View Full Version : Recent thread on pfm.
anthonyTD
11-10-2011, 19:04
Hi All,
After only recently having had chance to read a paticular thread on Pink Fish http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=106841 posted by Steve Toy, I feel I am now able to give my opinion here of the findings of that day.
First of all the comparisons made between the two CD players used is IMHO not a true representation, sure, the Audio Lab player that Steve brought with him is an excellent player in its own right, but where I have to disagree is with Steve declaring as fact that it is a better player than the Eikos! It may indeed be his opinion based on the relatively short time he had to listen to both, but having now had time myself to listen to the two players for a much longer period, I can now give you my honest opinion. On first impressions, yes it would seem that the Audiolab is a more refined and yet equally dynamic a player as the Eikos, but on further listening it is my opinion that the Audiolab player is possibly missing some of the ultimate resolution and dynamics that the Eikos is capable of from the very best recordings, therefore it makes sense of the initial first impressions i.e. that the Audiolab is a more refined player.
After this personal revelation, I am reminded and therefore reassured why I have stuck with the Eikos for so many years after having had the chance to listen to many other great players that have come through my door. Some of you will know the history between myself and Tom Evans, and a lot of you wont, either way it is safe to say that we did not always see eye to eye when we worked together in the early 2000’s and therefore our professional differences was to be the ultimate downfall of our brief, but positively productive business partnership.
I mention this here because despite having the best reason in the world [at the time]to have gotten rid of the Eikos due to its direct connection with someone I no longer wanted anything to do with, it would have been akin to cutting off my nose to spite my face. Putting aside my personal feelings I could not then, and even today’ ignore the fact that what Tom Achieved with that player was nothing short of miraculous as far as ultimate resolution retrieval, timing, and dynamic range is concerned. Yes, on some lesser recordings The Eikos can sound a bit ragged, even aggravating at times, but unfortunately it’s the price you pay for ultimate “warts and all.
Now, that brings me to the comparison carried out between the three different types of audio power valves we auditioned briefly in my own soul power amps.
I will lay my cards firmly on the table here, my own personal over-all preference in my soul amps are the original GEC’s no doubt, however, the KT120’s in the same amps do a superb job as far as bass texture,with an effortless and very musical presentation etc, The original Tesla’s [later know as the EAT] have in some respects an addictive quality about them in the soul amps, and I did indeed promote them in the early days when I used to deal with jozefina direct.
Now what I fear Steve should have done before writing this mini review was to wait until he had heard both the Tesla’s and KT120’s in his own push-pull class A copper amp, because as others have witnessed, the presentation of both valves in different circuit topologies i.e.; single ended versus push-pull can have a very different sonic signature, i.e. I am sure when Steve hear's what the KT 120’s are capable of in his own amp, against the still excellent [in many respects] original Tesla’s, he may have a different opinion.
So to summarise. Steven Toy prefers the CD player he owns and you prefer the CD player you own.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Reid Malenfant
11-10-2011, 19:20
:scratch: What's this about then?
It's that name again, i guess that is what it might be about...
What the heck, give me warts & all :) If the recording isn't too hot i'd rather know about it than have it glossed over. When it is good you really know about it & appreciate it. I think they are called "reference recordings" or somesuch thing ;)
Sorry if i have gone off topic, but i'm not 100% sure what the topic is :eyebrows:
anthonyTD
11-10-2011, 19:29
So to summarise. Steven Toy prefers the CD player he owns and you prefer the CD player you own.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Hi Ian,
no worries!:)
My point of writting this was to put my side of that mini review across, and seen as i dont have membership to pink fish,and knowing that there are many members here who are also members there, it made sense to put my response here.
Anthony,TD...
Ali Tait
11-10-2011, 21:20
Fair enough Anthony, but does it really matter? It's just words on a screen..
It's just words on a screen..
Lol! I've seen you coming out with that statement many times, mate, but I'm afraid that I don't share your sentiments, especially when in other instances, not here, it refers to insults that people dish out to others on the Internet.
My view is that you don't write on a forum, or anywhere else on the Internet, anything that you wouldn't also say to someone's face. Therefore, if someone calls me a c*nt, on a forum, I take that as seriously as I would if they had said it, in person, to my face. The effect of an insult shouldn't be devalued just because it's "just words on a screen", otherwise you're giving a green light for all hell to break loose on places like forums!
Anyway, returning to the subject at hand.... Some of us are also sticklers for factual accuracy, which is why Anthony has posted this thread.
I think it's important that on forums people are provided with accurate information, in order that they can make reasonable judgements on equipment, when all they have to go on are "just words on a screen", or in effect, one person's opinion. Therefore, Anthony is simply giving his opinion on the listening session he had with Steve, in order to provide some balance. After all, thousands of people read AoS and pfm every day, so what they read there should be true! :)
I shall comment more on this later.
Marco.
Ali Tait
11-10-2011, 21:58
Ok, but who decides what is "factually accurate" when it comes to opinions on the SQ of various kit? As you said "one person's opinion"
I have little interest in insults given via words on a screen, since I don't give them out generally, I don't receive any!
Politeness and respect go a long way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to make an argument or stir things up. I don't visit the wam or pfm, or indeed any other forum of that ilk, as I find that kind of confrontational mindset quite distasteful. I'm happy in places like this and Audio- Talk.
I completely agree; it's just that I would never dilute ot devalue a personal insult made on a forum, just because 'it's only words on a screen'. In my book, and insult is an insult, no matter where it is made.
Anyway, swiftly moving on........
Ok, but who decides what is "factually accurate" when it comes to opinions on the SQ of various kit?
You misunderstand me. I mean "factually accurate", in terms of what had been agreed by those who took part in the relevant listening session.
No way did Anthony agree with Steve that his Eikos was inferior to the Audiolab (if he thought it was, though, he'd have no problem acknowledging it), but to him it most certainly wasn't, or indeed that Tesla KT88s were automatically more 'musical sounding' than Tung Sol KT120s.
Steve neglected to take into account that the tube-rolling had only been undertaken with Anthony's Soul Mate single-ended monoblocks, and not in his own push-pull Copper amp, where the results, for a variety of reasons, would've been very different. Anthony can elucidate here, if necessary.
And so instead of discussing his thoughts properly with Anthony (on what, after all, were items in his system) first, before writing what he did on pfm, and subsequently misleading people, Steve portrayed his opinion as fact. *That* is the issue here, and it's an old problem of Steve's: coming to definitive conclusions on things WAY too quickly, without due consideration of the relevant variables. He's always been too impulsive for his own good.
If someone is reporting on the results of a listening session, what's written should reflect the thoughts of all parties who were present, and not simply those of one person.
Marco.
I don't get it Marco, nobody has been insulted have they (perhaps they have and I've missed it)?
I think I remember the pfm thread - perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong one.
__________________
Well, I've just read the pfm thread and I can't see any harm in it, nobody is insulted.There is a bit of posturing from a couple of guys when Naim somehow get mentioned, but similar happens on many (most) threads. I suppose it is implied that Anthony agrees with Steve's findings, but it isn't actually stated.
Ali Tait
11-10-2011, 22:33
Ok, but that was just what was agreed by those who were there at the time surely?
Is it not the case that what sounds better to an individual is simply that which sounds best to them at the time, regardless of if it goes with the majority opinion or not?
Mark, you need to read this bit again, which I wrote earlier to Ali:
I've seen you coming out with that statement many times, mate, but I'm afraid that I don't share your sentiments, especially when in other instances, not here, it refers to insults that people dish out to others on the Internet.
No-one has been insulted; I was simply expanding the discussion by giving my thoughts on Ali's idea of what is "just words on a screen". It's bothered me for a while, therefore since Ali used the expression again, I used the opportunity to address the matter!
The thread in question, on pfm, was linked to by Anthony in his opening post :)
Marco.
Ok, but that was just what was agreed by those who were there at the time surely?
No. The fact is that Steve's account on pfm, of his listening session with Anthony, was NOT what was agreed by those who were there at the time.
Marco.
Mark, you need to read this bit again, which I wrote earlier to Ali:
Yep, I read that bit.
No-one has been insulted; I was simply expanding the discussion by giving my thoughts on Ali's idea of what is "just words on a screen". It's bothered me for a while, therefore since Ali used the expression again, I used the opportunity to address the matter!
OK, fair enough, it just seemed a bit out of context is all.
The thread in question, on pfm, was linked to by Anthony in his opening post :)
Marco.
Yeah, just read it.
jandl100
12-10-2011, 06:12
Ah well - they were using Tannoys. Everything sounds the same through Tannoys, anyway! :eyebrows:
Wot? No! Seriously now ...
I've not heard an Eikos, except in the AoS room at Scalford.
I've heard an Audiolab CDQ in my own system for an hour or so. I was sufficiently impressed to buy my own late spec 8200CD (no Q).
Yup - the 8200CD is very very good in many ways. But not in all ways.
Macro dynamics and clarity it has in alarming abundance. But imaging is a bit flat, tonal colouring is not of the richest, bass is of the ultra-clean and taut variety (and so not to everyone's taste), and low-level dynamic expression is rather muted - all compared to my own current references.
So it's not perfect, imho. But what is? I'm sure the Eikos isn't either.
Next! :)
A perfectly balanced and fair appraisal, Jerry, and what one seeks on forums. If I'm correct, your favourite source in our system that day was Nick's Nagra reel-to-reel machine, and I would also concur, as it sounded utterly sublime!
Anyway, the 'wrong' has been put right, so there's no need to say any more, unless Anthony wishes to comment further in respect of any techncial points. Hopefully Steve will take on board the issues raised and factor them in on future when he's discussing the merits of the Eikos and his Audiolab, not to mention NOS KT88s versus the new KT120s :)
Marco.
anthonyTD
12-10-2011, 09:07
hi All,
before things get out of hand, i would just like to re-enforce the reason why i felt it necessary to write what i have on this subject, First of all i dont have a problem with someone prefering one item over another, be it a CD player or a type of valve etc, it is all subjective, and mostly down to the individuals perception.
What i do have a problem with is someone stating what they prefer, and therefore inferring that because of their preference, the other item is somehow inferior.
That was not the case, Jerry has sumed things up pretty close to my own feelings on the Audiolab, but i would never state as fact that because of my feelings, that this item is somehow inferior to the Eikos.
Both players are exceptionaly good at what they do, but as Jerry has stated nothing is perfect.
And the valve thing, well, i just hope that when Steve's own amp is complete that he dosent feel too bad when he may have to eat his words where that is concerned!
AOS is the only forum on the web you will find anything written by me on HI FI related matters, apart from my own website!
Anthony,TD...
There is no such thing as right or wong in subjective reviewing, simply likes or dislikes. Add in the multiple variations of tube rolling/circuit configuration in this particular instance and it's not surprising that opinions differ on the result.
To say that 'X was better than Y' is both too dogmatic and too simplistic. I recall a thread on ANOther forum, where a group of six or so people listended to the same DAC (the Chord DAC 64). Their views ranged from 'too bland' to 'too fierce' with a couple regarding the sound as 'just right'. None of those views is correct, unless of course you happen to agree with it.
To say that 'X was better than Y' is both too dogmatic and too simplistic.
Indeed, Joe.
It also helps when you tell the WHOLE story about kit you've heard, and not merely the bits which are advantageous to your circumstances, or in other words, simply 'bigging up' your own gear...! ;)
The point is if, as the owner of an Audiolab CDQ, you're going to start a thread entitled "Audiolab CDQ versus Acoustic Precision Eikos", which will be of genuine value to neutral onlookers, then you need to provide sufficient insight into the respective merits of both players, from the perspective of all who heard the comparison, and not simply an account of events skewed by your own personal bias.
The latter is worthless to all but stroking the ego of the author.
What i do have a problem with is someone stating what they prefer, and therefore inferring that because of their preference, the other item is somehow inferior.
Quite.
As I said earlier, all Steve had to do was discuss his findings with you, to find out what you thought about what was heard, and take that information into account, PRIOR to publishing his view of events on pfm. It's simple courtesy and common sense :)
Marco.
StanleyB
12-10-2011, 09:39
...dynamics and clarity it has in alarming abundance. But imaging is a bit flat, tonal colouring is not of the richest, bass is of the ultra-clean and taut variety (and so not to everyone's taste), and low-level dynamic expression is rather muted - all compared to my own current references.
These are key factors. I wished you had mentioned them months ago. Nothing to do with CDP mind you..
jandl100
12-10-2011, 10:10
A perfectly balanced and fair appraisal, Jerry, and what one seeks on forums ....
Ah, but not on PFM apparently. :eyebrows:
I posted that same Audiolab 8200CD "mini-review" on PFM this morning and ran straight into a sarcastic response (as well as a snide and irrelevant personal attack) from one of the resident John Westlake fanboyz. :lol:
Hi Simon! :wave:
jandl100
12-10-2011, 10:12
These are key factors. I wished you had mentioned them months ago. Nothing to do with CDP mind you..
Errr ... you've lost me there, Stan! :scratch: What should I have mentioned about what? You can be very cryptic sometimes, you know. :)
jandl100
12-10-2011, 10:45
... Jerry has sumed things up pretty close to my own feelings on the Audiolab ...
There's been some recent discussion on one of my Wigwam threads - the Wammer there demmed a current 8200CDQ with a view to a purchase and agreed with my detailed comments about the sound of the 8200CD pretty much 100%. He bought a Rega DAC instead. :) ... I must try one of those sometime.
Lol - I've just read what Simon (sq225917) has written on pfm:
Steven, with the best will in the world, unless everything is level matched to within a gnats nut of a DB and Anthony is listening blind he's only reporting what he thinks he hears, not what he hears. I'm in no way casting aspersions on his character, only his experimental rigour.
Simon, since Anthony and you are both members of AoS, perhaps you'd care to challenge him here on your above assertion? :) Also, what you've written above, which personally I think is bollocks, also applies to Steve's "experimental rigour", or rather lack of it!!
Perhaps you could tell me, in your opinion, in what way has Steve's "experimental rigour", in terms of making a proper comparison between the CDQ and the Eikos, been more thorough than Anthony's??
I suspect that you're only saying what you are because you're also a fan of the CDQ, and so Steve's findings suited you. However, contrary, more critical opinions, in favour of the Eikos, perhaps don't - eh? ;)
Marco.
jandl100
12-10-2011, 11:09
Let's see ... so all I have to do is buy a £29.99 Dixons all-in-1 system, play it 0.1dB louder than my lovely £20k rig and it'll sound better. Is that right? :D
anthonyTD
12-10-2011, 11:17
hi All,
well, i have just read Steve's latest adition to the thread on PFM and can conclude that i am happy with the amendments he has made.:)
Anthony,TD...
Stratmangler
12-10-2011, 11:20
Let's see ... so all I have to do is buy a £29.99 Dixons all-in-1 system, play it 0.1dB louder than my lovely £20k rig and it'll sound better. Is that right? :D
This has me confused :scratch:
When, at any point earlier in the thread has a Dixons all-in-1 system been mentioned?
And yes, I recognise the post for the puerile throwaway comment it is.
Let's see ... so all I have to do is buy a £29.99 Dixons all-in-1 system, play it 0.1dB louder than my lovely £20k rig and it'll sound better. Is that right? :D
Classic :rolleyes:
StanleyB
12-10-2011, 13:17
Errr ... you've lost me there, Stan! :scratch: What should I have mentioned about what? You can be very cryptic sometimes, you know. :)
I still got you down as a beta tester, unless you have now retired :eyebrows:.
hi All,
well, i have just read Steve's latest adition to the thread on PFM and can conclude that i am happy with the amendments he has made.:)
Anthony,TD...
Cool... In that respect then, it's a case of 'all's well that ends well' :)
Marco.
Audioman
12-10-2011, 15:55
Whatever is the better CD player (Eikos v CDQ) a number of practical points should be made.
1. Eikos was expensive new and is hard to find used due to limited quanitities.
2. CDQ is widely available and relatively cheap.
3. If CDQ is kinder to less well mastered CD's (that is most of them) it will be preferable on SQ grounds for most people.
4. A modded version of CDQ is about to hit the shops which may be clearly better than the Eikos.
5. Taking into account developments in digital technology and the track record of the designer it is a strong possibility that the newer product would outperform a 1990's design.
As for myself I am waiting for the Mdac which should be even better coupled to my VRDS transport.
Hi Paul,
Those are all fair points, but you're not taking into account one very important factor, in respect of the Eikos (which, of course, you didn't know), and that is that the player Steve compared his CDQ to was not a stock item; it was one which had been extensively modified, in terms of power supply arrangements, etc, by Anthony, and as such performed sonically at a much higher level than a stock Eikos.
That's one of the reasons why Anthony was taken aback by Steve's 'appraisal', as the modified Eikos is to his ears, and mine, one of the finest CDPs we've heard at any price, and in Anthony's opinion (I've yet to hear the CDQ, and so remain to be convinced of its true abilities), it is sonically superior to the CDQ, and does not sound as Steve has described it.
Also, I don't buy the "Taking into account developments in digital technology and the track record of the designer it is a strong possibility that the newer product would outperform a 1990's design" bit. I use a late 1980s (never mind 1990s) Sony CDP and TDA 1541-based DAC (again extensively modified with the best modern components), and I would put it up against ANY digital source made today, and be confident that it wouldn't disgrace itself, sonically. And in that, I include the best streaming devices.
I'm sure that the CDQ is an excellent CD player, and that its designer is a very talented individual (indeed, current evidence proves this), but in my experience to date, new technology doesn't automatically equate to superior performance, in any area of audio, and that includes CD players.
Marco.
jandl100
12-10-2011, 17:31
... but in my experience to date, new technology doesn't automatically equate to superior performance, in any area of audio, and that includes CD players.
Marco.
:thumbsup:
Those that think that newer has to be better are sadly deluding themselves, ime & imho. :)
I've a 1990-ish cdp that's had its output stage modded by TEN Audio that shows the 8200CD the door in many important musical respects.
Reid Malenfant
12-10-2011, 17:34
Hello Marco :)
Also, I don't buy the "Taking into account developments in digital technology and the track record of the designer it is a strong possibility that the newer product would outperform a 1990's design" bit. I use a late 1980s (never mind 1990s) Sony CDP and TDA 1541-based DAC (again extensively modified with the best modern components), and I would put it up against ANY digital source made today, and be confident that it wouldn't disgrace itself, sonically, and in that I include the best streaming devices.
We are all entitled to our own opinions & i'm sure your player & DAC are very good indeed, i can be pretty damn sure of this having listened to some of your kit at Scalford ;)
However, we are all human (well mostly :eyebrows:) & this human condition causes people to have differing opinions of what may be exceptional equipment. No-one is right or wrong at the end of the day & everyone is entitled to prefer one kind of setup over another, as i say, there is no right or wrong & there is much of a grey area in between as to what constitutes the best performance.
As someone mentioned a little earlier, one of these CDPs may well make some of the more mediocre CD pressings sound more listenable to, which may well sway some people to favour that kind of setup over something more revealing..
All i'm attempting to say is different strokes for different folks :)
Me, give me it warts & all :cool:
Hi Mark,
I completely agree, and thanks for your kind remarks. The purpose of this thread was simply to provide some balance, and Anthony is now satisfied that this has been achieved, partly due to Steve's addendum to his thread on pfm.
Therefore, in that respect, it's a case of 'job done'. Any further discussion, in terms of the points that Paul has raised, for example, are in supplement to that and now being debated accordingly :)
Marco.
I don’t know either of the players mentioned so have no opinion on the merits of either.
What I’m not at all clear about is why; and please excuse the bluntness, anyone could give a toss what Steve Toy writes, let alone feel it worth posting on another forum about.
Maybe I’m missing some past history here.
Systems and components get slated by audiophiles on a regular basis on the internet. Just because a few regular forum contributors fancy themselves as a bit of a golden eared audiophile doesn’t mean anyone believes them or would go about choosing their equipment on the basis of anothers opinion does it?
I’m not really expecting a rational explanation here as past experience of people discussing their audio toys has taught me that the only way to come to a decision about the truth of superior performance, or not, is to listen to the kit oneself and make up ones own mind. I just cant help but wonder why some seem to have got a bit hot under the collar about this particular incident.
Hi John,
I think I've said it at least about five times now, so once again, in the hope that it will stick.... It's not a case of anyone being "hot under the collar", but about providing some balance.
I totally agree with this:
Systems and components get slated by audiophiles on a regular basis on the internet. Just because a few regular forum contributors fancy themselves as a bit of a golden eared audiophile doesn’t mean anyone believes them or would go about choosing their equipment on the basis of anothers opinion does it?
But like it or not, many people are too lazy and can't be bothered thinking for themselves, let alone willing to trust their own ears, and so they buy equipment on the recommendation of others who appear as knowledgeable.
And often those recommendations come from information that turns up via Google searches on the Internet, and particularly from discussions on busy and popular forums, such as AoS and pfm........... That's why one should be VERY careful about what one writes, and make sure that opinions expressed on equipment are derived from thorough research and assessment, and not simply half an hour's listening in someone's house.
Therefore, in terms of AoS, I do whatever I can to ensure that what is written here about audio equipment and ancillary items (and read on Internet searches) is informed and fair comment, preventing misinformation as far as possible in the process, and it doesn't hurt to achieve that sometimes by addressing what is written elsewhere on topics of interest to people here ;)
Got it now, muchacho? :cool:
Marco.
Hi John,
Got it now, muchacho? :cool:
Marco.
Maybe Marco, maybe ;)
I blame the lack of nicotine myself :scratch:
And the valve thing, well, i just hope that when Steve's own amp is complete that he dosent feel too bad when he may have to eat his words where that is concerned!
Indeed! ;)
AOS is the only forum on the web you will find anything written by me on HI FI related matters, apart from my own website!
And we're very glad to have you... I'm curious though as to what websites you contribute to on non-hi-fi related matters. I fear that I shall have to scan your favourites list next time I'm down, in search of dodgy dens of iniquity! :eyebrows:
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-10-2011, 10:21
Indeed! ;)
And we're very glad to have you...
I'm curious though as to what websites you contribute to on non-hi-fi related matters. I fear that I shall have to scan your favourites list next time I'm down, in search of dodgy dens of iniquity! :eyebrows:
Marco.
:lol:
Now, i dont have time to go through all the responses here at the moment, but i feel i must try and restore some balance here, and re-enforce the reason i started this thread.
In short, there are quite a few people who still own and therefore cherish the merits of the Eikos player as do i, therefore, i couldnt leave what Steve wrote on PFM without giving my own view on the short' but very interesting time we had for the comparisons we observed together from both players,As stated they both have strengths and weakneses [like everything] but in diffrent areas, and i just needed people to understand that out of the two players i would still rather live with the weakneses of the Eikos than those of the Audiolab in my system, but trying hard not to do either any injustice, they are both very capable players!
I am sure in a diffrent system some would indeed prefer the merits of the modified Audiolab over the Eikos, and thats fine with me.
Also, i must stress that the player Jerry has in his own system is apparently not the same as the one Steve brought round for the demo, although i still concur with some of his findings with his player in context with the one i have of Steve's.
I realy hope this clears things up a bit here now.
Anthony,TD...
anthonyTD
13-10-2011, 10:25
Whatever is the better CD player (Eikos v CDQ) a number of practical points should be made.
1. Eikos was expensive new and is hard to find used due to limited quanitities.
2. CDQ is widely available and relatively cheap.
3. If CDQ is kinder to less well mastered CD's (that is most of them) it will be preferable on SQ grounds for most people.
4. A modded version of CDQ is about to hit the shops which may be clearly better than the Eikos.
5. Taking into account developments in digital technology and the track record of the designer it is a strong possibility that the newer product would outperform a 1990's design.
As for myself I am waiting for the Mdac which should be even better coupled to my VRDS transport.
hi Paul,
Fair comment.:)
Anthony,TD...
Nice one, mate :)
Steve's most recent (lenghty) post on the thread on pfm is also good and clears up a few things: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1489364#post1489364
If only he had been as thorough in expressing his views in the first place!
What this highlights for me is the danger of being misunderstood when simply posting quick 'throwaway' remarks on forums, which may come back and bite you on the bum, once they've been scrutinised in more detail........
The fact is, you can't form conclusive opinions (or what are portrayed as conclusive opinions) on any aspect of audio, let alone carry out proper equipment comparisons, based on the results of a half-hour listening session at someone else's house. Impetuousness is rarely an advantageous trait ;)
Quite clearly, Anthony, you have a better handle on the respective sonic merits of both the Eikos and the CDQ than Steve, simply through having lived with them both for longer, in a system and with music you know inside out, which is why at this point in time your opinion has more credibility.
My advice (based on what I've learned myself in the past) is to consider very carefully what one writes on forums, as the critical eye of 'Big Brother' is always watching.................!
Marco.
anthonyTD
13-10-2011, 12:42
A lesson to be learnt here by all, and that is; How easily and quickly things can get out of hand when they are written in haste!:)
A...
Nail > head, dude!
Marco.
jandl100
13-10-2011, 17:54
.... Also, i must stress that the player Jerry has in his own system is apparently not the same as the one Steve brought round for the demo, although i still concur with some of his findings with his player in context with the one i have of Steve's.
That's true - but there is a very definite and distinctive house sound here.
I previously mentioned a Wammer who had a dem of the latest spec CDQ - he agreed that my comments on my 8200CD (positive as well as negative) were pretty much 100% applicable to what he heard with the CDQ.
To me this strongly indicates that if you 'buy in' to the current Audiolab house sound then the benefits of the 8200CDQ over the 8200CD are probably worthwhile - but if you don't then neither will do!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.