Phil Leigh;264741 Wrote: > but when was the last time you (we) heard a truly poor digital source. > For me it was probably pre-1990. > To be clear, I think the SB is a good digital source and can go > head-to-head with v expensive competitors. . "Truly poor" vs "truly good" can be both objective and subjective.
"Objectivity" (linear and non-linear distortions, etc) can be easily measured. (e.g. Stereophile tests). "Subjectivity" is a more complex thing. Here's an example. When I compared Linn Genki with lesser CD-players the Genki easily won. Though the price was a bit higher than I was going to pay, I bought it. Then I decided to upgrade the source. In comparison with Meridian 596 Ikemy (same price category) sounded as dry as sand paper over inflamed throat. (I noticed that the dryness is shared by many Linn components). Does it make Ikemy a bad source? For me it's unacceptable. For others the Meridian sounds "drippingly" wet. Also, SB is probably a good source unless compared with something better ;-) Transporter, for example. It's all about the terms. If we have a better source, than we have a worse source. If we have a much better source, than we have a much worse one. -- alekz ------------------------------------------------------------------------ alekz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13574 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38815 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
