300 hours. I am tired, I feel like I've been doing the work together with the Tchernov Reference.
The damn thing has a great openness and exquisite upper midrange and tremble, to the point that it seduces you into something you are not really aware of. It's almost like being inside the sounds. And this is with mid-level transistor set-up. Very precise, fast, dynamic and harmonically correct. Not a trace of harshness, except for that usual metallic-like transistor equipment signature. Exemplary soundscape presentation. When three singers are singing together you clearly hear each of them and all of them together, just as you do in reality. Vocal, violins and acoustic guitars are particularly impressive. I don't have a well-recorded piano so can't say. Bass lines are fine, bass goes much lower than my speakers can handle, and it is tight if not as full as I might want it to be, but not at all lean either. Generally speaking, the cable lets the music flow and in a sense it steps out of the way. This is a truly passive component, very reserved, it doesn't try to be more than what it should be, it's a cable after all not an amplifier or some other kind of sound processor. Unlike Purist Neptune fluid. While listening to the Neptune I always have an odd thought that there is a small tube in it somewhere, it makes an impression as a 'mini tube preamp' of a sort. This is not necessarily negative, it depends. Neptune's midrange is very sophisticated, and the cable's presentation has more weight. And less neutrality.
They are both great cables and they are very different.
But you know what? In my rig the best sound I get is when I run them both in the chain with the Tchernov Reference on the phono and Purist Neptune on the deck that works as an active preamp in this case. These cables work perfectly together. But the Tchernov is on the source not the other way around, that was not that good. I can't be sure but I think the Reference is higher resolution than the Neptune, and it is definitely sharper. My Redgum integrated has a passive preamp, so yeah I do lose a little of resolution when running the signal thru the deck but it's worth it.
I would guess that the Reference would work even better with tube and hybrid electronics, and it certainly likes analog source more than digital, but what doesn't ? Another guess is that if you like Quad or other panel speakers you will like what Tchernov cables do. Yes, Classic MK II is an excellent cable but you can't compare - Reference MK II is indeed on a much higher level. So, yeah, I would like it to have a bit more fullness and weight, but it is possible that in fact I want it from my phono stage and amp. I also got used to Neptune, which though doesn't distort the neutrality much, definitely exaggerates some things, and it does it in a very appealing manner.
Both the Tchernov and the Purist are class acts. Good for me that I don't have to choose. I wouldn't mind having Nottingham arm rewired with the Reference, by the way.
If the Tchernov is general than the Purist is admiral. Give them a try.
The damn thing has a great openness and exquisite upper midrange and tremble, to the point that it seduces you into something you are not really aware of. It's almost like being inside the sounds. And this is with mid-level transistor set-up. Very precise, fast, dynamic and harmonically correct. Not a trace of harshness, except for that usual metallic-like transistor equipment signature. Exemplary soundscape presentation. When three singers are singing together you clearly hear each of them and all of them together, just as you do in reality. Vocal, violins and acoustic guitars are particularly impressive. I don't have a well-recorded piano so can't say. Bass lines are fine, bass goes much lower than my speakers can handle, and it is tight if not as full as I might want it to be, but not at all lean either. Generally speaking, the cable lets the music flow and in a sense it steps out of the way. This is a truly passive component, very reserved, it doesn't try to be more than what it should be, it's a cable after all not an amplifier or some other kind of sound processor. Unlike Purist Neptune fluid. While listening to the Neptune I always have an odd thought that there is a small tube in it somewhere, it makes an impression as a 'mini tube preamp' of a sort. This is not necessarily negative, it depends. Neptune's midrange is very sophisticated, and the cable's presentation has more weight. And less neutrality.
They are both great cables and they are very different.
But you know what? In my rig the best sound I get is when I run them both in the chain with the Tchernov Reference on the phono and Purist Neptune on the deck that works as an active preamp in this case. These cables work perfectly together. But the Tchernov is on the source not the other way around, that was not that good. I can't be sure but I think the Reference is higher resolution than the Neptune, and it is definitely sharper. My Redgum integrated has a passive preamp, so yeah I do lose a little of resolution when running the signal thru the deck but it's worth it.
I would guess that the Reference would work even better with tube and hybrid electronics, and it certainly likes analog source more than digital, but what doesn't ? Another guess is that if you like Quad or other panel speakers you will like what Tchernov cables do. Yes, Classic MK II is an excellent cable but you can't compare - Reference MK II is indeed on a much higher level. So, yeah, I would like it to have a bit more fullness and weight, but it is possible that in fact I want it from my phono stage and amp. I also got used to Neptune, which though doesn't distort the neutrality much, definitely exaggerates some things, and it does it in a very appealing manner.
Both the Tchernov and the Purist are class acts. Good for me that I don't have to choose. I wouldn't mind having Nottingham arm rewired with the Reference, by the way.
If the Tchernov is general than the Purist is admiral. Give them a try.