Dtc,no offense toward your post was intended. My issue is with this particular review. I have not yet heard the HRT HD, but I own one and I just received the ifi iUSB IsoPower system today. I am just getting my computer audio up and running and not quite ready to play music.
I do however have extensive experience with Kevin Halverson's digital players having owned the MUSE 9, 9 Sig, 10, and his last and best player, the Erato II, which in comparison made my Ayre C-5xeMP sound a touch sterile, and that's saying something because the Ayre is no slouch. Point being, the man knows digital and how to make products that make music. He has had like 4 chances to get his Streamers right and indications were that he was well on his way with the Streamer II+. I doubt he would all of a sudden come up with a "statement" design that would make ears bleed.
Art Dudley's Stereophile review pointed out the following on various tracks;
"sibilants were overcooked,"
"a bit too much bite,"
"vocal sibilants were a bit too much,"
"a bit too much wheeze,"
"a little too much scrape in the fiddle,"
"ride cymbal was just a shade more ringy than usual,"
"saxophone was slightly more piquent than real,"
"distracted by a bit of upper frequency hardness,"
"a little too much glare in the high notes,"
"too much bite in the violins," and
"still too much sibilance in the vocals - a disappointment."
Does the same issue really have to be repeated 11 times? Either the device totally sucks (something three other professional reviewers did not hear), or perhaps there was a gremlin in the system somewhere, a cable issue, a ground issue, or perhaps a cracked solder joint. I find it hard to believe that a second opinion was not obtained by a different Stereophile reviewer in a different system, and a second review sample was not requested of HRT and listened to, before the review was posted - a disappointment.
I do however have extensive experience with Kevin Halverson's digital players having owned the MUSE 9, 9 Sig, 10, and his last and best player, the Erato II, which in comparison made my Ayre C-5xeMP sound a touch sterile, and that's saying something because the Ayre is no slouch. Point being, the man knows digital and how to make products that make music. He has had like 4 chances to get his Streamers right and indications were that he was well on his way with the Streamer II+. I doubt he would all of a sudden come up with a "statement" design that would make ears bleed.
Art Dudley's Stereophile review pointed out the following on various tracks;
"sibilants were overcooked,"
"a bit too much bite,"
"vocal sibilants were a bit too much,"
"a bit too much wheeze,"
"a little too much scrape in the fiddle,"
"ride cymbal was just a shade more ringy than usual,"
"saxophone was slightly more piquent than real,"
"distracted by a bit of upper frequency hardness,"
"a little too much glare in the high notes,"
"too much bite in the violins," and
"still too much sibilance in the vocals - a disappointment."
Does the same issue really have to be repeated 11 times? Either the device totally sucks (something three other professional reviewers did not hear), or perhaps there was a gremlin in the system somewhere, a cable issue, a ground issue, or perhaps a cracked solder joint. I find it hard to believe that a second opinion was not obtained by a different Stereophile reviewer in a different system, and a second review sample was not requested of HRT and listened to, before the review was posted - a disappointment.