I guess that strictly speaking I should not be posting in the '250 Pro' thread because I have never listened to a 250 Pro. However, I do feel that I have something to add, in particular because some of the posts are so far removed from my own experience that I do wonder if other factors are at play here.
In Woodstock's original post he stated that he finds 'the pro recessed and at lower volumes, no details'. To me this is curious, because I find the key difference with the Pro is the increased detail and resolution, so the exact opposite. OK, I guess these things can be system dependant, but this is absolutely diametrically opposite to what I have experienced, so it does make me wonder if something else might be wrong here? I simply cannot believe that if all is working as it should in Woodstock's system he would here it sounding as 'recessed with no details.' Maybe there is an issue with this unit?
Then we have Kerkhoffd's comment that the Pro sounds 'less neutral'. This comment I found interesting. I recall from my first audition of the 1000 Pro versus the D800, this was done as a straight back to back A/B test, with the same music, and I recall at the time finding the two amplifiers tonally identical. The difference I did find was with detail, resolution and realism. However, I do have my Pro at home now and have been able to spend much time just listening to whatever I feel like playing. Every now and again I come across a track with which the extra resolution of the Pro can actually be quite startling. It is hard to describe, but sometimes you might get something in the mid range which due to extra detail extraction becomes so much more real that it leaps to your attention. So nothing has changed tonally, but your attention in naturally drawn to something, often in the mids and highs, this I suspect may give the impression of a change in neutrality, where as it is not, it is just the way your attention is drawn. Nothing bad here, in fact it's all good if you are striving towards a transparent system providing a window into the music. Oddly enough, if I had not had the chance to have had that original A/B test I think my view of the Pro at home may have taken longer to rationalise. The Pro does take a bit of getting used to I think, although I have to say I had been enjoying my Pro enormously over the last weekend. It does make me wonder though if the detail extraction capability of the Pro might actually be a shortcoming for some systems / music / ears / preferences. That is, I could see that some might prefer the old Expert because it lacks that last degree of transparency. I can't see that the Pro is less neutral in any way, in fact I am quite sure that if you measured the frequency curves of a Pro and an Expert with decent lab equipment they would be more or less perfect and identical.
In Woodstock's original post he stated that he finds 'the pro recessed and at lower volumes, no details'. To me this is curious, because I find the key difference with the Pro is the increased detail and resolution, so the exact opposite. OK, I guess these things can be system dependant, but this is absolutely diametrically opposite to what I have experienced, so it does make me wonder if something else might be wrong here? I simply cannot believe that if all is working as it should in Woodstock's system he would here it sounding as 'recessed with no details.' Maybe there is an issue with this unit?
Then we have Kerkhoffd's comment that the Pro sounds 'less neutral'. This comment I found interesting. I recall from my first audition of the 1000 Pro versus the D800, this was done as a straight back to back A/B test, with the same music, and I recall at the time finding the two amplifiers tonally identical. The difference I did find was with detail, resolution and realism. However, I do have my Pro at home now and have been able to spend much time just listening to whatever I feel like playing. Every now and again I come across a track with which the extra resolution of the Pro can actually be quite startling. It is hard to describe, but sometimes you might get something in the mid range which due to extra detail extraction becomes so much more real that it leaps to your attention. So nothing has changed tonally, but your attention in naturally drawn to something, often in the mids and highs, this I suspect may give the impression of a change in neutrality, where as it is not, it is just the way your attention is drawn. Nothing bad here, in fact it's all good if you are striving towards a transparent system providing a window into the music. Oddly enough, if I had not had the chance to have had that original A/B test I think my view of the Pro at home may have taken longer to rationalise. The Pro does take a bit of getting used to I think, although I have to say I had been enjoying my Pro enormously over the last weekend. It does make me wonder though if the detail extraction capability of the Pro might actually be a shortcoming for some systems / music / ears / preferences. That is, I could see that some might prefer the old Expert because it lacks that last degree of transparency. I can't see that the Pro is less neutral in any way, in fact I am quite sure that if you measured the frequency curves of a Pro and an Expert with decent lab equipment they would be more or less perfect and identical.
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
