[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="Rev"]Good bass is good bass regardless of if its Motorhead or Holtz.[/quote]
No, one is amplified, processed and manipulated, as most rock/pop/etc recordings are, and the other is the sound of real acoustic instruments, (hopefully) faithfully recorded.
Holst, maybe?
[/quote]
Holst then - make sport of me cus I was typing in a hurry! But I still disagree with recommending anything to people based on the music they like; I think it is a bad way of offering advice and will ultimately let people down. Buying a system that plays everything well is the only way forward.
[quote user="Rev"]Good bass is good bass regardless of if its Motorhead or Holtz.[/quote]
No, one is amplified, processed and manipulated, as most rock/pop/etc recordings are, and the other is the sound of real acoustic instruments, (hopefully) faithfully recorded.
Holst, maybe?
[/quote]
Holst then - make sport of me cus I was typing in a hurry! But I still disagree with recommending anything to people based on the music they like; I think it is a bad way of offering advice and will ultimately let people down. Buying a system that plays everything well is the only way forward.
[quote user="Rev"]
But I still disagree with recommending anything to people based on the music they like; I think it is a bad way of offering advice and will ultimately let people down. .[/quote]
Gramophone reader research would strongly beg to differ.
It's the same logic that can see a piece of kit rated differently for, say, Stuff readers, than What Hi-fi? Sound and Vision readers. Whereas we'll focus on performance-per-pound (and something looking nice being a bonus), Stuff will demand a bigger emphasis on styling.
But I still disagree with recommending anything to people based on the music they like; I think it is a bad way of offering advice and will ultimately let people down. .[/quote]
Gramophone reader research would strongly beg to differ.
It's the same logic that can see a piece of kit rated differently for, say, Stuff readers, than What Hi-fi? Sound and Vision readers. Whereas we'll focus on performance-per-pound (and something looking nice being a bonus), Stuff will demand a bigger emphasis on styling.
- Sep 6, 2007
- 295
- 1
- 18,890
I have to say, I now understand why Gramophone liked the 840A. It gives such an accurate sound that if you are wanting to hear each instrument clearly it does that perfectly. Maybe for other types of music it doesn't patch up what you are not supposed to hear - you might, and I will clear this up don't own any Take That, hear Jason and Howard when you are not supposed to! I am very happy with the amp though. Rev, I don't know why you dislike CA so much. If you visited Paul Smith for a suit, you would only find Paul Smith clothes in the store but they are great clothes. And Richer Sounds sell Marantz, Denon, Onkyo etc., so it's not like you can't listen to comparatives. I would imagine that if the 840A was made by Sugden, Naim etc., it would retail at more than £750.
I think you've got a bargain there, Gerrardasnails - if the 840A v1 had cost £500 when we tested it, you can bet it would've got a higher rating on our performance-per-pound criteria.
[quote user="Rev"]It's an own brand m8![/quote]
Ah, not letting the facts get in the way of a good story, then...?
Ah, not letting the facts get in the way of a good story, then...?
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram