Design constraints are quite serious in this price range. Cabinet size is kept modest so that lumber and finishing costs are kept to a minimum. Driver quality and crossover complexity must be juggled so that no one design parameter is favored over the others. All of the speakers reviewed here use two drivers because two good drivers are better and usually cheaper than three mediocre ones-not to mention the simpler crossover required.

Unsurprisingly, none of the contestants I review this month comes close to state-of-the-art. To begin with, it is a given that no small speaker will produce deep bass. No one has yet found a way of circumventing that law of physics that says "To move lots of air, one needs a large radiating surface or extremely large cone excursions." Neither has anyone found a way of getting no-holds-barred sound from high-cost-barred drivers. "Budget" always involves significant compromise, beyond the compromises imposed by the laws of physics.

These cautions notwithstanding, several of these systems represent unusually well-advised sets of performance tradeoffs which add up to uncommonly good performance for the price.

Phase Technology PC-60
Judging by the excellence of the finish of our review samples—I love the light oak veneer—the two-way, sealed-enclosure PC-60 ($400/pair) would not appear to the product of a novice company. And indeed, Phase Technology has been in business for almost 30 years, most of this time under the name United Speaker Systems. When, then, aren't these names familiar to you? Well, because for all those years the company ahs been designing and fabricating loudspeakers for other manufacturers, starting in 1959 with Fisher Radio, and since then for McIntosh, Yamaha, Pioneer, ElectroVoice, Dynaco, and others—brandnames well-known to all of us. Designer Bill Hecht, who, by the way, holds the US patent on the very popular soft-dome tweeter, must be one of the least-known "grand old men" of audio.

The novel woofer cone used in the PC-60 is a single, solid piece of expanded polystyrene foam—a material that combines great rigidity with a high degree of internal damping. The result is a "cone" that behaves much like an ideal piston radiator, with significantly reduced possibility of flexing and breakup. ("Breakup" is the term used to describe the tendency for a speaker diaphragm to vibrate in sections rather than as a whole. In breakup mode, adjacent areas of the cone vibrate in opposition to one another, with some segments moving outward when others move inward, and vice versa. This cause severe and selective phase cancellation at certain frequencies, raising merry Ned with the system's response linearity and radiation uniformity, and destroying its ability to image accurately.)

The "PC" in the model designation stands for "Phase Coherent," and the accompanying literature makes a great deal out of the system's phase linearity.

I am not convinced of this. It is true that the woofer's flat front face is in the same plane as the soft-dome tweeter, but this in itself does not guarantee a time-aligned design. In fact, it is usually a guarantee that the drivers are not time-aligned. Driver inertia and crossover phase shift must also be taken into account, and the correct driver placement is rarely that which outs them in the same plane.

On the other hand, I have found that phase coherency goes hand-in-hand with the ability to reproduce soundstage depth, and the PC-60s are excellent in that respect.

Listening
We tested two versions of the PC-60. The second sample came about partly because of criticisms we made of the first version. No surprise, therefore, that we liked the second version better. In the earlier speaker (serial numbers 3801 and below), the range covered by the unusual woofer was excellent, but above 2kHz there was a broad suckout extending from 2kHz to 10kHz. This had a drastic effect on tonal balance, making the system sound distant, lifeless, and fairly "blah." Brasses lacked the requisite bite and violins were so silky they sounded like violas. The timbres of all instruments were affected: the sound was dark and closed-in.

Fortunately, the second and current version of the PC-60 incorporates a revised crossover network, which greatly improves matters in the range above 2kHz. The portion of the frequency range handled by the woofer is still a delight. Mid-bass is quick, detailed, and remarkably clean, with no trace of boom or overhang.

Lower-midrange resolution, transparency, and focus are very good. This is perhaps one reason why the PC-60 does a better job of reproducing hall acoustics than any of the other small speakers I know of. The soundstage is wide, with good height and excellent depth.

The broad suckout of the first version is gone, but there are still some minor flaws above 2kHz, the most serious of which is a wiry quality noticeable on string overtones. There is also a slight brittleness to the sound that extends through the presence region (5–8kHz.) The upper treble lacks delicacy and is slightly closed-in and dark in nature, but these problems are not so great as to preclude a recommendation.

Subwoofing
Phase Tech offers a separate subwoofer, with a built-in crossover, for a modest $250. Since the lower octaves of the PC-60 are already so good, the subwoofer does not make a night-and-day difference; it does extend the speaker's performance to a subjective 40Hz, which significantly augments the system's reproduction of orchestra. This same statement could be made with respect to using a subwoofer with the other speakers reviewed in this issue, though getting a good match is always difficult. The only problem I found with the Phase Tech subwoofer was an occasional instance of image wander.

Summing Up
Overall I find the PC-60 to be nicely balanced and eminently listenable. The lower range just beats the pants off the present competition. Enough said—this speaker is highly recommended.

I can recommend my two top choices without hesitation to audiophiles on a tight budget. Of the speakers I review this month, the Fourier 6 and Phase Technology PC-60 emerge as clear-cut winners, with the Spendor LS3/5A running a not-too-close third. The PC-60 excels in the bottom octaves, while the Fourier 6 does better through the top range. At $400/pair, however, the PC-60 qualifies as the best biy among this group of speakers.

I don't know that you will need to lose even 10%. Unless, of course, you have a turntable like a Versa Dynamics 2.0 or a Goldmund Reference.

Now, if only the cost of CDs would come down.

That may happen soon. The New York Times reports a growing CD glut. (Goody-goody. Goody got it and he has to get rid of it.) Joe Epstein, of Berkshire Record Outlet, hints of impending CD cut-outs. (How do you "cut out" a CD? Gouge a hole in the edge of the disc?) The Wall Street Journal reports that GE has developed a new resin, which will make it possible for CDs to be molded quicker—that should worsen the glut! And sale prices for "full-price" CDs have already dropped to as little as $9.99 per disc in New York.

There's more encouraging news.

Designers such as Dan D'Agostino, of Krell, and John Bicht, of Versa Dynamics, are turning their attention to CD. Both Dan and John are looking into transports—or rather, the whole "front end" retrieval system, which includes the laser assembly. Audiophiles may be paying as much attention to CD transports as to turntables . . . and perhaps as much money! Expect to see top-loading players with innovative clamping and damping mechanisms, which may obviate the need for such devices as CD Rings (footnote 1).

The transport does make a difference—or, to put it another way, not all digital outs are created equal. Recently, at Definitive Hi-Fi in Mamaroneck, NY, a few of us Thursday night 'philes were listening to CDs through Mike Moffat's Theta outboard digital processor. We tried different players. There were differences. It's hard to say something definitive (ouch), but subjectively it appears that sturdier players retrieve the encoded data with fewer errors. Sony transports sounded particularly good.

Now, a promising player.

Most of my listening took place through the line stage of the Forté Model 2 preamplifier. The Adcom has a variable output, so I also auditioned it directly into a Threshold SA/3 or B&K ST-140 power amp. Interestingly, the B&K amplifier was better at revealing differences than the Threshold. Interconnects were Discrete Technology Platinum and the very promising new Audio Prism Ultima ($160 retail for a 1m pair). Speaker cable was $5.75/yard Naim Cable, which sounds at least as good as, if not better than, some very costly cables with bullshit stories attached to them. Speakers were MartinLogan Sequels.

I ran the dropout tests of the second Pierre Verany test disc on each machine. I also tested a couple of damaged discs in each player. Then I sent the machine to Santa Fe, for measurement.

Adcom GCD-575: $599
I got two samples of this machine—early production and late production. Late production is better, I think—the sound is smoother. Victor Campos of Adcom told me about the changes, most having to do with tighter tolerances and a few parts upgrades.

Never mind the tech stuff, this is a very good-sounding player for the money—devastating to most of the competition at the price in that once I heard the Adcom, most of the other players were unacceptable. What makes the Adcom so devastating is its low-level resolution—ie, clarity. This is from a 16-bit Philips DAC with 4x oversampling. I wonder why I haven't heard this resolution from Magnavox and Philips machines.

Soundstaging is very good, and imaging is excellent. Ambience retrieval, too, is most impressive—just short of the very best you can get with a CD player and far better than what you might expect for the price. Instruments are very clearly localized, and there is air around them—they don't exist in a void, as they do with some CD players.

There are limits to the performance, of course. Dynamics are somewhat reined in. When you get to the fourth movement of Tchaikovsky's Manfred, this machine, like many, gives up—it cannot deal in a totally satisfactory way with the dynamics.

Parts quality looks good for the price, except for the drawer mechanism, made by Sony, which looks like it belongs on a cheap machine. Every time I used the drawer, I thought it might break—but it didn't. Even more disturbing was the poor shock resistance. This player skipped when I walked up to it! And I had it on a Mission Isoplat with a VPI Magic Brick on top. (The Adcom is shipped with no transport screws. Maybe that's a mistake.)

Adcom is known for innovation. The GCD-575 has, in effect, its own built-in line amp, which gives a variable output of up to 5.3V, with an output impedance of 100 ohms. You control the output level with a conveniently located volume control on the lower-right corner of the front panel. The Adcom GCD-575 can probably drive any power amplifier directly. You could have a dynamite duo: GCD-575 and GFA-535 power amp for under $1000 list.

Another novel feature is AFPC (Analog Frequency/Phase Contour). Switching this gives you a dip in the presence region, boosting frequencies below 1kHz by about 1dB, cutting frequencies above 1kHz by an increasing amount to –3.2db at 20kHz. This is akin to a slight LF boost upward with the Quad 34 preamp's tilt control. I found this feature occasionally useful, but it's no substitute for adequate weight in the bass.

The Adcom sports a polarity reversal switch that works via remote. Julian Hirsch says he couldn't hear any difference with the switch in or out. I bet you can! When the setting was right, there was more air around the instruments. More space.

Summing Up
The Adcom offers clarity. But what causes me to hesitate about this player is the flimsy factor—the rickety drawer and the player's exceptionally poor resistance to shock (this on the two samples I had, plus another sample I examined . . . as well as on Julian Hirsch's test sample). Sonically the Adcom GCD-575 is a winner at the price, but not so good that I would be tempted to switch from something like a Magnavox CDB650. I suppose my real complaint is that Adcom did not choose to build this player to a higher price point.—Sam Tellig

End of discussion.

Having spent time in recent issues with relatively expensive speakers, ranging from the $1195/pair Vandersteen 2Ci to the $4000/pair Pioneer TZ-9, with stops along the way at the $1999/pair Celestion SL600Si and the $2500/pair MartinLogan Sequel II, I thought it appropriate that I should return to my Cheapskate roots by looking at a small, insensitive, sealed-box design featuring limited low-frequency extension that, while epitomizing the adjective "cheap," does have a high-end pedigree.

Celestion 3: $250/pair
With the exception of Infinity's Infinitesimal from the early 1980s, the short-lived AR-1M, and Koss's various permutations on their "Dyna-Mite" design (footnote 1), it seems a peculiar European obsession to try to make tiny loudspeakers capable of genuine hi-fi performance. England, in particular, has led the world in these Lilliputian endeavors, with first the venerable LS3/5a redefining what a speaker should produce in terms of imaging accuracy, then the Linn Kan showing that this performance needn't be at the expense of dynamics and musical feel. The various generations of the Wharfedale Diamond showed that small and cheap didn't necessarily mean "unmusical." Then, at the 1989 Las Vegas CES, Celestion raised the stakes by introducing a speaker intended to sell for just $250/pair that nevertheless featured a metal-dome tweeter!

The Celestion 3 uses a 1" titanium-dome HF unit with a narrow surround to cover the two audio octaves from 5kHz on up. This is constructed on a rectangular plastic plate that bolts to the baffle, with three narrow, horizontal strips providing a degree of protection. Covering what in effect is the remaining 61/3 octaves is a conventional-looking paper-cone unit, again constructed on a rectangular plastic plate. A large half-roll surround suggests some serious excursion capability; bass alignment is sealed-box.

The crossover consists of four elements—a ferrite-cored inductor in series with the woofer to roll out the highs, and a second-order shunt air-cored coil/series capacitor network in the tweeter feed, with a series resistor used to lower the HF unit's sensitivity—all glued to the rear of the plastic terminal plate. On one of the review pair, the woofer inductor had broken free of its glue patch and was hanging suspended by its lead-out wires—not a recipe for long-term reliability. The terminal posts themselves are of reasonable quality for such an inexpensive design, with a hex profile and enough room around them to fit stiff cables. (The internal wiring, however, is all small-gauge.) As is usual with British speakers, the posts are spaced too far apart to take dual banana plugs.

The enclosure is constructed from ½" fiberboard, loosely filled with acrylic fiber, with the sides, top, and bottom wrapped in a walnut-grain vinyl material. Some attention needs to be paid by Celestion to the 3's packaging. Rather than expanded polyurethane foam, the speakers are protected by thin cardboard corner pieces, which is perhaps expecting a bit much, one of the review pair having suffered cosmetic damage to two of its rear corners. The structural integrity of the enclosure was not compromised, however. The grille is a polystyrene space frame covered with black fabric that plugs into slots at the top and bottom of the front baffle.

All things considered—for example, at a retail price of $125 each, the resources available to the designer will be minimal—the standard of construction is reasonable.

The sound
With the speakers out in the room on the 24" stands in the same positions where the Spica TC-50s had sounded reasonably rich, the sound of the 3s was unmusically thin—it was hard to believe that there was any bass reproduction at all. The 3 is definitely a loudspeaker needing all the help it can get in the lows, and I ended up with them 3" away from the rear wall. (This is also a big plus point, in my opinion, as those restricted to a loudspeaker budget of $250/pair will undoubtedly have small rooms where a pair of speakers out in the room will represent an imposition.) In their terse but comprehensive manual, Celestion recommends a minimum spacing of 2", but warns against placing the speakers too close to the side walls, 24" being the absolute minimum. Having settled on optimum siting and then broken the speakers in for a day with the appropriate Kraftwerk album—an album recorded by machines, it seems only fitting that I not be in the room when it was playing—I sat down to some intensive listening.

Well, the 3 is still a small loudspeaker, there still being no low bass to speak of. However, the rear-wall placement does usefully bring up the upper bass—electric bass and double bass now both purring appropriately—at the expense of adding a slight chestiness to male speaking voice. Low-frequency definition was still quite good, however, with bass instruments sounding quite "fast."

The exact listening axis and degree of toe-in proved quite critical. Sitting so that you can see the cabinet top, the midrange sounds too hollow. With the listener directly on the tweeter axis, the presence region becomes a little too lively, but when the speakers were facing straight ahead, the extreme HF sounds a little depressed, imaging specificity suffers, and a hardness in the lower treble is accentuated. Ultimately, I found the sound to be best integrated across the upper midrange and treble when the speakers were toed-in a little, but not all the way to the listening position.

Taken overall, the sound was quite musical, with a smooth, sweet upper treble that made violins sound reasonably natural for such a low-priced speaker. Image depth and lateral precision were compromised to an extent by the close rear-wall placement, but the sound still had an attractive "open" quality with a good sense of "air" and space. I must say that, as much as I thought the Wharfedale Diamond III was a good performer at the price (see Vol.12 No.2, p.122), it is outclassed by this Celestion in the quality and quantity of its treble. Dynamics were good, provided the music didn't feature high levels of low bass—the organ-pedal introduction to Also Sprach Zarathustra lent the orchestral sound rather a stifled quality—and drums came over with good impact, playing reasonably loud without too much of a sense of strain.

Coloration levels were higher than is usual with speakers costing two to three times the price of the Celestion 3, but were actually good at this price, being less obtrusive than the Diamond's. The midrange had a similar character to the Spicas, though to a considerably more noticeable degree, in that it sounded "cardboardy." This endowed cellos, tom-toms, and male voice, for example, with a rather "woody" signature but lent the overall balance more of an "aww" quality compared with the twice-the-price Spicas. There was a refreshing freedom from any sibilance emphasis, though some voices, particularly when closely miked, took on an added grittiness. Perhaps of more importance was a liveliness above the top of the treble staff, in the 800–1300Hz region, which threw some piano notes forward from the image (though not to anything like the extent that occurs with speakers like the Spectrum 208B), added a hard, rather confused quality to the sounds of treble instruments like the oboe, and made naturally recorded trumpet sound too squeaky.

Conclusion
Should Stereophile's readers be considering a speaker as inexpensive as the Celestion 3? It depends on their individual needs. A pair of good stands will add at least $100 to the price, which starts to put the 3s' price nearer that of such floor-standing bargains as the $495/pair Magnepan SMGas. The little Maggies will go louder than the 3s, with lower levels of midband coloration. However, they do need considerably more room to breathe than the Celestions, and can't be placed near a rear wall. For someone on a restricted budget, with a small listening room, therefore, a pair of 3s on good stands will mate well with inexpensive electronics (provided that these don't have too dry or bright a treble) to produce what, while not scaling high-end heights, will almost always be a musical sound, without significant failings.

The $399 Digital Decoding Engine is for real.

But how can Audio Alchemy make an outboard D/A converter for about half the price of the next most inexpensive decoders (the PS Audio DigiLink and Melior Bitstream D/A)? Can it be any good? These were my first reactions to the DDE, and I'm sure many of you are asking these same questions.

First, however, some background on the company: Audio Alchemy is the name of a new line of digital products manufactured by the California-based LM Acoustics. The company's other products include a Digital Transmission Interface ($299) that goes between a transport and processor, a two-piece CD transport ($699), the Clearstream digital coaxial cable ($49), and the Analog Decoding Engine ($199) that "conditions" the analog output from a D/A processor. Looking at their line, it is clear that Audio Alchemy is attempting to boldly go where no digital manufacturer has gone before—at least in price.

In addition to making the Audio Alchemy line, LM Acoustics designs and manufactures a variety of audio products for many companies. The Music and Sound DCC-1 that I reviewed in March, for example, was designed and built by LM Acoustics. The company is currently working on several other, more ambitious digital products.

Does the Digital Decoding Engine bring a new level of affordability to digital processors, or is it a toy that can't compete with established yet affordable performers like the PS Audio SuperLink and Meridian 203?

Let's find out.

Technical description
The Digital Decoding Engine (DDE) is so small and light that many people do a double take when they find out it's an outboard D/A converter. Easily held in the palm of the hand, the diminutive DDE isn't what we've come to expect D/A converters to look like.

Despite its small size and low price, the DDE has the features of the full-sized (and -priced) outboard decoders. Coaxial and optical inputs are provided (on RCA and Toslink jacks), with a front-panel selector switch. The front panel also includes an absolute polarity switch and three LEDs that indicate when the unit is locked to an incoming digital signal, and that the analog and digital power supplies are working.

The rear panel holds the previously mentioned RCA and Toslink input jacks, as well as a digital output for driving a DAT machine or future digital recorders having S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) digital inputs. Analog output is provided on two RCA jacks, which, like the digital input and output, are gold-plated. A mini-jack accepts ±12VDC from the outboard power supply, a 2" by 2½" by 1½" box.

An unusual feature of the DDE is the I²S Bus found on a rear-panel DIN connector. The I²S Bus (pronounced "I squared S") provides access to the raw serial 16-bit digital audio data after it has been decoded from the incoming S/PDIF delivered by a CD transport just before the D/A converter. This allows digital signal processors to be connected to the DDE while keeping the signal in the digital domain. The I²S Bus can be thought of as an expansion slot in a personal computer: both provide a communication path between the device and the outside world. At Audio Alchemy's CES booth, I saw a prototype Digital Signal Processing (DSP) box that connects to the DDE's I²S Bus and is controlled by a personal computer, providing a variety of signal-processing functions including equalization and reverberation enhancement. The I²S bus also allows the user to plug in a newer, upgraded D/A converter to the DDE without the expense of replacing the entire input and demodulator stage, chassis, and other hardware. Don't be surprised to see future products from Audio Alchemy that use the latest DACs, yet connect directly to the DDE.

Popping the Engine's hood revealed a compact, efficient topology and layout. Despite the extraordinarily low price, the DDE's designer didn't take a cheap-as-possible approach—several design touches adding to the unit's cost could very easily have been omitted.

The power supply, which consumes about 15% of the printed circuit board real estate, consists of four regulation stages: +8V and –8V stages supply the output op-amp, +5V supplies the input decoder and demodulator, and a second +5V regulation stage powers the Bitstream chip. Each stage is regulated by a three-pin regulator, and filtering is provided by two electrolytic caps, one 1000µF and one 470µF. This internal supply is driven by ±12V DC from the previously mentioned outboard unit, which contains a power transformer, two full-wave bridge rectifiers, and two 2200µF filter caps bypassed with 0.01µF caps. The choice of a 12V output from the power supply is deliberate in order to allow the DDE to be used in car stereo applications.

The chip set is the Philips SAA7274 S/PDIF receiver and decoder coupled with Philips's SAA7323 Bitstream DAC/filter chip. The S/PDIF receiver circuit is unusual in that a Voltage Controlled Oscillator (VCO) supplies the reference Phase Lock Loop (PLL) frequency rather than the ubiquitous crystal clock generator. An additional chip next to the 7274 gets a reference voltage from the 7274 and outputs a frequency back to the decoder chip. This circuit's job is to recover the clock imbedded in the incoming S/PDIF signal. This technique reportedly results in lower clock jitter than standard PLL implementations (several hundred picoseconds rather than 2–5 nanoseconds). In addition, the DDE will lock to any incoming sampling frequency between 40kHz and 50kHz, but won't accept the 32kHz sampling frequency used in DAT's extended play mode and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS). This circuit is a good example of my impression that the DDE wasn't built strictly on price; the VCO technique added more parts and design time to the DDE, yet wasn't essential to its operation.

The 7323 Bitstream chip incorporates the digital filter, Bitstream DAC, and analog output stage. Audio Alchemy has chosen to bypass one of the 7323's analog stages in favor of a single Analog Devices AD746JN dual bi-FET op-amp, shared between left and right channels. (The first op-amp in the 7323 is part of the switched capacitor network and can't be bypassed.) Again, replacing the 7323's internal op-amp with the moderately expensive AD746JN reflects the attempt to make the DDE sonically competitive, not just price-competitive.

Output muting is accomplished by tying the front-panel lock indicator to the Bitstream chip, muting the output until the unit has locked to the incoming digital signal. De-emphasis is performed by the 7323 Bitstream chip in the analog domain with an internal resistor/capacitor pair.

All resistors are metal-film types, and capacitors are polystyrene and polypropylene. The very simple design is executed with a minimum of parts. Although I was surprised to learn that a company could build and sell a $400 D/A converter (especially an American-made product sold through normal retail channels), I was even more surprised after looking inside the Digital Decoding Engine. Despite its simplicity and economy of construction, it nevertheless looks like it should retail for more than $399. According to Audio Alchemy President Mark Schifter, the DDE's retail price is in line with standard industry pricing based on parts cost. The low actual profit (as opposed to profit percentage) is reportedly made up for by selling a lot of units.

Listening
My first impression upon hearing the Engine? Competent—even surprising—but not outstanding in relation to more expensive processors like the Meridian 203 and PS Audio SuperLink. Considering, however, that the DDE costs not even two and a half times less than the next cheapest processor to which it was compared, its performance was very impressive.

What the DDE gives you that is often missing from cheap CD players is detail, transparency, and clarity. In this regard, the DDE has more in common with the good outboard decoders than with low-priced CD players. Through the DDE, there wasn't the opaqueness and detail-obscuring haze overlaying the music so often heard from inexpensive digital playback. The music had a vibrant immediacy and palpability rather than a congested, lifeless character. In addition, instrumental outlines were clearly defined, creating the impression of individual instruments in the soundstage. Many high-priced decoders don't do this well in delineating image outlines, an important factor in rendering the illusion of musicians in the listening room.

Compared with the Meridian 203, the DDE had a more sharply focused rendering and greater resolution of instrumental outlines. The 203, however, offered a greater sense of the instruments being surrounded by air and space. This was more apparent on naturally miked recordings, giving the 203 a clear edge on classical music and most jazz. Through the DDE, the soundstage was vivid and sharply defined, but lacked the impression of instruments floating on air between the loudspeakers. Herbie Hancock's piano on the excellent Jack DeJohnette album Parallel Realities (MCA MCAD-42313, Vol.13 No.9) had less air surrounding it and appeared more forward in the soundstage with the DDE than through the 203 (footnote 1).

In addition, the illusion of space and soundstage depth was easily superior through the 203. I felt the DDE's presentation was too forward and lacking an ultimate feeling of size and space. The 203 threw a much more accurate rendering of hall acoustics and space. Julianne Baird, for example, on The English Lute Song (Dorian DOR-90109), was farther forward in the presentation, drier, and less enveloped in the gorgeous acoustic of the Troy Savings Bank Music Hall when reproduced by the DDE. However, the distinction between lute and voice was greater through the DDE. The Stereophile recording of Brahms's Piano Sonata in f, from the Intermezzo CD (STPH003-2) was particularly revealing of the DDE's limitations in reproducing space. The DDE made the room seem much smaller and didn't reveal the wealth of natural ambience on this recording. Through the 203, the soundstage suddenly expanded, with room reflections becoming clearly audible at the soundstage's edges.

Similarly, the DDE had a more forward rendering than the 203, but less resolution of inner detail and finely woven textures. The DDE seemed to present all its detail right up front, rather than in layers and layers of subtle gradations. In this regard, the 203's presentation was more relaxed, interesting, and musically involving. I preferred listening into the music to hear inner detail and nuance, rather than having lots of detail thrust forward. The DDE's forward and highly detailed character tended to make long listening sessions fatiguing. In short, the DDE's presentation of musical information was somewhat blunt and aggressive, the 203's refined and gentle.

One area where the DDE clearly bested the 203 was in conveying the energy and rhythmic drive of music. The DDE's bottom end had a punch and solidity that was particularly satisfying. In addition, there was a greater feeling of what Martin Colloms aptly describes as "pace." I found myself tapping my foot quite often when listening to the DDE, always a good sign. This is perhaps the result of the DDE's fuller, weightier bass presentation, something that made bass guitar lines seem to bounce more with the rhythm. Contributing to this impression was the DDE's more dynamic character. Snare and bass drum seemed more dynamic and punchy, adding to the feeling of drive and energy. Neither processor, however, was a match for the SuperLink in either dynamics or bass drive. I've yet to hear a 1-bit converter approach the bass tightness, authority, and dynamics of a good multi-bit–based processor, especially the outstanding SuperLink.

My main complaint about the DDE was the treble. It tended to be forward and hard, especially during peaks of high recorded signal levels. Cymbals were more prominent in the presentation than is natural, and the upper harmonics of high-frequency–rich instruments were overly emphasized. The delicacy and air in cymbals heard through the 203 were missing from the DDE's rendering. I've found that many 1-bit decoders tend to get hard as signal level increases; the DDE was no exception. Snare drum, with its high peak level and substantial high-frequency component, was particularly edgy. The snare-drum dynamics just mentioned were perhaps more the result of this hardness than of actual dynamic contrast; brittleness and edge give the impression of greater volume.

Instrumental textures, while detailed and vibrant, tended to be a little synthetic sounding. There wasn't that lush liquidity and warmth that conveys an instrument's true tonal shadings. Listen to Joe Henderson's unaccompanied sax that begins "Ask Me Now," from McCoy Tyner's new Chesky CD (New York Reunion, JD51). Through the DDE, it was somewhat sterile, lacking warmth and body in the midrange, and a little edgy. By contrast, the 203 presented a much more believable rendering, with roundness, breath, and liquidity. The SuperLink also bested the DDE in ability to present natural timbres. In this regard, the DDE clearly sounded "digital" rather than more closely emulating good analog.

In remembering my experience with the identically priced Rotel RCD-855 CD player, I feel the DDE to be more detailed, and to have sharper soundstage focus and a more forward and vivid presentation than this popular CD player. The 855, however, was more laid-back, less fatiguing, and had better soundstage depth. Despite these factors, I would have to chose the DDE for its transparency, clarity, and soundstage delineation.

Conclusion
On the credit side of the ledger, the DDE is remarkably transparent, with a surprisingly well-focused soundstage. The DDE didn't homogenize instrumental outlines, a trait so common in inexpensive digital playback. In addition, this diminutive unit had good bass drive and ability to convey the music's rhythm. Finally, the DDE had lots of detail; I never felt I was missing a large part of the music, another characteristic of low-priced CD players.

On the debit side, I found the treble a bit hashy and forward, lacking the delicacy and nuance heard through the Meridian 203. Although the DDE's soundstage was superbly defined laterally, it lacked the sense of depth and ability to surround instruments with the recorded acoustic. This gave the entire presentation a forward immediacy that could become fatiguing after a long session. In addition, instrumental textures were somewhat synthetic and lacking the liquidity and roundness heard through other (admittedly more expensive) processors.

Overall, I preferred the Meridian 203 on classical music and most acoustic jazz. With some electronic music in which soundstage depth and accurate tonal shadings are less important, the DDE, with its superior rhythmic drive and sharper soundstage focus, ran a much closer race. I should reiterate that not only is the Meridian 203 two and a half times the DDE's price, it is, in my opinion, the best of the $1000 processors.

For music lovers on a budget, I can't recommend the Audio Alchemy Digital Decoding Engine more highly. While it has some sonic shortcomings, it nevertheless offers a level of musical performance previously unheard of at this low price. In addition, it is well made, incorporates most of the bigger units' features, has a five-year warranty, and is upgradable through the I²S bus when newer DACs become available.

For $399, therefore, the Audio Alchemy Digital Decoding Engine is a bargain. It's no giant-killer, but if you own an inexpensive CD player with a digital output and have been wanting to upgrade to an outboard processor, the DDE might be just the ticket.

First, in listening to multichannel music, the soundfield surrounds us, just as it does in real life. In anything less than a room with very bad acoustics—eg, a tiled bathroom—the ear/brain can distinguish the frontal soundstage from the reverberant surround field, which allows the listener to focus attention on the former. The surround field doesn't go away, but the attention of the two-channel listener is directed toward the front; in practice, perception of the reverberant surround field can be minimized by nearfield listening or, in the extreme, headphones. However, multichannel reproduction, whether offered as an accurate representation of a real place or as a studio creation of an imagined one, demands that the signals and the tonal character of the surround field be integrated into one's perception, and therefore requires that all of this additional information not be colored in ways that impede the brain's ability to integrate them.

Second, in order to process signals in ways not demanded of two-channel products, modern digital multichannel products need digital signal processing (DSP). Right off the bat, the product's DSP decodes an increasing number of lossy and lossless audio formats, then routes the appropriate signals to an increasing number of arrangements of channels/speakers. While it's relatively easy to place two identical speakers equidistant from the listener, it's quite difficult, in anything less than a dedicated room, to place five or more identical speakers optimally and equidistant from the listener. DSP is useful for 1) adjusting time delays to compensate for different speaker distances, 2) adjusting volume levels to compensate for the sensitivities of systems comprising different speakers, and 3) introducing bass management to reroute low frequencies to the larger speakers or to a subwoofer, in recognition of the fact that many people will use smaller speakers for some channels.

This convergence of a greater role for room-acoustics treatments with the presence of DSP engines has created a perfect storm of electronic room-correction devices designed to be used as integral parts of multichannel systems. However, such facilities remain rare in two-channel electronics, where, when used at all, they are implemented as standalone components. So, despite the observation that general principles of acoustics—as well as good room design, construction, and treatment—apply equally to two- and multichannel systems, multichannel devices give us more tools.

However, it seems that the general interest in room/speaker equalization is now slowly filtering down to two-channel listening. Joining such long-established products as the Z-Systems rdp-1, Rives Audio PARC, and the DEQX processor (review in progress), miniDSP (footnote 1) has announced two stereo devices that incorporate the two-channel version of the DiracLive software that I'm enjoying in my multichannel system (See "Music in the Round,"May 2014). They differ in that the DDRC-22A has balanced analog inputs and outputs (XLR), while the DDRC-22D has digital (S/PDIF, TosLink optical, AES-EBU). Both can operate at resolutions and sample rates up to and including 32-bit/96kHz, and come with the necessary microphone (a UMIK-1) and Windows-compatible software for measuring and calibrating. Macs are not supported. Given the individual prices for the DiracLive software (&128#;389, $540) and the mike ($75), the DDRC-22s appear to be tremendous values at $899 each (see www.minidsp.com/products/dirac-series).

But wait—miniDSP also has something new for multichannel . . .

miniDSP nanoAVR 8x8
In my January 2014 column, I told the story of my fascinating time with miniDSP's 10x10Hd digital signal processor. It has all the tools for implementing correction filters in up to 10 channels (8 analog, 2 digital), and worked as advertised. My concerns were that as it only had analog inputs and outputs, analog signals had to be passed through its onboard A/D and D/A converters, and that its internal processing was limited to 48kHz. The A/D/A conversions are redundant and could compromise the sound of a system chosen for its outstanding DACs. The 48kHz limitation is of somewhat less concern because we now know that the various softwares of the major player in room EQ, Audyssey, have been implemented in many products with a downsampling of all HD signals to 48kHz, and without great hue and cry. Still, such downsampling betrays a skimping on DSP resources that should not be tolerated in a high-end product.

Now miniDSP has produced an affordable external processor, the nanoAVR 8x8 that costs $299 and that sidesteps both issues. First, it offers something novel for an equalizer: dual HDMI inputs and an HDMI output. This means that, unlike the 10x10Hd and most other standalone multichannel equalizers, it can accept, process, and output up to eight channels without any A/D/A conversions, even as it passes the video signal through without any processing. Second, while it can accept up to 24/192 PCM and its internal handling is 32-bit, its throughput is only 24/96—still, in my opinion, a significant advance over 24/48.

The nanoAVR 8x8 comes in a trim and tidy black case, has no power switch, and is intended to remain on at all times. The single button on the front allows the user to choose one of the four EQ configurations and two HDMI inputs. There is an IR receiver and LED for monitoring and remote control (not supplied). On the rear panel are three HDMI V1.4a jacks (two inputs, one output), Ethernet, and USB ports, and a power connector for the supplied wall wart. These ports are solely for control and setup (although I briefly dreamed of using the nanoAVR to insert EQ into a streaming/networked system). There are no facilities for audio measurements, and users must install the appropriate plug-in from miniDSP on their Windows or Apple computers in order to configure and upload its correction filters to the nanoAVR. Those filters can be created ad hoc or uploaded from another program, such as RoomEQ Wizard (REW).

The V90 components turn all this around. They are tiny. Inexpensive. Beautifully built.

Your friends will laugh when you turn on your DAC. Or phono preamp. Or Bluetooth receiver (the V90 series now includes the V90-BLU). But, of course, audiophiles must forgo the pleasures of Bluetooth. Too easy. Too simple. Too much free music from thousands of sources around the globe.

I've been enjoying the V models since Musical Fidelity's founder and CEO, Antony Michaelson, introduced them four years ago. The V-DAC II and V-CAN II headphone amplifier have been references.

So when Antony introduced the third generation of V components, he gave me a bell, as they say in London. Which would I like to review?

All of them.

From V to V90
The V series has taken a 90° turn—a V-Tilt, if you like. The V90s are the third wave of Antony's mini-marvels that does not include a V-Tilt. No point in telling you what a V-Tilt was, since the long-ago-promised product never materialized.

Instead of slim and deep, the V90 components are 6.6" (170mm) wide by 4" (102mm) deep. This allows more space for connectors, switches, and knobs, as appropriate. The height remains 1.8" (47mm), and each V90 model averages about 1.3 lbs (600gm), not counting the new wall-wart power supplies that no longer hog two electrical outlets. Inspired by Steve Jobs or the Beatles, Antony packages the V90s in attractive white boxes. Dealers can dangle them from display hooks near the cash register. Small-box retailers!

Made in Taiwan, the V90 components are designed in England, especially for Alistair, Clive, and Nigel—you know, for chaps whose wives dole out their allowances. Sneak them into the house. Hide them behind your proper gear or some liquor bottles.

Antony cautions customers not to open a V90's case: there are no "user-serviceable" parts inside, and "tampering" will invalidate the warranty. "If customers did open the boxes, they would see mostly air there," he told me. "We use surface-mounted components for better reliability and short signal paths." Something like that. My tape recorder is busted.

"Then why buy your more expensive stuff?" I asked.

The industry's trend is to bloat the size and boost the price, but Antony takes the opposite tack. Of course, he makes more expensive DACs, headphone amps, phono preamps, the like. The idea of the V90 series is to approach those models' performance at a fraction of the size and a mere slice of the price.

The Musical Fidelity V90-DAC replaces the venerable V-DAC II, a sample of which has been part of my living-room system for two years. The V-DAC II is a very fine DAC. If you own one, maybe you don't need to upgrade.

The V90-DAC uses Burr-Brown's 32-bit PCM1795 chip. A two-channel sample-rate converter supports word lengths up to 24 bits and upsamples at 192kHz. A Texas Instruments streaming controller handles up to 24-bit/96kHz asynchronous via USB. The V90-DAC has not joined "the DSD Movement."

"Well, that would mean a separate DAC and a higher price," Antony replied by phone. Of course, he's planning to offer a DSD-capable DAC, but it won't cost $299, like the V90-DAC. There's a price for joining any movement.

Meanwhile, over the holidays, my kids bestowed on me four boxes of classical recordings comprising a total of 237 "Red Book" CDs. $25 digital downloads? I'm busy for a while. The Artur Rubinstein box alone contains 142 CDs and a hardcover book; the kids grabbed it for $96. That's 68¢ a disc.

On the V90-DAC's rear panel are RCA analog outputs, a USB input, and three S/PDIF outputs: one coaxial and two optical TosLink. The coaxial input operates at sample rates up to 192kHz, the optical and USB up to 96kHz, all with 24-bit word length. If you have a Bluetooth receiver with digital output(s), you can bypass its "native" DAC and run the signal through the V90-DAC, as I did with Musical Fidelity's V90-BLU and Arcam's rBlink. I used Musical Fidelity's M1CDT transport for spinning silver devils.

My head is spinning. I haven't even opened the 23-CD Leon Fleisher box. Compared to the V-DAC II, the V90 DAC offers still greater low-level resolution, superior dynamics, and fatigue-free listening. It does space and place particularly well, and really shines with brass, where lesser DACs tend to turn dull. The Brass Ear would love it.