So the Rossini is an interesting player, and my evaluation focused exclusively on redbook. Let's keep in mind, again, that the 400RS/30SV are the most transparent-to-sources electronics I have owned to date; as such, they have elevated my analog to exceptional levels, and while my digital (Spectral transport/modified Berkeley Alpha DAC) sounds better than ever before as well, there is some dryness to the sound, but on the other hand, my digital is extremely dynamic and fast. The end result is elevated vividness all around, and if I had to use one word to describe the sound, it would be "literal"... and I like it that way. Somewhere in these pages, I posted a year ago that the most vivid sound I have heard to date was last year at Goodwin's, with the Vivaldi->30SV->400RS->Q5 system - breathtaking, in fact. I heard something very similar with the 4000SV->30SV->400RS->Cygnus not too long ago, as well. In the distant past, I've also heard and owned euphonic equipment, to one degree or another, which also sounded exhilarating in their own way, but at the end of the day, I grew tired out of that sound.
To get to the bottom of it, the Rossini is to these ears of the euphonic kind, which will appeal to many and will probably sound great in "dead" systems. It wants to add excitement and liveliness to the sound and presentation, and it succeeds; I can see why some folks are really gaga over it, and why a couple have recently said they were disappointed. It is definitely not literal, which the 4000SV absolutely is. For me, in my quest for better digital, there are two questions: a) is it better than my digital rig; and b) can it challenge my analog (again, with RBCD material).
From the very few notes, its euphonic nature came across quite easily, in this otherwise literal system of mine. I think this characteristic drops a bit as you go from Filter1 to Filter6, but not by a lot; adjusting the volume up and down from 0.0 to -6.0dB didn't change that picture either. This trait was evident with everything I played, from strings, to piano, to voices, etc. It is quite obvious with voices, as our ears are well trained for those types of sounds. I could not get the Rossini to sound truly natural in that respect, and examples included Ana Caram, Rebecca Pidgeon's beautiful voice and Livingston Taylor's (all on Chesky) who sounded like he had swallowed the microphone. One of his songs starts with him whistling, and we all know how that truly sounds and that's not what I heard. As the audition progressed, I felt there was a constant tiny reverb to the sound, and I am still left with that impression. Good or bad, it's what it is, and it will be appealing to some. My modified Alpha does not sound anything like this, and these voices are quite sweet and natural, breathtaking in fact.
Another interesting trait I noticed in the Rossini is its struggle to swing ultimate transient voltages, and it couldn't match the Alpha - that came through with sudden piano strikes, soprano (that was unexpected), and primarily with heavy bass drum strikes like the entry to Britten's Sinfonia Da Requiem, RR-120, where everyone I have demonstrated to have jumped off their seats, myself included - so powerful it is. My favorite Guilmant's Organ Symphony #3 (Chandos) didn't excite as much as the Alpha; ditto for many other similar orchestral pieces. I loved the sound of strings, but horns - which this system does extremely well - failed to impress and some sounded just plain wrong, too euphonic.
On typically thin-sounding CDs (many old Cheskys, e.g. Earl Wild's Chopin) the euphonic presentation was quite welcome, and this type of presentation would draw me in, whereas a literal rendering would sound really boring; however, the lack of ultimate speed and attack with piano key strikes eventually got to me.
Overall, the Rossini reminded me of the older Spectral SDR-2000 DAC at times - very clean, impressive, but euphonic at the same time - with authority, making beautiful sounds that I could listen to for hours on end. But again, this is not the type of sound I care for anymore. Older Spectral amps sounded something like that as well, so I have outgrown that sound. I am sure others would fall in love with this sound.
In the end, I had to answer my own questions: a) is it better (for my preferences) than my digital? The answer is a mixed Yes and No. To me, my modded Alpha and the 4000SV are superior because they are literal and quite dramatic when the recordings are really good - which also means they will sound bad on bad recordings. And b) does it challenge my analog? Here, clearly, No, despite the fact the Rossini has none of the Alpha's dryness; it's just not as vivid as my analog, rather more polite and more rounded, unnaturally euphonic, and did not come close to accurately portraying some timbres the way analog can (especially French horns and strings).
In the end, I felt the Rossini added too much lipstick on the pig, but how much lipstick we all like differs. I like the product, but is not something I would like to own. I hope to bring the 4000SV home at some point, but the problem with it is its closed, dead-end architecture. It might be a stellar redbook player, but that's it. The Rossini, on the other hand, offers so many more possibilities, which are hard to overlook or ignore.
