guidocorona
Responses from guidocorona
| Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions GREGM, The device under discussion is the Ref 3 (Mark 1). It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a Ref 3 Mark 4. But if you are thinking about a Ref 4 instead, you may want to come back in approximately 4 years to find out how it will sound. | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Thanks Lazarus! My last posting yesterday was more reflective of how my day was developing than anything else. Your method of choosing equipment would be the ideal one, and in the greatest majority of circumstances the most enjoyable one. I would ... | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Lazarus28, Thank you for providing us with your certainties on the best way to enjoy this hobby. If I could share them, and perhaps extend them to the rest of my existance, my life would in fact be a lot simpler.Alas no, I have to contend with unc... | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Lazarus28, deciding to prefer a player over another after a brief afternoon shootout is in fact somewhat less remarkable than deciding to purchase the same after an audition in a store. In the store it is only you and the consultant. In the shooto... | |
| Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions Soundoc, please elaborate on your Ref 3 experience! | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? TGUN5, you may be right. I have reread the paragraph in question in the soundstage review of X-01. Now I am totally confused. I suspect the filter discussion was lifted almost bodily from the Esoteric site, as it sounds somewhat stilted. I will ca... | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? TGUN5, according to the X-01 review published in July 2004 on Soundstage, the X-01 has maintained the RDOT filter and has dropped the apparently older FIR technology. See:http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/esoteric_x01.htm | |
| Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions Rom, I detected the slight 'sheen' when auditioning the Ref 2Mk. 2 next to a Boulder 1012 preamp, which seemed at the time to have a slightly warmer more musical sound, still maintaining top/bottom extension. The preamps were driving a Rowland 3.0... | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? My apologies Doc Luke. Offense not intended. Happy modifying. | |
| Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions Thank you so much Rom, the Ref 3 sounds more and more attractive. One of the probs I heard with the Ref 2 Mk. 2 was a trace of an almost glassy sheen on the instruments, almost a touch of glare. Is that gone as well? | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Doc Luke, planning to modify a modified player? You might as well admit it. You are suffering from a pernicious case of DAC, in its most advanced form. Not even Schmalttzenstein & Pugnetti have yet described as rare and devastating a case as y... | |
| Audio Research Ref 3 Opinions Rom, the observation of the Ref 2 sounding almost slightly phase-shifted and bloomy is right on. I am delighted that the minor shortcoming has been addressed in the Ref 3. How many hours have you racked up on the Ref 3 break-in this far? Are you u... | |
| Whats the word on Jeff Rowland pre-amps? Raquel, what is your opinion instead about the current JRDG top-of-the-line amps: 302 stereo and 301 monos?I currently own a pair of Rowland 7M monos and thinking about upgrading. I did hear the 201 pair. They sounded graceful but lacked depth and... | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Doc Luke, how many hours of break-in time have you logged on your APL up to now?Happy tweaking!! Guido | |
| Esoteric DV-50: Any cdp's Significantly better? Folks, please concentrate on the topic at hand and avoid metadiscussions on matters that are potentially unproductive and sociological controversial, such as the nature, chemical content, and social function of beverages. Thank you for your unders... |