Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site olivee.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!olivee!greg
From: greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: CD questions and record/CD clubs
Message-ID: <409@olivee.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 14:15:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: olivee.409
Posted: Mon Jul  1 14:15:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:04:56 EDT
References: <209@harvard.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 60

> I just read a few CD player reviews in Stereo Review and was bothered by
> them. Basically, the reviews said that all CD players sound good, and
> the differences between them are so minor that they aren't worth
> considering. The reviews consisted mostly of the enumeration of the
> programming features.
> 
> Which brings me to my first question: How important are the programming
> features? Do netters who own CD players really use the various features?
> 
> Where do you go for good reviews of CD players and CDs?
> 
...
>   Marty Sasaki				net:   sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}

The refusal to acknowlege sonic differences between CD players seems to
be essentially an American thing.  In England (Gramophone, HiFi News/Record
Review, Hifi for Pleasure), Germany (Fono Forum, Audio, Stereoplay) and
Italy (Suono, Audio, Stereoplay - the last two differ from the German)
test reports on CD players routinely comment on the sound quality and
use this as a basis for comparisons.  Although I have never seen a review
of a CD player that ranked the sound below average in these magazines
(which are, in their respective markets, as "mainstream" as Stereo Review
or High Fidelity here), many tend to be ranked as merely average in
this regard (including models by Sony, Yamaha, Technics) whereas others
rank "above average" (NAD, Toshiba) and a few are ranked "outstanding"
(the Philips line in general, Denon, Nakamichi).  I mention this not to
praise or criticise individual models myself, but just to point out the
fact that the attitude shown by Stereo Review in this regard is not
worldwide, and that differences of opinion are not restricted to elitist
or underground press.

For equipment reviews, therefore, I tend to favor the German and English
magazines over the Americans, particularly HiFi News and Record Review
and German Audio and Stereoplay, particularly since the latter always
include in their test reports a judgement of the unit's performance in
direct relationship to its price.  In the U.S., I've liked some of the
equipment reviews in The $ensible Sound, but have ambiguous feelings
about the Absolute Sound.  On the one hand, I've never known them to
give a good review to a poor or mediocre component, so you could say
that anything they recommend is a safe bet.  On the other hand, I've
known them to condescendingly dismiss other components that I've found
excellent.  I tend, therefore, to take their favorable reviews more
seriously than their hatchet jobs.

As far as CD reviews are concerned, I find the same British and
German magazines (and sometimes Gramophone) fairly reliable in 
assessing the sound quality.  In this regard, I would make the same 
comment about Absolute Sound as I did with regard to their equipment 
reviews (all of their "reference recordings" do sound great, but
some that they pan aren't bad sounding at all).  I don't find that
I can trust any regular magazines as far as performance quality is
concerned.  In this regard, I find Absolute Sound about the worst.
How anyone claiming to have such exquisite sensitivity to the distinctions
in the resolution of the violin solo in Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherezade"
as played with different moving coil cartridges, can be unable to hear
Reiner's inability to sustain an effective tempo without exaggerations or
the general mediocrity of Antal Dorati's conducting on a number of their
"reference recordings" is beyond me.

	- Greg Paley