Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site myrias.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!myrias!dgt
From: dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Choosing a CD player
Message-ID: <211@myrias.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 16:39:36 EST
Article-I.D.: myrias.211
Posted: Mon Jan 20 16:39:36 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 05:07:57 EST
References: <207@myrias.UUCP> <3900012@uiucdcsp>
Organization: Myrias Research, Edmonton
Lines: 70


  From the original article <207@myrias.UUCP> by me:

> Ken Pohlmann in his ProAudio column (Digital Audio, Dec. 1985, pg. 96)
> outlines an interesting method of CD player evaluation.  The technique,
> although not foolproof, should serve to separate those players worthy of
> furthur consideration and careful listening.

> The technique simply assigns an arbitrary point value to the basic
> specifications, design criteria, and features inherent in a player.  The


  To which Steve Schley replied in article <396@mmm.UUCP>

> This sounds all too much like the Consumer Reports techniques for
> evaluating speakers, where the measured specs were fed into an
> algorithm just as "arbitrary" (Mr. Tang's own word!) as the one
> described.

Please note that I do not advocate this rating system as the absolute
and only means of evaluating players.  Rather, I believe it helps in
finding "...those players worthy of furthur consideration and careful
listening." (Quoted from my original article.)

I purposely called the weighting "arbitrary" since the specs., features,
etc., do not have the same relative importance to all people.  I had hoped
that the reader would recognize this and would be intelligent enough to
apply his own "arbitrary" point values.


  Again from Steve:

> My advice: do the winnowing by listening to (or reading) someone whose
> opinions in audio you trust, be it an audiophile friend, a dealer
> (carefully selected, of course), a magazine, or even posters to this
> net (shudder...).  Then do some serious, extended listening.

By all means do so.  The rating system I described would be helpful to
those who have not heard a difference between players but still need to
make a choice.  I certainly don't need or want to spend $1500 on a player
when I can get the same features on another for $800.

Some recent postings requested advice on compact disk players.  Perhaps
those who posted did not trust the advice of their audiophile friends
and/or dealers (I know I don't).  Perhaps they also are not on a quest
for absolutely 'perfect' sound, but are looking for 'good' sound and value
in a player.  I think these people are the ones who should consider this
rating system.


  From article <3900012@uiucdcsp> by Ben Leimkuhler

> I agree with Shaun.  That's got to be the silliest rating technique
> I've ever seen.  The fact is that sound quality and durabilty are
> the only really critical elements of any music reproduction equipment--
> that rating systems pretty much succeeds in ignoring both of them.

Those who have the ability to pick the best sounding equipment probably
choose Linn! ( this is a personal joke and is not aimed at anyone on
the net.) 

> Lord, save me from such foolishness...

My sentiments exactly.

In closing, I would like to use a quote from Lazarus Long:

"Anyone who cannot adequately cope with mathematics is not human.  At best
he is a tolerable sub-human who has learned to bathe and not make messes in
the house."