Cordesman Burmester Review
JPH-22 -- Thu, 08/28/2008 - 15:17
In his review of the Burmester CD player in TAS's latest issue, Anthony Cordesman (virtually) did something that no other print reviewer has ever done - admit that CD sounded better than SACD. This comes as a particular shock being that Cordesman just reviewed EMM's CDSA player in the March issue of Hi-Fi + and was *certain* - then - that SACD was superior to CD.
This supports my theory that every time - and I mean *every* time - an equipment reviewer prefers SACD over CD, it's through a "mixed" format player.
* This is not the way to compare the formats * As I stated in my post "Questions for Reviewers" (in the Absolute Sound section of AVGuide), CD needs its own, dedicated machine to hear its true potential.
More troubling, however, were Mr. Cordesman's remarks in Hi-Fi + from March. Here, he told us that he *did not* hear the gains made by high-end CD players over the past upteen years. Really ? Then he must be the only one.....EVERYBODY has heard the massive gains CD playback has made.
And to state that CD is "hopefully inadequate" of a format is another folly. Cordesman joins the long list of reviewers who are unaware of the fact that audiophile CDs contain 20-bit resolution and have since 1993. So, not so inadequate after all......
I don't mean to berate AC, but if we keep going down the path of misleading and confusing reviews, then audiophiles will continue to feel like they're in a bind....and will be somewhat reluctant to open their wallets and spring for an equipment upgrade.
JPH
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
is mind-boggling.
For this stratosphere, I think I'd rather have an entire system costing 65k, rather than just a CD player, but that's only my opinion. I do find it discouraging that manufacturers cannot make a state-of-the-art player for $5k, when it seems that, only 4 years ago, the state of the art players were the Lector, Bluenote Stibberts and similar ilk. 'Course, maybe they were only state of the art for players that reviewers had heard. There will always be a player that hasn't been reviewed that might bring 80% of state of the art sound into your home for a reasonable price. I'd rather live with that: I can't imagine buying -- and wouldn't, even were I Bill Gates -- with a system that tops $150k. It makes one wonder, as I've said before, and as Cordesman points out, what makes a player worth that kind of money, especially if he, as you said, states that, as a format, it has large limitations. (I'll have to re-read the review, as I didn't not see where he said it was inadequate). However, like Crazy Eddie's tv ads stated (in California back in the 90s, where he sold stuff so cheaply his tag line made you want to go to his stores), these prices are insane -- and not in the Crazy Eddie way, but just plain crazy, period.
I address the issue of the high cost of certain components in the next issue of TAS in response to a reader letter. My review of the $148,000 Wilson Alexandria X-2 and interview with Dave Wilson also tackle this issue.
I prefer 200$ second hand revox reel to 65k$ burmester 16-bit digital playback.
spending extra money for digital can not improve sound fundamentaly.
regards
Amir
I had the opportunity to listen and compare in the same audio-system a lot of very expensive cd players, but the Burmester 069 demonstrated to be the fairly superior and I really enjoied the art of music to its fullest.
Best regards,
Rocky
Another super system...and according to Cordesman, rivals the best LP playback in the world. Just one more person putting CD - not hi-rez - on the top tier.
Recording at 20-bits, then dithering the (16-bit) copy, removes the quantization noise. So we hear (about) 18-bit resolution - 20 is a "bit" high.