Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Marantz SA-10si Reviewed posted by PAR on February 11, 2017 at 04:01:00
Only the February issue of HFN is in the shops at the moment. Do you have special access?
The HFN scoring system is absolute codswallop and worst than useless as an aid for potential buyers.
SQ is SQ, how close the sound approaches the real thing (apologies to quad), it has nothing to do with "best in class". Sure there will be a best in each class but the best in any class will still have a SQ relative to reality. There are not different criteria for each class.... and, and what about the influence of the all he connected bits and bobs? The best sounding SACD player (highest SQ) could come from any class, depending on the system set-up. The cost must equal quality notion is crackpot!
HF I agree with you ,but you should send your complaint re HFN scoring nonsense to Paul Miller, . Just read the so-called Musical Magic review of the SA-10 ,I can not understand why Marantz
still require 3 filters user adjustable when only one is required for best sound, for SACD it would appear this new expensive player will be no better than the Sony XA5400ES as it can not play mch where SACD sounds best, As already posted it will probably sound better for Red Book CD, I will have a listen for myself but doubt if I will be buying one. I find the music used in the review by Andrew Everard to put it mildly very strange, try buying any of the discs and see the result.
any spinner only requires (1) filter. Esoteric players uses multiple filters as well. Maybe there is some kind of competition between the (2) companies on upper tier CD/SACD players?
" Only the February issue of HFN is in the shops at the moment. Do you have special access?"
Yes, but only to the extent that I am a subscriber ( print and digital) and if Royal Mail is on its toes.
Yep, that scoring system is pretty impenetrable and, as I have said, just reading the copy makes it redundant. Of course a magazine editor will tell you that some kind of rating system attracts readers who have neither the inclination nor knowledge to read the whole piece.
The cost and quality aspect of the scoring apparently works like this ( as far as I have been able to glean from Paul Miller's explanation). Let's say that a component costs 750 gbp. The reviewer imagines what capabilities such a component at that price would have to exhibit in order to score 100% (in the light of their expertise and experience of similar products). Then he rates the component under review in relation to that concept e.g. this scores 85% of that ideal. So it isn't cost = quality nor is it an absolute measure but more a kind of the best available at that price rating. So an integrated amp from, say, Musical Fidelity costing 1700 gbp may score 83%. Another integrated amp from ,say, Luxman at 7000 gbp may score 85%. But that does't mean that the Luxman is only a negligible 2 points better than the MF which could otherwise be purchased as a cheaper substitute for the Luxman ( see the April 2016 edition for these two amps).
Of course I could have got it all mixed up ( but don't think so). However it is pretty much a rubbish idea to begin with and I think that PM inhertited it from the IMO less than satisfactory editor that preceded him. So there it is (so far as I understand). It could and should be dispensed with but I bow to the superior commercial instinct of the publisher and editor. NB: most other audio magazines do something along the same lines with stars out of five etc. Hurrah for Stereophile - you actually have to read it!
"However it is pretty much a rubbish idea to begin with and I think that PM inhertited it from the IMO less than satisfactory editor that preceded him."
He got it from Martin Colloms IIRC. Back in the 80s Martin did most of the technical reviews for HFNRR and he introduced that scoring system. I agree it is stupid because you can't really gauge the progress made over time! It was his way of introducing a new reference and he even rescaled the values for old reviews if he referenced them in the context of the new reviews!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
There have been several unsatisfactory editors of HFN & RR since John Crabbe.
Frank I- has a review forthcoming soon.
Time Frank I review appears we will all be much older. No need to look beyond hiredfox's final comments posted April 19 , he has experience of most of the previous Marantz top spinners that other commentators most probably do not and this is essential.
Frank- is your review posted?
we need more reviews of this spinner!
Sadly, Andrew Everard's review of the SA-10S1 is brief and superficial, and disappoints as a result offering little useful guidance to experienced listeners. It's OK being first in line if you take full advantage of the head start that you have been given over your competitors by the supplier but this review just isn't good enough for a machine that has been years in development and boasts the long neglected single bit processing principles from end-to end.
Odd too that KK wasn't allocated the review, if anybody knows Marantz spinners Ken does and he would have offered far more insight.
Black mark Andrew, wonder who gets to have it next?
Thanks! for sharing- hiredfox
it is all too common w/ the Audio press currently. I can remember a time when a review was informative and well-written.
That was a long long time ago, there are no rewiewers today in UK who can match the very high calibre & professionalism
of Gordon J King, John Borwick Geoffrey Horn You could believe every word , without question, no political agenda .
What about Martin Colloms? I was always impressed by his reviews in the past, which struck me as thoughtful, thorough, and honest, many years ago. I bought my old Van den Hul MC One based partly on his review many years ago. (Now I use a Van den Hul Frog.)
I think he is still writing, no?
He is and has his own independent mag "Hi Fi Critic" although far too expensive to buy but that's the price you have to pay for having no advertisers and hopefully to not be their pockets so to speak.
I hope he does get his hands on the SA-10S1 in the UK before it goes too far around the hack block!
Yes he is still writing has his own audio magazine subscription only Hi-Fi Critic, has a crazy system for rating components, he is an engineer but I much prefer the reviewers from long ago that I mentioned Gordon J.King (The Audio Handbook)
John Borwick, Geoffrey Horn.
He does have golden ears which helps enormously in assessments. At least his crackpot scoring system puts everything on one scale so you can get an idea of relative performance. On the downside he tends to be hooked on his PRT parameter, "forgetting" that it is the music that matters and controls these things.
Martin Colloms does a pretty good job- reviewing.
Right On! Disbeliever-
I have read some of those guys' writings. Very professional indeed.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: