[boead]

$2500? Easy; an Arcam FMJ – it’s a no brainer.

The Olive? A friend was at a local show recently and got to listen to them all. He said they were ok, just ok. Liked his Meridian and my Arcam better. SinglePower was using them but with offboard DAC’s and digital lenses.

My CD-23 makes my Denon 2900 sound like a piece of crap even playing SACD’s.

[PhilNYC]

$2500? Easy; an Arcam FMJ – it’s a no brainer.

The Olive? A friend was at a local show recently and got to listen to them all. He said they were ok, just ok. Liked his Meridian and my Arcam better. SinglePower was using them but with offboard DAC’s and digital lenses.

My CD-23 makes my Denon 2900 sound like a piece of crap even playing SACD’s.

FWIW, I used to own an FMJ-CD23, and I eventually replaced it with an Opus 21 which I felt was a significant upgrade in just about every respect sonically...

I do agree that the CD-23 is a better cdp than the Denon 2900 (which I also own and use primarily as a DVD player)...

[boead]

This Player?
http://www.olive.us/p_bin/?cid=01_07_opus

In what respect?

I didn’t hear it but I like a particular type of sound, many crowd favorites are not mine.

Better is a relative term, in the case of my friend I can define better because I know his taste.

Most CDP’s get very detailed and airy and that’s defined by many as better, I think that’s fatiguing and usually distracting. Know what I mean?


.

[PhilNYC]

In what respect?

I didn’t hear it but I like a particular type of sound, many crowd favorites are not mine.

Better is a relative term, in the case of my friend I can define better because I know his taste.

Most CDP’s get very detailed and airy and that’s defi9ned by many as better, I think that’s fatiguing and usually distracting. Know what I mean?

I agree it's all personal taste, as well as system synergy and listening environment.  The FMJ-CD23 IMHO was very musical for sure, and it was particularly good at conveying tonal richness and air.  But also IMHO it had a very "lean" sound that left me somewhat unsatisfied.  The Opus 21 to my ears provided all the musicality, tonal richness, and spacial qualities that the FMJ did, but also provided a much better sense of body/weight and speed.  

Just my opinion, of course...

[tvad4]

the new APL players upsample at 32/211....

Another "just curious" question for anyone who might know...what is the benefit of upsampling at 32/211?  Both the 32 and the 211 seem really odd to me...

Well, this is all done according to what Alex believes sounds best. 32 bit simply allows more info to be processed and smooths the sampling curve, thus resulting in a more analog sound (according to Alex), and it's a natural progession of improving technology. All the fastest new computers use 32 bit processing. I'm afraid I can't explain the 211khz sampling rate other than to say it's an improvement over 192khz. Since we're on the topic of DACs, I might have mentioned the wrong AKM DAC in my previous post. Alex used to use the AK4396, but I believe the 32 bit DAC is an improved model above the AK 4396.

The Stello seems like a good value. Some one should modify it with a tube stage.

[PhilNYC]

Well, this is all done according to what Alex believes sounds best.

This, of course, is the best rationale for making decisions in designing audio gear...!  

32 bit simply allows more info to be processed and smooths the sampling curve, thus resulting in a more analog sound (according to Alex), and it's a natural progession of improving technology. All the fastest new computers use 32 bit processing.

For discussion purposes only:  In discussions with many "digital engineers" I've met, it seems to be a generally accepted idea that the tolerance of DAC semiconductors at the voltage level at which they operate makes it nearly impossible for those DACs to maintain a consistent level of accuracy in the lowest bits for the actual D-to-A process...that in a 24-bit DAC, true D-to-A conversion accuracy is only reliable to the 18th or 19th bit.  For the purposes of calculations, they are "accurate enough" to perform their math without errors, but for the actual D-to-A process, it doesn't work.  Some designers go as far as throwing away the remaining 5-6 bits, while others just live with the lack of accuracy.  

So in this context, I'm skeptical that 32-bits really has any significant advantage over 24-bits, unless there is something about calculating upsample data at 211khz that makes 32-bit data resolution uniquely appropriate.  Or perhaps using multiple parallel DACs (thereby increasing the voltage level of the design) does something that improves the overall accuracy of the additional bits.

(for context, my understanding of how the D-to-A process works is that each bit is registered into the DAC chip with a resistor...as you go from most significant bit to least significant bit, the size of the resistor is 1/2 of the previous bit...so the "18th resistor" has a value of 0.000003x the "1st resistor"...and that semiconductor manufacturing can't maintain accuracy of halving that beyond the 19th or 20th bits.)

As far as 211khz upsampling, maybe there is a clock that exists that is more accurate (less jitter) at 211khz than the other clock speeds?  This would be surprising, tho, since 211khz seems to be far less common (I've never seen it used anywhere else)...

[tvad4]

Phil, you ask good questions. Perhaps you'll contact Alex to get the straight dope and report back.

[toobluvr]

very good stuff indeed.i am thinkin' for the next short while i can use a one box,load and play.this new tech is only gonna' get better and in short time.my little short list is:----consonance droplet-----res audio opus 21----ayre cx-7------sony and denon modded----all these used at 2000 or close.this is where i am at,the cross-roads of a small decision.cheers

One box player?
On the cheap?
Good sound?
Very well built?

check, check, check, check...

try a Metronome cd2v Signature.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?dgtlplay&1151888134

No idea how it stacks up to the other recs here.
And I am not saying it is the "be all and end all".
But I think it meets your desire for simple, good sounding, and reasonably priced digital that will hold you over till the computer based stuff evolves, and the dust settles.

I own it and have tried to "upgrade" and replace it over the years (in the $3000-$6000 range), and have been unable to do so.  All were highly regarded.  Many were "flavor of the month" raves.  But all left me cold and sounded analytical and "hi-fi'ish".

The tube based 'nome will give you a sound that is robust, warm, spacious and smooth.  It is analogue-like and fatigue free.  Great harmonics and textue.  Not analytical at all.  Music is rendered in an emotional way, and presented as an organic whole.  Detail is suffucient, but not recommended for the listener who wants to focus on the trees rather than the forest.

I believe it is no longer current.
But that doesn't demean its performance.
Sounded great then....still sounds great now.

Good luck in your search.