• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Cambridge Audio CXA81 Review (Sample 2)

Another Audiophile said:
Still no apology for the fastuous behavior in his video and the fact that he probably mislead readers and/or buyers. When you are in a position of influence you should have the moral capacity to apologise for wrongdoings. But as I said, that’s a virtue.
Click to expand...
He put the blame on himself, that's good enough apologie to me.
 
diddley said:
He put the blame on himself, that's good enough apologie to me.
Click to expand...
Not really. He didn’t apologise. Anyway, my take is on the questionable credibility overall and the humbleness to apologise when you are on the wrong. It takes humility to say I am sorry and I apologise.
 
Another Audiophile said:
Not really. He didn’t apologise. Anyway, my take is on the questionable credibility overall and the humbleness to apologise when you are on the wrong. It takes humility to say I am sorry and I apologise.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with the first review?
 
amirm said:
It would be the best invention in the world. I use my tiller to attack them but they come right back up when you plantings are in there. And then becomes a tedious hand pulling.
Click to expand...
Ah ' tedious hand pulling ' , maybe some roll play could freshen things up .

Noticed you've been enjoying some of your favourite tea of late , a little ASR special blend , a cup of 'Cambridge storm ' for everyone.

A fair conclusion, arrive at with more grace than previously. You must be going soft in your old age ha ha .
 
Another Audiophile said:
hmmm... Good for the collaboration from CA's side. I went through the comments from the previous review and I am not sure how much confidence I have in other decapitated reviews where the maker(s) didn't even bother to challenge. For example there are no measurements with optical for the chord mojo 2 and/or intermodulation distortion. I guess it is all work in progress here like in every measuring methodology.
Click to expand...
you mean this IMD chart?
index.php
 
Thomas savage said:
Ah ' tedious hand pulling ' , maybe some roll play could freshen things up .

Noticed you've been enjoying some of your favourite tea of late , a little ASR special blend , a cup of 'Cambridge storm ' for everyone.

A fair conclusion, arrive at with more grace than previously. You must be going soft in your old age ha ha .
Click to expand...

Did you hit post rather than PM? If not maybe you could let the rest of us in on the joke.
 
formula 977 said:
Did you hit post rather than PM? If not maybe you could let the rest of us in on the joke.
Click to expand...
It's Thomas, so it will be an onanistic reference.
 
terrys999 said:
Amirm first sample was done properly, how would anyone have known that if the usb cable is connected it screws up!
That’s on Cambridge. Not amirm.
He shouldn’t have to apologise for anything.
Click to expand...
I think we can all chill a bit about apologies and such, I agree with that he retested, gave the opportunity to show that it's a competent unit, and gave the precision on what has changed and why. Amir have put the extra work, no apologies needed there. But still we could debate about if "It's on Cambridge":

"Issue was brought up that this is an instrumentation thing that the Audio Precision analyzer is creating a loop and ground noise that would not be there. While this is true, I explained that I have tested hundreds of DACs that don't have this problem."

So the key word here is: instrumentation issue. If a measurment shows a problem that don't exist in real life usage, we can hammer as much as we want that others don't have this "problem", but if it's only present when you connect an AP and in no other situation, if the matter is understood, and it can be demonstrated that no possibility it creeps into the audio signal when listening to music, well, it's a non issue, it's not "On Cambridge". Electronic designers need to use instrumentation of course, but they don't design to fix analysers weird behaviours. If some do, it may be by chance, it may be just different way of working the grounding scheme, or maybe they put the extra work on looking good on AP, but looking good on an AP analyser is not a design goal in itself, it's a consequence. If there is no problem, there is no problem.
 
Another Audiophile said:
Still no apology for the fastuous behavior in his video and the fact that he probably mislead readers and/or buyers. When you are in a position of influence you should have the moral capacity to apologise for wrongdoings. But as I said, that’s a virtue.
Click to expand...
Sheesh, lay off the smug attitude already. You seem the type that wouldn't apologize for your transgressions in the first place but want to raise yourself to some authority demanding an apology when he admitted to his shortcoming in the first review. He doesn't owe you an apology, get on and live with it.
 
_theLaughingman said:
Sheesh, lay off the smug attitude already. You seem the type that wouldn't apologize for your transgressions in the first place but want to raise yourself to some authority demanding an apology when he admitted to his shortcoming in the first review. He doesn't owe you an apology, get on and live with it.
Click to expand...
If a dac is specified to work within it's linear range at a maximum level of somewhere under 2V you would be well aware of the restrictions put on it under normal operating conditions. Testing this device at close to clipping and insisting that the measurements are valid is the epitomy of arrogance. This has nothing to do with the fact that a preamp putting out a less than reasonable output level is an engineering decision that no one in his right mind would agree with.

Let's say Amir decides that not only does a dac need to be able to produce a randomly chosen voltage level no matter the effect on the measurements, he decides that all of the amplifiers he tests need to put out 100 watts/ch because almost all speakers need to have at least that much power according to him. Every amp he tests with less than 100W out seems to have measurements that are less than stellar, for some reason he can't exactly put his finger on. Should that be taken seriously?

Is this a good analogy or not?
 
formula 977 said:
If a dac is specified to work within it's linear range at a maximum level of somewhere under 2V you would be well aware of the restrictions put on it under normal operating conditions. Testing this device at close to clipping and insisting that the measurements are valid is the epitomy of arrogance. This has nothing to do with the fact that a preamp putting out a less than reasonable output level is an engineering decision that no one in his right mind would agree with.

Let's say Amir decides that not only does a dac need to be able to produce a randomly chosen voltage level no matter the effect on the measurements, he decides that all of the amplifiers he tests need to put out 100 watts/ch because almost all speakers need to have at least that much power according to him. Every amp he tests with less than 100W out seems to have measurements that are less than stellar, for some reason he can't exactly put his finger on. Should that be taken seriously?

Is this a good analogy or not?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are reffering to. Both 1.17VRMS and 1.56VRMS are in the linear behaviour range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
Cambridge Audio CXA81 S2 vs Rotel RB 1552 Mkii
Replies
11
Views
1K
peng
P
amirm
  • Poll Poll
Marantz M1 Streaming Amplifier Review
7 8 9
Replies
174
Views
42K
mon
M
amirm
  • Poll Poll
SMSL A50 Pro Amplifier Review
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
35K
Matamp
M
amirm
  • Poll Poll
Mission 778X Integrated Amplifier & DAC Review
6 7 8
Replies
151
Views
30K
discard
D
amirm
  • Poll Poll
Schiit Magni Mesh DAC Review
11 12 13
Replies
246
Views
33K
rebbiputzmaker
rebbiputzmaker
Back
Top Bottom