blawhh
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2009
- Posts
- 292
- Likes
- 11
how do you open it? rename the file??
Originally Posted by bakhtiar /img/forum/go_quote.gif FYI, the manual is in Microsofof Word format TQ. |
Originally Posted by blawhh /img/forum/go_quote.gif how do you open it? rename the file?? |
Originally Posted by ulsanman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do not put lots of files into a single folder, it really doesn't like that at all, lots of folders is no problem, lots of files is, if they're flac!! |
Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chris, you had the Kenwood for a while. Can you make any comparisons between that and the amp3 from memory? I liked the Kenny, but I did not like the small soundstage! And although it was incredibly detailed, I found the detail got very tiring at louder volumes due to the small soundstage. What are your impressions re: Kenny/amp3 at this stage of burn in? Thanks. |
Originally Posted by cn11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif However I don’t really hear much, if any, evolution in the sound sig. It still sounds cold and rather clinical to me. Detail remains great of course, about the equal of the Sony X. |
Originally Posted by cn11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course as in so many cases it comes down to preference, and this player may suit bright detail freaks (such as Ety lovers, as you note). But to my ears at this point, the X just seems more 'right'. If anything, the amp3 is showing more coloration toward the cold side. I don't think I've personally called the X 'warm', I've said it's more mellow and natural. To me that's a different thing than 'warm'. Also as I noted (and despite my initial review's premature comment about soundstage) with the X the stage is definitely wider on well recorded material, and the bass is much more extended. To me, these things constitute shortcomings with the amp3. But again, burn in will hopefully help rectify these issues. |