QED Performance 2 vs. Chord crimsonplus

[pkerai]

I wish to know if there are significant differences between the QED Performance 2 1m and Chor Crimsonplus 1m (both normal and VEE connections).
I dont have the chance to do a side by side comparison, and am wondering what the sound differences are?
I mainly listen to complex classical music with detailed soundstage.

I know this depends alot on what the otehr equipment is like.
But are there any significant differences?

Much appreciated.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Yes, there are diffrences.

The Chord Crimson plus have a more aggessive sound than the QED Performance 2.

In that the leading edge of instruments and sharp notes are more pronounced with the Crimson. If you like upbeat, multiple precussion music then they are better than the QED's, but they do fatigue after a while - so not ideal for long relaxed sessions.

The QEDs are softer sounding but have better detail, while the top end is softer there seems to be more of it, you pick up details you miss with the Crimsons, the bass is also much better defined, you can hear variation and the tone (not just thump thump) which adds weight to voices especially female voices and it as a better stereo image.

depending on taste they are both good - my pref though are the QED they sound more natural to me.

 

[pkerai]

Thanks for that.

Another What hifi trait.
They really are bad for reviews.
Couldnt they have stated that when reviewing and giving it an award.
Its beyond reason.

They test a wide range, and more importantly high end quality components.
And yet their reviews are tainted by pop/rock music choices which dont really test the electronics.
Parliament should legislate against this mass market poor substance reviewing.
Its on par with bankers bonuses.

I mean Im sure there are industry back handers to those who give rate reviews.
All the while misleading the mass dumb public into following it, some of them without the time to perform some feable attempt at demo'ing (maybe due to lack of resources) all the while manufacturers gain market share and more importantly condition what the next generation of equipment both look and sounds like.
It a vicious cycle, huh!

 

[whiskywheels]

....... their reviews are tainted by pop/rock music choices which dont really test the electronics.

+1.

 

[pkerai]

There is no point having a valid argument.
What hifi just wont reply,
or if they do it will be something along the lines of the ******** rhetoric used by all company representatives in aid of deplomacy.....

I just wish there were mainstream available alternative reviewers in the UK.
Other audiophile reviewers of better review substance are either for the rich or not catered for the UK market availability.

 

[the record spot]

I dont have the chance to do a side by side comparison, and am wondering what the sound differences are?

Subtle, not significant - IMO - and you'd be better off checking out the better recordings of the pieces you like, adjusting speaker position, than spending significant amounts of money on interconnects. The only big difference I've noticed is between silver and copper wires, everything else being marginal.

If you must try though, then do check the likes of Ebay for a good auction deal or cheap BIN.

 

[pkerai]

By better recordings, you mean better then cd quality which is 16 bit, and in lossless as apposed to lossy mp3.
Yeah I suppose there is much more choice in classical music.
Recorded/live, which bit rate, the orchestra in question, the performing hall etc......

 

[the record spot]

I suppose I was really thinking about the performance, orchestra, etc., and the recording quality/mastering process rather than bitrate. CD I find absolutely fine I must admit and also use SACD, DVD-A and HDCD. A good recording, well mastered on CD will comfortably outperform a poor mastering on a hi-res release. IMO!

 

[pkerai]

Yes, thats what I mean to.
Any ideas where I can find high resolution files with good recordings online or elsewhere?
Do I have to purchase them via US sites.

P.S. Any pieces in particular that make the most of a good bitrate and recording.
Something complex and orchestral - i really want to test my amp and speakers.

 

[nopiano]

Yes, thats what I mean to. Any ideas where I can find high resolution files with good recordings online or elsewhere? Do I have to purchase them via US sites. P.S. Any pieces in particular that make the most of a good bitrate and recording. Something complex and orchestral - i really want to test my amp and speakers.

Linn now have a fantastic selecton of high quality downloads. Plenty of orchestral music, in fact almost all genres.

http://www.linnrecords.com/index.aspx

 

[BenLaw]

Thanks for that. Another What hifi trait. They really are bad for reviews. Couldnt they have stated that when reviewing and giving it an award. Its beyond reason. They test a wide range, and more importantly high end quality components. And yet their reviews are tainted by pop/rock music choices which dont really test the electronics. Parliament should legislate against this mass market poor substance reviewing. Its on par with bankers bonuses. I mean Im sure there are industry back handers to those who give rate reviews. All the while misleading the mass dumb public into following it, some of them without the time to perform some feable attempt at demo'ing (maybe due to lack of resources) all the while manufacturers gain market share and more importantly condition what the next generation of equipment both look and sounds like. It a vicious cycle, huh!

So everyone's ignoring this libellous nonsense? Max flinn got banned for very similar!

 

[Crossie]

Unless you listen to them with your kit, in your listening room, with your choice of music, you will never know if there are significant differences or any differfences at all for you. This is a very subjective area and emotions run hign. I find that I don't hear significant differences between inerconnects and cables even with very complex classical music. I would concentrate on looking for recordings that you like and not worry too much about interconnects.

 

[Crossie]

oke: Oh.. and those ranting about WHF - Why are you here? Reviews are subjective - you don't have to agree with them.

 

[Native_bon]

I cannot agree more with PKeral's piont, he hit the nail on the head! The HIFI & Computing world uses subjectivity to justify everything & anything. People listen to reviews & think oh this is good stuff & get disappionted time & time again.

Then its time to spend money again & again. Its a never ending story. Yes we should have more main stream review mags in the market. Yes whathifi may help to narrow down the kind of system or sound we may want to listen to, but I for one do not think enough is done. Sometimes reviews can be very vague with words which does not make much sense to people.

If for example a £500.00 piece of Hifi sounds better than a £2000.00 one, that should be made clear. cause am not kidding you, I have heared cheap hifi blow away very expensive stuff. This way Hifi companies know were they stand hence better value for money. Of cousre we live in the real world were money is to be made, but i think things have gone south a bit too much.

 

[BenLaw]

I cannot agree more with PKeral's piont, he hit the nail on the head! The HIFI & Computing world uses subjectivity to justify everything & anything. People listen to reviews & think oh this is good stuff & get disappionted time & time again.

You're both talking nonsense, although different nonsense, despite what you appear to think. Pkerai's first point was this:

Thanks for that.

Another What hifi trait.
They really are bad for reviews.
Couldnt they have stated that when reviewing and giving it an award.
Its beyond reason.

Which is just bizarre. He's relying on someone else's highly subjective view of two cables which he hasn't heard to criticise WHF's highly subjective view. For no apparent reason, he decides Thomsonuxb is right and WHF is wrong.

You, on the other hand, seem to be criticising the use of subjectivity. Show me a cable review that uses objective testing!

Which other of pkerais' points are you agreeing with? -

And yet their reviews are tainted by pop/rock music choices which dont really test the electronics.

How on earth does he know this? Actually, if one reads the mag and sees what music is used to test, this seems to be wrong.

Parliament should legislate against this mass market poor substance reviewing.
Its on par with bankers bonuses.

Do you agree with this? It's gibberish.

I mean Im sure there are industry back handers to those who give rate reviews.

Are you agreeing with this libellous comment? You seem to be, so perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence? Disagree with WHF's reviews all you like, but this is nonsense.

Then its time to spend money again & again. Its a never ending story. Yes we should have more main stream review mags in the market.

It's hardly WHF's fault if they are successful and others are not.

Yes whathifi may help to narrow down the kind of system or sound we may want to listen to, but I for one do not think enough is done. Sometimes reviews can be very vague with words which does not make much sense to people.

This point is raised time after time, they've said why they choose not to give measurements etc and at the end of the day it's their choice as it's their mag. And the market clearly shows that is what they want. There's plenty of resources for more objective testing if you want to access it, no-one is stpping you.

Of cousre we live in the real world were money is to be made, but i think things have gone south a bit too much.

What do you mean?

 

[busb]

Objective testing of cables, especially ICs usually show little or no difference. I love it when overt subjectivists spout off against subjective reviews. I also note that when these people have to put their money where theirs mouths are such as with well conducted ABX comparisons, the proponents of significant cable differences fail to tell which is what!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Objective testing of cables, especially ICs usually show little or no difference. I love it when overt subjectivists spout off against subjective reviews. I also note that when these people have to put their money where theirs mouths are such as with well conducted ABX comparisons, the proponents of significant cable differences fail to tell which is what!

I have to disagree.

earlier in the year I 'upgraded' my amp during my time of auditioning I converted one skeptic working in the hifi shop, he 'heard the differences between chords cables qed' and cheapos and it moved him enough to try the others he had in stock. This from just plain simple listening.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I have to say I'm suprised at the direction this thread as been pushed in. WHF is a mag, you buy or you don't,

its pointless making this type of rant - if you can do better then maybe you should, I'd read you.

 

[BenLaw]

Objective testing of cables, especially ICs usually show little or no difference. I love it when overt subjectivists spout off against subjective reviews. I also note that when these people have to put their money where theirs mouths are such as with well conducted ABX comparisons, the proponents of significant cable differences fail to tell which is what!

I have to disagree.

earlier in the year I 'upgraded' my amp during my time of auditioning I converted one skeptic working in the hifi shop, he 'heard the differences between chords cables qed' and cheapos and it moved him enough to try the others he had in stock. This from just plain simple listening.

That in no way addresses busb's point that on objective tests cables measure identically or virtually so and that no one passes blind / ABX tests. So your disagreement has no rational basis.

At least your second post was unusually sensible.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

stop it..... >)

 

[busb]

I have to say I'm suprised at the direction this thread as been pushed in. WHF is a mag, you buy or you don't,

its pointless making this type of rant - if you can do better then maybe you should, I'd read you.

I'm not sure who this particular post is aimed at. There have been some less than complimentary posts in this thread that have been very unjustifiably critical towards WHF who host this forum. If I didn't agree with how this magazine presented its reviews, I'd find an alternative forum to post to as a matter of integrity. We are all aware that some journalists in the tabloid press have a somewhat dubious reputation but I'm personally unwilling to extend this to every other sector of the industry.

Anyone writing about HiFi must at times be at a loss to say something fresh about a product that may, in the greater scheme of things be inconsistent with what's been said about similar stuff. Sometimes they get it wrong & get away with it & sometimes what they take as a fairly uncontraversial sentaece manages to hit hit a nerve to the extent the writer must think oh Christ - I didn't expect so much flack! What has struck me is that the criticism aimed towards the magazine has been from those who have expressed fairly subjectivist views towards a magazine that doesn't pretend to be anything other than subjective! I've been invited to WHF twice in the in the last year: once as a Big Question participant & more recently to take part in a focus group where how readers respond to reviews was discussed. I stated that if measurements that some rival magazines do illuminated how equipment was goint to sound, I'd expect WHF to also provide them. There was strong consensus amongst the group that reviews were used as a way for readers to form a shortlist only & that they would then bother to listen to stuff to form their own opinions from alternative reviews & forum comments. In other words, some common sense should inform buying decisions not rely on one particular review - some of which I've totally disagreed with.

One aspect of HiFi & more importantly, listening & enjoying music that has struck me is that my perception of hearing a familar piece of music isn't consistent. I'll play a particular song I like then stop to play something else - I'm simply not in the right mood for it. I've become increasingly aware that my emotional response changes. I've also become aware that many small differences in SQ just don't justify the cost to implement them. I spend far more money on HiFi than most people I know personally to the extent that I've spent more on stuff like cables than I can justify - just as insurance! This is a form of insecurity I'm no longer willing to repeat. I'm far more willing to entertain the idea that my hearing plays tricks on me. Lets take a hypothetical example with something like cable directionality. I'd start off with the deciding if I can hear a difference, if I can't, I'd not persue it further. Now, if I could, I'd think hell, that's interesting, what will it sound like after returning the cable to original state? If the SQ returned to how it was, I'd think there was something true about directionality after all. If the SQ still sounded better, I'd try to figure out why & consider the possibility that removing the cable then reinserting it was the cause of the improvement & perhaps try the same experiment on another input. Using a degree of logic allows me to draw conclusions that should be repeatable & useful to others. I don't perform similar analysis to aspects of love, why I like certain bands or composers over others because it's not relavant to do so - some things in life are a mystery to me & I'm comfortable for them to remain so!

 

[Native_bon]

WOW people really sensitive on here. I have my own opinion & will state it as i see. Everyone has the right to own opinion, just like you hear things in music that others may not, or in cables or hifi equipment!! That is my piont view, & no need to beat up your self over it....

 

[Thompsonuxb]

geees... got down to 'and magazines' and then Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[busb]

geees... got down to 'and magazines' and then Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Can't say I'm in the least bit surprised by your reaction judging by your posting history.