I had the 20i in my system for a while and agree with your take on it. It is quite different from most of the players out there in that it has a very gutsy and weighty presentation. I find that it can call a little too much attention to itself in the bass and midrange but this can also make many cds sound more involving by giving them more of a sense of presence.
Eventually I wanted more clarity and switched to a Krell DT10 transport and Ref 64 DAC. This combination still has the 20i's authority but evens things out by slightly de-emphasizing lower bass and increasing the transparency in the mids. The treble is still not as airy and spacious as the newer players. I feel that this is where digital has improved most over the past decade.
I recently spent some time with the Ayre cx7 and Levinson 390s and both players are obviously more tonally neutral and resolving of fine detail but the downside is comparatively an overall leaner sound and laid back soundstage. The Ayre had very focused pinpoint imaging and a narrower soundstage whereas the 390s was more powerful sounding with a larger soundstage existing well behind the speakers. The Ayre would probably work best in a smaller room. To me, these players sounded more alike than different it took some time to differentiate the two. I actually liked both of them, they were both completely non-fatiguing and I could live with either one but I prefer the fuller mids and bass in the Krell versus the extended or possibly exaggerated treble and leaner midrange of the new players.
To me the 20i mimics more of what I hear when listening to live music. Cables and preamp choice will certainly affect this and ultimately is system dependent. In my experience the kps 20i must be used with the balanced output into a balanced pre to get the best out of it. The build quality is also very impressive; you dont see the same level of craftsmanship in most components nowadays.
Eventually I wanted more clarity and switched to a Krell DT10 transport and Ref 64 DAC. This combination still has the 20i's authority but evens things out by slightly de-emphasizing lower bass and increasing the transparency in the mids. The treble is still not as airy and spacious as the newer players. I feel that this is where digital has improved most over the past decade.
I recently spent some time with the Ayre cx7 and Levinson 390s and both players are obviously more tonally neutral and resolving of fine detail but the downside is comparatively an overall leaner sound and laid back soundstage. The Ayre had very focused pinpoint imaging and a narrower soundstage whereas the 390s was more powerful sounding with a larger soundstage existing well behind the speakers. The Ayre would probably work best in a smaller room. To me, these players sounded more alike than different it took some time to differentiate the two. I actually liked both of them, they were both completely non-fatiguing and I could live with either one but I prefer the fuller mids and bass in the Krell versus the extended or possibly exaggerated treble and leaner midrange of the new players.
To me the 20i mimics more of what I hear when listening to live music. Cables and preamp choice will certainly affect this and ultimately is system dependent. In my experience the kps 20i must be used with the balanced output into a balanced pre to get the best out of it. The build quality is also very impressive; you dont see the same level of craftsmanship in most components nowadays.