Two-box players are now ¬de riguer¬ in the high-end sector, but
it's not simply a case of 'more is more'. Just as we learned many
years ago about splitting integrated amps into pre/power
separates, so do CD players benefit from having separate chassis
for transport and electronics. To dismiss in this first paragraph
those of an anti-tweak mien who want to argue about it, please
note that merely dedicating separate power supplies to each stage
will have an immediately apparent sonic benefit. Add to that the
isolation of stages which might otherwise interact and you have
the sort of upgrade which you don't equate with magic sprays and
multi-coloured cables.

It would have been enough, then, for Madrigal to split the
Proceed PCD into two halves and leave it at that. After all, the
one-box version has been a big hit in audiophile circles, and you
don't have to go far at a CES to see it in use in other
manufacturers' rooms; a two-box version with only marginal
improvements would be a player to behold. But the resultant
components, the PDP Digital Processor and the PDT Digital
Transport, are more than a two-chassis PCD with an extra power
supply.

PROCEED DIGITAL TRANSPORT (PDT)

The PDT looks exactly like the PCD one-box player, not surprising
as it employs the same fascia, chassis and transport; you'd have
to look at the back to find any external differences. Some parts
are more highly specified to improve the digital signal quality,
and the changes address requirements which are a part of all CD
player design but are of even greater importance for stand-alone
transports. It's an issue I'll address further on, but suffice to
say that it's far more difficult to know how a transport will
perform when the designer has to accommodate a number of unknown
outboard D/A converters rather than a known, on-chassis D/A
section.

In essence, the tailoring of the PDT includes active circuits
used in conjunction with a pulse grade matching transformer to
ensure clean and stable output with precisely defined digital
transitions. Aside from the general improvements related to
noise, this also helps to produce a better interface with the PDP
Digital Processor; Madrigal points out that the design is --
naturally -- closely related to the receiving stage of the PDP.
It will also mean that the PDT transport will probably work
better with other brands of D/A converters than would the
less-accommodating transport sections of one-box players with
digital output.

The PDT, like the PCD, is a minimalist player with an uncluttered
front panel; keypad entry controls are found only the hand-held
remote. But operationally it's like no other player I've used,
Madrigal having dismissed entirely the Japanese (or Swiss)
approach to ergonomics and user/hardware interaction. Instead of
'high tech' precision, the PDT has a soft feel and you sometimes
wonder if you actually pressed the buttons.

They're lozenge-shaped and of the 'dead flesh' variety, with the
feel of the controls like that of a hand-held remote rather than
fascia-mounted switches; look elsewhere if you want movements
which connect with a distinct click. You'll soon get used to it,
but the two-step sluggishness of the disc tray -- its
heavily-damped movement causing the deliberate hiccup -- will
shock those used to trays which move like a VATman reaching for a
cheque.

The choice of functions is fairly complete, though the fast scan
(in both directions) is muted, making it useless if you want to
cue by ear rather than read-out. I'd also have preferred various
options of elapsed time readings instead of only the elapsed time
of the track being played -- an essential for those lawbreakers
who copy CDs on to tape and don't want the music to overrun the
tape's length.

The only control which needs any explanation -- also on the PDP
Processor -- is the standby. Both pieces require unbelievably
long warm-up times, so long that I won't even tell you for fear
of yet another diatribe from Baxandall, but let's just say that
it involves your calendar rather than your watch. Madrigal wisely
suggests that you leave the mains switched on at all times, via
the primary switches at the rear of each unit, using standby to
put it into a 'semi-off' position. With standby engaged, only the
main circuits remain at operation-ready level. Coming out of
standby with the units fully warmed, I detected no time lag for
the player or the D/A to reach an optimum state.

At the back, the PDT sports just what you'd expect -- a mains
cable, the aforementioned on/off switch, and a fuse-holder -- but
the coaxial digital output socket isn't the only way to access
signals. No, Madrigal -- like most American high end CD builders
-- did not include optical output; that's still regarded as only
a cut above doggie-do in the USA. Instead, the Proceed sports an
XLR-styled ¬balanced¬ digital output, wherein lies yet another
tale.

The unusual shape of the PDT -- a squarish frontal aspect and a
deep chassis -- is a love/hate feature. I find it a refreshing
change from yer basic 430mm stuff, and it struck me as a perfect
choice to mate (aesthetically) with the similarly shaped Primare
electronics. Well, it would be a perfect match if it were black
instead of the fetching Nextel-ish grey. As it and the PDP each
measure 214mm wide, side by side they'll still fit into the shelf
space allocated for one 430mm component. (And we should all thank
Naim and Mission for showing us that a couple of 'half-width'
components can be mixed with exiting full-width units.) The PDT
stands 227mm tall while the the PDP (and yes, I am getting fed up
with these unimaginative and confusing acronyms) stands 87mm
tall, so they do look a bit odd as neighbours.

But the physical structures of both the PDT and the PDP are not
afterthoughts. Heavy gauge steel is used throughout, attention
was paid to the thermal behaviour of the materials, and the
company spent much time and money researching the effects of
circuit board location. All are positioned as much for sonic
reasons as for constructional or practical purposes, among the
benefits being minimal use of wire and ultra-short paths. But it
did result in a lot of empty spaces, hence the large chassis.

With this unique topology, a question (from the houseproud) is
begged: How long before Madrigal produces pre-amps or power amps
to stack with the PDP?

PROCEED DIGITAL PROCESSOR (PDP)

So good is the isolation between the two pieces that you can
place the transport on top of the PDP without any deleterious
effects. The PDP, too, has a clean fascia -- what D/A converter
hasn't? -- bearing only a window with a read-out displaying
sampling frequency, four LEDs to indicate which input is in use,
an LED to indicate whether or not your disc was recorded with
pre-emphasis, an input selector button and the standby switch.

The only complaint I can offer about the ergonomics is that the
input selector works sequentially, in a 1-2-3-4 pattern. This
makes A/B auditioning a pain in the tush, especially since
there's a mute/delay as well when you go from input to input. To
A/B unbalanced v balanced connection -- balanced operation is
only on 'Source 4' -- you must use either 'Source 3' or 'Source
1' to minimize the lag. Everything else is automatic, though (not
having a DAT recorder nor access to digital broadcasts) I
couldn't test the selection of the sampling frequencies.

The rear features unbalanced phono inputs for Sources 1-3 and XLR
connection for input No 4. Outputs include unbalanced phono or
balanced XLR, and there's a digital output facility for feeding
into a DAT recorder's input. The less said about the latter, the
better, especially as Sony's just been made a scapegoat in the
USA for daring to sell DAT recorders. As mentioned before,
optical output is not available, and even playing devil's
advocate with Madrigal's designers couldn't elicit a response
which would appeal at least to the marketing men. Just because
some people may want to use fibre optics wasn't enough to force
Madrigal into fitting a TOSlink socket, and they must be admired
for resisting what may or may not be a mere buzzword facility.

The PDP uses two precision 18-bit DACs with x8 oversampling,
which tells you straightaway that Madrigal, again in tune with
other American high end companies, thinks that it's too early to
embrace bitstream. The PDP, like all modern and/or upmarket D/A
converters, can be updated for new technology, so Madrigal owners
will be able to go bitstream if and when the company feels that
the time is right for it.

At the outset, Madrigal makes it clear that the circuit is the
same as that in the PCD, but the power supply no longer has to
drive a transport, decoder, etc, so the performance is higher
than it would be in shared mode. As with the PDT, extra attention
was paid to isolation from microphony, circuit board interaction,
magnetic radiation and other ills, the goal yet again to achieve
untrammeled digital signal transfer. High quality relays take
care of source switching, all chosen for both reliability
(10,000,000 operations) and lack of sonic coloration. The
selected signal is routed to a computer grade pulse transformer,
then to a specially designed receiving circuit which improves the
incoming signal by filtering noise and resquaring the DAS signal.
This in turn ensures the deliver of a cleaner signal to the D/A
stage.

PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION

Here's where I stick my neck out, and not just because I'm going
to state quite categorically that I don't give a toss about the
16 v 18 v 1-bit numbers game, oversampling rates into the high
three figures or choice of DAC. I don't even care to play around
with optical v coaxial. Rather, I've learned a few invaluable
lessons because of the Madrigal, the first being the importance
of balanced connections with digital signals.

Because the PDT has both phono and balanced XLR outputs, the two
can be connected to the PDP for easy comparisons. Switching from
one to the other with a variety of discs, I found without any
reservations that the differences between balance and unbalanced
were far greater than I've heard between optical and coaxial or
bitstream and multi-bit. I was staggered to find that balanced
operation does for digital signals what it does for analogue,
mainly by protecting the desired signal from the noise caused by
RFI, mains, etc. But while many will argue that balanced
operation in the analogue mode is only readily apparent when
dealing with long cable runs, it was apparent in digital with
only 1m cable lengths.

Madrigal supplied identical cables differing only in their
terminations, so the testing was as fair as can be. Let me assure
you that the gains in bass control, ambience, inner detail
retrieval and 'better silences' ought to cause a stampede among
other manufacturers to bring their balancing acts into the
digital domain.

The next lesson I learned involved transport and D/A matching. I
tried the two Proceeds together and with other devices, including
D/A converters from Marantz (the D/A 12) and Meridian (the
ultra-hot 203) and transports from Marantz (CD-12) and Arcam (the
transport section of the Delta 70.2). What the experiences
illustrated for me were the points first addressed in print by MC
in his recent Krell D/A converter review: transport/converter
marriages are as system-dependent as cartridge/pre-amp or pre-amp
power amp matings.

Example: The PDT sounded better with the PDP and the D/A 12 than
it did with the Meridian. The Marantz transport worked better
with the PDP and its own D/A than it did with the Meridian. The
Arcam sounded best with the Meridian, followed by the Marantz
than it did with the PSP or its own on-board D/A section. In
other words, trying to review a D/A converter or standalone
transport is a useless exercise until you've established absolute
compatibility. To clarify the above, the Madrigals were most
effectively assessed when tried as Proceed-plus-Proceed, Proceed
transport-plus-Marantz D/A 12, or Proceed processor-plus-CD 12
transport.

As a package, the two Proceed devices merited high-end status on
a number of counts. Imaging was superb, especially in terms of
precise instrument/voice location, while the three-dimensional
character bordered on the analogue. With the near-a cappella of
Poco's 'Keep On Tryin'', it was possible to hear each distinct
voice in the multi-part harmony but still as part of a
wall-to-wall chorus. Despite a rather crisp top end, the Proceed
package handled the track's sibilance with utter grace.

Presentation was on the forward side, with the Proceed placing
the main instruments and voice either on the same line as the
speakers or slightly in front of them. With the 203, regardless
of the transport selected, the music appeared to emanate from a
point just behind the line of the speakers. This, of course, is
not so much a value judgement as a tip for systems matching. If
you like things up front, go Madrigal. If you need a better
sensation of stage depth (especially if you have a small room and
must listen in the near-field), the Meridian is to be preferred.
The Marantz D/A 12 seemed more like the Meridian in this respect
when used with its own transport. With the Proceed PDT into the
Marantz converter, the images fell exactly in between.

Trying to form some opinion of the PDT is harder, which gets back
to the way we've been spending more time worrying about the
converters than the transports which may be used with them. It
also explains why Madrigal fine-tuned the transport section of
the PCD when turning it into a standalone device. There was
simply no way I could get better performance out of either half
of the Proceed pairing when I used them with other devices; all I
could do was change the sound by producing fairly predictable
compromises, eg deliberately recessing the image by moving to the
203.

But this leads me to Lesson 3: while I preferred the PDP overall
to any of the converters to hand, I have to make special mention
of the sheer brilliance of the Meridian 203, especially in terms
of value for money. Even though I couldn't try either of the
Proceed units with optical signal transmission (the Meridian's
preferred mode of operation if Bob Stuart wasn't jerking our
chains in Chicago), I have to say that even when used in coaxial
mode the 203 came so close to the Proceed that guest listeners
had a hard time distinguishing between the two.

Everyone agreed that the Proceed had better bass control, the
Meridian deeper extension. The Proceed had a more detailed top
end, the Meridian a sweeter top. Yet in almost every case the
Proceed was preferred. But this is no indictment of the Meridian.
It simply took the excellent PDP to show to me and others how
remarkable is the #499 Meridian. Why? Because the PDP costs
#1395.

As for the PDT, well, I can only repeat that it depends on your
choice of D/A converter as to which transport to consider. In the
best chicken-and-egg manner, you can reverse it by saying that
the choice of converter depends on the choice of transport. In
all honesty, I must say that the much older Marantz CD 12 more
than held its own against the #1695 PCD, and I much preferred its
ergonomics. But -- for the umpteenth time -- none of the
combinations I could create bettered the Proceeds used in tandem.

But it ain't analogue. Sorry if the Luddite in me must bubble
back to the surface, but I'm not in the habit of lying to my
readers. After all of the CD listening was finished, I played for
various guests an analogue front-end costing #425. The response?
'Who needs CD?' This, of course, is not the way to close a review
of a CD player, apples'n'oranges and all that. So let me really
upset the apple/orange cart with the following. However delicious
the #3090 Madrigal system -- and delicious it truly is -- I must
confess the following: After I finished with the Madrigal, I
switched on -- from ice-cold -- the CAL Tempest SE II. The ugly,
funky old CAL, with a Philips transport you'd swear was made by
Trabant and D/A converters old enough to be written about in 'The
Anachrophile'. And guess what happened?

'Blew away' would be understatement. 'Massacred' would be too
gruesome a description. Suffice to say that even parties with a
vested interest in the other players had to respond with a
'Yes!!!'. The only reason they didn't leave in tears is because
th CAL costs near to five very big ones.

So that makes the Madrigal a solid bargain in high end terms. It
may not be 'the world's best at any price', but I can't think of
any digital front-end pairing ¬at¬ the price which will embarrass
it.