This review page is supported in part by the sponsor whose ad is displayed above
Synchronicity. Wrote reader Marin Fulgosi: "Hi Srajan, this is amazing. Two days ago I received the Leonardo A9.3 only to see that you are currently reviewing the very same player. At the moment, I am comparing it to my Consonance CD2.2 (slightly modded with Sprague VitaminQ output capacitors & a new software chip). My findings are not very good for the Leonardo I am afraid. The CD2.2 has a much more life-like involving sound, especially when listening to brilliant live jazz recordings like the ones by Opus3 Records (Test CD3). Despite its excellent resolution, the Leonardo fails where it matters the most to me - with the being there sensation. Let me know how are you getting on with it. Could I be doing something wrong? I am seriously considering selling it."


After a brief repartée about beauty, brains and soul -- nothing is as important as soul -- Marin added this: "I have to say it is quite easy to get emotionally attached to Leonardo because of its looks but even my wife -- when I played one of her favourite David Sylvian songs "Midnight Sun" -- preferred the CD2.2. And this was repeated and in this case crucial - in a blind test. She was very disappointed that her choice was the wooden grill. I've attached two photos of my temporary setup, with two Chinese warriors side by side. Ah, looks can so easily fool you."


Indeed. I received this e-mail before having put any serious personal time on the Leonardo. The preceding page had been written fully aware that bitching looks -- and make no mistake, the Leonardo looks way bitchin' -- don't guarantee equivalent soul. I jokingly replied to Marin that it was impossible for him to be doing "anything wrong" that might make the Leonardo player sound bad. He and his wife heard what they heard despite her clear preference for Leonardo's cosmetics. If I heard the opposite -- I still had the Reference 2.2 Linear player to conduct the very same comparison -- I'd have to resign. Let Marin take over running 6moons.



As fortunes would have it, reader Kevin Boxma from Canada then bailed me out: "Hello Srajan, I have one of the Original CD players myself (the CD-2008 mk2 - the all aluminum model with the adjustable spiked feet), and was wondering how you liked the Leonardo so far? I have had my 2008 mk2 for about 3 months in a second system (probably less than 100 hours on it), and it is good enough that it might allow me to replace the main system player if it gets any better sounding - the timing this player has is fantastic! The slow/fast roll-off filters allow me to suit the playback to the CD - I love that degree of flexibility. It is the best built CD Player I have ever had the pleasure of owning, and I'm smitten with the eye candy appeal of this player. Sorry for the long-winded rave, but I felt I just had to share my experiences with you about this product after seeing the preliminary posting in your mag..."


Timing vs. soul? Was that the battle the Leonardo would have me fight between the two halves of my rusty brain? Actually, with my professed devotion for the Zanden separates and -- to a somewhat lesser extent but completely out of proportion to price -- the Opera Audio Reference 2.2 Linear, I don't see any conflict between those qualities. In point of fact, I consider timing an essential prerequisite and ingredient of soul. After all, the difference between a mediocre and supremely musical performer is timing. Even a wrong note played with exquisite timing is art whereas right notes at perfect pitch played back by a programmed synthesizer are designer puke. The filterless Linear player -- the "wooden grill" of Marin's wife -- excels in the timing dimension. It'
s precisely the overriding quality that gives it the Zanden-like soul, just not quite its resolution or ultimate refinement. But again, refinement without timing is boring. I'd rather err on the side of rawness if it conveys the juice. No Martha Stewart. If the Leonardo were to lack soul despite its illustrious name sake, would I be able to identify exactly what it lacked to convey that impression?


Long story short, I did find myself siding with Marin and his wife (and two other readers who've since checked in to inquire about my progress and share their own feelings. One's a fellow reviewer who had the same player under evaluation). In audio, it's always about context. Without comparisons, there can be enjoyment. Ignorance of the better is bliss. Once you've heard the better and have to revert to the lesser... well, now bliss turns to torture. If you're the ambitious type who can't let go. Needless to say, the Leonardo isn't torture. By a long stretch. It's a highly resolved machine without doubt. Alas, it does err on the mechanical, clinical, uninvolving flat side of the fence. Calling this a lack of soul is rather perceptive. But that doesn't help the Leonardo's designer to improve what cosmetically already is a statement piece at the very highest level. For that, you want to love the Leonardo. Own multiple units. Hell, even if one weren't hooked up but just sat on a credenza, it'd be a conversation piece par excellence. Sonically, however, the more affordable Opera Audio Reference 2.2 Linear kills it.


How? For one, the 2.2 does PRat like a Naim. It's got bounce and energy and drive. The Leonardo sounds methodical and a bit listless by comparison. Clean. Too clean. Tonally -- it's convenient to invoke the Opera's small triode and perhaps it's the reason, perhaps not -- the Linear is more fleshed out, with more color, more presence, more reach-out-and-tango factor. The Leonardo is mechanical and ... well, more digital in the way that analog lovers have always condemned digital. For lacking flow. For sounding spatially somewhat constricted. For sounding less dimensional. For being a bit sterile. These are aspects anyone with exposure to better players will readily hear. Quantifying and cataloguing what makes it so; or even hoping for measurements that would correlate those critical impressions ... that's where so-called subjective reviewers get ridiculed. Because they can't. Is it the op-amps used? The I/V conversion implementation? The reconstruction filter? Specific parts in the power supply? Hell if I know.


Obviously, you expect more expensive players to trounce cheaper ones or at the very least assert their superiority in a gentle if pertinent fashion. What disappointed with the Leonardo was that it didn't take my ne-plus-ultra Zanden separates to best it. Nor the $7,200 Esoteric X-03 one-box machine. An $1,850 competitor from its own country handily did. Has the team at Original not performed a bit of due but easy diligence? Apparently not. I suggest they acquire an Opera Audio Droplet and Linear on the spot. Add a Chinese-issue $3,000 Cary player into the mix. Then educate themselves to do what engineers do. Figure out why one circuit sounds better than another even if theirs is executed by the book and measures perfectly. The Leonardo may well measure perfectly. But it doesn't measure up. Yet. If, in the final analysis, the Opera's use of valves constituted their unfair advantage; or if it's their reliance on the Kusunoki recipe.. well, it would behoove Original to respond accordingly.


For now, I cannot recommend this player to anyone who's heard better. By itself, that of course is a completely ludicrous statement. What makes it relevant? It could well include listeners who presently own machines that are rather less expensive than the Original. That's the crux of the matter. Admittedly, my exposure in that sector is limited. I must also add that the Opera player is unusually accomplished. It's thus perhaps not the best example for a realistic standard of what to expect at $2,000. It's simply awfully good. And true, the Leonardo does stomp it with cosmetic slickness and refined sex appeal. But audiophiles who listen with their ears and not eyes will -- and should -- want more.


I do think that US importer Mr. Ping of AAA Audio got a bit carried away with his stated assessment. Like his Chinese vendors, he must perform due diligence. He must know what he competes against. Especially other Chinese offerings. All of those enjoy the same unfair pricing advantages against US-made products as does Original. That alone is no longer good enough. The floodgates of Chinese imports to the States have burst wide open. Expectations on what a given price point should accomplish have been reset. If Original's engineers can merely close the gap that presently separates them from Opera Audio (here just used as an example since that's the comparison I had on hand), they'd already win. Their aesthetics and finish at least with their Leonardo effort are unquestionably superior. If Original could provide superior looks and superior sonics? Now we'd be talking the stuff of dreams. That's where for now, Original belongs a bit - in dream land. The Leonardo isn't quite ready for prime time yet when judged by in-the-know 'philes who perform the kind of due diligence savvy shoppers and enthusiast hobbyists do as a matter of religion. I wanted to love this player. Very much so. But like Marin's wife, the wooden grill won. Hands down. Did the Linear not cost $1,200 less, this review would have concluded differently. Alas, that's not trifling change. For now, anyone who listens to the Opera machine will agree that the Original needs more fire under the hood to make it a fully viable choice from a completely persuasive performance perspective. It needs more soul. Even balanced out doesn't accomplish that at present. How to inject soul? That's exactly why I'm not an engineer but a writer. I just talk about it. The 'neers gotta do. They've got by far the harder job. Enough said. If similar comments to mine were to compel Original to revisit this player's circuitry, I'd love to revisit reviewing it. This Leonardo could be one hammer of a player if the sonics got an injection of unmeasurable but audible "intangibles"...
Original responds:

Dear Mr. Srajan Ebaen,
Thank you very much for reviewing our Leonardo CD-A9.3 CD player. We are very embarrassed with the findings of the review. We have withdrawn pending reviews to re-examine our design process and circuitry. We promise you the opportunity to revisit the soon-to-be-revised Leonardo CD-A9.3 while not touching the cosmetics you enjoyed so much.

Linda Lin
Sales Manager,
Original Electronics Ltd
Manufacturer's website
US importer's website