CA/MS review Feb 2008 issue

[Viagara]

The review done by Joel on the Cambridge Audio and Mordaunt-Short combination is exactly what my experience is with my own HT setup, which comprises a 540R with MS 908, 905, 903, 309W.

The comments about the sound being too dry for some tastes actually put into words what I could never describe, as this is particularly the case at low volumes. Adding monoblocs to drive the front speakers took care of the "dryness" at lower volumes.

Otherwise Joel's comments hit the nail on the head.

Just one comment though, the review is about the CA 640R with DVD89, but the photo is of the CA 540R with DVD89. When I saw the photo, I thought that review is a repeat of another review about two years ago(of the 540R and DVD77)

[Andrew]

Hi Alphabet,

Yes, the review was initially supposed to be of the 540R and DVD89 combo with most focus on their performance with the MS system, but when Joel arrived to do the review, they had set up the 640 instead. Although we did the review as is, the distributor had wanted things to be slanted more towards the 540 & 89 package with the MS system. Hence the picture of those two and the 'Price' in the Vital Stats panel showing the price of the two systems.

[Shonver]

Now, that's just not right!...

[Viagara]

In this case the 540R "slant" could work as I have heard the 640R in my setup and it sounds fairly similiar to the 540R, but(sorry Andrew I am doing it again ) there is enough difference in sound quality between the two to allow the review to give an unfair advantage to the 540R.

Don't get me wrong, I am not degrading the 540R as it still remains an impressive AVR, but the 640R is a few steps up the ladder

Maybe I should add a disclaimer  This post does not reflect the views and opinions of AVSA, but are my own opinions

[Shonver]

Or "This review does not reflect the opinions of the reviewer, but that of the distributor".

Sorry, but in the industry I work in one (or one's company) can get into a lot of trouble for this kind of thing.

Edit: changed "you to one" and "your" to "one's"

PS: this is the only discussion board I know of that allows its members to change the contents of their posts for an unlimited period after posting.

[Viagara]

You could off course convey our opinions to Jay at Volco, bearing in mind that I am a big CA and MS fan and I am prepared to give my contact details;)

[Shonver]

You could off course convey our opinions to Jay at Volco, bearing in mind that I am a big CA and MS fan and I am prepared to give my contact details;)

I'd give my details, too. But the only reason would be to receive free long-term evaluation samples. 

[Viagara]

I'd give my details, too. But the only reason would be to receive free long-term evaluation samples. 

No man, Shaun, I was surreptitiously working my way towards that Can't take you anywhere

[Shonver]

Well, you should have told me what a surreptitious is first.

[Viagara]

Well, you should have told me what a surreptitious is first.

Op 'n skelm, onderduimse, agterbakse manier, verstaan jy

[Shonver]

Well, I really don't see why one has to resort to this type of approach. Don't businesses know about long-term loaning of products? It's the best way to build a good reputation.

[Viagara]

Jokes aside, you are quite right, Shaun! In my line of business, I regularly get PCs, Servers, Solidstate drives, memory card drives, etc to test on a longterm basis.

[Andrew]

Hmm, okay not certain if I'm not explaining myself properly.... The distributor had wanted a review on the 540R, DVD 89 and the MS system as a sort of package deal. However, where Joel went to, in order to carry out the review, they had put the 640R in instead. Faced with time constraints and such, we were then forced to carry out a review of the system as it was, as opposed to how it had originally been meant to be set up. However, because there was still a 540R/DVD89 package that the distributor wanted readers to be aware of, that package's price was then included in the Stats panel. There was nothing dodgy about the review, or how it panned out, it's just the joys of working to strict deadlines. Not. Like they say, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. 

[RR]

Hi Andrew

While I trust Joel in the way he goes about his review 100%, I have to wonder what the alterior motives were from the distributor.

IF HE WANTED A REVIEW OF THE 540, WHY NOT INSTALL AN BLOODY 540?? This part makes little sense. This makes me think of Alphabet's comments that there are some differences between a 540R and 640R amp.

I've never heard a CA 540R, and now I also don't have any reviewer reference, despite what is being said in the review.....

[DevillEars]

I don't know what everyone is getting so excited about...

The "review request" came from the DISTRIBUTOR and specified the 540
The "review session" was hosted by a DEALER who had configured the 640

So what we have here is a breakdown in communication between DISTRIBUTOR and DEALER

So who can we blame? ESKOM of course!!!  Who else?