wjm@whuxk.UUCP (10/01/83)
I just received the October issue of "Audio" with the annual equipment directory.
This year theyv'e added a new section for CD players.
So far, I haven't seen much evidence to say that any of the CD players on the
market sound much different than any other. Personally if I were going to
buy a CD player right now, I'd buy the Kyocera, since it seems to have the
best error-correcting circuitry of the models on the market, and I like some
of its automatic programming features. I like the idea that Sears is introducing
a "no-frills" model for $589, since it will make CD's available to more people
and will cause the other manufacturers to drop their prices.
Actually, I plan to wait a while before getting a CD player to allow more CD's
to become available and to let the manufacturers get the bugs out of the designs.
I recommend that people read Dual's ad in the October '83 "Audio" since it
explains the rationale for a) buying or waiting to buy a CD player and b) buying
a good analog disk player - I'm not necessarily endorsing Dual's equipment
I just agree with their logic.
Bill Mitchell
(whuxk!wjm)dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) (01/07/86)
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
total of these points when weighed against the price of the player should
highlight the "good deal". The rating is acheived as follows:
Specifications
- Frequency response: one point for every 0.1 dB less than 2 dB deviation
from 0 dB
- S/N ratio: one point for every dB above 85 dB
- Channel separation (@ 1 kHz): one point for every dB above 80 dB
Design
- Output filter: no points for analog; ten points for oversampling
- # of DACs: ten points for dual DACs
- Weight: one point per pound for stationary units; one point for every
pound less than 20 pounds for portables
Features
Programmability: ten points; one additional point for every program
location above 10
Audible fast search: five points
Indexing: five points
Remote control: twenty points
Headphone jack: ten points, five extra points for variable level control
Portability: ten points
Using this system Ken rated 67 players. The Sony D5 at $300 list was
the lowest with 44 pts. At the top was the $1300 Sony CDP 650ESD with
143 pts. A list of the top ten players (plus others of interest)
follows:
67. Sony CDP 650ESD: $1300, 143 pts.
66. Denon DCD-1500: $580, 136 pts.
65. Mcintosh MCD 7000: $1400, 135 pts.
64. Nakamichi OMS-7: $1300, 135 pts.
63. Kyocera DA-910: $1600, 135 pts.
62. Sony CDP 620ES: $950, 133 pts.
61. ADS CD3: $900, 131 pts.
60. Sylvania FDD 304SL: $600, 127 pts.
59. Bang & Olufson CDX: $700, 127 pts.
58: Sony CDP 520ES: $600, 124 pts.
54. Revox B225: $1150, 115 pts.
53. Technics SL-P3: $600, 113 pts.
46. Harmon Kardon HD500: $600, 106 pts.
43. Yamaha CD3: $500, 105 pts.
23. Mission DAD-7000: $650, 82 pts.
15. Meridian MCD: $700, 73 pts.
7. Carver DTL-100: $650, 67 pts.
I assume Ken did not rate any Magnavox players since none were present on
the list. Applyin this system to the Pioneer PD-9010 ($540) I came up
with a rating of 144 pts. I think this one is worth further investigation.
In closing I'd like to say that this rating system will have some flaws,
but for those like me who are looking for performance and features vs.
price, then this technique has some merit. Thank you for your patience
and have a good time shopping.shauns@vice.UUCP (Shaun Simpkins) (01/09/86)
> 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 > total of these points when weighed against the price of the player should > highlight the "good deal". The rating is acheived as follows: > > Specifications > - Frequency response: one point for every 0.1 dB less than 2 dB deviation > from 0 dB > - S/N ratio: one point for every dB above 85 dB > - Channel separation (@ 1 kHz): one point for every dB above 80 dB > > Design > - Output filter: no points for analog; ten points for oversampling > - # of DACs: ten points for dual DACs > - Weight: one point per pound for stationary units; one point for every > pound less than 20 pounds for portables > > Features > Programmability: ten points; one additional point for every program > location above 10 > Audible fast search: five points > Indexing: five points > Remote control: twenty points > Headphone jack: ten points, five extra points for variable level control > Portability: ten points > > > Using this system Ken rated 67 players. > > 67. Sony CDP 650ESD: $1300, 143 pts. > 66. Denon DCD-1500: $580, 136 pts. > 65. Mcintosh MCD 7000: $1400, 135 pts.> 64. Nakamichi OMS-7: $1300, 135 pts. > 63. Kyocera DA-910: $1600, 135 pts. > 62. Sony CDP 620ES: $950, 133 pts. > 61. ADS CD3: $900, 131 pts. > 60. Sylvania FDD 304SL: $600, 127 pts. > 59. Bang & Olufson CDX: $700, 127 pts.> 58: Sony CDP 520ES: $600, 124 pts. > 54. Revox B225: $1150, 115 pts. > 53. Technics SL-P3: $600, 113 pts. > 46. HK HD500: $600, 106 pts. > 43. Yamaha CD3: $500, 105 pts. > 23. Mission DAD-7000: $650, 82 pts. > 15. Meridian MCD: $700, 73 pts. > 7. Carver DTL-100: $650, 67 pts. > This is really amusing. Digital Audio has done it again! If we look at just the specification and performance sections of this code, a PERFECT oversampling player (separation, S/N = 96dB, f.resp. perfect) Would amass a score of only 67 points! Roughly another 60 points would come from its bells and whistles, and the player would advance one point in the ratings for each pound more it weighed than the average of all others in the sample set. I find it amusing that the new Sony units differ by only 19 points in the ratings. Around five points come from weight differences, 5 from variable loudness, 4-5 from the number of programmable selections, and a paltry 5 points from actual specification differences! I contend that if you threw out most of the specious criteria in this rating system that tend to bias it towards heavy, highly programmed players these players would fall into two groups about 20 points apart(remote, no remote) with a spread of about 5-8 points each owing to basic performance differences. I think I'll strap a 50 pound bag of sand to the Yamaha CD3 and get a 155 point player for 1/2 the cost of the Sony CDP-650ES. Talk about dime-store metaphysics... The wandering squash, -- Shaun Simpkins uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!vice!shauns CSnet: shauns@tek ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relay
dgt@myrias.UUCP (David Tang) (01/21/86)
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."