Hi
I also remember DAW from the early, glorious days of TAS, I also liked PHD ..
now I have a problem with this conclusion... ... Would that mean closer to the recording? If that was the case how could the ARC sound "better" ? That he preferred the ARC. Fine but if the other is closer to what he remembers from the performance, wouldn't that mean that the component acquitted itself of its duties better? that is to reproduce as well as it could ? ...
I must say I liked the Rowland Coherence One, that was one hell of a preamp ...
By the way right now enjoying through Headphones Dvorak Cello Concerto, Bruch Kol Nidei with Antal Dorati and the LSO, next Hanson Symphonies on Mercury still ...
Frantz:
I think it's a comment on what the component added (or subtracted from) to the sound and sounded pleasant vs. what was a better representation of of what the actual recording sounded like. Say the high strings were a little bright on the actual recording and the ARC smoothed them out while the Rowlands portrayed the recordings as it should have been.
It's been a decade or two probably since looked at the review and I think that issue is in storage