By
kraster
Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:57 am
I had a 2000 classic for about 4 years and got an Xl last year.
I do think they sound different.
To my ears, the classic has a slightly more open sound. You might call it brighter or clearer.
Whereas the XL has a slightly more compressed sound. You might call it warmer or punchier.
The differences are slight though (if at all!!!)
In general the Xl is faster performance wise although they both use the same CPU and memory architecture (I think!). This could be that the OS is optimised more on the XL OS. For example, the waveform display is less detailed on the Xl but faster to work with. In general the Xl is a more responsive machine.
The classic also doesn't feature autochrom, multiple programs, Next sequence button, disk folder support, using the slider for trimming samples, and other features.
The tilt screen on the XL is not a gimmick either. It's a welcome addition.
The Jog wheel on the classic is much nicer though!!
Many of the enhacements on the Xl are software based and in most cases a workaround can be found for the classic to achieve the same results. e.g. autochrom or zone editing. But the XL makes the job much easier and takes a lot of the laborious work out of the equasion.
Features like the Time compression and resampling on the Xl are time consuming to the point of uselessness and can be done 1,000,000 times faster on a computer. To me it's the 4 simultaneous program feature on the Xl makes it the winner as far as I'm concerned. It's like having four classics in one machine.
