| 评 述: |
这篇实在有点长，懒得翻了，懂英文的朋友可细看。
I have heard the CA2 MkI and the SCA2, in different systems and years apart.
Lets pretend my recollection is accurate for now. Additionally, the CA2MkI I
heard is some years older than your CDA2 and so may not sound like your CDA2, I
don\'t know.
Writing to distinguish their respective \"characters\" I\'d say that the CA2 got
the essential plot points and tone of a musical story. But, it\'s level of
resolution didn\'t open up as many secrets and insights as a more resolving
preamp might, for me part of the reason for being an audiophile is to get more
out of listening. As a listener, you would need to \"listen into a recording\"
to
be as thoroughly engaged; said another way, to get the treasure might require a
more active listener. Whereas different recordings, or even different tracks on
the same recording might sound substantially different with another preamp
through your ATCs, there was a bit more sameness to the recordings with the CA2.
The CA2 would be easier to live with in a system with problems because it might
not penalize bad recordings as much. This is true of a lot of preamps, not just
the CA2. My iteration of the CA2 had an even timbre, even if not being a
vibrantly rich one, good frequency response extension and a relatively quiet
back ground. It was attractive to me because it didn\'t do things \"wrong\" that
were hard to overlook. It was very competent at its price point and you needn\'t
worry that it might arbitrarily fail. It is an ATC and so reliable and durable
as heck.
The SCA2, however, was way more resolving, detail was easily evident and less of
\"listening into a recording\" (an attitude of how one might listen) than having
it come at you. Thus, on bad recordings if there was a problem with the
recording it was unmistakable and perhaps on the wrong side of pleasant.
However, good recordings could be brilliant and an amazing experience. I felt
the SCA2 was a bit \"hotter\" sounding than the CA2, but at the time I heard it
(controversy approaching) I did not experiment with cables, and that might make
a big difference. Others here will poo-poo cables for various reasons . . .
I\'ll
not argue the point here.
Many audiophiles will argue that a preamp shouldn\'t have a sound, I\'ll agree
with that. But are there any? Not in my experience. Allow me the conceit that
every preamp has a bit of a sound to it. The next useful question might be what
do you not have with the CDA that you want? Then, go look for that.
A friend with Anniversary 50s uses a YBA Passion 400. It sounds very good. I\'m
listening through a YBA alpha 1 preamp now - though they\'re French products
they
are not romantic, in my experience. They\'re somewhere between neutral and
natural with recordings tipping the scales one way or the other. Previously I
have used E.A.R. preamps (first an 802 for about seven years and then an 864 for
about twelve years. EAR preamps sound different with different tubes so how they
sound depends . . . in my system the 864 did not sound like the typical tube
sound, much more androgynous if you will, albeit a bit \"thicker\" than a solid
state preamp. GamuT preamps are very nice, perhaps striking a balance between
the CA2Mk1 and the SCA2. Chord make very nice products, very resolving and clean
and a bit less unrelenting than the SCA2, but personally, I\'d take the SCA2
over
the Chord preamps I\'ve heard, even disregarding the cost differential Rick
notes. Circling back to what seems pregnant in your question, the SCA2 might be
a great choice, too. For me, wrong headed or otherwise, finding a preamp you
love requires a bit of searching and experimentation, rather than reading a data
sheet, paying the piper and calling it a day.
|