CD player test.
Because something has come up on the market that I think is interesting. A completely newly developed CD player, not a facelift of an old model. That is extremely rare. Someone(s) thought of the likes of us, who have extensive and serious CD collections, who like to hold the medium in our hands, the disc, like to sniff and flip through the booklet and admire the artwork.
And two things that are important to me are the XLR output and the fact that you can control the volume through that. Since I only have power amplifiers that give their best with a symmetrical topology, I'm all over this.
And, most importantly, it has a modern chipset inside, today's technology, today's CD mechanics, not some ancient Philips CD Pro monstrosity that is still adored by the audiophile audience, but I don't know why, even though I've listened to it in several versions...
So HighEnd systems will be avoided, and those who own a 10k amplifier / speakers with horror expensive cables will not listen to this. Because they are not free people, they are squeezed into the laws of the HighEnd, the unwritten rules of the price frame.
Breaking out of coordinate systems has always interested me.
'Freedom' is synonymous with this phenomenon.
It is also important in music, especially in Early Music.
So, you'd have to put it in a real expensive system to get the whole truth, and that would be a lot more interesting than a test against a Shanling or a Technics or a Rotel. I couldn't find such a test, so I did it myself.
The opponent was therefore a big monster, a Godzilla, an audiophile apex predator, the Mark Levinson №512.
For me, it is the best CD player in the planet.
Because it's very, very good at what I think is the most important thing in artificial sound reproduction. And it leaves the field standing, the other, otherwise great players.
What it is?, well, it's a bit difficult to describe. The greatness of the hi-fi stuff, the resolution, and the bass, and the space, blah... blah..., it's a shame to talk about them here, because this entry was sold at the door. Rather, it's a kind of magic, a kind of special soundscape, and an unconditional and unquestioning fidelity to tone that can even be a taste-former when listening to classical music.
Technically, it's like all expensive high-end CD players; it involves a lot of materials, a lot of expertise, special solutions, and a lot of listening tests during development. E.g. the latter is the reason for the AD1955 converter, rather than some other chip with possibly better parameters at that time.
It's an awful lot of complexity. A signal path a kilometre long. Plus, it's not a real-time player, but the readout data goes into a buffer, from there it goes to further processing, driving back and forth across the square footage of the motherboard and the separate stages, until it finally reaches the output op-amps and the connectors. It's almost incomprehensible how, at the end of the labyrinth, the sound comes out so good.
15 kilos of pure America.
XLR is a must here. And it has an analogue volume control, which is important to me.
The PL200 is a Renaissance miniature in comparison.
A jewel box.
Small, rather personal hifi feeling. Very attractive metal housing, with so many precise lines that can only be achieved by CNC machining.
It's easy to use, convenient. The metal lid is also a nice piece, it fits snugly - I don't use it. It's easy to use without the lid: just press 'play' a little longer, say 2 seconds, and it starts. It's quiet, and reads all existing and scratchy discs, CDRs, mp3s, whatever, lightning fast.
These piano keys - all well and good, I don't care, I can't even touch them, I hang on the remote control, everything can be controlled from there too.
Inside, a brand new flagship converter chip from AKM, it's a fine thing. Short signal paths, physically minimalist concept.
The settings: simple, logical everything. With one exception. Everyone will get stuck where I did: there are 6 types of PCM filters, and none of them are 'default'. So which one should I choose?
The user manual has no information about it.
Fortunately I found the solution on the Internet, there is a great article about it here:
How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC
It's so well written that I believe it and keep the suggestion, which is filter 1, the default setting, SHARP ROLL OFF, which is what I've been using ever since. By the way, opinions may differ here, because there is a setting, SUPER SOFT, which gives the practically 'legendary' NOS setting, i.e. the best filter if there is no filter, some people swear by it. E.g. Audio Note, that tells you something, doesn't it? Yes, some people say they would have preferred to stay with LP players because the sound of their CD players can't break through, and some people really like them - their reputation is certainly extremely strong.
An interesting area of play to try these out can add a bit of personalisation.
Another important thing: the volume control. But this is simply perfect. It seems to be double logarithmic, D-log type, that is, the small volume range, the very quiet part is the extended part, and going upwards, approaching the maximum, it rises / strengthens faster. For me, and the Heed Nexus blocks, this is a very, very subtle thing. And fast and way too comfortable. Great dynamics even at low volumes.
The ML's high-power XLR output power bomb, which exceeds 8V, is a bit overdriven, constantly having to hover around the lowest volume setting. And on the PL200, it's more in the upper third.
The remote controls?
Both are inconvenient, cumbersome and uncomfortable.
The ML is a monstrosity, a one-kilogram, solid aluminum machined housing, horror cost, (around $1000). Tiny buttons, and metal, and cold, and extremely bad to hold when the room is below 30ºC. Freezes my hands from the radiating cold. And, if it falls off, because all remotes fall off at some point, it will break the tiles or mark the hardwood floors, that's for sure...
The SMSL is the other extreme: cheap, plastic, uncomfortable to hold, slippery, tiny buttons, it doesn't feel good on the hand either.
Luckily there is a solution, I created one I like a long time ago; this one came from China, metal housing, serious material but light, hardwood bottom-side, enjoyable to hold, buttons spaced and taught the way I like it, the way I use it. A bit senior-use-feeling, but very, very comfortable to handle.
*
Let's see.
First, I offered him something that's important to me: viola da gamba. Extremely sensitive to overtones, all it takes is one wrong wiring or a bad manoeuvre in the crossover to upset the harmony, but immediately.
This is good.
Very good.
Wow, a CD player that handles the sound of the gamba. If you only knew the names that have bled through here...
It's embarrassingly good. Perfect tone. ML loves it too, always makes a big magic here. PL200 loves it too, he makes magic too. Differently, obviously. The ML is a 'big' sound, big soundstage, colourful and boomy, dazzles with its margins. The PL200 is cleaner slightly; midrange is particularly subtle, with a sort of translucent clarity coming off. The fundamental tone, the high / bass ratio is almost similar, the ML is more colourful, the PL200's midrange is slightly more vivid.
PL200 is very fast, it suits him very well. There's a special clarity to the strings that comes through immediately. The ML is also fast, but there's a kind of timbre to it that feels very real.
We're slowly getting to one of the fundamental questions of hi-fi: is it the richer tone, the colouration, or is it the presence of more overtones? For those who would come with realism, too late, both devices have been left behind, now it's more of a kind of beauty-manufacturing.
Folia tune from SACD:
The ML knows exactly how far to approach a violin to keep it easy to listen to. It generates a very nice tone.
The PL200 can certainly go further in, and without creating any offensive edge. And also with a very nice tone. The advantage over the ML due to SACD is minimal; it makes the rear space a bit larger and adds barely audible noises to the soundstage, but these are audible in the PL200 too due to the 'proximity'.
Harpsichord.
The nightmare of CD players and even digital technology. It's so overtone-sensitive that bad hi-fi can cause aesthetic, almost physical pain. I chose the ML at the time, 10 years ago, because it was the only one of the big guns I had heard that did this perfectly. Strangely, here, the basic CD players are almost more tolerable, even a car stereo, because they simply swallow the messier overtones, they can't even sound them. The big ones have a problem: a big Esoteric or a Naim555, for example, are specifically unlistenable to me here.
The PL200 is downright great here. It's something special. They just figured something out with the new AKM chip. So much so that I dare say it's better than the ML. Better string separation, clarity of the ring-bells-tones keeps things from getting confusing. The ML is also great, but a bit more generous, it wants to be a big sound there, which it basically isn't. It's definitely more fatiguing on the more ominous recordings. Still, the strings are extremely pleasing.
Piano.
It's not an easy cake either. Especially the tone, because everyone knows that. And not the huge forte beats, I'm not so interested in that, it's often just a question of horsepower. Rather, what's more jarring is the left-hand piano, that is, the medium-low keys, with tiny strokes when you just caress them, they tend to pick up all sorts of colouring. In live, too, by the way.
ML is very good. Let's just say it makes everything into a big black giant piano, but it's pleasing, no denying that.
The PL200 is snappier and faster here, the left hand piano is definitely better, the tone is also very nice. It would be hard to decide.
A larger orchestra with choir. ML again has a massive advantage, because this is another SACD, one of the best recordings I've ever heard of classical music.
But here too the PL200 is very good. The clarity of the voices is quite impressive. The ML is at it again here with the margins, the boundaries, letting the music come forward from deeper, in some quite incredible ways. The countertenor has a slight whine, just like the live, the PL200 has nothing like that, more of an angelic clarity, just like the live.:)
The PL200 is clear and calm. Drier slightly, and just over there, like the BBC sound.
And here the sopranos are definitely more daring to let their voices vent towards the Air. They are bolder and soaring, more enthusiastic. There's a little aristocratic shyness, or rather gentlemanly tact, in ML's voice, so as not to disturb the audience in any way, who knows what they are, perhaps they don't deserve it. Like luxury cars. They're fine in all circumstances; if you're cruising along at 60 km/h on a shady forest tarmac road, they're fine, and if life happens to require a sustained 6500 rpm for a coasting run, they're fine.
Which is more true here? I don't know, honestly, I have no idea.
Interestingly, they both operate by making the very top, the very, very high frequencies just hover around the threshold of hearing. Yes, it probably plays into the fact that the Spendor has an ultratweeter. Yes, you could say that anyone who hears anything above 15k can fold their hands and why bother at all..
It's not that simple. Anyone who read the page linked above about filters might notice some odd things. Here is this picture, using exactly the filter we used:
So.
And jazz?
And rock?
And the blues?
And sophisticated electronic music?
And Diana Krall and Brothers in Arms and Dark Side of?
And the Super Bass Trio?
And Coltrane and the Ninth with the London Symphony Orchestra from 1958?
And the MQA?
And using it as a dac from some file-based source?
And his switchable headphone amp?
Well, what the PL200 does with all that leaves me cold. I'm interested in what it does to my favourite music, from disc.
But in the end, out of sheer curiosity, I did put in a Patricia Barber SACD.
Very, very demanding recording, and desperately plastic instrument sounds. The ML conjures up that HighEnd Show feeling in the room, yes, when we came out of the room from the ride we could only stand half a minute with a crowd of glistening-eyed people sitting around gaping. The PL200 can't produce anything greater, but at least there's a slight accent in Patricia's voice. None of them can conjure up something that, say, sound engineer Hughues Deschaux, on an Alpha, whatever, gave us as a finger exercise.
Say, here:
*
Verdict?
No verdict.
With complicated, complex music, you can perhaps see the two approaches.
ML is generous, a bit of a liar, if you have to, you can frame, you can paint in anything to make the production look good. Something that audiophiles say 'analogue', in a good way. I might add that it far exceeded the sound quality of any LP player I've ever heard, in return I got countless interminable wars of words from LP fans.
The PL200 is grittier, more accurate, and there's some big enchantment in the middle. Right in the middle of the spectrum, where the human voice is. And the viola da gamba, and the piano. The effect is so strong that suddenly we're back in the ML, yes we're in the luxury limousine, it's got everything, it's Hi-Fi Heaven, but there's a definite sense of lack there in the middle.
There seems to be a slight veil over the voice. Even though it has the high-resolution bass, even though it has the top-end, maybe even better, (I wonder?), something is still missing.
I was like Ulysses when he returned home, with a freshly trimmed beard, in a beautiful dress, (all the suitors slain), wandering in the marketplace of Ihtaka, and thinking of that sound he heard, tied to the mast, sailing past the island of Syrenes.
So, better than the ML????
Silly question. In the audiophile world, the only possible answer is no, not at all. Not at all. Funny even the assumption.
Because the laws of the Jungle are in force.
And it's possible that it won't happen for you, so, like me, you run in vain and buy one out of enthusiasm..
Why, because the above sound events happened in my room, in my house. Only there, I could obviously only write about it. The circumstances of this test will not be imitated by you. None of you are listening to a 15k CD player with a 30 year old BBC loudspeakers. You do not know what a pair of Heed Nexus monoblocks can perform in a symmetrical system. Or what's so good about a Radnai' PowerR cable that it drives out the expensive HighEnd cables.
And you have completely different tastes, different rooms, different carpets.
Everything is different.
Look to the right on the screen. Scroll up a little more. Where it talks about records.
I think that's what's really important.
The above - just a game, nothing more.
You don't even have to take it very seriously.
Chord
* * *
_________________________________________
2024.03.31.
After three months, looking back, everything seems true.
One exception: the use of filters. In the long run, 'Super Slow' became what I stuck with. Very odd. Because the filter setting can be changed even while listening, the difference is quite small, something is heard in the first seconds, then it blends into the music stream, specifically, I don't even hear much after that. But in the long run, however, it can decide how much we like to listen ab ovo. I really like this 'Super Slow'.
The referenced article writer may be technically correct. However, there is never pre-ringing in nature; the actual decay of the sounds is more like the somewhat chaotic graphs after the 'Super Slow' signal.
So, just be careful.
One more thing. The two power supplies are very different; in addition, the PL200's one is about the size of two twenty cents; ML has kgs of it; but the sound behavior of the power cables is almost the same.
In other words, you can cable it with you favourite wire, sound will change as usual.
__________________________________________
Test devices:
Mark Levinson №512 SACD player
info: https://6moons.com/audioreviews/marklevinson/1.html
Heed Nexus monoblocks
info: https://classicalcompass.blogspot.com/2017/08/opera-ball-in-house-heed-nexus-power.html
Spendor SP1 speakers
info: https://classicalcompass.blogspot.com/2017/03/bbc-calling-spendor-vs-harbeth.html
Cables: Radnai PowerR [Hungarian cable diyer]
info: https://komolyzeneiajanlo.blogspot.com/2020/07/kabelteszt-powerr-live2.html
_____________________________________________
Thank you for the images:
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17