Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

Picture the sense if you will, The USS Enterprise, is getting the
kack pasted out of it from 3 klingon battle cruisers, on the
bridge Kirk is having a heated debate with Scotty over which,
phaser bank to fire to save the ever decrease arse, Scotty
replies ' You canniee fire that one captain, it's nah been double
blind tested, you'll never know which one is the best sir'!!!!!

 

You're asking the sceptic's question, i.e., still seeing the duck rather than the rabbit.

I think we can know things. We can't prove that we know them in a way that would satisfy a sceptical foundationalist (i.e., a way we could all accept is an "absolute foundation"), because there is no answer that would satisfy such a sceptic. But the real basis of our knowing is only poorly understood by philosophy. It would take me years to coherently tease out what I think about this; it's the Big Question. I think at least part of the answer must come from science, especially contemporary physics, string theory and the like, which, ISTM, is one of the very few parts of modern intellectual endeavour that really takes epistemological questions seriously (academic philosophy long ago largely became an irrelevance when it comes to the big questions, content to sniff around in the mire of linguistic disputes, I blame the positivists for that; most real philosophy seems to be happening in other disciplines). Other parts come from political science, linguistics, psychology, even art and culture. It's a big answer, philosophy helps give the tools to understand why it's an important question, but it's too narrow to supply an answer.

I really recommend you read a book or two about contemporary physics or cosmology, you'd be surprised how not-boring it can be. This is a favourite of mine, when I read it a few years ago I realised that some physicists were asking the right questions, and, unlike most contemporary philosophers, they sometimes have some interesting suggested answers:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9968/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/202-8215224-4498266

It's a Darwinian account of cosmology, with some very trippy stuff about the multiverse (multiple universes), written by a physicist who also knows something about philosophy and political science.

-- Ian

 

In this instance i was asking a question which would draw you out again at this unsociable hour, to provide more for me than merely a rabbit. Its the details which are interesting.....

If you want to catch the train i won't be offended

BTW - I've ordered MM as i have a tendency to scrawl, and i didn't think you would appreciate the defacement of your copy. I dipped a toe in which was sufficient enough to encourage me to spend the £13. So it shall be returned. cheers

 

If it is science that bore you why do you feel the need to ridicule everyone else who find it interesting? I am asking this in a polite way.

 

is nobody bored with this yet? some people value DBT in the context of hi-fi and some don;t.
it's all ZGB really.
cheers


julian

 

So...what about the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player then?

CDS3 on to DB testing and now Philosophy and some surreal humour from WM towers. I wonder how much further this thread has to run...

Michael.

 

Well, I know the last GBP7000 naim CD Player (CDS2) pretty well, it's sitting on the floor in front of me. I prefer the Levinson 390S, which is what I'm currently listening to

WM, I've decided to honor you recent contribution by quoting you in my signature..

 

I'm not ridiculing 'everyone else', Wolfgang (unless you are sensitive to my flippancy in wishing to shoot myself). I'm questioning THAT which you find interesting, not taking the piss out of you or anyone else. (Unless you think that it is not possible to do one without the other, and even in this instance, taking the piss is far from my intention. If i am flippant or blatantly unamusing sometimes, it is only with the intention of trying to combat the staleness of many a dialogue, albeit poorly. And, most of the straight questions i've asked you, you've ignored, yet when i recourse to a pair of breasts or something you interject, as i am not tackling the issue with proper seriousness. Just take it with a pinch of salt. I'm telling you this in a polite way.

 

Michael,

What kind of moderator are you? Could you please protect my children by replacing some of this disturbing DBT nonsense with some wholesome breast pictures.

Alex

 

Good morning.
Hope you have a good day at work today. Looking forward to mine.

Ps. I hope I was not rude for not replying some of your previous questions. You ask why some of us find certain things interesting but you already condemn as useless, boring etc. Some find football interesting and some snooker is everything. If we don't share the same interest then it is difficult to continue until we find something else to talk about.

 

Well its my last day at work until next week, so that alone is reason to be cheerful.

BTW, i'll meet you half way and say that Galileo had it about half right.


cheers

 

agree

ZZZzzzzz



worth it for the breast shot i spose

 

Look, you're born, you keep your head down and if you're lucky, you die. That's the long and short of it really.

 

Ps. Look, let me try and clarify the situation.

Imagine you have a liking and interest in large succulent figs. That is marvellous. I have no problem with it. It is good that there is something in the world which brings you pleasure, and on the surface it is doing nobody any harm, except maybe for your bowels. Therefore when i question this situation, i am not attacking your interest in the figs, nor therefore, mocking you and your interest in the figs. I am questioning the figs themselves and your relationship with them as far as your understanding and intellect is concerned. Its the figs goddamit, don't you see. And as for my interest, well as Robin said similarly in GWH, its disussing the figs with you that kicks my bucket, regardless of whether or not i find the figs in themselves particularly entertaining. Does that make sense?!

***The cries of zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz are not coming from my corner of the pitch Wolfgang! It is apparent to me that this like most other topics of discussion involve all members firing blanks from the edge of the playing field. It is necessary to enter the arena and get a bit dirty if you understand my meaning. Now this may or may not happen, either way the dialogue is satisfactory and pleasing, or at least to me, but it will never be anything more. Now to elaborate in terms of your own vocabulary, if you desire to make 'progress' on this or any other issue, then it is necessary that you get dirty. ***

See, now forgive me for being indulgent, but Blackburn really does spawn men of wisdom.

 

Arh...........Datty, one of Kim Kattral's ex-squeezes efforts eh?, well if you have a partial ear bleeder and a smoothy there, reckon you could tell the pair in a DBT? Like the difference between a pint of Elmely Jake and a Bailyes
Hope you not plotting to many dastardly deeds this week, Todays episode is only half finished "Curse you, Audio Rescue foiled agin !!!" Wm

 

Well, it's good to know that someone on this forum does read my posts. Nice one Graham as you are spot on.

Robbo - yes, I do carry out a blind test whenever I buy new equipment and further on (see below), I'll tell you what prompted it. With regard to the Michell deck which is now sounding excellent with the upgraded SME IV arm and Pederson armboard upgrade, blind-testing was not possible. I auditioned four decks, the Michell, Clearaudio Champion Level II, Rega P25 and Nottingham Analogue Spacedeck. I had heard the P25 before as a friend who owns one in his second system left it with me for a weeks to see if I liked the vinyl sound. I did. However, the other decks were being sold by three different dealers - two of them about a two hour drive apart. Home auditioning was not possible with those decks therefore, I bought based on a sighted audition. To my ears, the Michell RB300 combo sounded best so I settled for the Michell deck & Incognito RB300 arm. However, with CDPs, amps, speakers and cables, home auditioning is possible and so myself and a couple of friends who live within 15 minutes of my house conduct blind-testing for each other. It may not be laboratory perfect, but what it does do is allow me to listen to equipment for long periods without me knowing what component is playing or making a selection based on looks or pretty lights etc. Only my ears do the talking when it comes to decision time. Again, it is not laboratory perfect but it works for me and my friends (yes, I still have a few of those left.)

With regard to Graham's comment about the Wadia, the 302 and 861 featured in a Digital Fest that we held at my house, over a couple of weeks with several components. In addition, I had at the home the Chord DAC 64, the Trivista 21, the Ayre CX-7 and the Krell SACD Standard. I am able to buy all the equipment listed at well less than retail so there should have been an incentive to go for one of the most revered pieces of hifi kit around today, the Wadia 861. However, my ears told me different during the tests. I could not tell the difference between my own digital gear (5 years old) and the latest upsampling wonder (if you believe the press) the Ayre CX-7 and I got them mixed up. The Wadia 302 was okay but not my glass of carrot juice and I marked it down. The Trivista was very good sounding (to my ears) and I scored it highly than the DAC64. If it were a sighted audition, I may have gone for the DAC64 as it lights up beautifully and I like the shape of it but it was just too forward sounding for my liking. Mind you, it does command your attention though. In my listening notes, the 861 was good but the Krell scored very highly too in CD mode and in SACD mode, it was a runaway success. I was very surprised to be told that I had been listening to the Krell (a brand which I am known not to like). The Krell was up there with the Wadia for good sound although for me the Wadia's bass was exemplary but it I thought it lacked some treble air. (Maybe, to quote WM, I just prefer a hifi sound ) This was even more shocking given that over here, the Wadia's retail price EUR 12,000 (ouch!!) and the Krell is EUR 5000, the Krell did not do too badly in CD mode. Btw, the Wadia 861 was being offered brand new, including warranty at less than 50% of the U.K. retail price incl. all digital in & out boards and in silver or black. In SACD mode, the Wadia was outplayed. All IMO dudes but this is an easy one. Borrow both and conduct the tests yourselves to see which offers value for money. Anyway, the best sound award went to the Michell deck. It simply produced the best sound all around and you know what, I'm glad I bought it as it has now become my reference by which all others will be judged.

Now, I started using this method of testing gear for two reasons. One was opening lots amps and seeing the cheap parts used made me feel uncomfortable given some of the prices charged although they looked good on the outside. Secondly, I once borrowed several cables for a week long (sighted) audition. I eliminated a few that did not meet my desired sound preferences and only three remained - the reference were my own cables. I was truly convinced that of the two cables, guest cable X was the best for my equipment as it produced levels of detail and sounds that I'd never heard from CDs that I thought I knew inside out. My brother- in-law (an audiopohile) who was spending the night at our house agreed that cable X sounded fanstastic. I woke up the next morning (Saturday) as the system had been left on all night, and after lunch, cued-up a CD and the system sounded superb, even better than the previous evening. As far as I was concerned, cable X was a done deal - I was going to buy it. My brother-in-law then asked me to perform one more test. Swap-out cable X for my own cables. I approached the rack and had a shock. What I did not realise however, was that overnight, my brother in law had swapped out cable X and put my own cables back in. The extra details etc that I heard on the Saturday were in fact coming from my own cables. Yet, before, the audition, I could not remember hearing those details on my CDs using my own cables. The only reason I heard the extra details on the Saturday was because I thought I was listening to cable X and so my listening was more acute but those details had been present even with my own cables. Was the much mentioned Power of Suggestion responsible for me thinking that cable X was better than my existing cables? Was I influenced by reviews and comments that I'd read before hand? Search me!! Suffice to say, I did not buy cable X as I was not only shocked to discover that my own cables were just as good but also pleased to discover that I did not have to spend any money on cable X. My own cables are still being used in my system. To date, I have preferred only one set of cables over my own and this test was conducted completely blind with friends doing the selection and swapping. For me now, blind testing (Lawrie's Method) is the only way unless there is no alternative. Phew!! Did I type all that?




Enjoy the music,

Lawrie.

 

Lawire, have your blind testing techniques led to any conclusions/generalisations concerning the cost/quality ratio of audio equipment. I'm interested as this also seems to be a sore point with those in favour of blind testing. However i notice that the equipment that you employ, and indeed report testing, is not exactly of the budget variety. Hence have any trends emerged here? You obviously think a Krell or whatever is worth paying more for than a Marantz, despite the fact that a £3000 product say, is not 10x better than a £300 product (or is it sometimes?), althought this direct relationship between cost and quality that some people desire is a bit ridiculous. Do you ever blind test cheap gear i.e sub £1000 and run it head to head with the pricier stuff - what have you discovered? Its just that many seem in favour of blind testing only in order that they can dispel the myth that more expensive products are in any way better, just that the extra cost is a consequence of build, looks, kudos etc, and don't seem necessarily interested in just purchasing the best product, whatever the cost via the vehicle of DBT rigour. ***i.e. i suspect many of the DBT advocates would still be squirming at your expenditure on audio, despite employing the very method they are proposing.***

You have to confess though that when you listen in ordinary circumstances, you are not blindfolded (are you?!)!

Fair play

cheers

 

I was going to post something similar on several occasions here but withdrew at the last minute thinking I'd be branded a hifi snob

I agree that many of the strongest supporters of DBT are those with cheaper gear who feel that it somehow justifies their systems. There seems to be an assumption that DBT would show all expensive gear to be no better than budget stuff.

However, I would suggest that some of these DBT advocates are just as afraid of running an actual DBT session as the detractors for fear of discovering that, in fact, you do often get what you pay for

Michael.

 

That's due to nurture, not nature - The rite of passage all Blackburn youngsters must endure, spending a month "over tops", surviving on skill and wit alone and as much white lightning as one can carry truely makes a man of you, and garners wisdom and insight few can match.
That, or the fact everyone is stupid and depressed due to the fact they live in Blackburn and eventually they grind away at your very spirit and make you want to die and have your ashes shot in to the sun so that medical science can never bring you back to face that again, no matter what. One or the other.

 

I don't see any evidence of that in this thread. Don't know everything that dat19 uses, but I do know he uses 3-way ATC actives (he said it earlier in the thread), as a minimum that's probably ATC 50s, which is hardly budget gear, and he's been the strongest proponent of DBT here.

How much people choose to spend isn't really the point, that's purely down to personal circumstance, the interesting things in this thread are the fundamental questions about how capable we are of determining differences using just our hearing, and whether it's worth testing that or not.

-- Ian