I already mentioned it in another thread but here are two quotes that had me laughing my head off: (talking about the new Burndy lead for the CDS3): "Accordingly I ran the CDS2 for a while and then substituted the cable 'upgrade'. This resulted in an impressive gain in performance, a clear 10% ...... This is a definite turbo upgrade for the outgoing model, and at quite moderate cost ( £265 :eek: )" Then later: "Previous references I'd owned and reviewed have scored in the region of 50 points on my scale.... Naim's new CDS3 soared to a straight 80 for a DIN connection and a very close 75 points using the RCA terminations. Allowing both output terminals to engage simultaneously resulted in a penalty for both of about 3-4 marks - intriguing, but in agreement with Naim's advice." Come on! How is anyone supposed to take this guy seriously when he thinks he can make quantative judgements like "10% better" or "lost 3-4 points" about hifi? :rolleyes: He doesn't even say how he awards points so presumably it's completely arbitrary, just a subjective number plucked out of thin air. His "points scale" doesn't seem to be bounded either. If the best player he'd heard before the CDS3 was getting 50 points and then he can suddenly award the CDS3 75-80 points (depending on connection type used of course ;) ) that's just absurd. If you [i]must[/i] award points with such fine granularity then the only reasonably way to do it is to start with an absolute maximum of, say, 100 which is then subdivided into, for example, 10 groups 10 points for various criteria like dynamics, soundstage, transparency etc. Score each criteria and then you have your total. I still wouldn't like it but at least there'd be some method to it. Of course doing it like that would leave reviewers with a problem because they then couldn't keep claiming that each bit of kit was "so much better" than the last without either running out of points to award or "downgrading" previous scores, and that wouldn't be much good for their advertising revenue ;) Michael.