Spectral SDR-4000SV
- Thread starter ack
- Start date
Interesting read, bold claims. But the player, as I said before, does sound quite fantastic, indeed.
Would be very interested in any further comments re the spectral 4000sv and the Rossini player, especially on average CDs and high quality CDs. I currently own the 4000sl and will replace it with either the SV or the Rossini player. The rest of my system consists of the 30 SV and 400rs, MIT cables and Rockport atria speakers
I will have the Rossini player tomorrow for the weekend. My impression is that the 4000SV is the raw device, which may mean that it's the more transparent-to-the-recording of the two, but the Rossini may be easier to listen to with the vast majority of the recordings. It will be an interesting audition, nonetheless.
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.
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.
Great report! As for the Spectral's "closed, dead-end architecture," that's exactly what some of us are seeking! DSD? Who cares. Downloads? No thank you. Hi-rez? Good luck finding the music you want. So...based on what you've already said, I really look forward to what you're going to say about the 4000SV.
As I suspected, there seems to be no real black or white. A very interestering review of the Rossini . Too bad you were not able to compare the Rossini and the 4000sv back to back in your system. I think ,I gather from your comments that the SV may be truer to what is on the cd and the Rossini more euphoric which is not all bad. I would also think that if compared directly to my 4000sl, that either would be more dynamic. Too me the sl does cloud the sound to some degree and either the Rossini or the SV will lift that veil to some degree, or maybe to a large degree. LOok forward to any further thoughts if and when you are able to put the SV in your system
Indeed terrific Tasos.
IIRC the 4000SV (and your 4000 SL) have no USB input in order to use the internal DAC
IIRC the 4000SV (and your 4000 SL) have no USB input in order to use the internal DAC
We seem to go for the same relics Kevin
computer audio is of zero interest fo me too, maybe once the dust is settled and computers start sounding less like computers but we're not even close yet.david
We seem to go for the same relics Kevin
david
It is something that puzzles me - I have heard spinning CD playing great many times, something that makes me happy as 90% of the music I enjoy is only available in this format, but never had the pleasure of listening to great computer audio.
I have even bought a Berkeley Audio USB - AES/EBU converter, but even with it the CD spinning in the Metronome Calypso sounds much better than my computer using JRiver.
I don't know what it is either, a few years ago I sat in a Chesky recording session and the mastering process. First listened to the master on glass media and it was fantastic, very close to what I heard at the recording session. Then we sent the file to the cloud and downloaded it and suddenly it was unlistenable, I don't know if its the computer hardware, the cables, the player or what but I hear the same sonic signature with every computer front end no matter type of file it is. There was a lot of loss in the downsampled CD, more than you can imagine but it still was much, much better than the downloaded hirez files.
david
Last edited:
I realize this is a Spectral thread and that everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but I want to make clear that with a dedicated music server (in my case: Lampizator computer), great usb cable (German made Refine Audio usb) and fine (dsd) dac (Lampi GG) music is in my view far from unlistenable. Apparently we hear very differently.
Most likely we do hear differently or at least have different tastes Rudy, I can only speak about what I heard so far.
david
In part you make my point - you had to get a server and DAC from the same manufacturer to get a very good digital system. It seems that source synergy to the DAC (it is the only name I can find for this magic property
is fundamental in digital playback. I have to say that my interest is mainly CD (redbook). Considering only redbook do you prefer this Lampizator system to the Trinity?
In part you make my point - you had to get a server and DAC from the same manufacturer to get a very good digital system. It seems that source synergy to the DAC (it is the only name I can find for this magic property
You can try different manufcaturers, including the caps. They will beat many CD players. Sure, if you put a Vivaldi/CEC TLO into a Lampi or a Trinity it should beat putting an Aurender in, but price difference is high. But CAPS servers have beaten many CD players, much more expensive ones. And servers improve every few months, with new hardware updates and software updates, and with CAPS easy to move on to. Get a Lampi on audition micro, should be easy to borrow. You don't need to maximize it or follow our OCD posts on the Lampi thread to know which is the ideal combo to demo. Just run it off your laptop or put an SPDIF through your CD player, and check. Just make sure you have decent valves. And get the B7, not the GG. Should be sufficient to convince you.
As for your query to AC, you should first ask him if he has compared them in the same system
@madfloyd: I suggest you evaluate the Rossini and I think the improvement over the Lampizator B7 you had in when I listened to your system will be obvious, and staggering. Just play the Finale of the Mahler 2nd with the BSO/Ozawa I gave you, and I am quite certain you will fall off your chair, especially at the clarity of the chorus and the power of the organ - which in my system is very authoritative. But I don't know what your overall goals are...
Appreciate any more comments on the Rossini and the spectral 30 SV, both excellent players, probably no clear cut one better than the other. VEry few have heard the 30sv, and the only down side, besides only being a player , is that it may be so accurate that a bad cd will sound bad vs a more euphoric presentation on the Rossini . A well recorded cd will sound good on either.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |