And this carefull listening was done on what system? just so some of us can get an idea
Mike's system with ML3 References. It was with a Level 1 PDX - not Level 2. I know you don't particularly like Mikes Mac's amps but many people think its pretty transparent. Interestingly that day we also tried my little Redgum Sonofagum and it readily showed the differences - which shocked a friend I had with me. I also remember that day we tried a Stello DAC and I2S transport. Suffice to say it was not even remotely in the race.
Thanks
Bill
Hi Bill and all
Since my thoughts have been bandied about here with gay abandon, which Mario very kindly advised me I should have a read of, I figure I may as well clarify and add a few comments/observations.
The viewpoint I voiced that Bill alludes to here was from a 60-odd second listen when I was walking in to pick up//drop off/ something to Mike and Bill was in the listening chair as I walked in and asked me what I thought of the sound reproduction. It took me a 30 second ish period to form the view that I did not like what I heard. It sounded a little brittle and glary without the organic flow that is essential FOR ME to enjoy music.
He asked if I thought it was the cd player or the digital and I said I was pretty certain it was a digital item, which one I was not sure of ie Audiophileo vs JKeny as I had not done a back-to-back of the two.
He asked why and I responded that TO ME it sounded somewhat mechanical and brittle and that was the basis for my comment because I had never heard any of the transports sounding this way on Mikes system.
Bill commented back to me that he did not hear it which was when I responded, as he pointed out in an earlier post, that I am rather sensitive to that nature of brittleness or hardness and it really grates on me.
NOW, FOR SOME CONTEXT!!!
The speakers that were in the system were Brand New ML1 reference and as Mario will support me in, I cannot listen to them brand new in my rig. They suck! Actually, 'they suck' is pretty harsh and unfair. They sound great from the get-go. Sadly, from new they do not yet exhibit the brilliance that they are capable of. But put 450-500 hours on them and they SING GORGEOUSLY!!!
Add on top of that that the PDX was a brand new unit and we have a recipe for somewhat short of brilliance.
I have very little to no interest in listening to any audio item that does not have in the ballpark of 500 hours on it. IT IS NOT A FAIR JUDGEMENT.
So my view is that if you are auditioning anything you care about, make sure it has plenty of running time on it or you may just be missing out on a pearl because of lack of burn-in time.
Anybody that does not agree with burn-in, keep it to yourself. I am not interested in your view that it does not exist. I hear it, most if not all of the folks whose opinions I respect hear it ---- nuff said.
So the nuts and bolts is that what I heard is not in any way representative of what the JK does. Have I heard it apart from that experience? Yes I have and it does not float my boat. I may change that viewpoint in the future, I may not. Once I have heard one on my rig then I may have an opinion to share. Up until that point in time I have no solid opinion to share.
Some very preliminary observations: (ref to Live In Paris) The JK sounds much cleaner and less distorted than the stock wadia, the piano is more revealed and the background detail is more apparent. But my comment about a little mechanical still stands.
So my question then becomes: does the original recording contain some of the distortion that the JK is then removing or does the original recording have none of this distortion being talked about and the Wadia is then adding it. I don't know. Anybody got Diana Live in Paris on Vinyl Master Pressing?
That I would like to compare to find out for myself.
In terms of comparing the combination to a killer, that I feel is very dangerous turf without a back-to-back comparo on a good rig.
Millsy: Thanks for the vote of confidence --- Back at ya buddy
Bill, one of the golden eared ones I feel you refer to also commented quite some back that a particular component when added to a digital system improved dimension, resolution and 'realness' by a very significant margin over direct from the transport. I was the pariah and begged to disagree and felt that it added glare and hardness and lost all of the dimensional resolution and timbral balance/texture. I demonstrated this to quite anumber of folks on my rig and the all looked at me with stunned amazement at the change with ahd without (much better without). Interesting that that component got sidelined 6-12 months later as being detrimental. No more detail, that is all I am prepared to share.
Just wanting to clarify the record you fellow psychotic nutjobs that all ought to get a life and leave the pursuit of audio Nirvana to those already in appropriate Asylums.
Rawl