ted's effort do a rechallenge and to come back here and report it. Now, I would think it would be great if this was done in a blinded fashion with multiple listeners, to eliminate any biases.Meanwhile, it would be nice hear from Alex and his thoughts of DAC6 vs. DAC6E SE.
HowdyThanks.
I understand the desire for DBTs but unless you were there and/or the testing was done by an org with serious DBT experience you don't really have any more to go on anyway. It's quite easy to accidentally introduce biases in DBTs and/or have the switching system (human or automated) swamp the differences. (I've had experiences where the cable swaps were consistently making a bad connection on only one of the devices because of the physical positioning of the units under test.)
Anyway I used to use my computer to do DBTs on myself and guests with players, cables, etc. and all I found was that they were grueling, took a lot of time and never got an answer different than a single blind test of my guests or a sighted test.
We aren't talking microscopic differences here. After hearing each system for a little it only takes a measure or so to hear the differences.
I never bother to change anything in my system if I cant tell the difference easily.
Anyway anyone who is interested in potentially spending the kind of money we're talking about can easily afford to arrange to hear the difference's at someones house, or potentially have both for a little. There is no substitute for personal experience.
How's the PRAT compared to the Rockport?PS - I've done some interesting experiments that seem to suggest processing in PCM tends to kill PRAT. Unfortunately, these experiments are very unscientific (it's basically me playing around in Nuendo and applying various effects on an audio track), so I can't claim definitive results, but it is certainly suggestive.
If Thelonious was playin' on either rig, there might have been an occasional stutter.
HowdyEvery system that I've heard that converts DSD to PCM looses PRAT big time.
To try to answer your question: We didn't A/B anything directly with the Rockport. It's been my experience that SACD on the DAC6 competes fairly well with the Rockport on PRAT, but Mike clearly has more experience than I do. The Rockport makes SACD (and more so CD) sound ghostly in comparison. I.e. they just seem less full, less present. No matter how good the CDs and SACDs sound, hearing the Rockport tells you how far they have to go.
I'd say that there is just a little more ease with the DAC6e SE than the DAC6 tho I can't deconvolve the contribution of more dynamics from PRAT in my mind without another visit.
Christine,my perspective on how really top vinyl compares to any digital is well known. the new EMM Labs does do things that certainly get closer to top vinyl than other digital.
but even on dynamics the EMM cannot quite get there. when you hear a horn or guitar or piano on vinyl on the Rockport there is a sense of true-to-life microdynamics that much more resembles real life than any digital i have heard. OTOH digital can do better on really low frequency dynamics although still short of the texture and tonality that vinyl can do. information for it's own sake is different than transcending the recording chain.
there is an Lp i play quite a bit; 'For Duke'; M&K direct-to-disk 33rpm. on the first cut 'Take The 'A' Train' there is a trumpet that gets quite dynamic and very vivid and 'in your face'. there is a real life 'action' and transparency to this that simply transcends the reproduction chain and comes fully alive in my room. unless you hear it for yourself it would be hard to describe. digital can easily portray the dynamic range and PRAT of this......but it misses the natural microdynamic action and live feeling.
so to answer your question; the EMM Labs Signature Edition does great dynamics; but misses the immediacy of real life compared to the best Lps.
as Ted mentioned; as good as the EMM Labs is it still sounds somewhat lacking in fullness and depth compared to the Rockport.
for those hoping that digital is catching up i would have to say; sorry, things are going the other way. as i have improved my system this last year and particularly with the new battery powered darTZeel preamp and phono stage; my analogue has disappeared over the horizon from approaching digital performance.
i believe that vinyl playback technology has improved more in the last few years than digital. any improvement in a vinyl front-end yeilds much more of a performance difference than a corresponding change in a digital front-end. there is just so much farther to go.
those moments when i have people over to listen and i switch from digital to vinyl are consistently more dramatic than ever. mostly there is a big 'sigh' and a 'wow' and something is said like 'it's really nowhere close, is it?'
nope.
that is just the viewpoint from where i sit. i would guess that there are many that would not agree with my viewpoint......but not many that have visited my room.
btw, i still mostly listen to digital and now even more with the new EMM Labs Signature......it is fantastic and really does not need to compete with vinyl.
...and it's time I get back to focusing on the basics. Like a luckless gambler, I've spent at least half my time and budget over the past 15 years trying to find magic in the convenience of digital recordings. But no matter how far out on that limb I hang, it still doesn't sound as good as what I get from the vinyl playback gear I've allowed to age in place for over 25 years! It's both frustrating and elightening to hear more of an improvement from simply cleaning all the contacts on my TT, than I seem to have gotten from all the expensive tweeks to my digital front end combined.No doubt about it, vinyl remains closer to the act and more faithful to the fact. Thanks for the perspective!
I have been recording a lot of LP onto digital lately (so that i can listen to them in car and in my mp3 player)and i agree, even using a pro audio ADC and avoiding digital processing there is something missing in the result.
of course, many people say they can't hear the difference, but i think i can.
i agree with your last comment, i think digital can be enjoyed on it's own terms without comparing to vinyl all the time. i've been spending a lot of time lately just enjoying CDs on my new player and i don't really feel i'm missing anything. of course, listening to the LP versions provides a different experience, but I value the diversity.
What you lose is information when going from vinyl to CDR. I can hear it as well. The point is after listening to cd's whenever I go back to vinyl, I say what am I wasting my time listening to cd's for. To spend 10,000.00 or more on digital is crazy in my opinion, because I still like vinyl much better. As far as the Meitner is concerned, I agree with Alex and find it lean in the mid's. I have not heard the new Meitner, but I can tell you I would much rather have Alex's player than the old Meitner. I can see why people go for the Meitner because they like a more lean analytical sound.
HowdyI'm not a fan of analytical sound, but I do want to hear realistic sound that moves me like the actual performance would. Alex's boxes never quite had the same boogie factor for me as the Meitner. To my ear the Meitner DACs simply have more dynamics than every other digital system I've heard and a more realistic sound.
Having listened to the DAC6 at both Ted Smith's and mikel's systems, I would not describe the sound as "lean in the mids".Our ears are funny things, they adapt very well to coloured sound and eventually you start thinking that must be "right" and everything else is wrong.
I actually try and tweak both digital and vinyl so that they have the same "tonality" - or as close as possible. This way, each of them acts as a reality check for the other.
And to a large extent, this is true on my system - depending on the music being played, I am not sure I can reliably tell the difference if I switch between the two fairly quickly.
This doesn't mean they sound exactly the same, I can still hear differences in dynamics, PRAT, etc. But the tonality should not be miles apart.
i couldn't disagree with you more regarding the Meitner sounding lean or analytical......particularly when spoken of in context with vinyl.the biggest reason i like vinyl is the fact it is more life-like; not that it is veiled or soft sounding. yes; vinyl can be that way and i have cartridges that will sound more warm and soft (my Koetsu RSP or even my Dynavector XV-1s to some degree).....it will cover up detail and challenging aspects of the music when all is not right with my system and make some recordings more listenable. but when my system is right then my vdH Colibri will bring me much closer to live sound and sound more alive.....and the Meitner does that much better than Alex's Denon. the new Signature Edition EMM Labs goes further toward the ease and naturalness of vinyl while increasing vividness and immediacy. the Denon softens and blurs detail which is exactly opposite of my vinyl.
the EMM Labs Signature and original versions both are more real sounding and much more like my vinyl in my particular system.......and if i use my Rockport as a reference then the EMM Labs is closer......the Signature Edition closer still compared to the original. when listening to any digital with a tubed output i am always aware of it's influence between me and the music.
i guess it comes down to one's particular reference and system balance.
Alex's Denon is a very good digital player. but it is certainly not closer to vinyl IN MY SYSTEM.
Look forward to further impressions.I agree with you that converting DSD to PCM loses PRAT big time. As does bass management, digital room correction, resampling ...
Even sending digital out via SPDIF seems to lose PRAT. Must be something to do with reconstructing the clock from the signal.
It is also very puzzling to us why those two threads were deleted from Audiogon. Many have indicated frustration with Audiogon staff who, although we are sure they have their reasons, did not take the extra step giving a decent explanation to their members about why they have deleted these very informative threads. Some of us drove 1700 miles and did not sleep for 48 hours in order to contribute to all that. :)Anyway, below is one of the posts which was also deleted from those threads:
"First let me say how much I appreciated the opportunity to visit Mike and get to see his wonderful home, his audio room and system, it is something that has to be seen and experienced. I congratulate Mike on all that he has achieved.
I would like to add the following to this discussion.
When we put the Denon in place of the old DAC6 and played it through the DartZeel Preamp we went trough the same CD and SACD cuts used for the old EMM vs. new EMM DACs comparison. Because there was a difference between the new EMM and the Denon, we had to go back and fourth a few times and listen again to the EMM and Denon so we can determine what it was. After we did that, Mike's friend ‘Bud’ (Don) who was sitting in the sweet spot, turned around to Mike and said the following:
“Although the new EMM sounds good, I still hear digital and mechanical sound with it which makes it sound artificial to me. Alex’s Denon is free of those artifacts with more musical and engaging presentation which I really like. In my opinion, the APL Denon goes a step further in musicality than the old and the new EMM combos”.
Unfortunately, ‘Bud’ had to leave so he could not hear the Denon directly driving the DartZeel amps. At this time Ted and his wonderful wife arrived. It is always a great pleasure to see Ted and chat with him. He is a very nice and very knowledgeable guy. Ted heard the same comparison between the Denon and the new EMM and said that the Denon did not have the detail and ‘air’ of the EMM. Please note that this was through the latest version of the DartZeel preamp. Then we connected the Denon to drive directly the DartZeel amps eliminating the Preamp. We had a problem at first because the input impedance was not properly set. We figured something is wrong so Mike switched the amps for the right input impedance for using the RCA inputs. Ted (again sitting in the sweet spot) listened to his favorite SACDs again and said that the detail, ‘air’ and ambience he was missing while the Denon was playing through the Dart preamp are now back. This says that the “veil” was removed with the Denon connected directly to the Dart amps. The other thing Ted said was:
“It is very interesting to me that the Denon has more body and more bass which makes the new EMM combo sounding leaner”.
I am not attempting to inject my personal preference into how audio "should sound ". This is a matter of each individual's taste and attributes he values. I do however prefer and aspire to a more "natural" sonic presentation so I design my Digital to be first and foremost "musical" and engaging while retaining extreme linearity and natural, uncolored sound. To my ears, hyper detail is fatiguing. To others, it is what they strive for. We all see the picture differently, that’s all.
To conclude, I carried my redesigned 3910 and not my flagship Esoteric UX-1 based NWO player. I knew it was David vs. Goliath. I am happy I did so well considering the circumstances. Mike is one of the great people in all of audio. I feel sure he will welcome me back for Round 2: NWO-2 vs EMM Signature. Now THAT is worth selling tickets to!
Regards,
Alex"
MikeL many thanks for completing the ongoing saga of the missing thread and expressing your views.
please keep us updated as the units burn in further.
Do you know if the Denon CD player Alex brought had his new DAC chips put in.
Hello Mike,Thanks for taking the time to re-post your orginal post that A'gon deleted. I think it's important for people who care to, to view it how it orginally was written. Did you ever find out why A'gon pulled it?
I also will have the signature upgrade done to my DAC6 when I can afford it. BTW, I think it's great on redbook too.
A fellow A'goner told me they deleted his sales ad because he listed 15 SACD/DVDs in one ad. They made him split it up. It's all about business and the revenue now it seems.
Mike, thanks a lot for resubmitting this !!(I HATE CENSORSHIP).
I notice they now deleted the other thread on AA (Digital) regarding why there are so many emmlabs CDSD/DCC2's for sale.
"they" is me.You mean this thread?
I don't delete too much and generally NOTHING that has to do with gear unless it's an ad, FYI.
Chris
I meant the similar themed thread on Audiogon was just deleted today (2 pages of responses). As well, some of the response on a third thread were deleted. Thank god for Audioasylum.
I know they've gotten bigger and a 'choice' is a good thing, but they bring the hatchet out all too frequently.
My take on this whole Emm thing:1) On SACD: absolutely the best source you will ever experience. Sets a benchmark for all audio sources. Every audiophile should listen to this just to experiece what is possible in audio playback. It is that good.
2) On CD: not even close to SACD playback. In fact, very disapointing. Too forward, too bright - too much of everything.
And this, folks, is why there is so much Emm gear on Audiogon.
Comparisons were made between the Emm system with the Wadia 861SE and the Esoteric X03 (not the 01). On CD only, the Emm was dead last.
Too forward,to bright etc.
I alsoo own the EMMLabs and i have no problem with CD playback.
It all depends on what system you have and what cables.
In my case i use full Audioquest Everest and SKY and the powercords NRG 5.
When i changed the Kimber Cables for the NRG 5 powercords the whole image goes behind the speaker and you get a deeper bass.
So in my case no problem with CD playback.
Well I went so far as to quickly buy one of the many EMM CDSD/DCC2 combos that have been for sale on Audiogon. I made my purchase because of the comments in the audio press on the incredible SACD playback. So spending 10 large allows me to offer a point of view, of course, in my humble opinion.The reviews are absolutely correct. In SACD mode the machine is without peer. Textures, dynamics, detail, musicality and warmth are abunbdant. It made the other players I had (Esoteric X-03, Wadia 861se), sound like recorded music, as compared to the live event. Frankly, it sounded better than quite a few turntables that I have heard. As a side note the Wadia 861se sounded better than the Esoteric X-03 whether the disc was SACD or CD. Again, IMHO.
On CD the EMM combo was one of the poorer sounding units I have ever auditioned. Maybe there was something wrong in the software? Hard to figure out. The EMM approach to upsample the red book disc to the dsd standard is a unique approach. However, in this case, I was left severly wanting. Guitars, and cellos were all strings and fingers. There was virtually no resonance from the instrument body. These instruments sounded dry and edgy. The human voice was much worse. The body was washewd out, but the echo and reverb was present. This pushed the vocalist to the back of the hall burried in the orchestra. Again, there was no warmth or musicality. Considering that most of us have a library of Cds, I was totally surprised that EMM missed the boat on reb book Cds.
Now we come to the issue of playing the SACDs. The EMM will not play them all. I had one Chesky SACD (Area 31), and one Groove Note by Jacintha which it refused to play. Both discs played on the Esoteric unit that I had. When I spoke with customer relations at EMM he pointed the finger at the SACD manufacturers who produce a product that does not strictly conform to the Sony/ Philips standard. He said there was nothing they could do. I can't figure out how they could play on the Esoteric, but not the EMM?
Naturally, my muscial experience with the EMM gear was not done alone. I had several audiophile colleagues, and one professor of music. They as well loved the SACD playback of the EMM gear. It fullfilled the promise of what digital music was always supposed to be. They too, were equally disappointed by the CD playback. This take on the EMM gear was supported by the gentleman who sold me the unit (after the sale), and was also supported by the gentleman who was anxious to buy the unit from me.
So for now I'm trying something less expensive, the Ayre C5XE. According to the same audio press It's great on both SACD and CD. I hope so!
If EMM has a signature version I hope it addresses the two issues I've raised, namely CD playback, and not rejecting some SACDs. I don't think it would be possible to improve on their SACD performance.
....but that's just me. that goes for both the original version and Signature Editions.
So do I ... ALOTUnfortunately, I will be without my CDSD for a while and I can tell you my Denon 2910 DVD with the Dac from my DCC2 is no comparison.
Many of us would appreciate your input.
I can't speak to Redbook performance, as I simply have not listened to significant numbers of them in the past year on my rig to say thumbs up or down. I have heard very different (positive) accounts from *numerous* other sources. But I believe your experience.I can say that I have at least a 1/2 dozen Groove Notes including 3 by Jacintha (the multi-channel is flat out the best/realistic I have heard from any vocals for any source ever) and they all play perfectly in my EMM Labs DAC6e combo. No problems with Chesky either. But I have never had a problem playing *any* disc in my CDSD transport. It should be noted that EMM Labs did modify their transport not quite a year ago. (The modification held up delivery of my unit for more than 6 weeks). Perhaps it was to deal with the playback incompatibility problem that you cite. Or perhaps your unit is defective.
I haven't had an issue on my CDSD unit either on any discs acceptable by the Meitner unit. I have played Dual discs, Jacintha's SACD, and even played Sinatra's -live at the Sand's DVD-A where the L/R channel info gets inverted. Also the body of the sound dissapears, so have never pursued it further.
Sometimes it has shown just a 'Track 6" display before it reads the disc, that being the only abnormality.
I have one of the earlier set of transports with the metal tray.
My unit would not play certain SACD's. There was a crackling sound in the background. When I sent the unit in, they repaired a defective diode. All is now good.
Bill K-
I'm very interested in what you think about the Ayre. This past weekend, I spent 2 hours a-b testing the CX-5e against a Sim Supernova (I own one of these) and I was not impressed by the Ayre, on several levels. Then we put a couple of SACD's in the Ayre, and I was VERY impressed, but I haven't heard the EMM combo.
I dunno, maybe two boxes is the answer? Treat the two formats as separate entities?
He's a regular contributor here and not shy about his likes and dislikes. His comments about the Ayre:"I just finished an extensive home audition of the Ayre C-5xe, and bought one. It's simply the best digital I've heard at any price range. I don't know how Ayre managed to do it, but this universal player is the best CD player I've ever heard. It's superior to any SACD player I've heard, and it's the best DVD-Audio player I know of - better than the $20,000 Meridian 800."
Warning, read this thread:http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1144722197&openflup&115&4#115
see, the line " John that is exactly what I meant ... "
If you start looking too hard, you may end up missing like the thread.
So true, that's why I live far far away!
I was quite taken a back that they did not even display statements like'why Mike L's thread are being deleted?' Hopefully Mike can repost the thread here!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: