[soundhaspriority]

In this article, http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/886/ , John
Marks expresses opinions very similar to my own:

1. Sony players, (to which I add the qualification, ES models), have
historically provided very good performance. In my personal experience, I
have found them better than models by Marantz, Rotel, et al. It's a natural
consequence of Sony's custodianship of the Red Book standard.

2. Marks mentions the EAD surround processor as "the best CD playback for
the least money." This lends support to my similar opinion about the Sony
EP9ES, also a HT processor.

But the article is actually about the Benchmark and the Teac D-70. He
mentions the Benchmark as a bottom-of-the-high-end product.

Marks goes on to review the Teac D-70
Marks says, "there is always the possibility that what one is hearing is
just the application of a different-but not necessarily more
accurate-equalization curve. "

This creates the uncertainty. While he effuses about the Benchmark, the
D-70 produces an epiphany. He does this in the face of the supposed 18 bit
limit of CD resolution with noise-shaping.

What do you think? Did Marks have a transferrable experience, which would
imply that the D-70 is worth the money, or was his epiphany an idiosyncracy
of his setup, his environment, and his ears?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[RapidRonnie]

On May 19, 12:16 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
In this article,http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/886/ , John
Marks expresses opinions very similar to my own:

1. Sony players, (to which I add the qualification, ES models), have
historically provided very good performance. In my personal experience, I
have found them better than models by Marantz, Rotel, et al. It's a natural
consequence of Sony's custodianship of the Red Book standard.

2. Marks mentions the EAD surround processor as "the best CD playback for
the least money." This lends support to my similar opinion about the Sony
EP9ES, also a HT processor.

But the article is actually about the Benchmark and the Teac D-70. He
mentions the Benchmark as a bottom-of-the-high-end product.


Simply put, Sony consumer lines have nothing to do with the levels of
the company that set standards such as Red Book. Sony technical
leadership at the science/standards level shows up in their
professional equipment such as pro (non-consumer-compatible) VTR and
video monitors and medical video equipment but their consumer stuff is
designed, implemented and marketed by an entirely different bunch.

This differentiation is partly a consequence of corporate culture and
partly to keep build cost down. The pro guys would not be willing to
do what the consumer guys will. GM doesn't let EMD and Allison
Transmission guys design a car, or it would last forever and not be
cheap to build.

[RapidRonnie]

A fair opinion. How about considering the rest of it?


Not enough data on my part.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

RapidRonnie said:

A fair opinion. How about considering the rest of it?

Not enough data on my part.

So you're pretty much the opposite of "rapid", then.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
news
In this article,
http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/886/ , John
Marks expresses opinions very similar to my own:

1. Sony players, (to which I add the qualification, ES
models), have historically provided very good
performance. In my personal experience, I have found them
better than models by Marantz, Rotel, et al. It's a
natural consequence of Sony's custodianship of the Red
Book standard.

In 2008, anybody who can't make a good CD player for $100 or less needs to
hang it up. In 2008 the Red Book means next to nothing. Almost every music
player sold today was primarily designed to conform to some other, more
demanding standard and does Red Book discs almost as an afterthought.

2. Marks mentions the EAD surround processor as "the best
CD playback for the least money." This lends support to
my similar opinion about the Sony EP9ES, also a HT
processor.

Making surround sound out of good 2-channel makes as much sense as Marilyn
Monroe with implants.

But the article is actually about the Benchmark and the
Teac D-70. He mentions the Benchmark as a
bottom-of-the-high-end product.

I've talked to Marks Personally, and he's so full of himself that his head
never sees sunshine. The Benchmark DAC while wildly overpriced is definately
technical and sonic sunshine compared to very many DACs that have been
highly reviewed in S'pile.

Marks goes on to review the Teac D-70
Marks says, "there is always the possibility that what
one is hearing is just the application of a different-but
not necessarily more accurate-equalization curve. "

People who rant and rave about small changes in frequency response have
obviously never been allowed to, or had the aural and mental facilities
required get really friendly with a parametric eq.

This creates the uncertainty. While he effuses about the
Benchmark, the D-70 produces an epiphany. He does this in
the face of the supposed 18 bit limit of CD resolution
with noise-shaping.

Sorry Robert but that Red Book format that you were just obsessing over says
16 bits, no more no less. IMO, one reason why the S'pile staff has never had
the guts to do DBTs of DACs or digital music players and report in public is
that several decades of ranting and raving about resolution differences that
they never heard would there in print to point out their past corporate
ignorance.

What do you think? Did Marks have a transferrable
experience, which would imply that the D-70 is worth the
money, or was his epiphany an idiosyncracy of his setup,
his environment, and his ears?

IMO, Marks makes it up as he goes along. The only interesting question is
like Atkinson, whether or not he knows that is what he is doing.