Tim Baxter's request for comparison of reproducing systems is sure to
generate a lot of heated discussion.  Here is my 2 cents worth.

As Robbie says, any of the systems _can_ produce quite good results, but
the results depend on many variables.  Starting with the assumption that
we are comparing perfectly restored systems (there are very few of these
in real life), there are several major factors.

1.  Good coding is necessary to get the most out of any system.  Assuming
that we start with optimally coded rolls for each system, then we can
look at the real differences.

2.  Each system has a "character" which can be detected by careful
listening.  This character determines how well the system can render
particular types of music.  Overlaying this is the sound of the piano
in which it is installed.

So one must determine first what music he wishes to listen to, then try
it on various systems to find which does the best job for him.  It boils
down to a matter of taste.  I find that the DuoArt satisfies me the most
because it has a crispness that sounds best (to me) on music by composers
I am quite fond of, such as Chopin and Prokofiev, for instance.  I feel
that AMPICO does better on Brahms and Rachmaninov.  In days long past we
had all the major systems in our stable, just to get the best performance
for particular music.

3.  The major companies of course had the best libraries.  I would stick
with DuoArt, AMPICO or Welte to find the best selection.  Recuts are
available for many numbers for all 3 systems, but may be hard to find for
the others.

I'll save my comments on Recordo for the last --

Recordo is a minor system that cannot compare to the others, with the
possible exception of the very late 16-step system.  Unfortunately there
are few titles available for this late system, and they are almost
entirely classical or light classical.  The library is large for the
earlier 5-step system, encompassing most types of music.  Recuts are
available for some titles.

Bob Billings