David Houpt wrote:

I can already feel the flames licking around me, but having listened
to a fair number of CD players over the last few years the
diffierences (once you get beyond the very cheap and cheerful) seem to
me to be very small indeed and as much a matter of personal taste as
anything else.


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick

I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Regards

David

David Houpt wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick


I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Well I guess, if its measures well, they can just fill column space with
talk about how well the numbers were. if not, they can talk subjective
bollox about the "quality" of the sound.

IMVHO, you can either take

position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

And if you want HiFi as a hobby, instead of just a way to hear music,
start building your own, then if you don't like the sound, you have only
yourself to blame.

--
Nick

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), or build
your own

Nick is right on the button. Buy the Maplins catalogue for starters. Then
Morgan Jones 'Valve amplifiers' 3rd ed. or similar DIY text and off you go.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), or build
your own

Nick is right on the button. Buy the Maplins catalogue for starters. Then
Morgan Jones 'Valve amplifiers' 3rd ed. or similar DIY text and off you go.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

In article , Nick
Gorham wrote:


position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

Or: ;-

position 4: Obtain some reliably obtained measurements, combined with some
listening tests that confirm that the kit is basically OK. Then use the
measured values to estimate their impact upon your own requirements, based
upon your own experience, situation, and taste. :-) (Can view this as a
varient upon position 1 if you like.)

The magazines seem to have taken to avoiding measurements as they take time
and money to produce, as well as some level of real understanding by the
reviewer.

They have apparently also decided they are incapable of explaining how
readers can make intelligent use of them. It isn't a "bigger/lower the
better" thing in many cases. It is a matter of what values may be most
suitable for some readers, but not for others. The snag is that the
reviewers have to understand this, and be able to explain it clearly for
the benefit of newer readers.

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided their
readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to even try
and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so
there."

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Nick
Gorham wrote:


position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

Or: ;-

position 4: Obtain some reliably obtained measurements, combined with some
listening tests that confirm that the kit is basically OK. Then use the
measured values to estimate their impact upon your own requirements, based
upon your own experience, situation, and taste. :-) (Can view this as a
varient upon position 1 if you like.)

The magazines seem to have taken to avoiding measurements as they take time
and money to produce, as well as some level of real understanding by the
reviewer.

They have apparently also decided they are incapable of explaining how
readers can make intelligent use of them. It isn't a "bigger/lower the
better" thing in many cases. It is a matter of what values may be most
suitable for some readers, but not for others. The snag is that the
reviewers have to understand this, and be able to explain it clearly for
the benefit of newer readers.

I fear it is 'dumbing down'. The impression is that they have decided their
readers are too dim to understand, and they can't be bothered to even try
and explain. Easier to say, "I am an expert and X is better than Y, so
there."

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

David Houpt wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick


I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Well I guess, if its measures well, they can just fill column space with
talk about how well the numbers were. if not, they can talk subjective
bollox about the "quality" of the sound.

IMVHO, you can either take

position 1: look at the numbers (assuming they are competently
measured), decide below or above what value each number becomes
irrelevent. For example, I don't think a well designed amp with .01%
distortion will sound any worse that another amp with .001% distortion
under similar conditions.

position 2: ignore the numbers, decide they have no meaning, and decide
based on whats in fashion at the time, for example there are amps with
1% distortion that may sound better than amps with .01% distortion.

or the third way...

Spend the money you would have spent on mags on LP/CD (your choice), and
buy what sounds good to you, and as you are not reading the mags
anymore, you won't start having the nagging doubt that you are missing
something "better".

And if you want HiFi as a hobby, instead of just a way to hear music,
start building your own, then if you don't like the sound, you have only
yourself to blame.

--
Nick

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:51:01 +0000, Nick Gorham
wrote:

Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick

I agree. So I think that it is very difficult to rank order such
players, as many reviewers do, based on their own personal listening
experience and, I suspect, the price of the gear in question. Its
interesting to see how, in Hi Fi World for example, kit that measures
comparatively poorly gets a good review full of flowery, subjective
mush.

Regards

David

David Houpt wrote:

I can already feel the flames licking around me, but having listened
to a fair number of CD players over the last few years the
diffierences (once you get beyond the very cheap and cheerful) seem to
me to be very small indeed and as much a matter of personal taste as
anything else.


Err, isn't it all down to personal taste anyway ?

--
Nick