After my audiobuddy arrived and we first had a nice meal, accompanied by a very nice bottle of wine (7 Deadly Zins Old Vine Zinfandel, personally imported from the 'states) we were all set, totally relaxed and utterly curious to find out how the systems would compare.
With enormous anticipation I started the playback on both systems, made sure that they ran in sync, then lifted the mute on the preamp.
Even though I knew from the first hours of listening to the AAZ Ultra Flow that it sounded very good, I wasn't prepared for what I was about to hear next when comparing it directly with the Sooloos combo. Regular readers know how I feel about the PWD MKII: I think it is an excellent performer but I have a problem with its treble coarseness (apparent lack of resolution) and lack of treble air and -extension. That is, until now. Would you believe that this particular problem isn't the least bit evident when combined with the AAZ Ultra Flow? The PWD mkII now produces smooth, fluid and airy treble like I have never heard it do before. Switching back and forth between the Sooloos and the PWD mkII goes to solidify my initial feeling that the AAZ Ultra Flow is something special indeed, but takes this quite a bit further: the difference is actually quite small! Both sources sound decidedly high end and not computer-esque, both have deep and solid bass, wide and deep soundstaging with superb central focus, excellent resolution and for the first time in my history with the PWD mkII, it doesn't lose out in the treble.
There's one area though that sticks out between the two and it's not in favour of the Sooloos combo. Even though the Sooloos combo sounds utterly fluid, its midrange is a little hard and unforgiving. This is something I have noticed before lately but I attributed it to the change from summer to winter and after I did all that I could to offset this, I didn't give it much more thought. But listening to the AAZ/PWD mkII combo makes this more obvious. The more I switch between the two, the more I feel that the Sooloos combo has an artificial ring to the midrange, and the more I like the AAZ Ultra Flow-PWD mkII combo.
Then I remembered that the MD600 (the server) used to be setup straight on the floor and that I had changed that to the bottom level of the Spider rack. At the time that gave me lots more pressure in the bass, along with a harder midrange, for which I had compensated using different powercables and rubber feet. Now that it was time to make for more closely matched comparisons, the MD600 would have to be treated the same way as the AAZ Ultra Flow: on the top level of the Spider rack. Removing it from the bottom level made an astonishingly big difference (how can that be-it's only a server!) but I've heard this particular behaviour before when I installed a Marantz CD player on the bottom levels. Same thing happened: a stranglingly tight grip that prevented music to stream effortlessly. But let's get back to the AAZ Ultra Flow. When it was set up in the prime position, the two sets were even more close to each other. So close in fact that it took me several switches and several different audio tracks before I could be sure that the small nuances that I heard were indeed repeatable differences.
Then what are these differences you ask? Well, let me illustrate this by writing a little more about the Meridian combo. For me, their biggest plus is that the combo excells in fluidity. The music just flows out of the speakers in a very analog manner. Along with this fluidity, there's a natural, smooth, extended treble that just has no added grain at all and seems to have eternal decay, if the recording permits. The combination of these aspects I had previously only ever heard before in the Linn Klimax DS1. It is on these aspects, that the PWDmkII has thus far performed less well. These weaker areas remain the weaker areas for the PWD mkII when combined with the AAZ Ultra Flow, but now they improve to the extent that one has to wonder if the differences are still meaningful. The AAZ Ultra Flow, by enabling the PWD mkII to sound better than it ever did, proves that the transport is just as important, perhaps even more important than the DAC itself. What's more: the PWD mkII, used with its built-in Network Bridge, sounds coarse and dark by comparison. Can you believe that? In all the comparisons that I carried out before, the PWD always sounded best using its Network Bridge. SPDIF never was very good and USB, while certainly much better than SPDIF, was at best only ever as good as the Bridge, never better. Until now that is. Apparently the signal that's delivered to the PWD mkII by the AAZ Ultra Flow is so clean and well-timed that the PWD mkII has no choice but to shine.