When I measured the original sample of EAR's $6795 Acute Classic CD player (serial no. 615-002-A550), for Art Dudley's review of it in the February 2017 issue, I found that its output with 0dBFS data at 1kHz and its volume control set to its maximum was 6.59V from the balanced output, 6.52V from the unbalanced output, and 3.26V from the headphone output. When EAR's Tim de Paravicini read the preprint of the review (we send these so that the manufacturer or distributor can submit a comment for publication), he felt that there may have been something wrong with that particular sample, as the maximum output level from the balanced and unbalanced line outputs should have been 5V. I therefore agreed to accept a second sample of the Acute Classic, to both measure and audition. The second sample (serial no. 644-014-A550) arrived after the February issue had been printed.
Before I shipped the second sample to Art Dudley for him to listen to, I examined its test-bench performance with my Audio Precision SYS2722 system (see the January 2008 "As We See It"). All of the measurements were taken with the volume control set to its maximum, which is how Art had preferred the sound of the original sample, and from its balanced outputs. While the frequency response, channel separation, and line output impedances were all the same as I had found with the first sample, the maximum output levels were now 5.1V (balanced), 5.0V (unbalanced), and 2.57V (headphone). In addition, the headphone output impedance now ranged between 5.7 and 7.8 ohms, depending on frequency, instead of the original sample's 67 ohms, a change that Tim de Paravicini had implemented in production so that the Acute Classic would work better with low-impedance headphones (footnote 1).
There were other improvements in the measured performance. For example, fig.1 shows a spectral analysis of the EAR's noise floor while it reproduced a full-scale 24-bit, 1kHz tone. The original sample had components at 60 and 180Hz approaching –100dB in level, particularly in the left channel. These components, which are most likely due to magnetic interference from the AC transformer, are 6–10dB lower in level with the new sample. They would not have been audible with the original sample, but it was good to see the reduced levels. And the new sample's reproduction of an undithered 16-bit tone at exactly –90.31dBFS (fig.2) implied that the reconstruction filter was now a minimum-phase type rather than the linear-phase type used before.
Although the Acute Classic's specified total harmonic distortion is on the high side, at 0.5%, de Paravicini had felt that the higher-than-specified output levels had compromised the measured performance. Fig.3 shows the spectrum of the first sample's balanced output while it reproduced a 24-bit, 50Hz tone at 0dBFS into 100k ohms. The second harmonic lies at –50dB (0.3%) in both channels, with the third harmonic at –74dB (0.02%) and the fourth at –80dB (0.01%). Fig.4 shows the spectrum, taken under identical conditions, for the second sample. The level of the second harmonic is a little lower, at –53dB (0.25%) in both channels, with the third at –80dB (0.01%) and the fourth at –86dB (0.005%).
On the other hand, though the noise floor with the player decoding an equal mix of 19 and 20kHz tones, each at –6dBFS with 24-bit data (fig.5), was cleaner than it had been with the first sample, the difference component at 1kHz had risen from –86dB (0.006%) to –68dB (0.033%).
The first sample of the Acute Classic had not performed particularly well when tested for its rejection of word-clock jitter. The second sample behaved somewhat differently (fig.6). While the odd-order harmonics of the Fs/192, LSB-level squarewave are lower than they had been (fig.10 in the February review's "Measurements" sidebar), they are still not at the correct levels (indicated by the sloping green line), or are obscured by analog noise.
What matters most, of course, is how the new sample of EAR's Acute Classic CD player sounds. And for that, I hand you over to Art Dudley.—John Atkinson
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
Art Dudley: "Finally, I listened to the CD layer of the SACD/CD It wasn't long before that familiar treble edge became apparent in the sounds of massed strings and brass instruments—and, sorry to say, Hahn's brilliantly played violin."
I've yet to hear the cd (pcm) layer sound good, on a dual layer SACD disc, also when being converted by a delta sigma converter even hybrids.
Cheers George
Good of you guys to post the manufacturers comment.
But why is it that there seems to be an over-representation in equipment failures with these uber expensive audio devices?
Costing around $7k, you would think each unit would be of impeccable quality control and testing before leaving the door. Sure, the jitter FFT doesn't look great. But that higher noise floor thanks to the tubes isn't exactly pretty either.
" Costing around $7k, you would think each unit would be of impeccable quality control and testing before leaving the door."
I would guarantee that this unit left the factory after some impeccable QC. However in real life units sent for test are not always fresh from their maker, particularly where expensive gear is involved. Much of the latter is only made subject to a confirmed order as it is not viable for the (usually small) manufacturer to have lots of costly inventory hanging around hoping for a buyer.
The result is that often the item under test is the only sample available in the given country. It will probably have been tramped around the country for demonstrations and may even have been lent out to customers known to the importer/dealer and considered a serious potential purchaser. So it most likely has suffred from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
I listen regularly to an earlier version of the Acute owned by a friend and IMO it sounds excellent , far better than many competitive players. I have even played it back to back with my dCS stack and , again, it mostly held its own insofar as subjective enjoyment is concerned.
I am confident that a retest of another sample will remove doubts. Of course it does have a valve output stage so that has to be taken account of for the measurements. That is just the nature of the beast and all of its betubed relations
The result is that often the item under test is the only sample available in the given country. It will probably have been tramped around the country for demonstrations and may even have been lent out to customers known to the importer/dealer and considered a serious potential purchaser. So it most likely has suffered from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
This is increasingly the case. One amplifier we recently received for review had overlaid UPS labels identifying 2 other writers who had had the amp before us. As Stereophile is the only publication that measures the products it reviews, for an importer to send us a used and possibly broken sample is rolling the dice. As in this case, it wasn't worth them taking that risk.
As I say in this 2007 essay on our review policies, www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/index.html, "All products sent to Stereophile and its reviewers . . . are deemed to be for review. It is also assumed that they are representative of current production quality."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This does not sit well for me, as a good Stereophile review is the No 1 review a manufacturer can get to open the retail flood gates.
Hell I would have been devastated (and broke) if Sam Tellig didn't give my product a great review, I hung on every word of the review more so than the birth of my son.
And before anyone says I gave him a freebee, NO! he had to buy one from me before he even did the review.
To send to Stereophile some thing that has been around the world without double /tripple checking it first and making sure it's even better than a retail one, means the manufacturer doesn't give a s**t about how the review turns out, to which I highly doubt.
Like I said it doesn't sit well for me, as I've seen so many times with a bad reviews, the manufacturers comments saying it was faulty we'll send another one. REALLY!!!!
Cheers George
Not surprised at all- AD.
I have been wanting to demo one of these spinners. Last year I sent an email request to Dan for a list of dealers/retailers. To date, I still have not received a reply?
I heard the player first at a local hifi show and it sounded pretty "digital". I then borrowed the player for a week and I had more or less the same experience like Art. It was not just right in the highs. It sounded like old digital.
A pity, because I thought I finally found a good follow up player for my Meridian 808i.2, but the meridian sounds in my ears so much more natural than the EAR (through an EAR 912 pre).
It would be a -bad- coincidence if the player I had at home was broken as well....
I had been looking forward to this review, especially given the kind words others have written about this CDP and about its predecessor. It's certainly been on my own audition list despite the fact I already own a fairly high-end Audio Note transport and DAC - I could really use the space apart from anything else!
The harsh review was a bit of a surprise, but the biggest surprise of all was the measurements section: looking at it, it's as plain as day that the unit you tested was broken. Surely it would have made sense to have had a conversation with the manufacturer BEFORE publishing?
You might think it makes you look all grand and objective, but actually you let your readers down when you pull a stunt like this. If the player is genuinely a poor performer then giving the manufacturer a chance to supply another sample, then confirming your findings, is surely a more credible way forward than reviewing a clearly broken bit of kit?
I would think you have been in the journalism game long enough to know that a petty exercise like this just makes you look a bit dumb, possibly even dumber than a manufacturer who wasn't organised enough to send you a fresh sample.
I have to disagree. When Stereophile receives a product, it's the manufacturer's responsibility to insure that the reviewer gets a properly functioning unit. As a consumer, I don't have the test equipment (and well-trained ears) to tell when something is malfunctioning, if it happens at the relatively low level that was the case here. If Stereophile starts getting the manufacturer to buff up the unit to a higher level, I think that's a kind of collusion that would give the product a review indicating a quality level the average consumer is not likely to experience.
If the unit is exhibiting bad behavior that any consumer would be likely to recognize (bad artifacts, or simply not even functioning at all), then it's appropriate for them to return it to the manufacturer, as that's something the average consumer would also be likely to do.
the biggest surprise of all was the measurements section: looking at it, it's as plain as day that the unit you tested was broken.
Plain to you, perhaps. The high distortion I measured was within the manufacturer's specification, as was the high headphone output impedance. The poor performance of the digital section was no worse than that of some other products we have reviewed.
And while the maximum output level was higher than specified, we didn't think that in itself was reason to think the sample was broken, as it was identical in both channels. Yes, this may have been due to a manufacturing fault, but as I wrote in the essay linked to in an earlier posting, "It is assumed that [products sent to Stereophile and its reviewers] are representative of current production quality." If it turns out that a product is not representative, then we feel that the fact that neither the manufacturer nor the distributor has effective QA is a relevant fact.
Surely it would have made sense to have had a conversation with the manufacturer BEFORE publishing?
The manufacturer and distributor were sent a proof of the review; the result was the "Manufacturer's Comment" you can read on this website and the promise to send another sample for a follow-up review. That followup appears in our March issue and will be appended to this web reprint next week.
You might think it makes you look all grand and objective, but actually you let your readers down when you pull a stunt like this. If the player is genuinely a poor performer then giving the manufacturer a chance to supply another sample, then confirming your findings, is surely a more credible way forward than reviewing a clearly broken bit of kit?
You seem to think that our responsibility as reviewers is to present a manufacturer in the best possible light. You are wrong. We are critics, not consultants.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well I guess we'll see ... I had been keen to audition this player having heard only the original Acute CD and thinking highly of it. I guess we'll soon find out whether I should bother or not.
John, I really appreciate your sentence: "We are critics, not consultants.". I would add: "We take reviews, and measurements, extremely seriously.", because customers (i.e. readers) ALWAYS come before manufacturers...
That said, you've been way too "clement" with this poor (to say the least) machine...
Listening is subjective, whereas specs are objective, and when a machine costing thousands of dollars presents absurdly below-average specs, I wonder how some "reviewers" (not you at Stereophile, to my great pleasure) can say it's "beautifully sounding"! The EAR player's specs and measurements are simply appalling (THD, S/N ratio, crosstalk, linearity, etc.) and on Stereophile's website itself we can find many digital players and DAC's that cost less than a tenth and whose specs are incomparably better...
My review would be: "Save your money and keep away from it, unless you really can't live without such a nice faceplate." The price requested for such a technically inadequate machine is so high that I would even refuse to do a listening session!
I thank you John for your correctness, and again let me say, for the sake of "absolute honesty", that such machines as this model by EAR should be curtly labeled as "grotty", and the manufacturer (in this specific case, NOT generally) a "duper".
Alessio Zanelli
Italy
I own the Acute (original) with superior NOS tubes and A/C cable (stock cable makes it sound horribly wooley and leaden). I heard it with stock tubes at Prana sound booth at the Los Angeles Audio Fair 2017. I was surprised that it sounded so good, better than my original unit with stock tubes. I would gladly buy this newer unit when my wears out.
As to Georgehifi who spawned so many negative comments about EAR on this forum, he is a troll forum writer. He is a well known troll on Audiogon. I have encountered his utter negativity on the Black and Blue Fuses Synergistic Research forums. Along with a few other trolls, they try to derail the positive characteristics of tweaks which do not have scientific data to prove their value to audio listening. The latest negative comments derides fuses, hallographs and other means of enabling equipment and rooms to sound better. Luckily, 90% of the forum writers are in agreement as to the validity of the improvements in their systems using these tweaks.
As to this EAR CD player (and CD layers sounding as good from SACD discs as CD layer only discs), I give a two thumbs up for sounding GREAT! at the LA Audio Show.
I am also cognizant of the utterly positive AD review of the second Classic unit. However, he states that he played the Acute units full open in volume. I read somewhere, maybe Dan told me, that the preferred output setting for the player into a pre-amp is at 2 o'clock, not full open. I tried full open when I first had it and it sounded somewhat strident. I've had the Acute for 10+ years now set at 2 o'clock which is plenty of gain. I assume that the Classic should also be set that way into a pre-amp.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
