13-Dec-2016, 19:30
This is a throwback to the original J. Fritz review posted, but after 5 days with the 220 Pro, I'm surprised that JF found the D200 and D1000 Pro sounded so similar. Srima quoted the relevant part in post #40, previous page. Hell, after 30 seconds the difference between the D120 and the D220 Pro was apparent to me... and it is a big difference.
It makes me wonder if the D200 was hugely better than the D120; I don't think it was, but even if so, the difference is the style, or nature, of the presentation of the Pro series is clearly different. I think that generally others agree on that point (and not all like the new presentation).
I mean, assuming the 220 Pro is better than the D200, and the D200 is not much different, or not easily discernibly different, from a D1000 Pro, then is the D220 Pro almost equal to a D1000 Pro? For the most part, or for ordinary files?
I realize I'm not explaining my confusion very well. Just musing on the idea that the sound quality change Pro upgrade was subtle enough that JF had to dig for it. Perhaps others here had a similar experience or reaction. Oh, well. Back to work.
It makes me wonder if the D200 was hugely better than the D120; I don't think it was, but even if so, the difference is the style, or nature, of the presentation of the Pro series is clearly different. I think that generally others agree on that point (and not all like the new presentation).
I mean, assuming the 220 Pro is better than the D200, and the D200 is not much different, or not easily discernibly different, from a D1000 Pro, then is the D220 Pro almost equal to a D1000 Pro? For the most part, or for ordinary files?
I realize I'm not explaining my confusion very well. Just musing on the idea that the sound quality change Pro upgrade was subtle enough that JF had to dig for it. Perhaps others here had a similar experience or reaction. Oh, well. Back to work.
Damon
Powernode, NAD M32, Cambridge CD transport, Analysis Plus, Nordost, iFi Nova, CSS Criton 1TDX, KEF C62
Vancouver, Canada
