[转贴]英国之宝507、588，莲genki、ikemi试听对比（原英，中文翻译：wxchjy）

wvwvwv

交易区新帖推荐

[转贴]英国之宝507、588，莲genki、ikemi试听对比（原英，中文翻译：wxchjy）           
scfan


级别: 论坛博士后
发帖: 1384篇
来自: 向日葵小班
鉴定: 上海
注册: 2002-7-29
  
                

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


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&#39s 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&#39s 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

——————————————————————————————————————  


再看看这位TBone大虾的跟贴：

Posted by TBone (A) on October 01, 2002 at 09:16:37
In Reply to: Meridian 588 CD Player/Recorder posted by MichaelL on October 01, 2002 at 05:03:31:


good review ... i was also impressed with the 588.
I demo the unit in my house and put it up against the same player you did (and more). My impressions were certainly different - but that did not take away from my favorable thoughts about the meridian.

I thought that the 588 was a improvement over the 508.24 in areas of attack and resolution, the 508 could sound somewhat reserved in comparison.

However ... in a direct comparison ... i thought the 588 most obvious coloration was highlighted when playing R&R music and esp piano music. Compared to the more high frequency extended players like the Cary 306, Ikemi and MF Nuvista players the 588 made the piano sound slightly distant, smaller, less powerfull and even slightly confused during peak periods.

IMO - detail and transparency - esp at the extreme frequencies is not this players forte ...

However i can still remember comparing the soundtrack of &#39the planet of the apes&#39 on three different players one night, and the 588 easily gave the most favorable rendition. In fact - i switched the other players off and enjoyed the 588 strengths all weekend long.

wvwvwv

In another demo (in a store) i witnessed a 588 easily bettering a NEW very VERY expensive turntable (and analog system which was incorrectly setup and certainly overpriced) that the store was trying to highlight - obviously without much success - as most of the patrons confessed to liking the cdp (588).

I had this player for about 2 week-ends and despite having certain reservations, i did enjoy having it in my system.

TBone  
——————————————————————————————————————  

Michael再回：

Posted by MichaelL (A) on October 02, 2002 at 13:45:08
In Reply to: Meridian 588 CD Player/Recorder posted by TBone on October 01, 2002 at 09:16:37:


Thanks for your insights. I want to respond to two observations you made, but not to dispute them but just to present what I thought I heard, which is of course totally compatible with you hearing something else, me being mistaken, or etc.
"i thought the 588 most obvious coloration was highlighted when playing R&R music and esp piano music. Compared to the more high
frequency extended players like the Cary 306, Ikemi and MF Nuvista players the 588 made the piano sound slightly distant, smaller, less powerfull and even slightly confused during peak periods."

"IMO - detail and transparency - esp at the extreme frequencies is not this players forte ..."

I cannot say that the 588 sounded less extended than the 507 or the Ikemi. One of the things I listened to closely was Krauss&#39s voice and some of the instrumental solos on "Two Highways." There the difference between the 507 and 588 was extremely clear. It seemed to me that two things about the sound made the 507 seem brighter. The upper frequencies were more granulated and the lower resonances were not as resolved and coherent with the upper frequencies, leaving the higher frequencies isolated on top. On the 588 the higher resonances of her voice, for instance, were not granulated at all and they were seamlessly integrated with the lower resonances.

I did not do a direct comparison with the Ikemi, so you definitely have an advantage there. But I can say that in terms of the placement of piano, I did not notice a difference, and I did look for that. One thing I really don&#39t like about the Ikemi is what it does to strings, particularly cellos. To me they sound abstracted and one-dimensional, especially quiet passages.

I would say that in terms of resolution, the Ikemi and 588 are identical. But to my ears, the 588 is much more transparent and open than the Ikemi. As far as detail is concerned, I have mixed feelings. I don&#39t like players that highlight high-frequency details. I think that brighter players sometimes magnify the sound of squeeking chairs, the high frequency of a turning page, aspirations, etc.., but this does not seem accurate. These should be reproduced, but not magnified. This is probably not what you meant by detail, but I just thought I should state that it might be helpful to distinguish resolution and detail.

Anyway, I ended-up buying the 588 yesterday so whatever I say now is biased. So I am going to shut-up about this, but your post makes want to listen to Professor Longhair on the 588. It should be here soon.

Thanks
Michael  
——————————————————————————————————————  
TBone又回，这段对Linn的分析比较多：

Posted by TBone (A) on October 03, 2002 at 11:22:13
In Reply to: Re: Meridian 588 CD Player/Recorder posted by MichaelL on October 02, 2002 at 13:45:08:


well we certainly differ ... but thats fine, because i think the 588 is a very good player too, and even better than the 508.24 although this is certainly not a popular stance.
Having lived with a 588, 508.24 genki and the ikemi - in my system - here are my subjective thoughts ...

The Ikemi (and even the genki) was more transparent than any meridian i have heard. It highlights depth and width with more clarity - and more importantly it relies on the recording or mastering quality of the cd to achieve this goal. In other words - you can hear the individual details of each mix or studio or venue as per recording. On the 588 that information was present but it certainly sounded as if many cd were all recorded in ONE place ... the differences between one venue and another not nearly as well deliniated. Thats said ... the 588 coloration could actually be a asset. I agree with you that one low level passages the ikemi can sound somewhat dry - esp compared to the 588.

On frequency extension ... i have yet to hear ANY cdp past the cd12 and possibly the mf nuvista that correctly displays high frequency information with the power and accuracy of a real instrument. This is important during musical peaks in which the 588 seems to have less power and drive while shrinking musical instruments esp as gain progresses, while the ikemi soundstage remain totally intact. In defence of the 588 - this is a particular linn strength - and the 588 is far above what many other players can do.

However as even compared to other players besides the linns - the 588 would be far down in my list of players with extended frequency response as the main requirement ... and although it is not its weakness - its also just not its strength.

And - i prefer both my analog front end and my cdp to give me the most honest data in the high frequencies (both frequency extremes) as can be ... because IMO it is this extension in both extremes with proper detail that brings me closer to the real musical event. My high frequencies should NEVER be bright or sibilant, but natural and powerfull. This is a characteristic i want out of all my equipment, and this is a natural occurance i hear in concerts.

Ultimatly - i use my analog front end as my reference for digital. The Ikemi does come closer - even having certain advantages - and on certain recordings - it became very hard to hear any difference between digital and analog. I still prefer analog (sometimes by a huge amount) in many cases but the ikemi does bridge the gap a bit closer. With other players - the differences are magnified to a much greater extent.

So we are polarized on our findings - but this should not diminish my feelings for the 588 - which i really enjoyed. It has its own set of strenghts, mostly in tonality and smoothness. Although i seem to have put the 588 in a negative light - it was not always that clear when doing the comparison. I really enjoyed my time with the 588 - and on one weekend - it was all i listened too.

But ... i listen to mostly rock & roll, pop and jazz and i want my player to sound open and clear at low & full throttle - and when push comes to shove - in my system - the 588 was not able to meet my requirements & preferences nearly as well as the ikemi did.

TBone  
——————————————————————————————————————

wvwvwv

我想还是我来翻译吧，只是我的英语水平很差，必然有很多厄误，大家看了改，一起交流。
由MichaelL评论，2002年10月1日：
上周末妻和我能够在家中听这些唱机，这要感谢…。这两台机器均是在店里打开的，其他器材是原来的，包括线材，电源线等。我用一个（无线电声压测试表）尽可能精确地对比声压，设置在……，我用“sterephile”测试CD相关的粉红噪音来设定水平（音量？）。588的电平比507的稍高，对588我要在我的杰夫罗兰前级上把音量控制器从51的位置开小到49才能与507一样响。我对两台机器均采用非平衡输出。在星期六晚上，我先听507数小时，然后听了588一个多小时，星期天我们听了507一天，次日下午我们听了588。
这也许是一个显而易见的比较，但我相信我们中没有一个人对此两台唱机中的一台有偏好。他们从外表上看上去几乎一样，我希望他们听起来也一样，因为很多可信的来源告诉我们：这两台唱机在非平衡输出时是一样的。我也希望这两者之间的区别是微不足道的，因为507更使人负担得起。
但区别是非常清楚的、不是很小的，我不是很擅长描写这些不同，但我尝试着（描述如下）：
507听起来比588亮，这不是说507的声音亮，但是在与588相比时是较亮的。钢琴、女声、曼陀林、齐特琴、洋琴和小提琴在507上都较亮，588有更低的回响（低频？）对所有这些乐器的更活生的呈现（现场感？）。正像有人说的，在588上可以听到更多的木头味。一般来说，507在极低频（？）时比588弱。当然在507身上低频也有延伸，但没有588的层次感、精确、解析度，507的看起来较混。因此可以说，低音的音像588更清晰、开放，而507的有点毛边和糊涂。
这两台机器在音场表现方面亦不同。588有更宽广的音场，我妻子说它技高一筹伸展到音箱之外。当然，507也有优秀的音场表现，但与588比时就显得窄了。也许在STEREPHILE的测试碟中的鼓声，507的更深一点。但一般来讲，588的比507的稍深一点点。
两台唱机都有很多细节，但是588提供了更多的泛音，一个交响乐全部变得更清晰更辨，可以影响到在弦乐上不同的敲打（？）。这也使测试碟中的那段静静的定音鼓更真实。相同地，其中管风琴中的细小的尖的鸣叫声588表现得更明确。
一个非常值得注意的不同是，507还是有颗粒感、粗糙感让我与数码声联系起来。简单地说，它听起来象CD唱机，与我以前听过的CD唱机属于同一个“联盟”的，数码声。而588呢，听起来非常平顺和无缝（无缝，不会译）。我主要注意女声和钢琴，实际上，绝对清楚的钢琴、人声让我感觉，507是一款超水准的唱机，那么588就是一台杰出的唱机。
最后说一下，在较早的时候我还在一个店里听过LINN的IKEMI、GENKI。比起GENKI与IKEMI之间的差距来讲，507与508之间的差距更小，507和588，和两台LINN之间的差别都是很明显的。至于提到LINN＆MERIDIAN之间的比较，我只能说当我在店里听英国之宝时，使我想在家里试听。而我对两台莲没有这种冲动。在我听来，与588比起来IKEMI还是有点干和缺少音乐感。
缺点：我希望它更便宜点；
优点：如此没有颗粒感，平顺、甜美，细节丰富，再生精彩的人声和钢琴。

Tbone跟贴：
多好的评论……我也对588有深刻的映象。我在家演示这唱机和你对比的相同一些唱机对比，我的印象却不同――但这不影响我对MERIDIANR的喜爱。
我认为588比508在冲击力和解晰力方面有改进，508听起来……（这一句翻不好，与本文无大干系……）
然而，在直接的对比，我认为588在播放R＆R和钢琴音乐明显有音染（？），与一些高频延伸更好的唱机比起来：如CARY　306，IKEMIT，　MF　NUVISTA唱机，588使钢琴听起来有一点远、小、力度较小甚至在高音区有点混。
我认为，细节和透明度，特别是在极高频领域不是这台机器的长处（588）……
但我还能记得在三台不同的唱机里听行星组曲（？），588轻松地给予了最让人喜爱的声音，事实上，我马上用588换走了其他唱机，在整个周末享受588。
在另一家店里，我见证了一台588轻松地胜过了一台新的，非常非常贵的转盘（没有正确设置好和显然物无所值的模拟系统），这家店显然想以此作为店里的闪光之处，但显然没有成功，大部分顾客表示喜欢588这台CD唱机。
我已经有了这台唱机大约两个周末，不管我对此机有所保留之处，我还是一直在享受它。

Michael再回：
谢谢你的洞察力，我想回答你作的观察，但不是来争论而只是将我听的和想的呈献出来。当然在某些方面与你的听感是完全一致的，我被弄楚了，或者其他……

“我认为588在播放R＆R和钢琴音乐明显有音染（？），与一些高频延伸更好的唱机比起来：如CARY　306，IKEMIT　MF　NUVISTA唱机，588使钢琴听起来有一点远、小、力度较小甚至在高音区有点混。”
“我认为，细节和透明度，特别是在极高频领域不是这台机器的长处（588）……”
我不能说588听起来比507或IKEMI延伸差，有一件事是我听KRAUSS和一些乐器的独奏在“两条高速路”，507和508的区别是很明显的。507听起来更亮，超高频听起来更糙，而低频不是那么清晰、与较高频段联贯性不太好（？）。让高频有点孤立（？）。比如说，在588上，她的高音，一点都没有粗糙感，而且与中频的连贯性极好。
我没有将588与IKEMI作过直接的对比，你在这方面肯定有优势。但我可以说在某些领域，如钢琴，我几乎听不出两者有区别，虽然我努力去对比。有一样我最不喜欢IKEMI的是弦乐的表现，特别是大提琴，对我来讲这声音听起来心不在焉、二维的，特别是在安静的段落。
在解晰力方面，Ikemi和588差不多。但对我而言，588更透明、开放。至于细节，我有点区分不出来了，我不喜欢唱机太注重高频的细节，我认为这样有时会放大扭椅子的声音、翻乐谱、呼吸的声音等……，但这看起来不精确，这些东西应该被再生，但不能夸大。这可能就是你说的细节。但我只是认为，我要说清楚，这样有助于区别解析力和细节。
不管怎样，我最后于昨天买了588，不管我现在说我更偏好于什么，所以我应该不说了。但你的邮件……（此后一段无实质内容，我也翻不好）

TBone又回，这段对Linn的分析比较多：
当然我们是不同……不过那很好，因为我也认为588是一台好唱机，甚至比508更好，虽然这不是一个流行的立场。
在与588、508.24、genki和ikemi在我的系统中生活了一段时间以后，这是我的主要的看法：
IKEMI（甚至GENKI）比我听过的MERIDIAN更透明。它的特点在深度、广度方面更清晰――更重要的是它更依赖于CD录音和录音师的质量来达到这个目标。换句话说，你能听到每一个录音的不同的、特有的，每一个混音、录音室或录音地点的细节。而在588上也有细节，但这些细节听起来这些CD象是在同一个地方录制的……不同地方的不同没有被很好地描述出来。那就是说，588的音染实际上是有的。我同意你的说法：在一些低音量的段落IKEMI可能听起来有点干，特别是与588相比。
在频率的延伸方面……我（还没有）［原文中没有，我想作者应该漏了］听过有CDP超过LINN12的，可能MF　nuvista正确地有能量感地、精确地表现了乐器的高频信息，这在音乐的最高频区域是非常重要的。在这方面588听起来量较少，而且有点收缩乐器……，而IKEMI音场保持得很完整。不过从保护588的角度上说――这是莲的特别的长处――而588要比其他的唱机（LINN外）好很多。
然而与LINN以外的其他唱机比起来，588会远不如我能够说出的许多在频率延伸方面的其他唱机。虽然这也不算是他的弱项――但这也不是他的长项。
而我、宁愿既要我的模拟系统还要CD尽可能给我在高频方面更真实的声音，因为我认为，正是这种两端的延伸和正确的细节将我更真实地带到现场的感觉，我要的高频永远不会过亮或有丝声，而是自然的、足够量的。这是我对我的系统要求的特点，而这正是我听音乐会时确切的感受。
最后，我使用我的模拟音源来参考我的数码音源。IKEMI做得非常接近――甚至有些长处――而在某些录音中，它与模拟的区别变得几乎难以区分。我仍然宁愿喜欢模拟音源――但是IKEMI使数码和模拟的鸿沟之间架起了非常接近的桥梁。而对于其他一些CD唱机来说――模拟、数码之间的差距更大。
我们在发现方面如此两极化，但这不应当减少我对588的感觉――我真的很享受它。它有它自己的长处，在音质的平顺。虽然我看起来置588与否定的境地――但这在对比时并不总是那么明显。我真的对与588一起的时候非常感到开心――而在一个方面有弱点――这是我听过的太――
但是，我主要听摇滚、流行乐、爵士，我希望我的唱机听起来开放、清晰，在低频――当音乐进入到冲击力很强的乐段时，588和IKEMI都不能满足我的要求和偏好。

谷雨

linnd的机器最大的毛病是大型古典音乐总不是很灵，不轻松，不舒展，中高頩太过处理，孑然独立。

nickif

鼓励一下 辛苦了

springson

其实我一点都不喜欢LINN，包括LINN的唱片。太小家碧玉

wvwvwv

同意springson版主！

freeway

衣服   哪里买的到

谷雨

其实是太jazz

仙人伯伯

最初由 springson 发表
[B]其实我一点都不喜欢LINN，包括LINN的唱片。太小家碧玉 [/B]

呵呵，我反而是喜欢得很。下次升级还升LINN。

谷雨

说老实话，meridian和linn的最大区别是，你买meidian的机器就不用考虑和后边的搭配，你卖linn的机器还得琢磨和后边的配合。

仙人伯伯

最初由 谷雨 发表
[B]说老实话，meridian和linn的最大区别是，你买meidian的机器就不用考虑和后边的搭配，你卖linn的机器还得琢磨和后边的配合。 [/B]

这倒是，LINN是个有欠缺的美人，不过用了这么长时间也逐渐摸清了LINN的脾性，缺点总结起来有几点：

中频密度稍单薄
低频的量感偏少
动态不太强，听大气势的交响不过瘾

线材方面搭配了一些力度大，比较厚声的，基本上弥补到位，前些天又给8PS换了两只厚声的管，整体密度得到明显改善，差不多也就这样了。
相对英国之宝，雅骏而言，LINN需要后天的搭配，但LINN的味道确实令人着迷，那是种闲庭信步的优雅。可能谷雨不太接受LINN染得非常漂亮的中高频，但我正好喜欢，而且从我听音的类型来，LINN的在这些方面的表现并不差，个体的喜好差异还是比较大的。
在这里提醒准备用LINN的朋友，搭配对LINN来讲太关键了，对于密度的提升很重要。

谷雨

linn更加适合如jazz，室内乐，女声，等等音乐类型。
CD12没有参拜过，不知道是不是有本质区别，不过从惊奇和奇美的区别看肯定是有本质区别。

谷雨

有没有学英文的同志，linn的名子，包括genki、ikemi到底是日文的音还是celtics或者其他什么？

proteinkiller

买一套LINN嘛，EASY。