PDA

View Full Version : Stereophile 2006 Editor's Choice



sbjaerum
2007-01-10, 00:29
Don't know why this hasn't got more attention:

http://stereophile.com/features/1206poty/index7.html

Gildahl
2007-01-10, 09:40
One small error in this article is the statement "...any sonic compromises resulting from the use of my WiFi network to transmit audio data around the home were minimal". It should state that any sonic compromises using WiFi are non-existent. Digital is digital regardless of whether you're hardwired or wireless. Unless this reviewer is experiencing dropouts from an especially bad connection, I don't know how he could qualify any connection-related sonic compromise at all. Of course I've never tried one of those uber-expensive Monster Ethernet cables. Maybe it actually does help. :-)

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-10, 10:01
Interesting comment in the review:


In a poll on our website last September, 25% of respondents felt that the magazine was "losing the plot" with its coverage of music-server devices such as the Squeezebox. Rich Foster's response was typical: "I don't mind you covering things like [the Sonos gear] or iPod-related gear, as long as they are kept in perspective. These items are nice for convenience or portability, but they are not high-end equipment. Stereophile has always been about sonic purity."

There are some hard-core audiophiles that dislike any sort of wireless or computer-based media streamer. It's a philosophical thing and at this point does not reflect technological reality - any more so than cables, but let's not open that 10-ton can of worms.

I have a few audiophile acquaintances and when I extol the virtues of Slim Devices stuff I usually get a "yeah, but doesn't it only play MP3s?!" Sigh.

snarlydwarf
2007-01-10, 10:30
There are some hard-core audiophiles that dislike any sort of wireless or computer-based media streamer. It's a philosophical thing and at this point does not reflect technological reality - any more so than cables, but let's not open that 10-ton can of worms.

Hrrm, I guess worms would conduct and therefore be possible to be used as cables, but I am unclear on where to get a 10-ton can of them, and how to keep them alive.

peter
2007-01-10, 10:46
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> Interesting comment in the review:
>
>
>> In a poll on our website last September, 25% of respondents felt that
>> the magazine was "losing the plot" with its coverage of music-server
>> devices such as the Squeezebox. Rich Foster's response was typical: "I
>> don't mind you covering things like [the Sonos gear] or iPod-related
>> gear, as long as they are kept in perspective. These items are nice for
>> convenience or portability, but they are not high-end equipment.
>> Stereophile has always been about sonic purity."
>>
>
> There are some hard-core audiophiles that dislike any sort of wireless
> or computer-based media streamer. It's a philosophical thing and at
> this point does not reflect technological reality - any more so than
> cables, but let's not open that 10-ton can of worms.
>
> I have a few audiophile acquaintances and when I extol the virtues of
> Slim Devices stuff I usually get a "yeah, but doesn't it only play
> MP3s?!" Sigh.
>

With their logic they'll probably think mp3's played from the old 360 KB
floppy disks (when they were really floppy) would sound far superior.

Regards,
Peter

tomjtx
2007-01-10, 11:11
Hrrm, I guess worms would conduct and therefore be possible to be used as cables, but I am unclear on where to get a 10-ton can of them, and how to keep them alive.

I don't know if feeding audio current through them would keep them alive but it might make their lives more "interesting" until they die.

snarlydwarf
2007-01-10, 11:23
I don't know if feeding audio current through them would keep them alive but it might make their lives more "interesting" until they die.

So even 10 tons of worm cable need a burn in time?

tomjtx
2007-01-10, 12:07
So even 10 tons of worm cable need a burn in time?

"Burn out" or "burn up" might be a more accurate description

konut
2007-01-10, 13:38
Who says they have to be alive? THAT should be an interesting ABX, as well as smelly!

Brian Ritchie
2007-01-10, 17:52
There are some hard-core audiophiles that dislike any sort of wireless or computer-based media streamer. It's a philosophical thing and at this point does not reflect technological reality - any more so than cables, but let's not open that 10-ton can of worms.


Yes, let's hope no-one starts arguing that WiFi sounds better through "oxygen-free" air - though it might help evolution if they were to try it :-)

-- Brian

totoro
2007-01-10, 18:09
For the best audiophile results, they really need to be _silkworms_ suffocated first in a vacuum chamber. Of course, the vacuum must have been created using a diffusion pump, and only krytox will do as the pump oil.

:)

The Smokester
2007-01-10, 18:19
"Hrrm, I guess worms would conduct and therefore be possible to be used as cables, but I am unclear on where to get a 10-ton can of them, and how to keep them alive."

These worms are kept alive with a constant and liberal dose of horse manure.

Robin Bowes
2007-01-10, 18:40
The Smokester wrote:
> "Hrrm, I guess worms would conduct and therefore be possible to be used
> as cables, but I am unclear on where to get a 10-ton can of them, and
> how to keep them alive."
>
> These worms are kept alive with a constant and liberal dose of horse
> manure.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap...

R.