Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Well, since you can't comprehend the proper meaning of "timbre"? ...

then lets try and discuss tonal accuracy (which is very much related to timbre)...

> > Bull, a $5,000 CD player or even a $15,00 CD player playing CDs can not get close to the timbre accuracy even compared to some pretty inexpensive turntables. < <

Hells bells, I could rest my entire case on your this obvious absurdity, which literally PROVES you don't know what the hell your talking about.

The !FACT! is ... LP-CDR has been used as a tool to evaluate even the best turntables and/or analog components. This has long been happening, certain prominent audiophile members have been doing this for years.

Tonal accuracy is an area in which Turntable components have long varied, meaning that they sound different on a constant basis. Tonal accuracy is but one-of-many of the criteria captured by LP-CDR.

Every educated audiophile knows that a $500 turntable simply does not include the type of tonal accuracy (esp at the extremes) one associates with better 16/44 digital players.

Therefore, 16/44 - AS A WORKING TOOL (*) - can be used to appraise the tonality/timbre of various analog components at various cost. This without any doubt, proves that 16/44 - WHEN RECORDED WITH CARE - has enough resolution to capture the various tonal quality (perhaps all too various with analog) of even the very best analog.

> > I have move hands on knowledge and experience if you think CDs still sound good. < <

Teresa, honestly, based on the above quote ... you do realize that far too often you sound just like a 12 year old brat who always "needs" to get her way?

Look, my evaluation of your knowledge is based on much more than your inability to appraise CD. Your total inability to "review" on nearly any educated "audiophile" level has been proven inadequate time & time again ... something which I'm certain you'll continue to prove ...

(*) this is probably far too deep an audiophile concept for you and your cronies too understand, but any "decent" reviewer worth his/her salt requires an entire audio system/room which must be considered a "WORKING TOOL".

THEREFORE ... it must be highly refined and well set (so few are), and it's overall build must prove to be of "reference" quality. This basic requirement eliminates 95% of all so-called reviewers, basically because their systems (which are in fact used as working tools for evaluation) are so randomly chosen, (or chosen with a motive other than SQ) and the vast majority have little refinement past "tweaks of the month club memberships". And since most "reviewers " change components far too often (a true "reference" should rarely change)... these so-called reviewers and their systems could never properly appraise components based on some benchmark or reference - over any period of time.

Too that end, most reviewers are fooling themselves, and hence ... the public. Just as you've done!

tb1


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.