[转贴]英国之宝507、588，莲genki、ikemi试听对比（原英，中文翻... [复制链接]

请大家耐心看完，会对meridian和linn的当家CD机有较深入的了解

Meridian 588 CD Player/Recorder Review by MichaelL

Model:  588
Category:  CD Player/Recorder
Suggested Retail Price:  $3500
Description:  CD Player


Review by MichaelL (A) on October 01, 2002 at 05:03:31
IP Address: 129.82.53.155


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meridian 507 and 588
My wife and I were able to audition these players at home last weekend, thanks to Listenup in Denver. Both of the players were broken-in demo units. All the other equipment was held constant, including cables, power cords, etc. I matched the sound pressure as exactly as possible using a Radio Shack dB meter, using a Radio Shack sound pressure meter, set at slow response and C-weighted. I used the correlated pink noise from the Stereophile Test CD #2 to set the level. The output of the 588 was just a bit higher than the 507. For the 588 I had to lower the volume setting from 51 to 49 on my Rowland preamp to get it to play at the same loudness as the 507. I used the unbalanced outlets for both players. We listened to the 588 first for several hours Saturday evening and then we listened to the 507 for an hour or so, using the same CDs. The next day (Sunday) we listened to the 507 all day and in the late afternoon we listened to the 588.
Also, this was a sighted comparison, but I believe that neither of us had a bias for one player over the other. They both look alike and if anything, I was expecting them to sound the same because very trustworthy sources told me that they sounded the same to them through the unbalanced outlets. I was also hoping that the differences would be negligible or hard to tell because the 507 is more affordable.

But the differences were very clear and not terribly subtle. I am not very good at describing these differences, but I will try.

The 507 sounded brighter than the 588. This is not to say that the 507 sounds bright, but in comparison to the 588 it was brighter. The piano, female voice, mandolins, zithers, dulcimers and violins all were brighter on the 507. The 588 added more lower resonances to all of these instruments for a near lifelike presentation. As one might say, with the 588 you heard more of the wood. In general, the 507 was weaker in the lower frequencies than the 588. The extension was there, of course, but not as resolved or defined as the basses were on the 588. The 507 seemed fuzzier, so to speak, in the bass. Perhaps this also contributed to the impression that the images were completely open and stable in the 588 while the images had ragged or fuzzier edges on the 507.

The players had different soundstages. The 588 had a wider soundstage -- my wife exclaimed the it extended beyond the speakers -- than the 507. Again, the 507 had excellent width, but in comparison to the 588 it seemed narrower. Also, on the drum recording on the Stereophile test CD#2, the soundstage was were more recessed behind the speakers on the 507. In general, it seemed (although this was not so clear) that the 588 had a bit more depth.

Both players had lots of detail, but the 588 rendered the harmonics of a concert grand much more clearly and distinguished the impacts of the different hammers on the strings. This was also true of the quiet timpani playing on the drum cut on Stereophile's CD 2. Similarly, the little whistle or chirp at the very start of higher register organ notes was better defined on the 588.

A very noticeable difference was that in comparison, the 507 still had some of the grain or granulation that I associate with the CD sound. To put it simply, it sounded like a CD player and seemed to be in the same league as our previous player, the CAL Delta/Alpha (non-updated) combo. The 588, on the other hand, sounded to both of our ears stunningly smooth and seamless. I focussed on female voices and piano. In fact, the absolute clarity of the piano and voice made me think that while the 507 is an outstanding player, the 588 is sublime.

On a final note, earlier I had auditioned the Linn Ikemi and Genki in a store. While the 507 is closer to the 588 than the Genki is to the Ikemi, the differences between the 507 and the 508 are still as clear and obvious as they are between the two Linn players. As far as the Linn/Meridian comparison is concerned, I can only say that while listening to the Meridian in the store made my want to try to listen to these players at home, I had no such urge to take either of the players home. To my ears, the Ikemi is still dry and unmusical compared to the Meridian 588.

For what it is worth, that's how these players sounded to us. Associated equipment: Dunlavy Cantatas, Rowland Model 1 and Consonance. Dunlavy signal cables throughout. No power conditioners.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Weakness:  I wish it were cheaper.
Product Strengths:  No granulation whatsoever. Smooth, sweet and detailed
all at once. Stunning reproduction of voice and piano.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Equipment for this Review:
Amplifier:  Rowland Model 1
Preamplifier (or None if Integrated):  Rowland Consonance
Sources (CDP/Turntable):  See review
Speakers:  Dunlavy Cantatas
Cables/Interconnects:  Dunlavy
Music Used (Genre/Selections):  Classical, Folk, Jazz
Room Size (LxWxH):  27 x 13ft x 9ft
Room Comments/Treatments:  Damping behind listener
Time Period/Length of Audition:  Weekend
Other (Power Conditioner etc.):  None
Type of Audition/Review:  Home Audition