This is part 4 of an 8 part series comparing the Meier Corda Soul and Oppo HA-1. Click here for the introduction.

Subject Listening Comparison, continued…

Tue 12/25; speakers; direct, no EQ

• Beethoven; Piano Sonatas Op 13; Apassionata; Brendel; Decca
  • Soul: purity, timbral accuracy
  • Oppo: +HF, more earthy, dirty tone
• Chopin Op 58; Mapleshade, Gampel (Fazioli piano): this is a good but slightly flawed recording of a huge “in your face” sounding piano with a bit too much midrange presence.
  • Soul: bright, slight edge on HF, some distortion in upper RH dynamic peaks (sounds like analog tape overload)
  • Oppo: virtually indistinguishable
• Schubert; flute/piano songs D911; Naxos/Grodd: one of few truly excellent Naxos recordings
  • Soul: slightly rounder flute tone; less air, but extreme HF information is there (lip/air overtones & light whistletones)
• Oppo: a touch more air
• Doppler; Andante & Rondo; Rampal, Arimany, Ritter; Delos
  • both excellent: tone, dynamics, voicing, virtually identical

Tue 12/25; headphones LCD-2; with EQ (+3 dB @ 4500 Q=0.67)

• Volume test
  • Soul click 31 / 12:00 noon → -7.5 dB on Oppo
  • set to -8 dB by ear, fine tuned to -7.5 dB with SPL meter and white noise
• Doppler (from above): indistinguishable
• Taheke track 13 (from above): indistinguishable
• Chieftans 7: indistinguishable
• Notes
  • Are the Magnepans are more revealing than the headphones? Probably.
  • Is the Oppo’s headphone amp slightly different sounding than its line level outputs? Certainly.
  • Either way, the Soul & Oppo seem indistinguishable on headphones. Both are excellent!
• Before today, I’d say the HA-1 is the best sounding headphone amp I’ve ever heard; the Soul is its equal.

Tue 12/25; speakers; direct, no EQ

• Brahms piano quartet; Belcea 96/24: despite its high bit rate, this recording is imperfect with slightly edgy voicing and the piano sounds distant.
  • Soul: purifies the tone, smooths the edge
  • Oppo: detailed yet slight grain/edge
• Krall; Quiet Nights; 96/24; track 4: this recording is good overall but like most of her albums, it adds an edgy presence to Krall’s voice
  • Soul: smooths the vocal edge, but all the highs, cymbal brush, still there. Three dimensional imaging.
  • Oppo: voice is just a bit over the top with edge, HF more present but dirtier. Image has depth but a touch less 3D deep as the Soul.
  • Which is more true to the original master is unknown, but the Soul sounds cleaner.
• Krall; Girl in the Other Room; Temptation: another good but edgy Krall recording
  • Soul: surprisingly, not apparently smoother or more pure sounding
  • Oppo: bass during solo has slightly greater perceived depth
• Mokave; first album; Audioquest; tracks 1, 3, 5: this is a near-perfect recording!
  • Soul: rounder, more pure piano tone; smoother extreme HF transients, may be slightly rounded off. A touch more mid-bass, less bottom depth.
  • Oppo: extreme transients sharper, slightly accentuated.
• Lily & the Rose; Binchois, Kirkman; 96/24; tracks 16-17: a superb recording from Hyperion
  • Soul: slightly more pure midrange voicing, a tiny tad less sibilant
• Monteverdi; book 7; Naxos: one of few truly excellent Naxos recordings
  • Disc 1 track 2
    • Soul slightly more distinct and pure
    • Oppo more emphasis on harmonics / overtones
    • Differences very slight, nearly identical
  • Disc 2 track 3
    • Soul: a very thin slight veil lifted from the music
• Schubert; Schiller-Lieder vols 3 & 4; Naxos: very good but too much midrange edge on the voices (why do mastering engineers feel this is necessary!?)
  • Soul: may be smoother but so slight I can’t be sure; virtually identical
  • With this recording having a bit of edgy midrange presence, I expected to hear the Soul smooth it to a more natural presentation. Against my expectations, I was surprised to find it virtually identical to the Oppo.

Next, subjective listening notes part 5 (day 4)