In Reply to: RE: I did read the review ... and ... posted by J. Phelan on July 14, 2009 at 18:32:35:
> > If CD was "low-rez", then why is this such a horse race ??!! < <
Good point.
I've thought exactly that a number times, and when you consider the limited software, the cost of SACD playback has always been a hard sell for me.
> > "Very slightly" means what it says - and only in one sound category, after extended listening !! < <
OK, perhaps the difference were negligible, but you're still comparing a $6K player to a $16K player, and still, the $6K player was "slightly" better. You could argue that the Ayre was better simply because of DSD, but you'd be trumping that format, and this agenda seemed never to be your intent.
But think about it, if anyone owned a large SACD collection, which player would offer them the best - bang for the buck - sound wise?
A mega-buck great sounding CD player may indeed be all that it is, but it doesn't really represent progress until the sound quality filters down to realistic prices. Until then, who cares if a $16K meridian was totally awesome. It's been done before at those price levels.
I'm more impressed when a reasonably priced CD player can compete with a $6K SACD player. Perhaps, the Meridian G08 can, that would be a fairer test.
TB1
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- good point ... but - TBone 07/14/0921:35:35 07/14/09 (5)
- RE: good point ... but - J. Phelan 22:00:46 07/14/09 (4)
- RE: good point ... but - TBone 22:19:18 07/14/09 (3)
- RE: good point ... but - J. Phelan 22:37:04 07/14/09 (2)
- in the grand scheme of digital, the problems remain ... - TBone 20:13:31 07/16/09 (1)
- RE: in the grand scheme of digital, the problems remain ... - J. Phelan 20:37:53 07/16/09 (0)