www.headphonesty.com
It seems impossible to escape that page on facebook. Probably need to block it but it's mildly amusing to read the comments at times@NTTY You're on Headphonesty, a clickbait online audio magazine.
![]()
New Test Reveals How Vintage CD Players Outperform Modern Models Thanks to One Forgotten Design Choice
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.www.headphonesty.com
A honest Thank You, Flo, and respect: this article says the same.@NTTY You're on Headphonesty, a clickbait online audio magazine.
![]()
New Test Reveals How Vintage CD Players Outperform Modern Models Thanks to One Forgotten Design Choice
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.www.headphonesty.com
I don't have the background to break that down, although my BS meter is activated. What is the real world take home from that testing? Measurable but not audible?@NTTY You're on Headphonesty, a clickbait online audio magazine.
![]()
New Test Reveals How Vintage CD Players Outperform Modern Models Thanks to One Forgotten Design Choice
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.www.headphonesty.com
I think the title of the article is somewhat misleading and some conclusions biased. The take home message somewhat beeing that "good old NOS R2R cd players outperform modern ones" (But what is a modern CD player? A 90’ Sony or Denon or a smsl cd player?).@NTTY You're on Headphonesty, a clickbait online audio magazine.
![]()
New Test Reveals How Vintage CD Players Outperform Modern Models Thanks to One Forgotten Design Choice
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.www.headphonesty.com
Thanks for the info!@NTTY You're on Headphonesty, a clickbait online audio magazine.
![]()
New Test Reveals How Vintage CD Players Outperform Modern Models Thanks to One Forgotten Design Choice
The study shows how overlooked testing methods hid the true performance of both vintage and current models.www.headphonesty.com
It’s cool to see my work reused. I take it as recognition!I think the title of the article is somewhat misleading and some conclusions biased. The take home message somewhat beeing that "good old NOS R2R cd players outperform modern ones" (But what is a modern CD player? A 90’ Sony or Denon or a smsl cd player?).
While pointing out the great work of Florent, I feel that the paper is rather confusing and does not do justice to the finesse of the tests he carried out.
Yep, reason why my article here is titled "More than we hear".I don't have the background to break that down, although my BS meter is activated. What is the real world take home from that testing? Measurable but not audible?
Thank you! And I won’tA honest Thank You, Flo, and respect: this article says the same.
(but no excuse to pause or stop ...)
Hmmm ... anyone who knows someone here who has 'enough popularity' to nudge SMSL to do so?It sure would be nice to get one on loan from SMSL. I’m not sure I reached enough popularity for that though![]()
Yes, I understand. It happened to me too: a year ago I posted on these pages a detailed measurement of the wow and flutter of some turntables I own. A few months later I came across an article on Headphonesty and thought: “Hmm, this guy did the same experiments I did... But that’s me!”It’s cool to see my work reused. I take it as recognition!
Hmmm ... anyone who knows someone here who has 'enough popularity' to nudge SMSL to do so?![]()
I read it quickly. Its nonsense as as far as any audibility goesI don't have the background to break that down, although my BS meter is activated. What is the real world take home from that testing? Measurable but not audible?
It’s cool to see my work reused. I take it as recognition!
It looks AI written and uses my article here "More than we hear" as the basis, with few complementary sources. I like it because the content is precise, and is a good summary of what I wrote. It might be a little confusing on NOS and R2R, indeed. Well the AI was not. It correctly mentions NOS and R2R flaws and advantages.
I guess the writer wanted to talk about the why and how vintage CD players outperform newer design because they have a better resistance to intersamples over. But it’s funny because I only ever measured one of these (the Yamaha CD-1) and never published the review here.
And yes the title might not be appropriate, but it makes you want to read the article, and so the objective is achieved
Yep, reason why my article here is titled "More than we hear".
Thank you! And I won’t![]()
I would be nice to propose a comment to be published on Headphonesty. I hope Headphonesty cited the source of information as they did in the case of NTTY.Yes, I understand. It happened to me too: a year ago I posted on these pages a detailed measurement of the wow and flutter of some turntables I own. A few months later I came across an article on Headphonesty and thought: “Hmm, this guy did the same experiments I did... But that’s me!”
In my case, the article had been largely manipulated and ended up drawing conclusions I never meant to make. The title was also misleading, clearly chosen just to attract as many clicks as possible.
It makes me happy anyway!
It is unobtainable, but I had a look at this one in the past, because it mentions 16x oversampling on the front and has only one SAA7220, and so there’s something wrong hereAnd how about a Cambridge CD 3 with 4 X TDA1541![]()
Yes the source was cited many and many times.I hope Headphonesty cited the source