I can't really hear a big difference

hey paul, it's not that the sherwood does what i want it to do. i mean, it does sound good, but i feel like it could sound better. and maybe i'm just trying to get something out of a format that cannot supply what i'm looking for... guess i'm just shocked and disappointed that i didn't get that same jump the way i did when i switched out the NAD for the VTL.

I recently sold my Linn Mimik CD player to purchase a Karik but circumstances caused an extended delay. While waiting for the Karik I resorted to my cheap sony CD player to get me by. I had done listening comparisons between the Mimik and the Sony in the past and found the differences to be quite subtle - particularily a/b comparisons. It was only with extended listening that I truly began to appreciate the strengths and refinement of the Mimik, and the utter noise that came out of the Sony. It got to the point that I almost stopped listening to music on the Sony because in my high resoluton system it eventually became downright grating. When the Karik finally arrived what had previously seemed to me a subtle difference suddenly became a critical night and day difference. the Karik satisfied all of the expectations previously set by the Mimik but with even greater resolution more finesse - and I soon gave the Sony to the Goodwill Society.

Regarding the differences in volume levels of your CD players, it could be the output levels of those particular players but also the absence of grating noise and distortions that make the BAT seem softer.

- the Sony CD player was an early 90's $300-400 player.

dennis, i own two units, a BAT and a cal alpha/delta combo. they are very different as is your sherwood and BAT. i think you have fairly described how a BAT can sound if you are using the sherwood for a "reference". i could do the same for my two units. if i use the BAT for a reference i would say that the cal alpha/delta was up front sounding and it favored vocal, instrumentals, and small groups. i would say it lacked in ultimate detail resolution and could be a bit bright. i would say that the soundstaging was reduced by the lack of resolution (detail), but that same lack of detail could smooth out some upper-mid range glare on poorly recorded cd's. i have also said that i thought the cal had a better sense of pace/rhythm. BUT with the right amp and speakers the BAT can create a soundstage which is limited only by the recording. on the BAT a bad recording will still sound bad but an excellent one will sound outstanding in all respects.i can't make the same statement for the cal units. incidentially the BAT has a substantially lower output than the cal units, as well as the tuner - we are talking 6 to 9db in musical output, so you have to crank up the volume control. i enjoy using the two units depending on the cd i'm going to listen to. Also, FWIW the differences were not as well understood when i was using a stereo tube amp of modest power which was slightly bright itself. they became crystal clear when i up graded to larger tube monoblocks which were much more neutral and revealing. the last was just lucky synergy. good luck.

Nice post Newbee. Sean
>

The bottom line is, if you can't hear a difference, you can't hear a difference. We are all born with different abilities.