From CDSIII to CDS500.....
Posted by: Reto D on 23 September 2002
Hi everybody,
I don't like rumours but.....
when this "CDS500" arrives, this must be the
machine that beats an LP12 not CD12...
Happy listening...
Reto
CDX, NAC102, NAPSC, Hi-Cap, NAP 250 (on Target Rack), Chord Odysee 4, ProAc Response 2.5
Posted on: 23 September 2002 by Andrew Randle
Beats the LP12 with what? An Aro? A Lingo? An RB300? A Lyra Helikon B?
Please clarify.
Andrew
Andrew Randle
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." Frank Zappa
Posted on: 23 September 2002 by Reto D
Hi Andrew,
It "should" beat every analog player that is available!
Reto
CDX, NAC102, NAPSC, Hi-Cap, NAP 250 (on Target Rack), Chord Odysee 4, ProAc Response 2.5
Posted on: 23 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
quote:
It "should" beat every analog player that is available!
Reto - I doubt this will happen. The quality of the transfer to CD often seems to be the limiting factor, not the player you are using.
David
Posted on: 23 September 2002 by Steve Toy
With good CDs <<It "should" beat every analog player that is available!>>.
CDs are like records in that you get good and bad transfers. CD is more consistent though, imho.
I agree that a £15000 player should see off any turntable with decent recordings and transfers.
CD has its flaws, but so does vinyl. Twenty years after CD was introduced, it is finally beginning to work well - at a price!
Regards,
Steve.
It's just a pleasure to hear music as it was intended to be heard.
Posted on: 25 September 2002 by Don Atkinson
Twenty years after CD was introduced, it is finally beginning to work well - at a price!
I recall the spring of '82 when cd was launched in the UK with the marketing slogan 'perfect sound forever' or something like that.
Seems to me that we should all be suing Philips and Sony for issueing misleading advice, because I don't believe you can improve on 'perfection' or get anything to last longer than 'forever'
Cheers
Don
