|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.12.116.6
In Reply to: Yeah, but it still comes across as an overly expensive two-channel retro posted by Robert C. Lang on March 7, 2007 at 12:36:27:
I appreciate your comments, but let me say a few things.
First, I never said that I bought the X-01 for a "stupidly" expensive price. I said I've OWNED some ridiculously priced gear, which is true. Actually, I got the X-01 used for a steal.As for disabling the MC, I was looking for balls-out performance with as few compromises as possible for two-channel playback. As I said, I have no interest in MC, so I didn't see the point in keeping it. If it didn't affect two-channel performance by keeping it, sure, I would've kept it. As I said in my last post, whoever buys the unit will have to have two-channel as a priority.I might be able to have the MC reinstalled, but I haven't talked with RAM about it. It might not suit your priorities, but I'm mostly interested in the here and now. So sue me.
Yes, I considered going with a former "kingpin" like the SCD-1, but ultimately went with the X-01 because I could get one for an incredibly good price and because of its VRDS-NEO transport mechanism, which I hold in very high regard. I also asked a few audio designer friends of mine what they thought, and all of them thought the X-01 was the preferred choice.
And, yes, I've heard a number of stock Esoterics in my system, though I didn't mention this in the review: DV-50, DV-50S, X-01 Limited, and UX-1. I've also heard the P-03/D-03 and P-01/D-01 combos at people's homes. So I'm pretty familiar with the Esoteric sound. Stock, I'm not a real big fan, hence my decision to mod.
Also, to respond your comments that "in the short and long run a project that like you undertook can be far more costly than the expensive gear you lambaste in your comments," yes, modding can be risky, but if it's done right, it can yield performance that few stock components at anywhere near the price can match. That's my opinion, of course.
BTW, I'm not a professional reviewer (which you seemed to imply), though I did post my thoughts as a review, yes.
Follow Ups:
Thank you for your comprehensive and informative response to what I admit was a rather sharp critique on my end. (Although I am one not to be litigious) :)And yes, I did believe you were a professionally paid reviewer, to whom I do attach a certain status (yes I do) and responsibility and hold to a different standard. This no doubt was reflected in the tenor of my comments.
Robert C. Lang
I must admit, I get my dander up when I'm critiqued, so I probably made a few sharp comments myself. :)There's no way I could be a professional reviewer. I simply don't write well enough--maybe decently enough for these forums, but no way for print or webzines. I appreciate the flattery, though!
"I simply don't write well enough--maybe decently enough for these forums, but no way for print or webzines."Not a few reviews I've read (and continue to see) in audio print and particularly anyone-can-be-a-reviewer webzines are little more than discursive ramblings more appropriate for, say, a philosophical journal. Others just lose themselves in adjectival generalities that do nothing more than regurgitate audio lingo that in itself is all but meaningless. Just keep in mind what the typical reader wants--a meaningful description and evaluation of the component under review, not a lengthy exposition of what the writer thinks is his or her erudition.
The reviews I've found most valuable follow this general format: A brief paragraph or two describing the product's design philosophy, its function (if, for example, it's a digital player, what formats does it support, etc.), its pertinent features, the quality of its construction (which may or may not be a guide to its reliability), and any quirks that may present ergonomic problems (e.g., hard-to-read display or remote, operational noises, disc loading anomalies, etc.); a list of associated equipment and brief description of the listening environment utilized for listening tests; several paragraphs (and this is the meat of your review) indicating what the reviewer hears while auditioning the component, citing specific recording tracks of specific discs to illustrate the component's rendering of, for example, vocal texture (say, taking a cue from your follow-up listing of discs auditioned for your Esoteric review, on a Dire Straits recording), tonality and timbre, the recording space, frequency extension, and so on--if you present examples from a variety of musical genres, the reader will get a better idea of the component's overall musical performance (in, of course, the context of the system it's connected to); and, finally, an overall assessment of the component's value, including a summary of its perceived strengths and weaknesses.
This is, of course, only my view of what works in reviews. Others may have different ideas and priorities. But I think that if you follow that basic approach when moved to write an equipment evaluation, you'll do better than not a few of the "official" reviewerati.
Forget fancy language. What it really takes is a lot of time devoted to serious listening and more time thinking out and writing down your perceptions of what you've heard, remembering to spell out specifics that illustrate your points. And you've already got a head start on that with your Esoteric mod review and your responses to the feedback you've received in this thread.
First of all, thanks to Quint for the excellent review. I also have been very pleased with my RAM Denon 3910, and can identify with some degree of the benefits he is describing resulting from Kyle's mod philosophies. Modded players are an excellent way to go, and there are some excellent providers to choose from as well as an excellent entry point to high quality digital through the used market of modded components.Yes, associated equipment is extremely important to the review. Another thing which I find extremely beneficial in a review, which is often not included, are descriptions of or comparisons between a component and other available components - whether they belong to the same class or belong in the next class level of refinement. Much more useful than a description of how "musical" a player sounds, or that it "throws a large soundstage" - something you can say about half of the players out there without any method of conveying degree.
I can understand your attachment to multichannel, but personally I haven't heard many MC discs that have convinced me about its superiority. It's a radically different presentation, to be sure, and I have heard a few discs that have been quite impressive, but nothing to cause me to go out and spend close to 100k to expand my system to a level of MC commensurate with my stereo setup. Sorry.
See my post to Alex "Other Consideration"
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: