R2R discrete vs. R2R chipped tubes. With a pre optologic La Scala MkII on hand, I could compare older BurrBrown chip-based conversion. It'd make for useful triangulation despite the €1'100 price offset (€4'890 for this La Scala) and hybrid tube buffer plus my inability to separate it from on-chip math. The verdict probably wasn't surprising. On perceived resolution as greater lucidity, ambient recovery of audible space and micro detail, the La Voce had the edge. On matters of gravitas, LF heft and plumpness into the upper bass, slightly more softness of attack in general and less exposure of recorded glare in particular, the La Scala held advantages. Its heavier thicker bass also impacted perceived speed by slowing it down a tad. In terms of subjective stance, its weight felt more on the back than front foot. Temperamentally, that made the leaner quicker La Voce a bit twitchier and microdynamically more energetic. Its airier perspective coupled to more depth and distance whilst the 'nearer' La Scala had more macrodynamic whomp. Particularly on more naturalist recordings where multi-layered studio trickery is replaced by real location ambiance for a normal audience perspective not mastering-console nearfield extremism, the discrete converter played out its ace cards of finer magnification and separation powers. On modern studio productions with their extreme mosh where musicians compete with each other as though all equally near and loud, the La Scala more quickly hit their inherent wall-of-sound saturation. La Voce's keener apartheid resisted longer; one of multiple indicators of higher resolution.

As happened after my very first switch from Fore to AQ, I spontaneously keyed into different timing. The Italian had pricklier urgency. The sensation was one of tightening up the rhythmic reins as though a timekeeping chore master had suddenly knocked back an espresso. This happened inside the bar-to-bar progression. Hence DAISy 1 felt no slower which really can be a purely subjective impression with gear that plays it excessively laid back. Not here. La Voce was simply snappier, crisper and somehow more emphatic on all the coincident little leading edges. This conveyed a more beat-centric perspective, perhaps a bit like vintage Naim gear. That coined the PRaT expression of pace, rhythm and timing. I deliberately inserted 'perhaps'. Having once attended a session at a Portland Naim dealer whose entire crew bopped heads and tapped toes in nearly relentless fashion as though intense bodily response to Jazz was de rigueur, that wasn't it now. There was nothing maniacal, exaggerated or forced about this quality. It was merely different from Miss Daisy and something I noticed strongly. Perhaps the most salient way of putting it is to borrow the word 'focus' from imaging—the difference between a slightly blurry and perfectly sharp image—and apply it to rhythm. So La Voce had the rhythmically sharper focus. Why didn't I say so right off?

Letting you in on my groping for the best description helps to show how elusive talk of musical timing can be. One can't freeze-frame it. It's always in motion. It's far easier to point at and agree on something static like a muted treble or the obviously wider soundstage. Getting hold of something as slippery as time is harder. Making the attempt is simply relevant. It's a very real aspect of music after all. Grappling with it is the thing, not whether we fail at a nice and tight description. It's in the grappling that we begin to investigate how timing informs our perception of music; and to appreciate that not all gear and speakers are equally adept at it. In this instance, La Voce was the younger fitter keener drummer to give it greater clarity of the rhythmic elements.