Now CNET joins in on the superior audio experience stupidity with the Olive 4HD

[allargon]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10444263-47.html?tag=mncol;txt

I listened to a number of CD/4HD comparisons and came away a believer. The 4HD sounded "less digital," cleaner, and just better than the original CDs. The difference in clarity was the single most impressive improvement hard drive replay offered.
We even compared SACDs to CDs (of the same title) ripped to the 4HD. Again in this test, the 4HD's clarity trumped SACD's. I love the fact that the 4HD, unlike most music servers, doesn't need to be hooked up to a computer. It's just a great sounding hi-fi component that can store up to 20,000 tracks at 24-bit resolution.

So, the better sampled SACD (assuming they didn't use the latest Nora Jones album) sounds "worse" (not the same) than the CD? I wouldn't think this means that the 4HD is better, but that their SACD player (or more likely its settings) sucks.

The writer initially credited this article at Home Entertainment which contains very little subjective statements. I'm not sure what's going on at CNet, but someone there needs a reality check soon.

 

[XEagleDriver]

Not again!

Given that objective review, I can't hardly wait for CNet's reveiw on the LexiCON BD player!

XEagleDriver

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I never really relied on Cnet reviews, there ALWAYS shallow and lack details.
And to top it over, frequently they pick winner based on bribe amount...

 

[just listening]

I never really relied on Cnet reviews, there ALWAYS shallow and lack details.
And to top it over, frequently they pick winner based on bribe amount...

Not to start anything, but can you give proof that the reviewer or Cnet received bribes? Claims on one side, and accusations on the other both need support.

Just trying to be fair.