advertisement


Difference in audio quality with streaming transports

:D. Erm, not that I’m an expert in either you understand, but in the context of this thread, I believe different orifices are used. ;)
 
My Purifi 's reproduction of music did not - subjectively - sound 100% like real instruments to me. Real instruments (and I have a few here) have a 'body' to the sound, a 'weight'. There's the decay of the notes. This was relayed to me nicely through my serviced Quad 606, and not via the Purifi. Again, subjectively. The measurements indicate the Purifi is far superior. But my EMOTIONAL response to the music and the sound of how I perceive real instruments to be, was far stronger through the Quad 606. Perhaps much mastering actually requires a little imperfection to subjectively improve the end result. At any rate, I was not going to keep a £1200 amplifier that was lessoning my enjoyment of music, compared to my 606.

This is really interesting. I have a Quad Artera Pre and I am currently using an Anaview AMS1000 module in a s/h Cambridge Audio case. The Anaview was only ever intended as a stopgap, but it sounds so amazing I held on to it longer. I originally intended to buy the Artera Stereo to go with it as the obvious match, but my experience with the Anaview has given me massive second thoughts - that maybe a NAD C298 would be the way to go. I brought along the Anaview to Doug Brady's and listened to Kef R5s, Spendor A7s and Proac DT8s through both it and a Quad Stereo (I was ostensibly auditioning speakers). In each case it was clear the Quad had more 'weight', e.g. Volodos playing Schubert had more heft to the piano, but there was a nagging sense throughout that the weight was accompanied by a bloom that wasn't neutral. It wasn't an obvious thing, just a sense and I would have to audition at home to be sure. I think the Quad would be a safer buy, but I also think a NAD C298 would supply the heft that is missing in the Anaview without adding the bloom. I saw that you were using an Artera Play, so your experience with the Purifi is fascinating to me, though unfortunately it's only complicating matters!
 
This is really interesting. I have a Quad Artera Pre and I am currently using an Anaview AMS1000 module in a s/h Cambridge Audio case. The Anaview was only ever intended as a stopgap, but it sounds so amazing I held on to it longer. I originally intended to buy the Artera Stereo to go with it as the obvious match, but my experience with the Anaview has given me massive second thoughts - that maybe a NAD C298 would be the way to go. I brought along the Anaview to Doug Brady's and listened to Kef R5s, Spendor A7s and Proac DT8s through both it and a Quad Stereo (I was ostensibly auditioning speakers). In each case it was clear the Quad had more 'weight', e.g. Volodos playing Schubert had more heft to the piano, but there was a nagging sense throughout that the weight was accompanied by a bloom that wasn't neutral. It wasn't an obvious thing, just a sense and I would have to audition at home to be sure. I think the Quad would be a safer buy, but I also think a NAD C298 would supply the heft that is missing in the Anaview without adding the bloom. I saw that you were using an Artera Play, so your experience with the Purifi is fascinating to me, though unfortunately it's only complicating matters!

I was/am using the Quad Artera Play+ which is a different design to the Artera Pre. The Play+ features a superb pre-amp section, very neutral and I didn't detect any undue warmth or bloom. Using it with the Purifi there was no added colouration that I could detect. At this point though I'm happy to admit that perhaps I enjoy added colourations on the amplifier side things. I love the Quad 606, and have also started to use a Leak Stereo 20 which I'm bowled over by, but that's hardly a neutral amp by today's standards at least. At ever, it really is a case of listening and seeing what works for you. I just couldn't live with the Purifi my attention was wondering away from the music all the time.
 


advertisement


Back
Top