Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    If you read the full context and not just extract the part where the Naim is better...
    If the Naim is better, then how can the Cyrus be "as being as good as ANY CD player out there"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Also, read the part I've bolded and you can see that my interpretation of the article is fairly accurate...
    A Ford Taurus is comparable to a BMW 530i.

    rw

  2. #27
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    If the Naim is better, then how can the Cyrus be "as being as good as ANY CD player out there"?


    A Ford Taurus is comparable to a BMW 530i.

    rw
    Would be a valid point IF the Naim was all around better... but clearly the Naim was only better in some parts and the Cyrus was better in others...

    Anyway, I'm not going to continue to argue on the wording of the article... I've provided the link and posted a large quote so people can make up their own minds...

    The point of this thread is really to stimulate a discussion about whether all the praise given by reviewers on CD Players ranging from the Marantz SA8001 and Bencmark DAC1 (both Stereophile Class A rated) to the Cyrus and Cambrige Audio 840C, is making it difficult for people to see the point in spending large amounts (above $2K) on a CD player...

    Why should someone who sees a $900 CD player rated as class A, think that they should consider a $4000 one???

  3. #28
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    ...but clearly the Naim was only better in some parts and the Cyrus was better in others...
    "The Cyrus counters with better organisation and improved agility..."

    What exactly does that mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Why should someone who sees a $900 CD player rated as class A, think that they should consider a $4000 one???
    Because they seek more than "comparable".

    rw

  4. #29
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Hey, don't knock Taurus

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    If the Naim is better, then how can the Cyrus be "as being as good as ANY CD player out there"?


    A Ford Taurus is comparable to a BMW 530i.

    rw
    That's what I drive and it's huge value, if not a performance, machine.

    It's reasonable to expect a $5k player to beat a $1k player. And although it might not always be the case, it tends to be. As I recall, the 'Phile review was actually a bit tepid on the 8001 and I didn't come away with the impression that they considered in the "ultimate" category by any means.

    What this thread really comes down to is that a $1k CDP can come a lot closer to a $5k player than a $1k speaker can to a $5k speaker. That I agree with.

    As ever, value is purely in the eye of the beholder. Those damned poor people are so biased by their lack of money.

  5. #30
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    That's what I drive and it's huge value, if not a performance, machine.

    It's reasonable to expect a $5k player to beat a $1k player. And although it might not always be the case, it tends to be. As I recall, the 'Phile review was actually a bit tepid on the 8001 and I didn't come away with the impression that they considered in the "ultimate" category by any means.:
    Jim Austin compared the 8001 to the Benchmark DAC1 and his reference Marantz SA15S1 and said:

    weeks of comparative, level-matched listening through a decent system revealed only very subtle differences—so subtle that it took me weeks to gain any confidence that they were real
    Combine that with this:

    It may be affordably priced, but the Marantz SA8001's measured performance is beyond reproach.—John Atkinson
    And a Class A rating

    and all that makes a very bold statement to readers...

    http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/1007mar/

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    What this thread really comes down to is that a $1k CDP can come a lot closer to a $5k player than a $1k speaker can to a $5k speaker. That I agree with.
    Yep... ironically, I think source is a valuable part of the audio chain as are amps, speakers, cables and room acoustics.... I'm not some source hater... I just don't think source 1st is the correct approach... but that's just MHO... I think my views are closer to Mr. Peabody (just that I call it "Source Last" while he 'seems' to think of it as "Source First"), To summarize my opinion:

    1) Find the Speakers you like... Speaker is most important in determining the sound of your system simply because they have the most variety... Put it this way... A Planar lover will probably not like a typical box speaker regardless of what electronics they pair it with, but they'll still like Planars even when paired with cheaper electronics (he'll just upgrade them eventually to refine/improve the sound)...

    2) Find an amp with suitable Synergy and power to drive the speakers you like... Frankly, you should probably do steps 1 & 2 at the same time if you can....

    3) When you have found a pair of speakers you really love and have capable amplification to drive it, then you look to upgrade source to make the most of your system...

    I don't believe that you are always best served by upgrading speakers... Simple real budget example... take say the B&W CM1 bookshelfs and compare them with the 805S bookshelfs... The 805S certainly sound better, but are triple the cost... if you really like the B&W sound, you're probably better off upgrading the entry level HT Receiver and DVD player you have driving the CM1s, than trying to spend triple the price of them to get the 805S.... IMVHO, there is often a far bigger difference between using entry level electronics on speakers you like (instead of more price appropriate gear) & just jumping to a higher model in the same brand's speaker line...

    Clearly there is a point at which your electronics are good enough that you can turn your attention to upgrading speakers again (if you so desire) or you could just kick back and enjoy your music...

    So to pick on Mr. Peabody again (just kidding, just using him as an example), he has found a pair of Dynaudio's that he really likes... thus it is more practical and much cheaper to upgrade the electronics driving them, than to try and find more and more expensive Dynaudio speakers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    As ever, value is purely in the eye of the beholder. Those damned poor people are so biased by their lack of money.
    Yeah, well that is the problem with talking about audio... it's very easy to offend people... the Audiophiles with loads of cash invested in a high end system are offended if you say anything that would remotely imply that they could have spent less money... while on the other hand, many persons with very humble budgets are deeply offended when their gear is dismissed as mid-fi, mass market or just not high end... so you tend to have a war of egos going on... low budgets claiming that high end is all about smoke and mirrors and high budgets claiming that the most subtle differences are worth tripling your budget over....

    Frankly I fall in neither camp, so I tend to at times piss off everybody... I see (hear) a lot of smoke and mirrors in audio, but at the same time I see (hear) real differences as you move up the price and quality brackets....

  6. #31
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    "The Cyrus counters with better organisation and improved agility..."

    What exactly does that mean?
    No idea... ask reviewers on WhatHiFi? they thought it was a valid observation somehow...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Because they seek more than "comparable".

    rw
    Ahh... I see... nothing wrong with that... why should someone settle for 'almost as good' if they can afford the best?

  7. #32
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    No idea... ask reviewers on WhatHiFi? they thought it was a valid observation somehow...
    Why do you think it is valid if you don't even know what those terms mean? I confess that I was not impressed with the (lack of) depth of the review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Ahh... I see... nothing wrong with that... why should someone settle for 'almost as good' if they can afford the best?
    Or afford any number of other players/DACs that are likely better in some fashion or another. It is evident that magazine is UK centric. Its list of reference components is very limited.

    rw

  8. #33
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Why do you think it is valid if you don't even know what those terms mean? I confess that I was not impressed with the (lack of) depth of the review.


    Or afford any number of other players/DACs that are likely better in some fashion or another. It is evident that magazine is UK centric. Its list of reference components is very limited.

    rw
    When it comes to reviews, I prefer to take things at face value... since I haven't compared the Naim or Cyrus myself... there is no point in me believing the description of where Naim excels and then questioning the part where Cyrus excels... I use reviews as a frame of reference for gear I really should have on my shortlist when it's time to audition... but that's it...

    As for the length of the review: well that's the WhatHiFi? Style and is pretty much UK style... more reviews, more direct shootouts and far less words.... If you want a long description of how harps sounded on a classic 1950's LP, then you read Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.. If you want a quick review and description of a product, you read WhatHiFi? or HiFi Choice...

    Also, while the magazine is UK centric, I wouldn't call it limited... there is an obscene amount of HiFi available in the UK (maybe even more than what is available on this side of the pond)... and given that the UK mags review far more products per issue, I would actually expect them to have tested more products than US reviewers (though US reviewers will have spent far more time with each product)...

  9. #34
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462

    No slight intended

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    That's what I drive and it's huge value, if not a performance, machine.
    I'm not knocking Ford, nor would I knock my choice, Honda. Each offers a value proposition that involves some compromises. Agree? Assuming they are completely equivalent to higher performance models, however, is stretching it. Like the shallow review.

    rw

  10. #35
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Also, while the magazine is UK centric, I wouldn't call it limited...
    Hmmm. With respect to digital playback, they have no experience with:

    Ayre
    Accuphase
    Burmester
    Cary Design
    EMM Labs
    Benchmark
    Manley
    Grace
    MBL
    GamuT
    Esoteric
    Theta, etc., etc.

    Their speaker list is similarly limited. As in few, if any, models that would be considered SOTA. Which is kind of handy if you are attempting to tell your audience that component "A" is as good as it gets.

    rw

  11. #36
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Hmmm. With respect to digital playback, they have no experience with:

    Ayre
    Accuphase
    Burmester
    Cary Design
    EMM Labs
    Benchmark
    Manley
    Grace
    MBL
    GamuT
    Esoteric
    Theta, etc., etc.

    Their speaker list is similarly limited. As in few, if any, models that would be considered SOTA. Which is kind of handy if you are attempting to tell your audience that component "A" is as good as it gets.

    rw
    Their website has only been publishing the reviews online in the last month or so.... hence only the most recent reviews are online... So I really can't know whether they've tested any of those other brands you've listed...

  12. #37
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    You get the best feel for a product when it is in your own system but hearing gear in a store or some one's house will give an idea of what it's capable of. Although if it's not set up properly or not so good synergy it can leave a bad impression. If some one is objective and honest about their experience I don't see what your bank account has to do with anything. Except what you own personally. I don't think any of us are in the position to go out and buy what ever gear our heart desires. I can be satisfied with my personal system but it wouldn't make much sense for me to say my new CD player sounds as good as the $8k player T+A offers just because I can't afford the T+A player. Well, of course, unless it was and it's not. If some one has never heard any gear above the level of their own, they need to be open minded enough to accept there could be something better. Those with more experience have to walk a thin line between trying to educate or prompt and offending. There are more than a few here who have decent systems whose sources, especially digital, are sub par to the rest of their system. I think if they actually tried a more capable unit it could save further expense in upgrades down the road, or..... cause them perhaps. Also, I am coming to understand that there are those who are happy with good enough regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I can't see how some will wear a $10k watch and snear at a $2k CD player. I can't understand that but I have come to accept it. I've also come to accept I am more picky about my sound quality which leads me to really spend more than I should. If I bought the Arcam player it would have been a good performer and a great transport but I just couldn't bring myself to settle after the T+A bested it by so much and even bested my prized Audio Note. I mean the $8k T+A or $20k Linn or $25K Krell all could best these players as well but they are so far out of reach, I can admire, and they are still references in my mind but the player I bought was obviously doable. Now my wife and kids are mowing the neighbors lawns and picking up cans I'd also like to mention that a few members have recently bought new digital playback and they seem to be happy, I didn't see any posts where they took the players back because their old one sounded as good.

    The thing I look for in reviews if they say things like "good for any price point" or "as good as anything out there", did the writer replace their reference player with it? When they do, then you know it's the shtuff.

  13. #38
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Yeah, I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm not knocking Ford, nor would I knock my choice, Honda. Each offers a value proposition that involves some compromises. Agree? Assuming they are completely equivalent to higher performance models, however, is stretching it. Like the shallow review.

    rw
    There's no saying that a Taurus is great car in any sense of performance. I bought mine used, a fleet car less than a year old. For me a car is a necessity not a luxury: what that means is I am willing to spend what it takes to fill the need but not cent more for entertainment.

    In the present context it is clear to all but a couple of die-hards that the rational person looking for value in an entry or mid-range system will end up spending more on speakers and likely amplification than on a digital source -- or the big scam, expensive cables

  14. #39
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Until reading this thread, and clicking onto the link provided by Ajani, I had never read the Stereophile review of the Marantz SA-8001. I think had I read the review earlier, I would have owned the 8001 a lot sooner!

    I purchased mine primarily due to blackraven's comments on it and the fact that other members own one and like it. While blackraven opted for the Cambridge Audio 840 over the 8001, that unit's price tag of $1,400 simply put it out of the running for me. I knew Stereophile had rated it highly, but not that it had given the 8001 a "Class A" rating.

    Few components have provided me the listening pleasure and satisfaction as does the 8001. Before purchasing it, I'd never heard an SACD through a 2-channel system, and even regarded SACD as more of a passing fad than of any medium of substance. Now, I'm a die-hard supporter of the SACD format, and continue to be impressed by the performance of the 8001, whether it's a CD or an SACD that I'm listening to.

    When the CD medium was introduced in 1983, one of its claims was its ability to have a far greater dynamic range than other source material. Unfortunately, with few exceptions (Telarc, for example), dynamic range didn't change much with the CD's available. I've now found that many CD's I own, which didn't seem to have that great a dynamic range now do on the 8001. Why that's so, I can't explain, but it certainly is noticeable. The warning that appeared on older Telarc discs to be cautious with the volume setting so as not to damage one's speakers now has an all-new relevance.

    Is the 8001 the equal of an $8,000 player? I have no idea, as I've never heard an $8,000 player, and I'm in no position to judge. If Stereophile says it is, then that's nice to hear, and it makes me happy I've made a wise buying decision. Most of my components are from companies that have made it their primary focus to offer products with performance on par with other, far costilier stuff (Adcom, Parasound, Dahlquist), and if I were to take the price tags of those more expensive items my stuff has been compared to, then I'd be able to say that my entire system is worth about $50,000! Is it? No way, but I like it, and so do others with knowledge of how good audio components should sound.

  15. #40
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    You get the best feel for a product when it is in your own system but hearing gear in a store or some one's house will give an idea of what it's capable of. Although if it's not set up properly or not so good synergy it can leave a bad impression. If some one is objective and honest about their experience I don't see what your bank account has to do with anything. Except what you own personally. I don't think any of us are in the position to go out and buy what ever gear our heart desires. I can be satisfied with my personal system but it wouldn't make much sense for me to say my new CD player sounds as good as the $8k player T+A offers just because I can't afford the T+A player. Well, of course, unless it was and it's not. If some one has never heard any gear above the level of their own, they need to be open minded enough to accept there could be something better.
    I agree.... Someone doesn't need to just blindly accept everything that they hear from members and reviewers with more expensive gear, but they should be willing to be open minded...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Those with more experience have to walk a thin line between trying to educate or prompt and offending. There are more than a few here who have decent systems whose sources, especially digital, are sub par to the rest of their system. I think if they actually tried a more capable unit it could save further expense in upgrades down the road, or..... cause them perhaps.
    That is a very difficult task... also keep this in mind... Imagine the guy with the $10K watching trying to explain to you why you should sell your $300 Citizen and get a real watch.... unless you are really into expensive watches, he'll be talking to a brick wall... Just like with watches and cars, most people can find a stereo that will perform adequately for their needs, without moving into 'Audiophile' prices....

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Also, I am coming to understand that there are those who are happy with good enough regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I can't see how some will wear a $10k watch and snear at a $2k CD player. I can't understand that but I have come to accept it. I've also come to accept I am more picky about my sound quality which leads me to really spend more than I should. If I bought the Arcam player it would have been a good performer and a great transport but I just couldn't bring myself to settle after the T+A bested it by so much and even bested my prized Audio Note. I mean the $8k T+A or $20k Linn or $25K Krell all could best these players as well but they are so far out of reach, I can admire, and they are still references in my mind but the player I bought was obviously doable. Now my wife and kids are mowing the neighbors lawns and picking up cans I'd also like to mention that a few members have recently bought new digital playback and they seem to be happy, I didn't see any posts where they took the players back because their old one sounded as good.
    I think it's just down to what you like.... Let's get real here... many audiophiles have a $50K stereo but a $20K car... To most people that is totally insane... A luxury car is pretty much accepted as a way people spend excess cash, but a stereo? Hell even a luxury watch is an 'accepted' way to burn money... stereo just isn't really thought of as a way to spend excess cash anymore...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    The thing I look for in reviews if they say things like "good for any price point" or "as good as anything out there", did the writer replace their reference player with it? When they do, then you know it's the shtuff.
    100% Agree!!! My top criteria for whether a writer really loved a product as much as they raved about it, is whether they bought it...

  16. #41
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    Is the 8001 the equal of an $8,000 player? I have no idea, as I've never heard an $8,000 player, and I'm in no position to judge.
    For me, the benchmark SACD players are made by EMM Labs. They primarily make professional gear (the other end of the DAC chain - the ADC) used by companies like Sony and Telarc. I've heard both the $23k separates and their *budget* $10k one box unit. Naturally, both are exceptional. NExt month, I will be visiting an audio friend who uses both in different systems.

    While I haven't directly compared the Marantz to the EMM products, the differences are likely similar to differences between other good to excellent products. That is to say by degrees. The EMM players are incredible in their ability to completely define the soundstage in a clear manner. There are single box units available on Agon now for less than $6k which is getting a lot closer for me to consider as I haven't taken the SACD plunge yet.

    rw

  17. #42
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    That's almost scary and tantalizing at the same time--the thought of those big Soundlabs with some tubage and the EMM. Please share the details if you get there...

  18. #43
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    .

    While I haven't directly compared the Marantz to the EMM products, the differences are likely similar to differences between other good to excellent products. That is to say by degrees.

    I would certainly hope that the difference between the EMM "one box" unit at a "mere" $10,000 vs. the Marantz SA-8001 at $900 was a whole helluva lot more than just a few degrees. I know there's a point of diminishing returns, and incremental improvements for disproportionately higher price tags, but you're talking about a unit that's more than ten times the price. I wouldn't expect it to be ten times better (If there were any way to effectively measure anything being ten times better than something else), but I'd surely expect more than only a few degrees difference. Not having had the opportunity to hear an EMM product, I can only dream...

  19. #44
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    I would certainly hope that the difference between the EMM "one box" unit at a "mere" $10,000 vs. the Marantz SA-8001 at $900 was a whole helluva lot more than just a few degrees.
    I'm not one of those "man, this just blows away the competition" kind of audio enthusiasts. There are differences to be sure, but many folks would find them not as significant as do I. There is also a considerable difference in the build quality for whatever that is worth. You won't find cheap sheet metal screws used on the EMM gear like you find on the Marantz and my $100 Kenwood receiver. The DAC uses proprietary discrete devices instead of someone's chip. The internal shielding of the unit is extensive as is the power supply. You can see where the dollars were spent.

    CDSA


    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    I know there's a point of diminishing returns, and incremental improvements for disproportionately higher price tags, but you're talking about a unit that's more than ten times the price. I wouldn't expect it to be ten times better (If there were any way to effectively measure anything being ten times better than something else), but I'd surely expect more than only a few degrees difference. Not having had the opportunity to hear an EMM product, I can only dream...
    Point taken, but I wish I could share my direct experiences. I could argue the same comparing my vintage double New Advents to the Sound LAB U-1s. The latter costs about 75 times that of the former. Are they 75 times better? No, but one can fool the senses quite effectively while the other cannot.

    rw

  20. #45
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm not one of those "man, this just blows away the competition" kind of audio enthusiasts. There are differences to be sure, but many folks would find them not as significant as do I.
    If more audiophiles were as honest as you are with statements like that... we'd probably see a lot less anti-audiophile sentiment... It's not all smoke and mirrors... in my limited experience (very limited compared to yours)... I've definitely heard where spending up to 10x the cost provides real improvement in sound... but for the most part the differences were what I'd call subtle (worth it, if you can afford it [not talking about income here, but spending money after expenses, family priorities, etc] but improvements you can live without, if your spending money was limited)...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    There is also a considerable difference in the build quality for whatever that is worth. You won't find cheap sheet metal screws used on the EMM gear like you find on the Marantz and my $100 Kenwood receiver. The DAC uses proprietary discrete devices instead of someone's chip. The internal shielding of the unit is extensive as is the power supply. You can see where the dollars were spent.
    Build quality matters more the longer you intend to use a component, and if you want good resale value... and let's be frank here: no-one wants to spend a lot of money on something that looks/feels flimsy...

    At $300 the Squeezebox Classic is made out of Shiny Black Plastic.... which is passable at that price point... at $2K, the Squeezebox Transporter is made of solid sheet metal and really looks the part...

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Point taken, but I wish I could share my direct experiences. I could argue the same comparing my vintage double New Advents to the Sound LAB U-1s. The latter costs about 75 times that of the former. Are they 75 times better? No, but one can fool the senses quite effectively while the other cannot.

    rw
    I think we'd all like to have your direct experiences.... it would make it a hell of a lot easier to determine what is real and what is just smoke...

  21. #46
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    When it comes to reviews, I prefer to take things at face value... since I haven't compared the Naim or Cyrus myself... there is no point in me believing the description of where Naim excels and then questioning the part where Cyrus excels... I use reviews as a frame of reference for gear I really should have on my shortlist when it's time to audition... but that's it...

    As for the length of the review: well that's the WhatHiFi? Style and is pretty much UK style... more reviews, more direct shootouts and far less words.... If you want a long description of how harps sounded on a classic 1950's LP, then you read Stereophile or The Absolute Sound.. If you want a quick review and description of a product, you read WhatHiFi? or HiFi Choice...

    Also, while the magazine is UK centric, I wouldn't call it limited... there is an obscene amount of HiFi available in the UK (maybe even more than what is available on this side of the pond)... and given that the UK mags review far more products per issue, I would actually expect them to have tested more products than US reviewers (though US reviewers will have spent far more time with each product)...
    I say Ajani old chap - What HiFi and HiFi Choice aren't exactly the greatest of UK audio publications. That would be akin to judging our daily newspapers by The Sun and the Daily Mail!

    If an English gentleman actually wanted to read "The Sun"; he would conceal it inside a copy of something like "Spanker's Weekly" in order to keep up appearences. Couldn't have the staff witnessing him reading such a lowly pupblication you know!

    HiFi News is good as is HiFi World; quite different approaches but more on a par with The Times and The Telegraph old boy.

    We also have "The Gramaphone"; not so much a HiFi magazine but specialising in recorded music and that would most certanly wax lyrical over how harps sounded on a classic 1950s recording.

    I suppose we have got more than our fair share of home grown kit over here, I guess it it typical British "cottage industry".

    We're great at designing things and even building one offs, we're just not quite so good at producing them in numbers and even worse at making a profit. A prime example would be Aston Martin.

    Cheers

    Chas

  22. #47
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    I say Ajani old chap - What HiFi and HiFi Choice aren't exactly the greatest of UK audio publications. That would be akin to judging our daily newspapers by The Sun and the Daily Mail!

    If an English gentleman actually wanted to read "The Sun"; he would conceal it inside a copy of something like "Spanker's Weekly" in order to keep up appearences. Couldn't have the staff witnessing him reading such a lowly pupblication you know!

    HiFi News is good as is HiFi World; quite different approaches but more on a par with The Times and The Telegraph old boy.

    We also have "The Gramaphone"; not so much a HiFi magazine but specialising in recorded music and that would most certanly wax lyrical over how harps sounded on a classic 1950s recording.

    I suppose we have got more than our fair share of home grown kit over here, I guess it it typical British "cottage industry".

    We're great at designing things and even building one offs, we're just not quite so good at producing them in numbers and even worse at making a profit. A prime example would be Aston Martin.

    Cheers

    Chas
    Actually I rather like HiFi World and HiFi News.... Gramaphone is too specialized towards Classical music (so pretty much useless to me as I hardly listen to Classical)... Interestingly, one of the editors (Andrew Everard) on What HiFi? is the big cheese on Gramaphone (I think).....

    WhatHiFi? has the best circulation in the UK and worldwide (I believe), so it tends to be the one most thought of as the main UK review mag (kind of unfortunate, I suppose)....

    My approach is that I like to read a wide range of review mags/websites.... so I read all those "HiFi" mags in the UK (why do almost all the UK mags have HiFi in the name, yet none of the North American ones do?).... + I read The Absolute Sound and Stereophile in America and check out the Soundstage Network for Canadian reviews...

  23. #48
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    WhatHiFi? has the best circulation in the UK and worldwide (I believe), so it tends to be the one most thought of as the main UK review mag (kind of unfortunate, I suppose)...
    Oh dear, that's like judging us all on The Sun or fish and chips or warm beer! Or it's like us judging all Americans on McDonalds!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    (why do almost all the UK mags have HiFi in the name, yet none of the North American ones do?)...
    Well, thats because they are HiFi magazines, the same as our fishing magizines all have either the word "Fishing" or "Angling" in the title.

    As the inventor's of the English language and probably a thousand years experience in using it; we are able to use words that mean exactly what we want to say, for example, you will say "at this moment in time" - we will say "now". You will say "in the right ball park" - we will say "approximately" or "close". You will say "24/7" - we will say continuous. Just kidding!

    Cheers

    Chas

  24. #49
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Chas Underhay
    Oh dear, that's like judging us all on The Sun or fish and chips or warm beer! Or it's like us judging all Americans on McDonalds!



    Well, thats because they are HiFi magazines, the same as our fishing magizines all have either the word "Fishing" or "Angling" in the title.

    As the inventor's of the English language and probably a thousand years experience in using it; we are able to use words that mean exactly what we want to say, for example, you will say "at this moment in time" - we will say "now". You will say "in the right ball park" - we will say "approximately" or "close". You will say "24/7" - we will say continuous. Just kidding!

    Cheers

    Chas
    LOL... That's fine... I prefer English english to American english anyway... I laugh so much everytime I see programs and websites that let me choose between Brittish and American English...

  25. #50
    Forum Regular Chas Underhay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    LOL... That's fine... I prefer English english to American english anyway... I laugh so much everytime I see programs and websites that let me choose between Brittish and American English...
    Somebody famous (can't remember who now) once said "Two nations divided by a common language!"

    But where would we be without blues and jazz eh?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •