Originally Posted by Will Binegar
What do you think of the v6 as compared to the v4?
Physically and operationally the unit is nearly identical to the v4. The interfaces, touch and feel, etc., are very similar to the v4.
I have not listened to any multichannel sources, and can't comment on processing of those types of sources. My listening consisted entirely of Redbook CDs played back via the 861s Trifield setting.
The audio quality of the v6 is markedly improved over the v4. You don't even remotely need to A/B to hear it. Three qualities stand out.
First, there is more information coming through. There is one track I listened to where a couple of female singers with some background instrumentation kicks in to augment the primary musicians. In that track you can easily hear that the additions were recorded in a different physical environment and dubbed in; it clearly sounds like two different recording environments. That's barely noticeable on the the v4 and stark on the v6. After an hour or so I had to set a few of my Trifield parameters slightly differently (width down by .1, center channel volume up by .5db) because the imaging was coming across differently with the v6.
Second, there is greater dynamics with less harshness. I am struggling to find the right language. This is most noticeable on pianos, where you hear more of the "clanginess" of that instrument without it being strident or harsh. (This is similar to what I sometimes hear with high efficiency speakers with compression drivers, without the harshness.)
Third, the bass is much stronger. There is more "there there." Upright bass, kettle drums, etc all have more definition and slam. Everything measures exactly the same on my measurement rig (I use Room EQ Wizzard), but it sounds different. In the end I ended up reducing the volume on my subs by 1.5 db.
It reminds me of when I changed from an Audio Research Ref1 to a Ref 3. The Ref1 and Ref3 are sonically of the same family, but, leagues apart in their presentation of music.
All in terrific sonics.