High resolution vs Vinyl

[cheekyboy]

On that I will broadly agree, except to add that the way we judge sound quality in this context is subjective, and will therefore vary from person to person. On that basis, I generally prefer digital to vinyl in my system.

Exactly Mike and you've stated your preference many times here and you are right, it is subjective, totally and I would expect it to vary greatly from person to person too. Look, if GFuNK and Co were claiming vinyl was better because it measured more accurately, I'd still question that logic too given the variables in this hobby of ours, even though my experience would agree with them regarding sound quality.

Cheers,

Keith

Edited February 8, 2012 by cheekyboy

[Drizt]

Yes you're right, but I guess what I don't understand is the group simply preferring digital to vinyl purely on the belief that the digital is more accurate. eg the cheap CDP or iPhone over any record player rubbish etc.....which was arrived at purely because that person perceives that something more accurate will sound better........I've got news for him! I guess I'm just old fashioned and prefer to judge my music by the sound quality and not necessarily stick with a format simply because it measures more accurately.

Cheers,

Keith

I'm with you, I'm all about the end result that is most sonically satisfying for me. I don't really care how inaccurate it is if I personally prefer it.

[davewantsmoore]

I am only suggesting this as a hypothetical. But I wonder, if we all put aside our preconceptions, and sat down and listened on a good quality system to the digital system of choice of the digital proponents, and a vinyl system of choice of a vinyl proponent, whether there were would be broad agreement about their qualities?

Yes, I think there would. There are broad/obvious differences. Better or worse will always be subjective of course, and agreement on that will be a lottery.

I think this is subtly similar to the single-driver vs multiway question... or NFB vs No NFB

On the surface, it would seem that each of these has an obvious winner ... clearly, single driver speakers, vinyl, and 2% distortion amps ... are inferior technology ... measurements of easily digestible concepts abound.

... but after listening to many examples of all those, people say that aside from the sometimes obvious faults, that these 'inferior technologies' do something much more right and natural sounding, more 3D. I've certainly heard it.

I suspect that many of the answers are in timing rather than the amplitude of signals, and that the way hearing works, see reference from doobius, is incredibly important in this ... and it's not so much that vinyl or single driver systems, do right ... as it is that many examples of modern audio (digital !?) do something(s) wrong that we don't yet understand as a broad concept.

[Steve M]

Hi All,

About time I started posting again …so here goes.

These are just my subjective opinions and are pointed at no one nor does it reflect on anyone's particular choice of equipment, please take it all with a grain of salt.

I'll lay my cards on the table and say definitively that vinyl is superior to digital (sonically). And, said with the caveat that this is a position I have taken 'at this point’ in my audio journey. I always keep an open mind and who's to know what I will say at a later stage as my CD transport and dacs are improved with I2S and other measures or as I delve more into computer audio and hi-rez , which I think probably has the greatest potential to get the equipment out of the way of the music.

Firstly I have been spending up again lately, having bought a top loading Sony SCD-777 ES to play SACDs; two Audiocentric Scott Thomson Phillips TDA1541 valve DACs; Flemo's modded Marantz CD50 transport with a Mario/kj12 clock with DC battery power supply; two Technics SP10 Mk II tts; SME V tonearm and Benz Glider MC cartridge. So you see, I have a foot in each camp (both digital and analogue) and therefore, have no barrow to push.

The Sony SCD-777ES weighs 28kg and is a beautifully built machine that sounds very competent with CDs and SACD. After all, Sony invented SACD and this is their flagship model so it is probably about as good as SACD replay gets other than some of those uber expensive dCS or Accuphase machines. Its good on Redbook CDs too, very clear and precise, but maybe slightly behind SACD for dimensionality and smoothness and behind the TDA1541 dac for musical expression. The Sony has a reputation for having a digital coolness, but I find this is no biggie when the rest of your system is top notch and when it is matched with good tube amps and the right cables.

You might be wondering why I bought two Scott Thomson DACs? The reason is that they are quite rare and I took the opportunity, but also I wanted to keep one original and modify the other one Killerdac-style, to see what the differences are. The one I kept original came from Malcolm (56Oval) and it already has some improvements to it with Mundorf Silver Oil caps, silver coated copper internal wiring and with better caps and resistors around the DAC chip. I gave the other dac to Zenelectro (Terry Demol in Sydney) for modifications and upgrades. Terry has added valve rectification and some wiring tricks including the Ampohm paper-in-oil capacitors (rated a close second to Duelunds in the Humble Home Hi-Fi cap test) and added Audio Note tantalum resistors etc. Terry has also measured the whole thing to ensure everything is working within proper parameters. The end result with the mods and upgrades is excellent! and I can highly recommend Terry's work. He is a very knowledgeable electronics tech/engineer (no hocus-pocus, just good engineering practice, and at the same time he respects final tuning by ear). It helps too that Terry is a good bloke and a perfect gentleman to deal with.

As to the sound of these Phillips TDA1541 DACs, I really like them. I mean, half of the very nice sound of the Scott Thomson version is probably coming from the valve output stage which is hugely constructed and occupies half the chassis, so you cannot ignore its effect on the whole dac circuit. I think that a good valve output stage in a dac as opposed to just using op-amps, brings to the party all those positive things we like about valves, that is, an openness to the sound, a greater sense of room ambience and decay to notes and a midrange that is quite special and more developed/holistic. I don't think that these tube DACs are particularly euphonic either, to me they sound clear and precise and above all musical. Having had AudioGD and other DACs in my house recently which all sound a bit same-ish, the TDA1541 is a breath of fresh air and sounds more fleshed out and engaging (less electronic) overall. Good sound is a hard thing to describe, but what I find with this TDA1541 dac is that you stop analysing the sound and just start listening to the music. There is more of a ‘belief’ in the music being played - not a focus on the electronics producing it. In my experience so far, vinyl replay does all of these things in spades and to a greater degree.

*Now, as to why I think that vinyl sounds superior?? Well, to my ears and on my current system I am definitely hearing more information (inner detail) with vinyl. I hear the smallest nuances and the minutest ambient clues of the venue and the 'expression' of the players and their instruments with vinyl - things that I don't quite hear with digital or that I have to really strain and concentrate hard to notice. A lot of this is in the dimensional aspects of the music, one is like fireworks going off in a three dimensional spherical ball and the other is flatter and less so. I wonder how you measure this affect, dimensionality that is, as it is definitely a large part of the atmosphere at a live performance? To be honest, with a good digital replay system and with excellent recordings on CD/SACD the comparison is quite close to vinyl and it is difficult to differentiate things sometimes. However, I do feel in the end that there is something subtractive about the digital process. It is leaving out a layer of low level information that I personally value highly, things that suspend belief and make me think that I am listening to real music and not something produced by electronics and boxes. This is nth-degree stuff I am talking about, by the way.

When I listen to my CDs and SACDs on their own (no vinyl) and sometimes this will happen for a few weeks at a time, I am very happy with the sound of digital and the music is as enjoyable as ever. It is only when I switch to vinyl that I realize that something is missing with digital replay. It just doesn’t express the music as well and coalesce into a whole picture – to me there is some ultra low level detail missing with digital.

It has been suggested that people who like vinyl, like the sound of harmonic distortion. A bit like what the solid-staters say about tube lovers. I think this is completely wrong and generalizing that people who like vinyl - cannot differentiate what is accurate or not accurate. To me, well executed vinyl is more accurate than digital. It (vinyl) holds together bits of information at the lowest levels of retrieval, things that are on the master tape that CD, SACD or possibly even hi-rez is not able to capture (at this stage). This is what I mean when I say that digital is more ‘subtractive’ than vinyl or analogue.

I know people will have differing opinions in this debate and will have different tastes and system objectives, but I personally find that as my digital system improves (and it has a lot lately), it starts to attain the best attributes of and sounds more like my vinyl system ...it is never the other way around, for me at least.

Just to add some balance to the above perspective, I would say that my listening habits these days are 50% Squeezebox SB3 with an outboard DAC streaming digital radio at 190kbps (for the plethora of worldwide music on offer); 30% on CD&SACD and about 20% of it on vinyl.

Cheers,

Steve M.

Some nice pics to follow ...

Edited February 10, 2012 by Steve M

[Dr X]

*Now, as to why I think that vinyl sounds superior?? Well, to my ears and on my current system I am definitely hearing more information (inner detail) with vinyl. I hear the smallest nuances and the minutest ambient clues of the venue and the 'expression' of the players and their instruments with vinyl - things that I don't quite hear with digital or that I have to really strain and concentrate hard to notice.

Do you hear this with every vinyl disc or only the ones that have NOT been digitised at some point?

Can you name off hand which of your vinyl discs have been digitised and which ones have not?

[Bazaarwallah]

..............................

Edited February 10, 2012 by Bazaarwallah

[Steve M]

That's a good point Doc and I am not suggesting that digital is totally flawed as it is everywhere in our recording and playback chain. Much of that ultra low level detail that I am talking about with vinyl has been captured on digital recording equipment or format, so I guess by extension digital cannot be flawed per-se.

The original OP's experience is about what we are hearing through our systems at home and what I am saying is, that on my system and with my ears vinyl records seem to be hanging onto more of that low level information. Maybe the trick is for digital into the future (or maybe its already here with CA and hi-rez), is to fully unlock the potential of digital playback in the home, which at the moment for me and many others is exceeded by vinyl playback.

Steve.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Steve M

[Guest Muon]

Those pics!

Naked gear!...........*Drools*

Love that cart.

[wolster]

Excellent post, Steve. My gear is not in your league but not shabby and your experience with the detail in vinyl mirrors my own. I just find that when sitting down and listening for pleasure, invariably I will reach for an LP.

[Orpheus]

Steve's post very much reflects my approach and experience, and very much reflects what I'll call the "subjectivists" in this thread, or at least some of us.

At least for myself, like Steve, I am not so much interested in a discussion about what is theoretically better (at least I have the impression he is not approaching it in that way).

Indeed, I have conceded that digital is by far the more elegant solution, involving no physical wear from the reading of the disc, and involving, in theory, the possibility of perfect retrieval of whatever data is placed on the disc.

It is just that I consider my subjective experience something more than just "casual listening", I consider that it is not based upon preconceptions or power of suggestion or anything like that (after all, until I actually heard a turntable set-up that sounded "better" than my digital set-up my preference was for digital; I had problems with frequency range, pitch stability, and distortion which made the equation simple, at that stage), but on precisely what Steve is talking about.

Whatever is theoretically possible with digital playback, it doesn't entirely seem to be happening; it definitely my experience that records seem to do, on the whole, a better job with micro-detail, harmonics (related to micro-detail; these are the over-tones of the notes, and would be a degree of magnitude quieter than the main tone), soundstage, and rate of decay (these are all, perhaps aspects of the same thing).

A number of ideas have been posited for this. I still tend to think that the fact that the cartridge actually is an acoustic instrument of a kind contributes to the perception. Of course, it needs to be a very good cartridge, well set up, and this is another drawback of vinyl. A lot of well-rated cartridges sound rotten to me.

But my approach in audio has been consistently, at all points, to rely on my ears, rather than specs, topology, theory of playback mechanism, supposed sound of certain components, etc, etc, because invariably, any preconceptions I have ever had have been shattered upon listening.

I tell sales people to tell me nothing about the equipment until I have heard it, lest it distract me. In fact, it makes no difference. It takes very little time to work out whether a piece of equipment is a possibility or not.

I believe this is a legitimate way of putting together a system. I certainly turn over a lot less equipment doing it this way than I would if I relied on what I read to make purchasing decisions.

Perhaps slightly off-topic. But I think that it is necessary to understand the basic perspective of the far from casual home listener .

[Drizt]

Do you hear this with every vinyl disc or only the ones that have NOT been digitised at some point?

Can you name off hand which of your vinyl discs have been digitised and which ones have not?

This is the crux of the matter and it explains a lot IMHO.

People that like vinyl to begin with seem to find that vinyl that comes from a digital master still sounds better than that digital file itself. This to me can only lead to one logical explanation.... that vinyl 'adds' something that vinyl guys like. I can't see how people could say it is the opposite (digital subtracts) as the vinyl has also gone through a DAC stage.

[Arg]

Hi Steve M., thanks for the interesting post. I have a small question.

The valve part of your DAC, even though it is in the same chassis, seems quite discrete from the 1541 board and psu in every way except same box. Would you say it is electrically equivalent to having a valve buffer stage? Or is it more complicated than that?

cheers

[Orpheus]

It might be a bit more complex than that, Aaron. I have a recording of Paper Airplane on vinyl and CD. Both are excellent, and the recording was made digitally. I don't know, in the end, that I do prefer one over the other in that case. I'm sure that the aim was to make them sound as similar as possible, which is probably not as simple as it sounds.

There are other examples of digital recordings which don't sound much good as records or as CDs, and other examples of digital recordings which don't sound good as CDs but sound good as records. One explanation is that the mastering may be quite different, as may be the levels of compression, etc, etc. Certainly, there are plenty examples of records from the 60s, 70s, and 80s which have been converted from master tapes to digital which sound rotten!

But leaving all that aside, I think that Steve might have touched on the fact that it may be as much about playback as it is about recording. The problem (to the extent there is one) may not even be in the digital domain, but in the amplification stage to line level.

I am contemplating this at the moment, in determining whether this is a method to improve my digital sound. I think I touched on it a few pages ago.

BTW, as I have said before, I certainly don't believe that everything about vinyl sounds better than digital, not at all. There are many variables.

[Dr X]

This is the crux of the matter and it explains a lot IMHO.

People that like vinyl to begin with seem to find that vinyl that comes from a digital master still sounds better than that digital file itself. This to me can only lead to one logical explanation.... that vinyl 'adds' something that vinyl guys like. I can't see how people could say it is the opposite (digital subtracts) as the vinyl has also gone through a DAC stage.

Perhaps also Drizt the devil is in the detail and vinyl removes some of that fine detail (roughness) that some listeners don't like hearing through their given system.

[Arg]

Yes Dr X and Drizt, not to mention the fact these opinions are all born of casual listening, and about as much use as asking your dog for an opinion on the sound of a Stradivarius. Ahrooooooooooooooh!

[Orpheus]

Perhaps also Drizt the devil is in the detail and vinyl removes some of that fine detail (roughness) that some listeners don't like hearing through their given system.

I really don't think that is it, Dr X. What I like about well set-up turntable is fine detail, micro-detail, accurate reproduction of the harmonics (for anyone who wants a reasonable explanation of this, start here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic) that's what it's got in spades. I've tried to describe the listening experience, as has Steve.

The harshness in some digital reproduction comes from the use, I suspect, of harsh amplification to line level, not necessarily in the the digital processing. One of the most engaging CD players I heard went by the unfortunate name of the "Pathos Endorphin", a valve stage CD unit which looked most unappealing to me, like a space ship (it was very Italian).

It got the fundamentals of reproduction exactly right; timbre, body, warmth. True, it wasn't the last word in resolution, being slightly on the dark side, but it was pretty good with equipment with a high level of resolution.

[Orpheus]

Yes Dr X and Drizt, not to mention the fact these opinions are all born of casual listening, and about as much use as asking your dog for an opinion on the sound of a Stradivarius. Ahrooooooooooooooh!

Well at least you stick to your guns, Arg . I would love to sit down and listen to music with you, perhaps then you would understand that what I am interested in is music, and on that subject, I know what I'm talking about.

[Orpheus]

I'm currently listening to Abbey Road, an Australian pressing in crappy condition, cleaned up as well as the Loricraft can (which is pretty well, but it can't remove the scuffing and scratches).

I have both of the recent boxed sets of the Beatles, mono and stereo. The rather rough, raw nature of this album is abundantly evident on the CD player and the turntable (the record is stereo), but the record on the turntable wins hands down as something to enjoy, as it is much more musical, by which I mean the voices have more body and tone, the instruments are better laid out, the piano sounds more like a piano, etc, etc.

Casual work listening; I love it!

[Steve M]

Whatever is theoretically possible with digital playback, it doesn't entirely seem to be happening; it definitely my experience that records seem to do, on the whole, a better job with micro-detail, harmonics (related to micro-detail; these are the over-tones of the notes, and would be a degree of magnitude quieter than the main tone), soundstage, and rate of decay (these are all, perhaps aspects of the same thing)

Orpheus: this expresses nicely what I am on about with the 'nth degree' extra layer of detail found in some records. And, its not there just in instrumental over tones, it is even heard in the way records reproduce the human voice, which has better pitch, expression and emotion. I do think all of this is there with digital systems, just not quite there yet particularly in home playback systems or ones that I have experienced so far.

Steve.

[proftournesol]

Yes Dr X and Drizt, not to mention the fact these opinions are all born of casual listening, and about as much use as asking your dog for an opinion on the sound of a Stradivarius. Ahrooooooooooooooh!

Arg, exactly what are you suggesting as an alternative to 'casual listening?' I'm asking because isn't that exactly what we all but our music and stereo systems for?

[Jake]

I'm currently listening to Abbey Road, an Australian pressing in crappy condition, cleaned up as well as the Loricraft can (which is pretty well, but it can't remove the scuffing and scratches).

I have both of the recent boxed sets of the Beatles, mono and stereo. The rather rough, raw nature of this album is abundantly evident on the CD player and the turntable (the record is stereo), but the record on the turntable wins hands down as something to enjoy, as it is much more musical, by which I mean the voices have more body and tone, the instruments are better laid out, the piano sounds more like a piano, etc, etc.

Casual work listening; I love it!

You only think you love it Orph. Lucky you can't see the measurements!

[Orpheus]

You only think you love it Orph. Lucky you can't see the measurements!

Don't worry, on vinyl or CD, I can tell that with this album, I wouldn't like the measurements much!

[Steve M]

Hi Steve M., thanks for the interesting post. I have a small question.

The valve part of your DAC, even though it is in the same chassis, seems quite discrete from the 1541 board and psu in every way except same box. Would you say it is electrically equivalent to having a valve buffer stage? Or is it more complicated than that?

cheers

Hello Arg,

In answer to your question about the Scott Thomson TDA1541 DAC the tube section has been described to me as a valve output stage. However, I could be wrong about this and maybe Zenelectro or other technical types can explain? I have been told that this type of TDA1541 circuit has been around for 20+ yrs and developed from designs experimented on and discussed originally on the Audiocircuit and then DIYAudio.com, by the likes of Pedja Rogic etc and Thorsten Loesch (who went on to produce the expensive AMR CD players?).

Hopefully others will chime in to clarify or correct this ...

Regards,

Steve.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Steve M

[Once was an audiophile]

This is the crux of the matter and it explains a lot IMHO.

People that like vinyl to begin with seem to find that vinyl that comes from a digital master still sounds better than that digital file itself. This to me can only lead to one logical explanation.... that vinyl 'adds' something that vinyl guys like. I can't see how people could say it is the opposite (digital subtracts) as the vinyl has also gone through a DAC stage.

Just maybe the digital output stage eg: cd player/dac takes away from the original performance recorded food for thought

[Once was an audiophile]

Hi All,

About time I started posting again …so here goes.

These are just my subjective opinions and are pointed at no one nor does it reflect on anyone's particular choice of equipment, please take it all with a grain of salt.

I'll lay my cards on the table and say definitively that vinyl is superior to digital (sonically). And, said with the caveat that this is a position I have taken 'at this point’ in my audio journey. I always keep an open mind and who's to know what I will say at a later stage as my CD transport and dacs are improved with I2S and other measures or as I delve more into computer audio and hi-rez , which I think probably has the greatest potential to get the equipment out of the way of the music.

Firstly I have been spending up again lately, having bought a top loading Sony SCD-777 ES to play SACDs; two Audiocentric Scott Thomson Phillips TDA1541 valve DACs; Flemo's modded Marantz CD50 transport with a Mario/kj12 clock with DC battery power supply; two Technics SP10 Mk II tts; SME V tonearm and Benz Glider MC cartridge. So you see, I have a foot in each camp (both digital and analogue) and therefore, have no barrow to push.

The Sony SCD-777ES weighs 28kg and is a beautifully built machine that sounds very competent with CDs and SACD. After all, Sony invented SACD and this is their flagship model so it is probably about as good as SACD replay gets other than some of those uber expensive dCS or Accuphase machines. Its good on Redbook CDs too, very clear and precise, but maybe slightly behind SACD for dimensionality and smoothness and behind the TDA1541 dac for musical expression. The Sony has a reputation for having a digital coolness, but I find this is no biggie when the rest of your system is top notch and when it is matched with good tube amps and the right cables.

You might be wondering why I bought two Scott Thomson DACs? The reason is that they are quite rare and I took the opportunity, but also I wanted to keep one original and modify the other one Killerdac-style, to see what the differences are. The one I kept original came from Malcolm (56Oval) and it already has some improvements to it with Mundorf Silver Oil caps, silver coated copper internal wiring and with better caps and resistors around the DAC chip. I gave the other dac to Zenelectro (Terry Demol in Sydney) for modifications and upgrades. Terry has added valve rectification and some wiring tricks including the Ampohm paper-in-oil capacitors (rated a close second to Duelunds in the Humble Home Hi-Fi cap test) and added Audio Note tantalum resistors etc. Terry has also measured the whole thing to ensure everything is working within proper parameters. The end result with the mods and upgrades is excellent! and I can highly recommend Terry's work. He is a very knowledgeable electronics tech/engineer (no hocus-pocus, just good engineering practice, and at the same time he respects final tuning by ear). It helps too that Terry is a good bloke and a perfect gentleman to deal with.

As to the sound of these Phillips TDA1541 DACs, I really like them. I mean, half of the very nice sound of the Scott Thomson version is probably coming from the valve output stage which is hugely constructed and occupies half the chassis, so you cannot ignore its effect on the whole dac circuit. I think that a good valve output stage in a dac as opposed to just using op-amps, brings to the party all those positive things we like about valves, that is, an openness to the sound, a greater sense of room ambience and decay to notes and a midrange that is quite special and more developed/holistic. I don't think that these tube DACs are particularly euphonic either, to me they sound clear and precise and above all musical. Having had AudioGD and other DACs in my house recently which all sound a bit same-ish, the TDA1541 is a breath of fresh air and sounds more fleshed out and engaging (less electronic) overall. Good sound is a hard thing to describe, but what I find with this TDA1541 dac is that you stop analysing the sound and just start listening to the music. There is more of a ‘belief’ in the music being played - not a focus on the electronics producing it. In my experience so far, vinyl replay does all of these things in spades and to a greater degree.

*Now, as to why I think that vinyl sounds superior?? Well, to my ears and on my current system I am definitely hearing more information (inner detail) with vinyl. I hear the smallest nuances and the minutest ambient clues of the venue and the 'expression' of the players and their instruments with vinyl - things that I don't quite hear with digital or that I have to really strain and concentrate hard to notice. A lot of this is in the dimensional aspects of the music, one is like fireworks going off in a three dimensional spherical ball and the other is flatter and less so. I wonder how you measure this affect, dimensionality that is, as it is definitely a large part of the atmosphere at a live performance? To be honest, with a good digital replay system and with excellent recordings on CD/SACD the comparison is quite close to vinyl and it is difficult to differentiate things sometimes. However, I do feel in the end that there is something subtractive about the digital process. It is leaving out a layer of low level information that I personally value highly, things that suspend belief and make me think that I am listening to real music and not something produced by electronics and boxes. This is nth-degree stuff I am talking about, by the way.

When I listen to my CDs and SACDs on their own (no vinyl) and sometimes this will happen for a few weeks at a time, I am very happy with the sound of digital and the music is as enjoyable as ever. It is only when I switch to vinyl that I realize that something is missing with digital replay. It just doesn’t express the music as well and coalesce into a whole picture – to me there is some ultra low level detail missing with digital.

It has been suggested that people who like vinyl, like the sound of harmonic distortion. A bit like what the solid-staters say about tube lovers. I think this is completely wrong and generalizing that people who like vinyl - cannot differentiate what is accurate or not accurate. To me, well executed vinyl is more accurate than digital. It (vinyl) holds together bits of information at the lowest levels of retrieval, things that are on the master tape that CD, SACD or possibly even hi-rez is not able to capture (at this stage). This is what I mean when I say that digital is more ‘subtractive’ than vinyl or analogue.

I know people will have differing opinions in this debate and will have different tastes and system objectives, but I personally find that as my digital system improves (and it has a lot lately), it starts to attain the best attributes of and sounds more like my vinyl system ...it is never the other way around, for me at least.

Just to add some balance to the above perspective, I would say that my listening habits these days are 50% Squeezebox SB3 with an outboard DAC streaming digital radio at 190kbps (for the plethora of worldwide music on offer); 30% on CD&SACD and about 20% of it on vinyl.

Cheers,

Steve M.

Great post stevem we had our fights in the past but i do give credit where its due for a personal opinion based on home listening

If your after more i recommend you go I2S to the tda1541 with a great transport cd50 won't cut the mustard against vinyl i was the first person in perth to own that transport and it changed hands many times.

If your after more you can't go past duellunds they are more coherent without the colouration of ampohms caps food for thought they reveal more timbre,texture inner resolution of instruments and vocals.Regarding the kajak12 clock its good but zenelectro clock is like taking a vale of the speakers.(kajak12 clock discontinued)

Enjoy your journey