How much is the new Cambridge DacMagic?

[PJPro]

Yes, I'd be grateful for a bit more info on the technique(s) used to test these DACs.

I already have the Beresford...so even though the Cambridge was regarded as better, I'd be unlikely to upgrade to one, especially as the Bereford also doubles as a handy headphone amp.

If I was going to upgrade my DAC, I'd be looking towards something in the Stello DAC-1 price range. I suspect this is the price point where highend CDP killers start to emerge......so I'm looking forward to some more reviews in the (near?) future.

 

[Anonymous]

PJPro: I suspect this is the price point where highend CDP killers start to emerge......ÿ

Yep.

PJPro:so I'm looking forward to some more reviews in the (near?) future.

So am I, I'd be interested to see how my choice of the Benchmark corresponds to WHF's. I had to go to long lengths to listen to just a small range of high(er) end DAC's, it would be nice to have a direct comparison to refer to. That said I'm overwhelmed with the DAC1, it blows me away every time I listen to it, speakers or headphone.

 

[PJPro]

Yes.

EDITlease do not discuss banned posters.

I'm probably going to have to do the same again when I upgrade and the Stello seems to come out top (from my reading anyway). I'm guessing that WHFSV could beg/borrow a tweaked variant from Russ Andrews for a review (that's what I'm hoping).

I am particularly concerned that if the review does take place that insufficient information will be provided about the kit used to test the DAC....I have to say that I find this a shortcoming generally with the reviews in the magazine.

 

[Andrew Everard]

PJPro:I'm guessing that WHFSV could beg/borrow a tweaked variant from Russ Andrews for a review (that's what I'm hoping).

I am particularly concerned that if the review does take place that insufficient information will be provided about the kit used to test the DAC....I have to say that I find this a shortcoming generally with the reviews in the magazine.

So not much point us going to all the effort of borrowing one then, as far as you're concerned? Right you are then...

 

[Anonymous]

EDITED: please do not discuss banned posters

 

[Alec]

Andrew Everard:
PJPro:I'm guessing that WHFSV could beg/borrow a tweaked variant from Russ Andrews for a review (that's what I'm hoping).

I am particularly concerned that if the review does take place that insufficient information will be provided about the kit used to test the DAC....I have to say that I find this a shortcoming generally with the reviews in the magazine.

So not much point us going to all the effort of borrowing one then, as far as you're concerned? Right you are then...

And there's no reason people should be interested in teh test kit? No. Course there isnt. How utterly stupid that anyone should think otherwise.

Its not like any of the staff agree either is it? i mean, what with all the stuff posted about the testing rooms and how, er...everything sounds different with different stufff...

EDIT: Please do not discuss moderation - Mods

 

[Andrew Everard]

al7478:
And there's no reason people should be interested in teh test kit? No. Course there isnt. How utterly stupid that anyone should think otherwise.

Its not like any of the staff agree either is it? i mean, what with all the stuff posted about the testing rooms and how, er...everything sounds different with different stufff...

I was merely responding to PJP's suggestion that we should borrow a particular piece of equipment he wanted to see reviewed, and his comments that he thought we'd probabaly do a rubbish job of testing it.

So what's the point in even doing the test he wants if he's going to be dissatisfied with the result?

 

[Alec]

Andrew Everard:al7478:

...his comments that he thought we'd probabaly do a rubbish job of testing it.

Not my interpretation of what he said at all, and a pretty bizarre one imo.

 

[Andrew Everard]

al7478:Andrew Everard:al7478:
...his comments that he thought we'd probabaly do a rubbish job of testing it.

Not my interpretation of what he said at all, and a pretty bizarre one imo.

You're entitled to your interpretation, however wilfully confrontational it may be.

We're not an academic journal, with acres of footnotes and methodology - we are a mass-market magazine, and it has already been expianed elsewhere how the DACs were tested.

 

[PJPro]

Andrew Everard:
I was merely responding to PJP's suggestion that we should borrow a particular piece of equipment he wanted to see reviewed, and his comments that he thought we'd probabaly do a rubbish job of testing it.

I don't recall saying that or implying it. Why would I think you'd do a rubbish job?

Andrew Everard:
So what's the point in even doing the test he wants if he's going to be dissatisfied with the result?

Not sure I said that either, did I? I thought it was more a request (which I've voiced before) for supplementary information to support/add context to a review.

Sorry if I stated things in a way which has caused misinterpretation/offence.

 

[Andrew Everard]

PJPro:Not sure I said that either, did I?.

PJPro:insufficient information will be provided about the kit used to test
the DAC....I have to say that I find this a shortcoming generally with
the reviews in the magazine.