chumley
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Posts
- 313
- Likes
- 10
xtreme4099
" notice i said with discrete buffer ... not the old buf634 buffered one"
Ramrod152001
"I compared the Pocket Reference (discrete buffers) with the XP-7 w/797 op amps. Let me just say I sold the XP-7 the next day, lol I hear it sounds similar to the SR-71"
I prefer the SR-71's sound to the XP-7, and the much closer sonic match, IMO, is the SR-71 with the RS HR-2; my sources range, with the SR-71, from a 4G iPod's Line out to a Meridian G08... I did compare the LPR, w/ discrete buffer, to the SR-71 and the new GL w/ PS upgrade, using several of my favorite 'phones and an identical range of sources. The new GL+PS and the SR-71 won handily.
Ramrod152001
"... The XP-7 is a good amp overall, but maybe it just didnt suit my system... "
I would also posit that your particular computer source might not be the best match w/the XP-7 anyway, that said, I find the SR-71's sound signature and sonic capabilities preferential, if not superior to the XP-7, at least the 'stock' XP-7... I think if you A/B'd the DB'd LPR and the SR-71, you'd find the results quite different...
NightWoundsTime
"R-71>Gilmore Lite, quite easily. The reason Ray can compete with higher end amps is because he did extensive work making sure the tonal balance on the SR-71 was impeccable. This is why people say it's "transparent". The Lite sounds compressed, with harsh upper mids and weak bass. Go for the SR-71 and never look back.
NWT, I'm puzzled... I don't know under what circumstances you listened to the GL, but your experience isn't at all typical... the new GL, plus upgraded PS gives an open, spacious, and every bit as capable sound as the SR-71, IMO; they are just different sound signatures, with the SR-71 sounding, at least to me, a bit 'warmer' and fluid, but without ANY loss of detail or extension at any point in the entire spectrum...
" notice i said with discrete buffer ... not the old buf634 buffered one"
Ramrod152001
"I compared the Pocket Reference (discrete buffers) with the XP-7 w/797 op amps. Let me just say I sold the XP-7 the next day, lol I hear it sounds similar to the SR-71"
I prefer the SR-71's sound to the XP-7, and the much closer sonic match, IMO, is the SR-71 with the RS HR-2; my sources range, with the SR-71, from a 4G iPod's Line out to a Meridian G08... I did compare the LPR, w/ discrete buffer, to the SR-71 and the new GL w/ PS upgrade, using several of my favorite 'phones and an identical range of sources. The new GL+PS and the SR-71 won handily.
Ramrod152001
"... The XP-7 is a good amp overall, but maybe it just didnt suit my system... "
I would also posit that your particular computer source might not be the best match w/the XP-7 anyway, that said, I find the SR-71's sound signature and sonic capabilities preferential, if not superior to the XP-7, at least the 'stock' XP-7... I think if you A/B'd the DB'd LPR and the SR-71, you'd find the results quite different...
NightWoundsTime
"R-71>Gilmore Lite, quite easily. The reason Ray can compete with higher end amps is because he did extensive work making sure the tonal balance on the SR-71 was impeccable. This is why people say it's "transparent". The Lite sounds compressed, with harsh upper mids and weak bass. Go for the SR-71 and never look back.
NWT, I'm puzzled... I don't know under what circumstances you listened to the GL, but your experience isn't at all typical... the new GL, plus upgraded PS gives an open, spacious, and every bit as capable sound as the SR-71, IMO; they are just different sound signatures, with the SR-71 sounding, at least to me, a bit 'warmer' and fluid, but without ANY loss of detail or extension at any point in the entire spectrum...