REFERENCE COMPONENTS-DIGITAL SOURCES

This is because of my very limited experiences with digital sources in general. I actually have much more experience with digital LPs than CDs. The digital components I am most familiar with have mainly been very modest in price. Fortunately for all of us, my associates have had some relevant and extensive experience with Digital Sources and they are quite generous in sharing that information.

It would be foolish and ignorant to ignore Digital's superiority to analog in a number of sonic parameters: Precision, outer detail, speed stability, noise and overall purity.

Unfortunately, it also subtracts those aspects of the sound which are the vital essence of music; the conveyor of individuality and emotions. That is why Digital, at present, is more intellectually than emotionally satisfying. This is especially true for those audiophiles who are very familiar with excellent analog sound.

However I, an analog-oriented audiophile at present, still believe that at some point in the future, digital will be superior overall to analog, and even possibly in every single way, and I look forward to that day.

IMPORTANT ADVICE: Never turn off any* digital equipment. It usually takes around 2 days of playing for it to "break in" and sound optimum. Once turned off, you have to go through the entire cycle all over again. Accordingly, do not judge digital equipment unless it has been on and operating for at least 48 hours. This is true for even "budget" players.

*Digital components with tubes inside may have to ignore this rule. The rarity of some tubes and the high cost of replacements may offset any sonic benefits.

What about the audio magazines? Are they "up-to-date", and do they accurately and thoroughly report to their readers the real facts concerning digital components? Hardly.

This is what one reader wrote concerning the magazines' "testing" of CD Transports, which should be the easiest digital component to evaluate.

"It would be quite easy for any magazine to prepare a very high quality test disc with a known data pattern on it, and to read the S/PDIF output into an analyzer for comparison.

I was not surprised with the important information sent by this reader. It is consistent with the methodology and routines the audio magazines typically employ. In short...

Audio 'reviewers' will never utilize an objective tool to analyze and judge the performance of equipment or accessories. Why not?

This prerequisite would then compromise their present ability to praise and "hype" any piece of audio equipment, especially those models that were obviously mediocre, which is their only real power. This in turn would mean...

The 'reviewers' wouldn't be able to help their "buddies", and the magazines wouldn't be able to help their largest advertisers, which would make them (ultimately) useless to both. Of course, the utilization of objective tools would be very useful to their paying readers, but that is obviously very irrelevant to them, judging by their own actions.

As I promised, this is the first of the two "ultimate" reviews. Once again, (3 of) my associates were involved in the listening sessions. The two high performance systems were also the same, as was the writer, for the sake of continuity. I was not included in these listening sessions. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"Let's cut right to the chase and proclaim that every other CD or SACD player, that sells for $5,000- $10,000, no longer has any validity to be in existence. For those who are budgeting $5K for a player, it is highly recommended you stretch your budget (or buy one used), and for those willing to spend up to $10,000, save your money and buy a X03 SE. The Esoteric is not only better constructed and designed than any other sub $10,000 digital player, it SOUNDS superior.

Its performance on Redbook is as stellar as it is on SACD. There are no convenience, quality or sonic compromises with this machine relative to the competition. All the players reviewed on this site are now dinosaurs, driven to extinction by this magnificent component. Say goodbye to the MSB, the ARC CD7, and yes, even our beloved Oracle 2500 MK II. All the over $5,000 units, previously evaluated, are seriously outclassed by the X03 SE, both sonically and in terms of build quality. There is no reason to purchase any other SACD player that sells for anything close to the X03 SE's price.

The Esoteric takes all the sonic strengths of the Oracle, CD 7 and Krell SACD and combines them into one superb package. All the positive attributes of the Oracle (superb balance, midrange realism, overall transparency ) and the ARC (huge soundstage, exciting rendering of initial transients) and the Krell (wide dynamics, deep, impactful bass) are amalgamated by the Esoteric to produce the finest digital reproducer selling for under $10,000. The only area where another player, in the aforementioned list, still manages a slight level of superiority over the Esoteric, is the Oracle in the midrange, where its reproduction exhibits a tad more complete rendering of harmonics.

The Esoteric, if it was only a Redbook player, would still be the unit to buy compared to the ones previously reviewed. However, its SACD reproduction seriously elevates the level of performance obtainable in the digital realm. For the first time, analog devotees will be able to listen to full orchestra, massed strings, complex acoustic instruments and, get this, enjoy it.

No, it is not analog, but what the X03 SE does for the first time, is allow analog lovers to gain a measure of musical satisfaction while listening to those little silver (and gold) discs. SACD's inherent superiority, over Redbook, is readily observable with the Esoteric, and this superiority is not simply an "audiophile" improvement. It literally is the difference between certain types of music (i.e orchestral) being essentially unlistenable, to becoming enjoyable. This, my friends, marks a monumental achievement. For vinyl adherents, a new world of musical delight is now unfolding before your ears. Hard to fathom, but it is now a reality - digital reproduction has become rewarding on its own terms.

While the X03 SE is a breakthrough component at its price point, there is room for sonic improvement. There is another player (that will be the subject of a later review in June) that demonstrates that quite noticeably. However, that advance does come at a financial price and it is not unsubstantial. For now, simply think of the X03 SE as an instrument that will alter the common perception of what is possible in digital reproduction. It will provide musical enjoyment, while listening to CD/SCADs, that was previously unobtainable at this price level. The Esoteric renders all previous digital efforts selling for under $10,000 obsolete. They are thusly being removed from the components list. At this time, the X03 SE is the only digital component in Class A."

Personal Note- Due to the game-changing results above, there will now have to be a complete revision of The Digital Source References (the last big revision was in December 2008). The updated Digital References will be posted below.

As I promised, this is the second of the two "ultimate" reviews. Once again, (3 of) my associates (plus others) were involved in the listening sessions. The writer was also the same, for the sake of continuity. I was not included in these listening sessions. There's an important personal note at the end of this review, summarizing where we are now. I've made some minor editing and my bold:

"Digital audio reproduction has proven to be especially frustrating for me and many others weened on the finest analogue. Inspite of what has been claimed, CD performance has fallen well short of the naturalness afforded by vinyl, and no matter how convenient its many user features, digital has ultimately sounded amusical, especially when it came to reproducing complex groups of acoustic instruments. There simply is not enough bits of information available in the limited accepted standard that has been adopted for Redbook.

Consequently, any demanding music, such as orchestral, small symphony, ancient music using original instruments, etc. was not at all satisfying when played back on those shiny little discs. Simpler music such as small scale jazz, folk or rock (with its electronic instruments) fared somewhat better, but still did not achieve the level of palpability heard on vinyl. Therefore, for many of us, CDs were the medium to use on recordings that were not available on LP or for casual, background enjoyment. Until NOW...

What started with the Krell SACD Standard, and continued with the Esoteric X03SE, has now culminated in the Esoteric P05/D05 DAC/Transport combo. SACD, as experienced with the Krell, provided a glimpse into the capabilities of this medium. Suddenly, the broader standard, with its wider bandwidth, showed promise when playing back symphonic material. For an analogue enthusiast, this music almost entered the realm of enjoyability. The X03SE, took that another step forward. Finally, Heifetz playing the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos (RCA Living Stereo) were not only listenable, but get this, enjoyable. One could actually sit through both works consecutively and not become nauseated. This was a shocking experience. SACD after well recorded SACD (the other RCAs, Mercuries, Water Lillys) provided hours of endless musical satisfaction, without the ubiquitous digital deharmonicization. No, it still did not equal the best analogue, but it was rewarding in and of itself.

Piqued by the excellences of the X03SE, a curiosity to explore just how good SACD could be began to stir. The next logical step was to upgrade to the Esoteric separates- P05/D05 combination. Just how much better could the further expenditure of $6,800 and separated DAC and transport provide? The usual laws of high end diminishing returns would suggest a refinement of sorts over the single box X03SE, but expecting any huge sonic leap would be overly optimistic and essentially unrealistic. What ensued was not only a complete surprise, it was tantamount to a revelation.

After the appropriate burn in period of approximately 500 hours (the combo sounds superb right out of the box- again notwithstanding what the prevailing word is on the street) and set up (meaning top quality dual XLR digital cables to connect the DAC to transport and BNC cable, to activate the word sync between the two units) the P05/D05 was a quantum leap in performance over the already stellar X03SE. The former was superior in every measure, and not by a subtle amount. The differences were instantly observable. It was not necessary to do an A/B comparison. The laundry list of categories included deeper, more explosive bottom end, greater transparency in the midrange, highs were more extended, airier and purer, the soundstage was more expansive, transients were more precise with greater intensity of percussive instruments and the dynamic gradations were much wider.

In short, digital sound took on a purity and naturalness that was previously unheard of. The P05/D05 now reproduced ALL types of music with a verisimilitude that was never experienced previously with any digital reproduction. The finest Redbook also sounded better than ever before, but not up to the standard of the best SACDs. Comparisons between the identical CDs, with their SACD counterparts, clearly demonstrated this phenomenon. Many of the RCA Living Stereo recordings with Reiner conducting, the Mercury Living Presence reissues etc, sounded marvelous. As a matter of fact, some of the RCA SACDs were more harmonically complete than even the Classic vinyl reissues, and at least as satisfying to audition.

The P05/D05, playing the best produced SACDs, has for the first time, caused a committed analogue adherent to thoroughly revel in the enjoyment of all genres of the musical experience. The Esoteric combo has enabled those familiar with the real thing to reach a level of aesthetic satisfaction with music played by it to an unprecedented degree. The inevitable question is: "How does it compare to the finest analogue"?

The answer is, while it still lacks vinyl's unique ability to convey the musical message in its most natural state, it is now good enough to be completely enjoyable on its own terms. Vinyl still sounds more real, but SACDs played by the P05/D05 are immensely satisfying and musically rewarding. It will take a top flight analogue rig to match or exceed the superior reproduction of the Esoteric. That translates to a serious expenditure, at least in the $20K or greater range. A more modest phono set up will prove inferior on many sonic performance parameters. I can actually recommend, for the first time to those who have not yet entered the analogue realm, spend that same money on acquiring the P05/D05 separates instead. A budget vinyl system will not provide the macro performance of the Esoteric separates. Capturing the weight, impact, dynamics, thunderous low end and transient intensity of the P05/D05 on SACD is beyond the purview of a less than state-of-the-art analogue set up.

The Esoteric P05/ D05 represents a breakthrough in digital reproduction. Those who have lived exclusively within this realm of audio reproduction will be introduced into a new level of performance. Others, who have never been enamored by CD playback, will now become converts to the possibilities offered by SACD. The "perfect sound forever" is finally now, almost 3 decades after its inception, capable of offering the joys that wondrous music can provide. If spending $15K on SACD/CD playback is anywhere near one's budget, do it. You definitely do not need a preamp, as the P05/D05 has remote volume capability (and again inspite of any nonsense you might read in audio chat groups and the mainstream audio rags, straight into the amps sounds not only the most transparent, you will not sacrifice ANYTHING in terms of dynamics or bass). There is no digital player we've experienced under $20K that approaches the build quality, and the sonic excellences of the Esoteric P05/D05. Nothing!"

As promised, this short review completes the present cycle of digital source evaluations, which focused on SACD players. As before, the same group of associates made the evaluation and the writer is also the same for continuity. As usual, my bold:

"The laws of diminishing returns has finally decided to kick in. Is the 03 combo superior to the 05? Yes, without a doubt. Is it worth almost twice the price? Yes and no. The answer is affirmative if you are an absolute perfectionist and must have the best, with cost being a relatively insignificant factor. No, if the goal is to achieve performance commensurate with the price jump.

By going to the 03s, what is wrought with a further expenditure of $15,000? Firstly, the build quality of the more expensive units is something to behold. The D03 and P03 weigh in at a hefty 62 lbs each (versus 31 lbs for the 05 separates). The added mass is relevant in not only impressing your friends, but it does create a chassis that is remarkably rigid and inert. Furthermore, the P03 uses the upgraded VRSD transport mechanism which is so stable and silky smooth in operation that here is where the greatest impact on the improved sonics takes place.

Sonically, the P03/D03 is decidedly smoother with more body. There is an extra degree of harmonic detail revealed as well as the elimination of any chassis induced resonances. This has the affect of creating a more solid, weighty feel to the sound. Bass is a tad more impactful, and when the music gets very dynamic, the sound does not change at all. It stays as completely unruffled as it did at lower levels.

All the sonic enhancements of the 03 to the 05 are fairly subtle, but definitely audible. In testing the transport and dac individually, it became apparent that the P03 makes more of a difference than the D03. I would attribute a 60/40 split in its favor. If funds are limited, I can heartily recommend the P03 with the D05. If money is no object, the complete P03/D03 is still the route to follow. There is one downside to the D03 that must be mentioned. It has no volume control, which means volume attenuation, whether in the form of a line stage or a passive, becomes necessary.

While prohibitively expensive, the P03/ D03 is the finest sounding digital that we have yet encountered. The combination represents a refinement over the already excellent P05/D05, but the improvement is no where near the jump experienced by going to the P separates from the single box X03 SE."

The Benchmark was also recently evaluated by the same (3) associates. This particular group has a considerable amount of experience with digital sources. They also have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". I have no personal experience with this component. This report was, once again, written by the most literate of the group. There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"The Benchmark DAC has received ubiquitous coverage in the audio press. The reviews range from calling it a 'breakthrough' product, that competes and exceeds the performance of the most expensive DACs, to it being classified as among the finest, and, at its reasonable selling price, thereby constitutes a huge bargain. The latest from Benchmark, the DAC PRE 1, is the unit being reviewed here. It has all the latest op amp upgrades, has a built-in preamp to control other digital sources and includes a USB input so it can be connected directly to a computer or music server. The unit was reviewed using a 20 year old Phillips CD player, the Electrocompaniet UP 24/192 EMC, Marantz SA 7 S1 and an Audio Request Fusion Music Server, all as transports.

When connected to the old, inexpensive Phillips CD player, the overall sound was surprisingly good. I would rate it the equivalent of a $2,000 single box CD player. It actually outperformed the Electrocompaniet/Benchmark tandem, which sounded very poor. There seemed to be an electrical incompatibility mating these 2 units. The Electro sounded far superior on its own. This was not the case when the Benchmark was hooked up to the SA 7 (latest version), as this combo outperformed the stand alone Marantz. The combination of the SA7/Benchmark had marginally more purity and slightly better dynamic impact than the Phillips used as a transport, but when the price difference is factored into the equation, it simply did not justify the cost.

The best sound was achieved when the Audio Request was connected to the Benchmark. It easily surpassed the performance of all the other combinations. It sounded superb in all the audiophile categories while exhibiting very few obvious shortcomings. The flexibility afforded the Audio Request made it an attractive option. It burns CDs within 3 minutes in FLAC and WAV file formats, which make the burned CD indistinguishable from the original. Playback from the unit's hard drive definitely was more transparent than when the disc itself was used. While I did not have the opportunity to listen to the Audio Request with any other DACs, I had the nagging feeling that its ultimate performance capabilities were being held back by the DAC PRE 1, because with all the combinations tested, a pervasive sonic signature was evident. I had to conclude that this 'signature' was the 'contribution' being made by the Benchmark.

Compared to 'ultimate' units (see above), the Benchmark DAC PRE 1 is not fully fleshed out in the midrange. While it is pure and transparent, it is not harmonically complete. Its errors are those of omission rather than commission, which makes the Benchmark easy to listen to. The low frequencies are extended, but lack the full measure of weight and impact. Further, during complex, dynamic peaks, the upper midrange gets a tad bright and edgy with the upper range of female voices, for example, tending to thin out. There is also, a slight softening of initial hard transients. Certain percussive instruments, vigorous acoustic guitar strumming for example, have their intensity curtailed, as well as softened, and the transients become somewhat blurred.

While the overall presentation is mostly neutral and uncolored, there is a lack of refinement to the mids and highs that are endemic to the best players. All the flaws mentioned above are relatively subtle and require a high resolution system to discern. In more modest systems, the Benchmark represents excellent value and I can appreciate why it has been so successful.

Where would the DAC PRE 1 really be valuable? For those audiophiles who still have an old, essentially worthless CD player, with a digital-out connection, so that the Benchmark could be used as a DAC. If the preamp function is not necessary, the purchase of the DAC 1 at $500 less (about $1,000 retail), would then cause this combination to be classified as a great bargain, though its performance is still far from competitive to the best available DACs."

After more than 3 months of observations, my associates have sent me a more definitive report on this combination. Despite the change in perspective, no change has been made to our current list of Reference Digital Sources. There is only minor editing and my bold:

"After extended, in-depth listening, over a further period of 2 months, the superiority of the P03/D03 combination, over the already superb P05/D05, has become more significant. The improvement represents far more than a simple refinement. Much more. It is almost, but not quite, as big as the advance from going from the X03SE to the 05 separates. Everything that was written in the P03/D03 review still stands, but the degree of excellences in all the audio parameters of performance are that much more noticeable. The 03 combo is so disarming, that at present its flaws are virtually undetectable. There is no other digital reproducer that we have heard that does anything better than the Esoteric. Yes, some other unit may exist that is its superior, but we have not as yet experienced it.

Due to this phenomenon, the only way it can be determined that it is doing something wrong or less than state of the art, is to compare this player with something that outperforms it in any area. Unfortunately, none are up to the task. Comparing the P03/D03 to the finest analogue is unfair, since they are very different media. I can reiterate that as a long time vinyl adherent, my last couple of months of musical enjoyment has come via the Esoterics. The sound is that good. SACD after SACD (and even Redbook to a degree) has proved captivating and enthralling with I hate to admit it, little longing for LPs.

Bottom line- The Esoteric P03/D03 SACD player will reveal the music residing on your SACDs to an unprecedented degree. The level of musical enjoyment derived therefrom will prove revelatory and equal (but different) on its own terms to analogue. If you can afford it, buy them!"

Personal Notes- There will be no further auditions of digital sources until this Fall, at the earliest. We have now completely updated our list of Digital Sources References. This was necessary to avoid any confusion caused by the introduction (to us) of the various Esoteric SACD models. This will also provide the "continuity" I consider critical for credibility.

To be absolutely clear- All the previous "lists" and "references", no matter how recent, are now obsolete, so please ignore them.

Class A (Upper)
Esoteric P03/D03 Transport and DAC
Class A (Lower)
Esoteric P05/D05 Transport and DAC

Class D (Entry-Level)
Benchmark DAC & Pre 1
Doge CD6 (Stock or Modified*)
MHZS CD 66 & CD 88 (Modified*)

Removed:
ARC REF CD 7
ElectroCompaniet UP SE
MSB Platinum DAC III and Reference Transport
Oracle CD 2500 MK II

Explanations:
1. Price is a critical factor in Class B, Class C and Class D (and a main reason for all the removals).
2. The Krell Standard SACD Mk. II/III and the Esoteric X03 SE, when purchased used, are now "the best bang for the buck" CD players.
3. *Coupling capacitors changed to V-Cap or Solen Film and Foil Teflon, plus NOS "tube rolling". (DAC chip can also be improved, but only an expert should attempt this change.)

This is the first Krell component, of any type, that has ever been made a "Reference Component" on this website. Because of its relative performance and price (ratio), the previous Digital Source Reference "Hierarchy" had to be radically changed (see below for all the specific details).

Three of my "associates", all of whom have considerable experience with digital sources, of all types, made the actual comparisons and evaluations. I also later purchased a used model myself (a MK II on eBay), and can partially verify some of their observations (within my limited digital source experience). The short "review" just below is what was conveyed to me by the most literate of this veteran audiophile group. There is some slight editing and my bold:

"This version of the Krell is being referred to as the MK II, as it has the large red display, in contrast to the original model with the smaller orange lights, and the MK.III (latest) which has a blue read out. There has been much discussion of reliability problems with the earliest versions. The transport was allegedly prone to malfunction at worse or become noisy at a minimum. The MK. II is supposed to be less susceptible to these maladies, with the current model being claimed to be the least problematic. Confirmation or rebuttal of these assertions are beyond the purview of this review. Suffice it to say that the unit under review was manufactured in the latter part of 2005 and has operated without incident.

At the onset, a confession must be made. Prior to auditioning the unit, this reviewer was predisposed against it due to the fact that no component of any kind that bore the Krell moniker was deemed to be consonant with the realistic reproduction of music. All Krell products possessed that thread bare, harmonically bleached quality that could not be overlooked no matter how fast and detailed otherwise it was overall. Well, all that has changed within the first few notes of listening to the Krell Standard. I was unprepared and taken aback by this player's sonic glory.

Everything that Krell was noted for - big, gutsy bass, wide, explosive dynamics and ultra clean precision were there in spades. All the positive qualities that made Krell the darling of its adherents were very evident. But what about its Achilles Heal? What about all these areas where it previously so badly faltered? But, and a big but, a J-Lo size butt, I mean but. The sound was full bodied, harmonically rich and well balanced from top to bottom (no, I am not obsessed with asses- but a nice butt never hurts).

The SACD Standard was doing it all. Disc after well recorded disc was reproduced with a viscerally thrilling quality. Dynamic gradations were incredibly wide and the ffff range proved positively explosive -as if the player was on steroids, but always in a live concert type of manner, never sounding artificially hyped. The Krell was tenacious in capturing as much of the information on a disc as ever experienced with any player. Nothing seemed to elude its grasp. It excelled in all the audiophile categories - big, spacious soundstage, high resolution, superb rendering of the entire frequency spectrum etc. etc. But, what sets this player apart from all others (with the exception of the Oracle and ARC) is how adeptly it transmits the excitement of live music. The Standard grabs your attention and forces you to listen. Background music becomes an oxymoron. The only other players that accomplish a similar task are the Oracle CD 2500 MK. II and the Audio Research CD 7. The Krell, however, has a trump card- SACD capability.

Krell's reproduction on CD is at the highest level of achievement. On par with the ARC and within a hair's breath of the Oracle. The midrange of the CD 2500 is still a tad more fluid, immediate and harmonically complete. With SACDs, this is the finest player I have experienced under $15,000. Previous to the Krell, SACDs proved to be disappointing. Yes, refinements in the upper frequencies and more ambient information were evident in comparison to red book, but these improvements fell into the category of audiophile niceties. The Krell has changed that perception. On the best SACDS, the improvements over CD are now those that enhance the conveyance of the musical message. There are substantive and in some cases revelatory. The Krell is responsible for this change. I am not suggesting that there does not exist other SACD players that can equally reproduce this phenomenon. At this stage, they are beyond my personal experience. The units with which I am familiar do not approach the Krell's achievements in SACD. Those units include the Ayre CX 5E, McCormack UDP 1, Marantz SA 7-S1, Audio Aero Prestige, and Accuphase.

The Krell Standard is a superlative CD and SACD player. Do not be misled by anyone suggesting otherwise. A used MK. 1 or II can be had for about $2000. Snap it up and do not spend more money unless you are a complete fanatic with very deep pockets. The Krell gets it and with a vengeance."

Personal Notes- I can verify that the bass, dynamic intensity, speed and purity of the Krell SACD Standard Mk. II are the finest I have ever heard in my system. Further, I've had no problems with the transport; it is totally silent, and it only takes the normal few seconds to read the disc and start playing. However, because of the acknowledged transport problems with the Mk. I, plus the fact that none of us has actually heard it, only the Mk. II and the III are now "References". I haven't heard any SACDs yet, but I plan to get a few of them to try out.

As mentioned above, and after a thorough re-evaluation, we have now completely updated our list of Digital Sources References. I want to avoid any confusion caused by the introduction (to us) of the Krell SACD Standard. This will also provide the "continuity" I consider critical for credibility. To be absolutely clear; All the previous "lists", no matter how recent, are now obsolete, so please ignore them.

Class A (Upper)
Oracle CD 2500 MK II

Class A (Lower)
ARC REF CD 7
Krell Standard SACD Player Mk. II/III

Removed:
Accuphase SACD/CD DP77
AMR 77
Audio Aero Prestige SACD
Marantz SA 7S- SACD (latest version)
MHZS CD 66 & 88 (Stock)
Reimyo DAP777

Explanations:
1. There is a larger difference in performance between classes than within classes.
2. Price is a critical factor in Class B, Class C and Class D (and the reason for all the removals).
3. The Krell Standard SACD Mk. II/III, when purchased used, are now "the best bang for the buck" CD players, replacing both the MHZS CD 66 & 88.
4. *Coupling capacitors changed to V-Cap or Solen Film and Foil Teflon, plus NOS "tube rolling". (DAC chip can also be improved, but only an expert should attempt this change.)

The below essay/survey was mainly written by an associate, who was, in turn, assisted by his own three "associates". This essay/survey also supercedes every write-up about digital components previously posted on this website.

The following survey of CD and, in 4 cases, SACD/CD players, was undertaken over a span of two months using a state of the art audio system, whose resolution and lack of inherent colorations, made discerning the sonic quality of the individual units blatantly clear. The conclusions that ensue are based on at least 2 and, at times, 3 individuals' evaluations.

The sonic qualities of the players are delineated as objectively as possible. This is not a case of "complimentary system colorations" or "personal predilections" affecting the ranking. Each player's flaws and strengths are described as heard. Every player was adequately broken in and in top operating condition. The only variable that changed was the component under test.

1. State of the Art (1 player emerged).
2. Close to the above but with a couple of subtle flaws (1 unit fell into this realm).
3. Very good but noticeable failings compared to the higher categories (5 players resided here).
4. Acceptable performance for mid-fi but not in the class of 3. (5 players here).
5. Not acceptable at any price above $ 1,000. (This spot reserved for only one unit).

The players tested included:

1. Doge CD6
2. (Pacific Valve) MHZS CD 66- Modified
3. Reimyo CDT- 777 and DAP777
4. Ayre C-5xe
5. AMR 77
6. Oracle CD 2500 MK II
7. Accuphase SACD/CD DP77
8. ARC REF CD 7
9. APL Denon 3910
10. MHZS CD 66- Stock
11. MHZS CD 88- Stock
12. McCormack UDP-1
13. ElectroCompaniet UP SE

1. Those that are highly detailed, but at the same time somewhat harmonically lean and a bit edgy or

2. Those that are very smooth and easy to listen to, but unfortunately are lacking in detail, transparency and often dynamic excitement.

It is only the great player that combines detail, transparency and wide dynamics with smoothness, and full rendering of harmonics. This kind of digital player is, as we shall see, very rare.

Which player(s) can combine the best of the above qualities? The ability to be full bodied with weight and impact, harmonically complete with a refined upper midrange and highs yet reveal all the detail on a recording characterizes only one of the above tested units. All the others exhibit the above mentioned flaws to a greater or lesser degree. One other is very close but does not meet the standard of that one special player.

Of all the units tested, two were major disappointments based on the rave reviews they garnered by either the major audio magazines, and/or the buzz on the internet audio chat groups, and because they were downright outclassed by all the others (including a couple at much lower prices). For further clarification...

- All players were placed on a well isolated component stand using the feet supplied with each unit;
- All were auditioned in single ended mode only;
- Components capable of reproducing the sound of a whisper and the power of a full orchestra were preferred to those that could do neither;
- Digital reproduction was never confused with analogue, since the two media never sound alike and each are viewed in their own realm;
- The more flawed a component and the more colored an audio system, the greater the dependency and interaction between the two.

The players will now be grouped from worst to best. They fall into fairly distinct categories, which will become evident.

The worst performer of the group was the Ayre CX 5E. In spite of receiving Stereophile's Product of the Year award and countless positive comments, the Ayre combined the worst characteristics of both sonic categories. It was badly lacking in detail and transparency as well as being dynamically anemic. Instruments were threadbare and lifeless. Soundstage was truncated as if all the music emanated out of a cardboard tube. Three words describe the sonics of the Ayre- Bland, bland, bland. It really has no redeeming qualities for a player at this price point. The $680 MHZS CD 66 is far superior in virtually every aural parameter. This CX 5E was carefully evaluated by 3 serious and knowledgeable, listeners who came to the same conclusions independently.

Significantly superior to the Ayre (which is not saying much) are the APL Denon 3910, McCormick UDP 1, MHZS CD 66 -stock and modified) and CD 88. The second major disappointment in this survey is the APL Denon 3910. With all the internet hype about how wonderful this player is, it turns out that it is smooth and non offensive, transforming bright, lean source material into something more listenable. However, detail is glossed over and dynamics are constricted. This is a player for those who want some easy listening with no sonic nasties. At $6,000, the APL is way overpriced and not competitive with much less costly players.

The McCormack UDP 1, another highly touted player (Stereophile Class A) barely makes it into this category, narrowly escaping the realm solely occupied by the Ayre. The McCormack is essentially an amusical player that is bright, edgy and very lean with most of the natural harmonics shaved off. The bass is weak and lacking in body. This unit is what gives digital reproduction its poor image. It typifies all the negatives associated with bits and bytes. Its SACD reproduction is marginally superior to its redbook, being not as fatiguing. This player sounds like it should sell for $500.

The MHZS units are more detailed and transparent with wider dynamic gradations but they can sound a tad aggressive when pushed, especially stock. The sound is quite vivid and lucid but not as refined as the more expensive, better players. Modifying the CD 66 with NOS tubes, Teflon caps etc. certainly improves the performance and makes the MHZS a best buy. It also moves the performance to somewhere between category 4 and 3. The CD 88 is identical to the 66 except that it uses tube rectification. It consequently sounds a touch smoother with a more realistic tone. On the downside, bass is not quite as punchy. But do not be fooled into believing they will provide the sonics of the higher categories of units costing thousands more. For those not that serious about digital reproduction and desiring a well built, great value player, the CD 66 (especially modified) is the ticket. It conveys the music.

The Reimyo separates, AMR CD 77, Accuphase DP77, Electrocompaniet and the Doge CD 6 (with NOS tubes being necessary) all fall within this category with differing strengths and weaknesses but their overall sonic performance is fairly equal. The Doge is by far the best value (available direct for $1,400- add $200 for upgraded tubes) and is the most refined sounding of the group. As a matter of fact, from the lower midrange on up, its reproduction competes with the best. It is very detailed, transparent and pure yet harmonically complete. Its achilles heel is its bass, and midbass which is lacking in requisite weight and impact. Dynamically it compresses the music at the ffff range. This player lacks balls. It is beautifully constructed especially at its price.

The AMR has generated tremendous excitement over the internet as well as being the recipient of a rave review in 6 moons.com. Favorable comparisons have been made to the state of the art Zanden separates. Build quality is magnificent. Sonically, however, it did not live up to its advance billing. The AMR falls into the smooth, polite sound camp with sacrifices to detail, dynamics, bass extension, midbass punch and ultimate dynamics. It is a very nice sounding player that will not irritate nor annoy, but neither will it excite nor viscerally impress. Listened to on its own without access to the top two players in this survey, the AMR shortcomings are subtle and may go unnoticed by many. However, the best units here will expose the AMR's errors of omission.

The Accuphase DP77 is sonically a dead ringer for the AMR. They sound so much alike they could be identical twins. Everything said about the AMR applies to the DP77. The Accuphase does offer the advantage of SACD reproduction.

The Reimyo DAC/Transport is the most expensive player in the survey at $13,850. Its performance is not commensurate with that lofty price tag. It does have a midrange to die for. Big, spacious and immediate. Its reproduction in this range is obviously superior to every other unit in this test except for one player that comes within a hair of equalling it. Its main flaws are a lack on control in the low bass, which is accompanied by some wooliness in the midbass and a lean, bright edge in the upper midrange especially evident on complex music being played loud. Consequently, while the Reimyo possesses areas of greatness, it is ultimately precluded from entering the upper categories due to its frequency selectivity and lack of complete balance. Its DAC is superior to its transport which no longer uses the JVC mechanism that the single box Reimyo did. This became evident when the transport was substituted with the MHZS CD 66 CD player. Used as a transport only, the $680 Chinese player essentially equaled the performance of the Reimyo. The Reimyo DAC and CD 66 transport is sonically superior to all the other units in this test with the exception of the top two. At the cost of about $5,800, it represents good value.

The Electrocompaniet UP SE is a big. bold gutsy sounding player that is exceptionally easy to live with since its errors are only ones of omission and its strengths considerable. It is the most dynamic of the group with bass and midbass reproduction that also stands alone. Tremendous weight and impact in the lower registers. This unit is exceptionally smooth and harmonically complete. The highs are not the least bit bright or edgy, instead erring on the side of being a tad rolled off and overly smooth. The main failings of the Electro are that it slightly blunts initial transients, softening them and reducing their intensity and low level detail is not fully conveyed. Overall, the UPSE sounds somewhat on the dark side. Systems that are overly lean (those using Thiel, Wilson, B & W coupled with Krell, or DCS electronics for example) will find the Electro a welcome relief.

The Audio Research REF 7 is significantly superior to all the other players discussed above. It does everything superbly, which is its major strength. It is beautifully balanced from top to bottom. Its frequency response is exceptionally linear, its dynamics explosive, and its detail portrayal is revelatory. It passes along all the information with pristine clarity and full harmonics. In two areas it proved unique- transient purity and impact and soundstaging. The initial transient, heard through the ARC takes on an intensity and visceral impact that will get the heart a pounding. It is sheer excitement. Up to this point, no player came close to replicating this phenomenon. Furthermore, the sound field the ARC generates knows no bounds.It is huge when the source material is so recorded. Sounds way beyond the speakers are plainly experienced yet within that massive sound scape there is focus and precision of instrumental localization.

Does the ARC have any flaws. Yes, there are two. They are subtle and not obtrusive but they do exist. The first is a lack of midbass power, weight and body. Drums do not have the impact they could nor does double bass and cello possess the growl they should. The other is a slight leaning out of the harmonics in the upper midrange accompanied by a slight tendency towards stridency in this range. The flaws are there to be sure, but the ARC is so special that they do not really detract from the pleasure derived from listening to music through it. If the category 1 unit did not exist, the ARC would be the player to have. It brings life and excitement to the musical experience and makes one forget the hardware and focus instead on what this hobby should be really about- the music.

The player that has it all and proved the most satisfying is the Oracle CD 2500 MK II. The Oracle sounds as stunning as it looks. For once, beauty and substance combined in one package. The 2500 has no obvious flaws which is what sets it apart from the rest. It is the best or close to that in all areas and ultimately that is what makes it unique. While other players may exceed its performance in certain respects (i.e Reimyo's glorious midrange or ARC's unbridled soundstage), no other player conveys the musical message with so little of its own personality. It really gets out of the way and allows the music to flow without coloration, distortion or omission. There is no point ruminating about its wide dynamic gradations or thunderous bass or its pristine clarity or its harmonic completeness etc, etc. Suffice it to say that its excellences are so overwhelming, that the listener becomes disarmed and flounders to conjure up any salient criticisms. The ARC is close in overall performance but the Oracle takes it to a subtle but tangible higher level.

Personal Notes- I did not participate in this "shoot-out". I have only heard the Pacific Valve 66 (modified) and the Oracle (in Toronto). The actual writer and the other participants will remain anonymous, as they have requested. I will simply ignore any requests for their identity. I will vouch for both their objectivity and competence, along with the above description of the audio system(s) used in the auditions. These results have been since independently confirmed by another (4th) "associate", in an entirely different location and with an entirely different system.

I will post differing opinions, if they appear both sincere and credible, but I won't engage in any fruitless debates about the merits, or lack of them, of players I haven't even heard myself.

Finally, for sake of continuity, and to avoid any confusion, here is how these players are now positioned in Reference Digital Sources:

As I promised a number of months ago, here is the addendum to the Fall 2007 Digital Shootout.

Both of the below CD players join the Class B (Upper) Reference Digital Sources above. The short "review" below was written by one of my associates, who had two other associates assist in this evaluation. They were unanimous in their conclusions, as was also the case with the above original "Shootout" from last Fall. I've made some minor edits and additions for clarity and my bold:

Let's cut to the chase- Both are excellent players and fit into the upper reaches of Category 3 (Category 1 being the highest and 5 the lowest). Both are beautifully constructed with the Marantz representing superb value.

Marantz SA -7S-1- Does everything well. No obvious flaws. Similar to the Accuphase SACD/CD DP77 in quality and sonics. Very smooth and refined with no sense of edge or brightness. Well balanced from top to bottom, with errors being those of omissions. For those looking for the last word in detail, this is not the player to own. If overall listening ease is of highest priority, the Marantz will be sure to please. The SACD and CD sound almost identical.

Audio Aero Prestige - Expensive, but well built and it does have the advantage of having an integral preamp with the added convenience of remote volume. Overall performance is top notch, but a different sonic perspective than the Marantz. It is more detailed and transparent than the Marantz, but conversely not quite as smooth or forgiving on less than stellar recordings. Upper midrange has a predisposition to be slightly lean. SACD and CD performance at par.

Both of these players would form the basis of a very high end audio system. They have differing strengths and weaknesses and personal preference will determine which player is preferred. The Audio Aero is twice the price of the Marantz, but the Prestige's high quality, built-in preamp and the added convenience of remote volume, narrows the financial gap between the two.

As it sadly turned out, a number of "audiophiles" became incensed with the above shoot-out. These were mainly two of the audio manufacturers that didn't do well in the above survey, along with their more insecure followers, and some others, who felt that the directness and sincerity of our observations and opinions reflected badly on the state of the (now sad and pandering) mainstream audio press (Stereophile and TAS). You can read their "imaginative" though totally false, reckless and hysterical charges at Audio Asylum (Digital Drive). In the end, not a shred of actual evidence to support their "claims" was ever offered by any of them. That's not surprising, since no one involved in the above shootout had a financial and/or personal interest in CD players.

Of course, we responded with the actual facts, which people of this type predictably ignored, so we then decided to gently ridicule them as well. I rarely take this line of reply, but the posted charges were so fraudulent, ridiculous and even disgusting at times, that the perpertrators truly deserved it. Here is the link to THE FALL 2007 DIGITAL "SHOOTOUT" SPOOF of the above shootout. We hope you enjoy it as much as it was enjoyable for us to write it.

Whatever you do though, do not mistake this spoof for "reality". Reality is what is above, the spoof is for fun only.

PACIFIC VALVE MHZS CD 66 & 88 CD PLAYERS- These are, by far, the finest CD players that I or any of my associates have heard at anywhere near their selling price ($699/$799 plus shipping). In fact, we don't know of even one CD player for less than $ 3,000 that even equals (let alone surpasses) their performance after modifications (outside of the Doge CD 6 mentioned above). They are among (if not) the greatest value(s) in audio at this time, and not only for the sonics.

The Pacific Valves overall build quality (32 lbs.), the (top-loading) transport and even the remote control are all outstanding, and they (using tubes) can be even further improved by a simple modification* (Solen Teflon coupling capacitors) plus some routine tube rolling (two 12AX7).

To improve on these two players' sonics, especially after the above mentioned modification/tube optimization, you will have to spend "big money", and even then, you must spend it wisely, because even truly expensive players will not equal the performance of the Pacific Valves unless they are among the best within their price category.

I haven't yet heard the 88, but an associate compared it directly to the 66, and felt that the 88's tube rectification provided it with slightly improved harmonic completeness and natural body, though at the sonic expense of slightly less tight and detailed bass. Overall then- a small advantage to the 88.

Solen Teflons-Film and Foil-450 Volts- one .47uF per channel and one .1uF in the cathode power supply, which can be metallized. That's 3 Teflon caps in total.

There are also two other modifications which I haven't yet performed on my player, but have worked well for my associates:

1. Replacing the entire (3"/4") output wire harness, going to the RCA Females, with high quality wire.
2. Adding film .1uf/600 volt caps to the existing electrolytic power supply capacitors (this will be tricky due to the small space - Be Careful!)

To perform these last two modifications, you must entirely remove the circuit board from the chassis, removing screws from the back fist and then undoing the wiring harnesses. It's somewhat time consuming, but it only has to be done once.

As is mentioned above, the MHZS CD 66 & 88 are superb transports, if nothing else. Accordingly, an audiophile can purchase them initially as a stand-alone CD player, then use them later as a transport if a top notch DAC becomes desirable in the future.

I received this letter about the MHZS CD66 from a reader. I had heard about this DAC chip controversy previously, but I wasn't sure what the truth was. However, there is a much larger issue than whether or not MHZS lied about what DAC chip they used. First the letter, with a little editing and my bold, then my response.

"...The so-called proprietary MHZS DAC is actually a BB DAC if you lift off the head. Take a look at this web site here:

I bought the MHZS CD66 player on the strength of what you thought about it - and certainly in my system is does not disappoint - but despite this, you just cannot recommend any fakes... at the end of the day if the Chinese are lying about this player, you must let your viewers know about this clearly.

I now have to think about getting another player despite this sounding good - I can't live with a lie!" (8/08)

I believe the reader, and his source, are correct about the BB chip, which also means that MHZS lied about it. I don't hesitate using the word "lied" in this instance, because, unlike the mainstream audio press, I don't believe in some billion-to-one coincidence and/or that audio manufacturers are always innocent, no matter what the evidence demonstrates. However, the important issue we have here is how to respond to this knowledge.

This reader "can't live with a lie", despite the MHZS 66 "sounding good", so he may sell it. I also own a MHZS CD66, but I'm not selling mine, and I advised him, in my personal reply to his letter, that he also shouldn't sell his, at least not for that reason. Now let me explain why I am keeping mine, despite the lie about the DAC chip being used.

First of all, I (or we) don't "recommend" any component. I have "References" on this website, not "Recommendations". This official change in wording was made almost 6 months ago, but, in spirit, it was always "references", from the beginning. The difference in meaning between these two words is important. A "reference" is just that, a benchmark in performance; in a certain parameter, or for the money, or without any qualification. A "recommendation" is different. Ideally, it is personal, and focused to an individual or a group. You can "recommend" a general philosophy, or a strategy, but not a particular component in general. The only exception is if that component was simultaneously "the best", affordable to all and worked in all systems. No such component has ever existed, and maybe never will.

The MHZS CD66 is a Reference on this website. It, along with the MHZS CD88 and Doge CD6, are the finest performing digital sources, that we know of, below $ 3,000. The fact that MHZS deliberately misled purchasers about what chip they used doesn't change the player's actual performance, which is outstanding for the money (or its build quality, which is also outstanding for the money). So while their "reputation" may (and should) have changed, obviously for the worst, the actual sound has NOT. This all leads us to "The Big Picture", and its related questions:

Personally, I want the best (highest fidelity) audio system I can afford, and I'll do anything to get that system, short of criminal and/or unethical behavior. For me, this means ignoring, when ever possible, hyperbole, false claims, outright lies, obnoxious behavior and even raw hatred from others. While admittedly unpleasant, and ideally absent in the world of our hopes, these negative hurdles are all irrelevant when it comes to building the audio system of your dreams. They are just distractions. You should be interested in, and focused on, only the (potential) performance of the components, and not who makes them and how they market them.*

You are not marrying either the manufacturers of the components, or the components themselves. There is no "relationship" to consider. Audio components are strictly lifeless tools for you to use for your enjoyment. This may appear cold and ruthless, but that is the best (and only) approach to take if you want to reach your goals with the least amount of time, expense and effort. The only "relationship" you should have, as audiophiles, is with the music and the musicians. Don't waste your emotions on things and objects.

Now, as an audiophile, I admit I love outstanding audio components, but only in the abstract. I never love the individual components themselves. I do "love" their performance, admire the skill it took to design and build them, and appreciate how they enhance my life. However, a true and serious audiophile is always fickle. He or she must be, because "true love" is a decided hindrance in this case. When something better comes along, and it always does, even if it takes decades, you don't want "love", or any other emotion, interfering with your ultimate goals.

*Example- I have been contemptuous of the way Linn has marketed their LP-12 turntable for 20+ years, but I still have it listed as a Reference on this website. Its proven performance, and reliability, trump all the cynical "BS" associated with it, from both the manufacturer and (too) many of the owners.

Below are the details of a 2003 "shoot-out" of some top-notch digital sources that took place in Toronto, Canada. This was done with a group of experienced listeners, who were also the owners of the participating components in the matchup. I was not involved in any manner with this comparison, but I am confident of the participants' competence, honesty and lack of any conflict of interest. The results described below were unanimous.

The "adversaries" were the:
Wadia 861,
Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 (latest model),
Gamut CD-1,
Audio Aero Capitole (early version),
and the Alchemist Forsetti Transport and DAC.

1. Wadia 861 (all the listeners felt the Wadia was noticeably superior to the others)
2. Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 (latest model), which had a slight advantage over the ...
3. Alchemist Forsetti Transport and DAC, which had slightly larger advantage over the...
4. Audio Aero Capitole (early version), which had a large advantage over the
5. Gamut CD-1 (which all the listeners, including the owner, felt was the worst of the bunch, by far)

Additionally, the Audio Aero models appeared to be way overpriced considering their build quality. One important quote: "The Gamut sounded like it had a 'filter' in the signal path." They all felt both frequency extremes were rolled-off in this model. 7/03

Further Information on "The Toronto 2003 Digital Shootout"- One member of the listening panel that was involved in the "digital shootout" described above, sent further information to me. He has had extensive experience listening to some of the finest components within the last few years, and he has no business or personal conflicts. He is also a former customer of mine. I felt his (edited) observations and judgements should be shared:

"There are many digital sources you have not heard and merit consideration as recommendations. There are several solutions (albeit, they are two-box transport/dac combos) that I have heard or currently own that surpass your recommendations.

1. The Gamut CD-1 is extremely over-rated. Your associate and I confirmed this, as I brought it to him and we evaluated it. Clean clear highs, however lack of a full-bodied nature and absence of any impactful bass. I am glad to see this was reported correctly.

2. The Sim Audio Eclipse (which I owned for two years- outboard p/s; uses Phillips best pro transport) has outstanding build quality and can easily run with the Wadia 861. They are two of the best one-box redbook players. HOWEVER, they are eclipsed (pun intended) by the best two-box solutions, of which the combination below I would now term as 'world class' at it's price point.

3. My current combo will blow away anything on your 'list': Spectral SDR 3000SL transport (uses the best version of the Teac VRDS clamping system, of which a LESSER model is used in your 'favorite' Wadia 861 by the way...) combined with an Audio Note 3.1x 'Balanced' (transformer-coupled output; 1-bit; no brickwall filtering; all silver-wired; etc., etc.) Dac. The Spectral retails for $9,000 and the Audio Note for $6,000. I ... have received indescribable pleasure from this setup...

Accessories/setup include the Kharma Grand Reference 75-ohm digital IC; a GW Labs jitter reducer/signal amplifier b/w trans and dac (yes, I was skeptical as well putting anything else in the signal path, but it IS a noticeable improvement, and confirmed by a couple of friends in the U.S. who have the exact digital combo I am describing). Also- Ensemble Isolink isolation transformers (2) feed cleaner power to the trans and dac (lowered sound floor and superior coherency and soundstaging are immediately evident with the addition of these isolated transformers- i.e.- in your analog world, an analogy might be that VPI SDS?).

I don't have time today to describe sonically the benefits of the above setup, but suffice to say it handily trounces any one-box setup I have heard or owned (yes, the Capitole MK I was mine, AND we demo'd the MK II as well...). The detail retrieval from the transport is second to none, and the natural realism; harmonic completeness and top-to-bottom frequency response from the dac is superb.

And by the way, this is through an Audion Premier Anniversary edition preamp; ASL 1009 monoblocks (modified); and Coincident Total Victory speakers." (8/03)

Another Reader on Digital Front-Ends- A reader, who also knows the participating reader above, sent me a letter that offers a further perspective on the same digital components.

"I went on an odyssey of digital front ends in the last four years, and I have ended up with the same front end as your reader with the Spectral/Audio Note. It is one of the best digital front-ends I have heard, with the exception possibly of the new Meitner. It has a naturalness and ease unknown to me previously by digital. It manages this without over-smoothing the sound. The midrange is very open and clear, without digital artifacts. The highs are very good for digital, and the bass is perfectly natural and extended. It gives my Well Tempered Reference/ Symphonic Line RG-8, ASR Mini Basis Phono combo a run for the money, but the analog is superior. Analog still sounds bigger, less mechanical, and more vivid.

I recommended to your reader to try a few tweaks to the Spectral (a Shakti Stone inside the transport over the digital section), and to roll some NOS tubes for the Audio Note. The Audio Note is much improved by a Bendix 5852 Rectifier tube, and some special 6992s - Seimens CCa or Amperex Oranges are my preference. I also had the Audio Aero Prima 192K DAC with the Spectral transport previously, and I agree with your* assessment there too."

*Note- Despite this observation, I must point out that none of the "assessments" concerning any of these digital components are mine (Arthur Salvatore). (8/03)

This CD Transport and DAC combination was evaluated by (3 of) my associates. They have a considerable amount of experience with digital sources, and have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"This is the latest incarnation of the top of the line MSB gear with superb build quality and the finest DACS, chips etc. The units are priced at $8,500 for the DAC (with volume controls) and $5,000 for the transport. The volume pots permit direct connection to an amplifier thereby obviating the requirement of a preamp.

I will not delve into all the algorithms and sampling rates available with the DAC (and there are many), as interested parties can explore this on their own. Suffice it to state, that the MSB combination is at the top of the heap in CD playback. Its flaws are minor, and of a subtractive nature, while its virtues are abundant. The MSB always sounds composed, refined and transparent without being veiled or dull. Its smoothness is a result of the player's lack of resonances and absence of any upper frequency aberrations. The combo will reveal pretty much all the musical information residing in those silver discs (sometimes gold) with very little editorializing.

The MSB's greatest sonic strength lies in its overall balance. The sound is very organized with great frequency uniformity. There is nothing about the sonics that is distracting or off putting. So, where does the pair not measure up to what the best digital has to offer? There are other players that are more explosive dynamically or have "ballsier" bass. That is not to suggest that the MSB is deficient in these areas. Rather, it suggests that other players are a little better in these performance parameters.

The main caution with the MSB duo revolves around the price and lack of SACD playback. $13,500 is a lot of cash for a CD player that, while it is in the upper echelon of performance, does not rise above it. Furthermore, once great SACD sound has been experienced, it leaves no doubt that it offers far greater resolution than Redbook." (3/09)

Personal Note- The MSB's (relative) problem with its "price" is offset by its built-in preamplifier (with volume pots) plus its capability of future performance upgrades (which are inevitable with digital sources). However, its lack of SACD capability can not be finessed, and will be viewed by many as its fatal disadvantage.

This is the latest CD/SACD player evaluated by (3 of) my associates. They have a considerable amount of experience with digital sources, and have access to two highly revealing systems as "tools". There's some very minor editing on my part, plus my bold:

"This unit has the traditional Mac appearance (for better or worse), is nicely constructed and is reasonably priced at $3,300. A very nice feature is an analog volume control, both on the unit and on the remote, which means a direct connection to an amplifier works very well, as the player can output up to 6 volts. This particular unit was 2 years old, in excellent condition, and had hundreds of hours of play.

The 201 was only auditioned in the direct mode, without the use of a line stage. I had high hopes for this player, but within minutes of spinning the first SACD, they were all but dashed. The sound was dull, lack luster and grainy. Impact and dynamics were compressed and the bass was soft and lacking impact. The Mac also exhibited an upper midrange glare that become obtrusive on female vocals and brass instruments. The CD performance sounded virtually identical to SACD.

In short, the MCD 201 is a very mediocre player, that is bettered by many at its price point. Its SACD sound is so unexceptional, that it does not offer any substantive improvement over Redbook. This player is to be avoided, even at used prices of around $1,600." (2/09)

MANLEY LABS REFERENCE DAC- This DAC was very expensive ($10K+), but it was also the finest DAC ever made at one time. It is now discontinued. There is no 96/24, but it does have a volume control, HDCD capability and a polarity switch as well. The output stage is tube of course. This unit is still one of the closest avenues to analog ever made. According to one of my associates, this model even outperforms the Manley replacement, though it doesn't have all the (preamplifier) flexibility of the new model.

It is available used, now and then, at a big discount over the original cost (Audiogon). At its used price, normally around $ 5,000 or even less, it is a really good value, especially considering both its sonics and superb build quality.

SAKURA "FLAT FISH" CD PLAYER- This unit is deceptively small, like all their other components, but it sounds huge and is one of the finest "all in one" CD players available right now. My sources even prefer it to the ultra expensive LINN player.

This player requires a volume pot and it is expensive for its size and shape, but it is fairly priced for its relative performance. It is superior to the Alchemist Forsetti just below.

ALCHEMIST FORSETTI TRANSPORT & DAC- A superb combination with balanced outputs controlled by its own analogue volume control. This is for those who want a minimalist digital-only system. Very well built and with unique cosmetics.

Recent News- These two components are now discontinued, and must be found used. That makes them an even better value as far as I am concerned. I heard them most recently in August 2005, and I still consider them superb performers.

Note- The first three players below were once in Class C. They have all been obsoleted by the Pacific Valve MHZS CD 66. Their current descriptions do not yet reflect the existance of the Pacific Valve.

MSB LINK- This is a breakthrough component and it is, by far, the best DAC for the money. You have to go the Alchemist Forsetti to beat it out and it has 96/24 conversion as a bonus. The Link requires the Pioneer Elite DVD Player 05 (for its coaxial output) and the WireWorld Gold Starlight III coaxial cable for best performance. There are also a number of "factory upgrades" available as well that will further improve its performance. They should be approached with caution since their accumulated cost might be greater than a (now or future) superior Class B model.

ALCHEMIST NEXUS- This unit has excellent sound, the best at its price for an all in one player, and it’s well built. This component is for those who don’t want separates. It is superior to the (Entry-Level) Parasound, NADS and Rotels. In short: True Class C performance.

AH! TJOEB'99- This CD player is actually a modified Marantz. It uses (6922) tubes in the analog output stage. It is available only direct from the modifier, Upscale Audio. There are a few different alternatives and I haven't heard them all. The prices are in the $ 500 to $ 700 price range.

The Marantz chassis and transport they use are cheaply made and the play button regularly requires more than one pressing to become engaged, a minor irritation. However, the sound quality is excellent at this price point, though I must stress that it is not as good as much of the hype (audioreview.com) would suggest.

Its main strength is its overall naturalness, which is a rare quality at this price. Other audio parameters are also good, with its weakest area being "the bass". For acoustical music, this is the best player we know for under $ 1,000 (new).

This model can be further improved with modifications (better coupling capacitors) and superior tubes. This URL (http://www.hifi-notes.com/ahtjoeb99home-en.htm) may have some relevant information for an owner or prospective purchaser. Finally, the word "tjoeb" means "tube" in Dutch.

Further- The above description was written more than three years ago (August 2000). This fact must be taken into serious consideration when comparing this unit to the most recent models. It is safe to assume that something is now better for the money in today's market, though there is no guarantee of that.

NOVA PHYSICS "MEMORY" CD PLAYER- I haven't seen or heard this player, which isn't surprisng, since I've never been on digital hardware's "front-line", but the theory behind this component appears very logical, imaginative and relevant to me. In fact, based on the detailed description of its versatile capabilities, and the all-out manner of its execution, see below, I would say it's the single most desirable CD player ever made.

A veteran audio writer and reviewer, from Positive Feedback, Clark Johnsen, has already posted a good write-up about it. I recommend this essay to any reader who is serious about digital reproduction. Purchasing one of them is a different matter. You're on your own at that point, because the price is $ 10,000 according to another reader. (If you do purchase one though, I would like to hear about the results.) There's even more good news for vinyl fans. Here is a highly relevant note from the other reader:

"This (Nova) player is evidently a super-duper CD writer to boot, but the very most exiting thing for vinyl enthusiasts is that this deck is available with an option to make CDs from analog sources. Most of us vinyl folks would love to be able to have a high quality system for making CDs from our records, and almost everything I've seen out there requires one hell of a computer, special software, and it helps to have a Master's degree to learn to use it."

CAVEAT-Please be advised that the readers’ letters posted on this site are solely the opinion of that reader and may not necessarily represent or reflect the opinions of Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. These letters furthermore, are not to be taken as being endorsed by Arthur Salvatore or High-End Audio. They are posted because they may be edifying, thought provoking or entertaining.

Here's the latest information (6/06) I have received from a reader about this innovative CD player. There's only a little editing (my bold):

"This morning, I had a lengthy conversation with George Bischoff from Nova Physics, one of the co-designers of the Memory CD Player. He was president of Melos. He told me that some of the information on the www.memoryplay.info web site is not entirely accurate (or let’s just say outdated, because there was obviously no attempt to mislead). He (Bischoff) gave me permission to relay this to you:

The Memory CD, sold as a stand-alone transport, sells for $9,950. It includes the capability to store between 65 and 80 CDs in memory (depending upon the length of the CDs). There is, however, a version that allows the player to connect directly to an amplifier (given your preference for this type of connection, I know this will spark your interest). It contains a 32-bit DAC and has a vacuum tube output (based on the 6DJ8/6922/EC88, etc.) and volume control. Sorry, but I forgot to ask how many tubes are utilized. This latter version sells for $14,400.

Two of the options on the earlier web site are NOT available: (1) the plan for streaming audio has been discarded, as Mr. Bischoff has concerns about internet viruses infecting the player & (2) the home theater option.

Digital recording is available from analogue sources to digital as a $1,000 option. The music library maximum is currently now at 400 CDs, and that add-on is a modest increase of $400 to the purchase price. He is not comfortable at the present time with more storage than that because he said that if the memory were compromised, due to something like a power surge or lightning strike, the work to reconstruct the CD library would be more time-consuming than most people would want to deal with.

One option, not mentioned before, is a unique form of remote control. For $ 650, Nova Physics will furnish a Dell Inspiron 1300 laptop with a connectivity program (this represents a $ 100 markup over the purchase price of the computer direct from Dell). He told me the program will work on other laptops, so I would assume the price for the connectivity program would be approximately $ 100."

Personal Notes- I'm not usually excited about "digital" anything, including both hardware and software, but I admit that this component has me intrigued. I think it is because of its imaginative, fundamental and highly desirable innovations; which may well mean a possible sonic breakthrough and for also the improved ergonomics and flexibilty of use. It's a dream player, in many way, for both digital and analog-oriented audiophiles. We can only hope now that the final results matches the inspiration, and, in the longer run, this type of player becomes available at a much lower price. This brings us to...

The other side of this important story. So here's a letter from a another reader, with a different angle about the Nova Memory player, and any other future player using the same, or similar, technology. Here it is, with no editing:

"I have been talking to a number of people about the Memory player and I have learned that some of their unique marketing claims may not be all that special.

They claim that the player avoids the ECC error correction used in CD players, and repositions the laser with many reads until it gets an accurate read using their Read Until Right technology. This type of technology already exists in almost all modern computers. Most computer CD/DVD drives do not use ECC correction when they rip music to a hard drive. Modern computers also in conjunction with quality ripping software, read and re-read each bit many times until they determine the data is accurate. The CD/DVD drive adjusts the position/angle of the laser etc, to accomplish this.

Nova claims claim that they read the data into memory and then send it to a Dac, and that this is unique. All computers send data to memory before it is sent to the DAC. Music never is played directly off a hard disk, or off a disc when using modern playback software like iTunes, Windows Media Player etc.

The case that the player uses is a common PC ATX computer case sold for custom built Home Theater PCs. This type of case can only be used for a Windows type computer system (or Linux), no other components would fit in it, and it wouldn’t make any sense to use a case like this or modify it for custom components, because the cost and time would far outweigh any benefit. So the player is obviously built from the ready-made computer parts that most Windows computers are made of. http://www.silverstonetek.com/products-lc18.htm

So is the Memory Player unique, or is it a repackaging of the many computer-based music playback systems that people are building for themselves these days? If so, why the high price? Is this another case of obfuscating a common process that others have developed and selling it as unique that has been all too common in the history of High End Audio? Many serious audiophiles have been reporting that contrary to expectations that computer audio sounds better than their traditional CD systems. I think that many traditional audiophiles have avoided these systems because of the complexity and general unease with computers. Perhaps it is time to listen to some of these and hear what all the fuss is about?"

Personal Notes- One of my closest friends, who is also an "associate", recently built a dedicated computer, from scratch, to be his digital audio source. So what is written above, is not just the reader's "theory". Since computer technology gets better (and cheaper!) as predictably as the day follows the night, it appears reasonably certain that DIY computer/digital/audio kits, or fully assembled models, will eventually become available. If that wasn't enough to look forward to, don't forget that when using common computer parts, the retail prices will have to be "normal", in stark contrast to "audio prices".

In short- We may be at the beginning of a digital audio revolution. It will start with the true "pioneers"; DIY hobbyists who will attempt to build a new generation of digital components for the love and challenge of it. It will grow from there, though without any help from the "mainstream" audio press, who are much too close to the current digital audio manufacturers to report on this potentially breakthrough development. Eventually, even the "big boys" will have to acknowledge what's happening, which means "audiophile" versions will become available. Whether they will be any more than just aesthetic and ergonomic enhancements, for a premium price, remains to be seen.

Here's an interesting and broad-ranging letter from a reader with a lot of valuable information and observations about optimizing the Manley Reference DAC*, along with some other high performance components. I like the way this audiophile relentlessly and systematically seeks out improvements. I recommend this method, even if the full scope can't be copied due to time and monetary restraints. Here's his letter, with very minor editing and my bold:

"I have followed your writings for several years and finally wanted to share my experience with the Manley DAC. I have owned this for almost 4 years now.

To give you an idea as to the rest of the system before I discuss details of the Manley. This will give you an idea as to what I seek in a system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearaudio Ref TT with two arms: Graham 2.2 and Zeta.
I use a combination of Clearaudio Accurate, Koetsu RWS, Audioquest 7000 (recently rebuilt) and an old old Supex 9000 (also recently rebuilt) which sounds outstanding for this price bracket. Rework was done by a small company called the Soundsmith. He has several options for different cantilever and stylus materials at very realistic prices.

Phono stage: Aesthetix Io - Heavily modified by GNSC, but still looking to replace remaining 0.22 uf caps with SonicCap Platinums. Will take the Io PS to GNSC for replacement of some diodes, regulators and possibly wiring.

Line stage: Aesthetix Callisto Sig - I know you are not a fan of line stages, but this brings on life to all systems I have heard it with vs. CD players straight into amps.

I have put a ton of effort to find tubes for the Aesthetix pieces.
Quite a mixture of Telefunken 12ax7, Sylvania 5751, Valvo and Miniwatt Pinched Waist 6922, Siemens 6DJ8 A-getter, Tungsol and RCA Redbase 6SN7, Mullard UK EL34, etc.
These tubes took the units far far beyond what nearly everyone has heard with the stock Sovtek tubes. But even with stock Sovtek tubes, these units handily outperform so many many preamps out there in the context of layering space, piano textures and strings.

Rives PARC Parametric EQ - With many ASC columns on the front wall, and ASC treatments on back wall, there is still much bass energy that is out of control. It really masks the midrange and treble clarity. I was concerned this device would destroy the incredible decays and ambience of the system but this miraculously was not the case.....only a reduction in dynamic contrasts occured. This problem was later greatly resolved when changing from Purist Dominus PC to the Stealth Dream PC on the PARC. The PARC, at least for now, is critical to achieve the tonal coherency in the system for this 13x19 room.

Amps - CAT JL-3 Signature. Like the Aesthetix pieces, I have gone through much effort to find phenomenol small signal tubes for these. Again the 6922 pinched waist, Sylvania 5751 and various 5693 tubes for the 12au7 socket. I currently run with 2 matched sets of 16 6550 Winged-C tubes.

Cabling is a mixture of Stealth Dream and M5000 PCs, Indra IC with a 10m Purist Dominus from Callisto to JL-3s, Purist Opis spkr cable.

Speakers - 10 year-old pair of SoundLab A1, updated backplate electronics but not the latest high-efficiency panels.

CDP - An old Pioneer PD65 which has been a great workhorse as a transport. It has an SPDIF RCA digital output which drives a Genesis TimeLens and then into the Manley via Marigo 5.7 cable. The Genesis helps significantly to bring on greater dimensionality to voice and piano....this is not subtle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strengths: Portrays piano like no other digital piece I have heard. It can sometimes be a little too much of a good thing, but it truly conveys the placement of a paino before you. Massed strings, saxaphone, voice, lower-frequency percussion: decays like no other piece I have heard.

Weaknesses: Lacking authority and extension in bottom octave. Never boomy, does not artificially extend upper bass to compensate for lack of ultimate coverage, but other players, e.g., Wadia 861, render bass control significantly beyond the Manley. Top-most trebles also lack coverage and extension. Fundamentals of notes are strong, but the follow-through of the harmonics for elements like the top-most saxaphone notes, cymbals, etc., lack the detail and reach that is heard from others.....again, the Wadia 861.

After hearing many other digital systems, and I often took the Manley DAC with me to friends' homes, I was acutely aware of its character and how it exceled over its rivals...but also what attention it might need if ever mod'd.

I contacted Steve Huntley at GNSC about the possibility to improve this unit without affecting its magic in the middle 6-7 octaves. We agreed up to two passes to try and achieve this effort.

The first was to work to open up the top-end. With a couple of cap changes on the audio stage, some Bybee filters on output, and a few undisclosed minor changes elsewhere, he did indeed bring on life on top that the unit never had at all. The pair of caps just in front of the 7044 tubes were the ones that were replaced and made a HUGE improvement to open up the top end. Absolutely amazing transformation. The fundamentals were as strong and full and rich as ever, but now the harmonics could breath and extend far back from the speakers.

A direct comparison to the Wadia 27, fully decked out by Steve: I must say it was now darn close as to which unit rendered the top end with more clarity and extension. The Wadia got the edge, but not by much. But the Wadia was so far behind the Manley when it came to the layering and structure of voice and guitar....not even close. The Wadia for me anyway was too clinical. But the Wadia still had an incredible rendition of the bottom octave.

Second change was to replace all the caps on the D/A board to Black Gate. This was 18 2200uf/35v caps. The Black Gates are a bit larger in diameter than the stock caps, but the board is high enough to mount some on the bottom of the board so as to fit them all. He added some chassis dampening materials to the side panels as well. I did not get to hear this as we ended up losing one of the DACC013 modules in the process (see below).

It took us 9 months to locate another product which used this chip. Once this chip was harvested and put into the Manley, just this last week, I can finally hear this unit like I never could have imagined. The unit's fundamental strengths are unchanged and with the last updates, there is now much more control in the lowest frequencies.

Power cable is critical to this unit. I tried many and only a few allow the Manley to bring on its 3-D capability. The Purist Dominus was absolutely magical here, but it tends to roll off the highs. I tried a Virtual Dynamics Revelation and it brought on far greater extension at the frequency extremes, but it also robbed the 3-D magic. The Kubala- Sosna cables are wonderful to convey more detail at the extremes, but they too can be a bit flat in the portrayal of dimensionality. The cables to beat here are the Stealths: M5000 is an excellent performer, but it was the Dream which for the first time allowed me to hear the twang of piano strings with CD playback. The cable is insanely priced, but without it, you are not hearing the Manley's ability.

As for replacing the D/A chips, this would be an interesting thing to consider, but I suspect it too would change the character of the unit to a point of regret. I also have a Classe DAC-1, which uses the UA chips, but a different model, and this has similarities of the Manley in how it portrays dimensionality, decays, ambience. So few digital systems get this fundamental character right. No matter how good a piece does everything else, it if fails here, I reject it. So I wonder if trying a different chip might mess this up this magical sonic quality.

And please be careful when you work in the unit. It's an issue of the risk of damage or destruction of a chip during the mods, as explained above. The D/A chips are fragile. So all care must be taken when working in this as the consequences can be high if one of the UA chips is destroyed. These chips are no longer available, and I do not know if anything out there today that is a pin-for-pin replacement."

*Personal Note- My Manley Reference DAC is "for sale". I'm only asking $ 3,500 for it, and it's in excellent shape. I would keep it, but the investment is not worth my pitiful CD collection. Someone will appreciate it a lot more than me.

RESOLUTION AUDIO OPUS 21 CDP- A reader sent me a letter with some observations on this component. I felt they should be shared. There's some small editing;

"I just bought a Resolution Audio Opus 21 CDP, which in my opinion is great for the money. It retails for $ 3,500, but you can usually find it used for $ 2,500. While its not state of the art, it is excellent value for money. I had a well known manufacturer/dealer tell me that he uses it at shows over the $30k DAC he sells, because he has not come across a partnering transport he feels betters the Opus 21 overall (however he is very much into musicality)." (12/07)

Personal Notes- I'm not familiar with this component. It's probably worth checking out, but digital dedicated computers may be the real future for audiophiles. (I'm on my best behavior today. I'm making no comment on the reader's "musicality" reference.)

This reader, a former customer of mine from "the old days" in Toronto, sent me some useful information about his tube rolling experiments with CD-88E CD player. Minor editing and my bold:

"I have the MHZS CD-88E and found out that the regulator tube, OB2, has quite a profound effect on the bass response. I went with a Sylvania Gold Brand OB2WA and I love the bass, as it became 'real', faster and cleaner. My finishing touch was a pair of Tung Sol ECC803S, which really took the player to the next level." (1/08)

This is a small part of what a reader wrote to me in a recent letter (which was otherwise complimentary):

I receive letters similar to this a few times a year. The gist of all of them is that I must be blissfully unaware of all the many problems (mainly distortions) inherent in phono sources and tube electronics (especially single-ended models), and how much better the respective alternatives, digital sources and solid-state electronics, are in comparison.

I don’t believe I have any “bias” against digital audio. In fact, there are a considerable number of digital recordings in The Supreme Recordings (which are, of course, all LPs). I'm not aware of any other LP list that has such a large number of digital records. I believe this alone proves my lack of bias. I even state, in My Audio Philosophy, that digital will be superior eventually. It’s only a matter of time when there are enough data points to outperform analog in every way that will convince (or fool) the best ear. Further...

The “world is not digital” (excuse) is not my main argument against (current) digital audio. My focus has always been strictly on the sonic results and a specific and noticeable problem that digital audio has, which I describe, in detail, in many places on this website. I am fully aware that digital is superior to analog in many, if not most, ways. I even list the many areas digital is superior to analog in My Audio Philosophy.

If anything, I was biased IN FAVOR of digital recordings, meaning CDs (which were supposed to sound just like a “master tape”), when they came out in the early 1980’s. Then I heard the actual results. Nothing since then has made me change this fundamental perspective, though both sources have obviously improved. Many other people have also heard this problem (a high sound-floor causing a loss of low-level information), though it is almost always described with frustratingly meaningless terms: "digital isn't musical!" and/or "digital isn't involving!".

So yes, I do hear all the problems with analog (phono) sources. I always have, along with countless other audiophiles, because they're not difficult to hear. It doesn't even take the ultimate experience of hearing live music to then hear phono problems by comparison. All you have to do is hear a really good master tape (analog or digital), or a LIVE concert on a good FM station (which is now sadly rare), or just a really good CD. However, I strongly believe that digital is still (overall) inferior to (good) phono analog, because its main problem is even more noticeable and, much more importantly, emotionally distracting.

Now, turning back to the (overly) confident writers of these various critiques...

All of these letters, posts and claims about the many "problems" of tube amplifiers, and phono sources, that are seemingly being totally ignored by their users, are missing something by their writers. It is this fundamental perspective....

It must never be forgotten that any true audiophile always wants the next generation of components, or sources*, to be superior to the last. As for myself, I have no nostalgic or blind emotional commitment to vinyl or anything else (such as tube electronics). I am certainly as “ruthless” when it comes to audio as I advise others to be.

Everything I evaluate is based on what I hear and experience, and I almost always back it up with other audiophiles I have learned to trust (especially if there's a "mystery" or a conflict). If you read my reviews (or essays) on those components I consider(ed) outstanding**, you will learn the precise evolutionary steps I/we experienced to reach my/our present outlook.

Of vital importance, there were many “surprises” along the way. A “surprise” is extremely critical in audio (or any endeavor). It means that I recognized that I was “wrong” at the time, and I then changed my views based entirely on these new experiences. It also means, obviously, that I am open to new ideas and I have the ability to admit that I’m wrong if and when I'm proven wrong. Sometimes a surprise is "painful" (especially to the ego), but it is always best in the long run if you want to grow as a person (or a listener).

*With the one exception of "original pressing fundamentalists", who refuse to concede that any reissue can ever equal, let alone exceed, the sonic quality of the first pressing of any record.

**Bent Audio Silver Step-Up Transformer,
ZYX Cartridges,
Coincident Pure Reference speakers and
Coincident Frankenstein amps

A reader sent me two letters about his experiences with Krell Digital Sources. I combined them. Some editing since the reader's mother tongue is not English. My bold as usual:

"Just to add a little contribution to your... digital ranking. I´ve been using a Krell KPS 30i as DAC for a couple of years with my Jadis J-1 transport. It has come to my system on a trade and it was a jaw dropping experience. Nothing I had in the DAC area surpasses its performance, just to mention: ML 360s, Jadis JSL and JS2 Mkii, Proceed, Krell AVs (as a DAC only...it was pure shit) or CD Players like: Canary Audio CD-100, Sony 777es, Classe CDP 1.5, Cary Audio and...

It gives what I love the most on music, accuracy of timbre, seductive sound but with all the Krell pros as well.

The KPS30i is a later 90's unit. It's a CD player with digital inputs. The DAC section is similar to the Ref 64´s one . Other very good units are the KPS25i and even the KPS20il.

Since in my country we use 50hz, and the Krells are frequency sensitive, the Krell unit is connected to a PS Audio P-300 that comes with a frequency selector. Maybe that is helping its performance a lot and surely it will benefit any Krell digital unit." (12/08)

Personal Note- I have no experience with any of these digital models (the Krells or the others). However, these older Krell models may be now going for "a song" in North America, so they may be interesting to try out without taking a big monetary risk.

A reader sent me his observations about a variety of components. The most important to me (because it was the most unexpected) was his direct comparison of the Lector CDP-7 with the Krell Standard. There's some minor editing and my bold:

"I read with interest your December 2008 update adding the Krell Standard to Class A (lower) Digital Sources. In order to put things in perspective, allow me to summarize my digital odyssey throughout the past few years. My vinyl collection consist of approximately 1,500 albums. In the recent years my CD (including some 100 to 150 SACDs) collection has grown to about 800 albums.

When CDs first came out I, like most audiophiles, did not take them seriously. I used a 5-CD unit to play the few CDs I owned. I certainly did not want to invest what I considered mega-bucks for the few "audiophile" units that started to sprout in the early days of digital.

When technology improved, and players started to become available at a more reasonable price, I took the plunge and purchased a Super Njoe Tjoeb. I still use this unit in my secondary system. It was certainly revelatory compared to the 5-CD gizmo I had been using. I felt then that digital was beginning to come of age, but still vinyl reigned supreme. I recall using the Sheffield Track Record, which I owned in both formats, to convince my non-audiophile friends that vinyl was far from dead. They were astonished to discover that the CDs they were buying were not PERFECT MUSIC as they had been led to believe by the music industry publicity machine.

When SACDs started coming out, I was interested in the industry's claims of wider dynamic range, improved bass, etc. However, my Njoe Tjoeb could not reproduce the SACD layer of hybrid SACDs. So I started to look for an SACD player. I found a Marantz SA-11S1 on Audiogon at a price I could afford. I could then play both CDs and SACDs on the one machine and relegated the other Marantz (Njoe Tjoeb) to the secondary system.

I then heard about the Oracle CD 2500 player and the rave reviews it received including your rating on your website. (I do not put too much value on 'rave' reviews in publications other than yours). I thought it better get good reviews for $9,000+. A dealer in a neighboring county advertized an Oracle CD 2500 on Audiogon. I contacted him and he offered to come to my home as he traveled to my town every couple of weeks. He would bring the 2500 for a comparative listening session. He was kind enough to spend some 3 to 4 hours with me as we listened to over 40 cuts from various CDs and SACDs. Depending on the cuts the Oracle was either clearly superior or slightly superior to my Marantz.

At the time, my system output end consisted of Atma-Spheres MA-1 amps driving the Soliloquys 6.5. Even though the Oracle won the contest, I was not prepared to pay the $7,000 for the used CD-only unit in spite of its sexy looks (I do not have to deal with WAF since I live alone). Qualitatively, it was not worth the difference to me. So I kept the Marantz SA-11S1. A little later, I acquired a pair of ASL Hurricanes on Audiogon to replace the A-S. I won't go into details as that is another story. Suffice it to say that I was happy with the change.

A local dealer was selling Lector equipment. Once, while at his home/store, he played some CDs on the CDP-7 and it sounded quite impressive. However, his system was quite different from mine and he agreed to let me try out the unit at my home. I did so for a few days and I was sold. The CDP-7 trounced the Marantz on both CD and SACD sources, even though the Marantz should have had an edge on the SACDs. I ordered a brand-new CDP-7, and it is now my main digital source. I kept the Marantz to play the odd non-hybrid SACD that would not play on the Lector.

Recently, by sheer chance, I had the opportunity to purchase used replacements for my amps and speakers. I am now the happy owner of a pair of Coincident Pure References, driven by a pair of Frankensteins MkII. I thought I had died and gone to heaven after I got the system set up. The Lector sounded even better on digital sources than it did before.

Now we come to the pertinent part. Your and your associates' evaluation of the Krell SACD Standard and its ranking in Class A aroused my attention. Like you, I had never thought much of the Krell line. Nevertheless, since it was ranked just below the Oracle which I had heard and it outclassed (de-listed) the Marantz SA-7S SACD machine (the SA-11s1's big brother), I was intrigued. So intrigued that I recently purchased a used Krell Standard MKIII SACD machine on Audiogon, and I just finished a head-to-head listening session. It clearly outclassed my Marantz SA-11S1. But the kicker is that, after listening to 46 cuts from various CDs on the Lector and on the Krell, the winner is...the Lector! I won't go into the details of my scoring method (subjective as they all are) but the Lector scored 207 and the Krell 170.

The bottom line is that you and your associates should give the Lector a try. Unfortunately, the price went up since I purchased mine due, I think, in great part to a distributorship change. However it is still less expensive (under $6,000 brand new) than the Oracle 2500 and the ARC Ref CD7 ($9,000+ brand new). Some people on some forums have found the Lector "dark-sounding". They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but it is not mine. Maybe they should look at their system's synergy."

I (Arthur Salvatore) have a minority input in this component category.