Sorry to have to say this (OK, I don't have to but I will anyway), but a review of a purely electronic signal source that relies on listening evaluations without use of and reference to measurements is of questionable value, and what I expect from the likes of Stereophile.
There are established metrics for evaluating CDPs, both the old familiar analog metrics like harmonic distortion, and digital metrics like quantization noise that can function as indicators of quality (and if bad enough, can be audible too). What is the S/NR? How good is the error correction? Is the dynamic range at or near the theoretical maximum available?
And I agree: calling a $700 CDP "ridiculously inexpensive" in an age when a sub-$200 "universal" player can give audibly close (likely identical) performance is pretty dubious. Especially one with a hard to use remote and poor usability - the things that really do make a difference to the end user when near-flawless electrical and audible performance are practically commodities.
Like I've said before: nothing says a moderator can't express strong opinions.
FOLLOWUP: On reflection, the above may have come off harsher than I intended. I don't want to seem to be giving our new reviewer, Mr. Kohli, a hard time with his first contribution. And I know my "measurements are everything" orientation is one on which reasonable people can agree to disagree. I'd just like to see measurements along with the listening impressions. If a given reviewer can't do the measurements, perhaps Gene or Hawke or another technically inclined staff member can provide them - much as David Ranada does in a sidebar for the reviews in Sound & Vision. That would be much more in line with Audioholics' stated mission, IMO.
