Quote:
Originally Posted by prepress
One thing I appreciate about McIntosh is that, though they may use the term "reference" in their ad copy, they don't use that word in the official name of any of their gear. It's almost as if the gear will speak for itself.
I'm so over the term "reference" in equipment names. I think the preponderance of gear with the "reference" tag on it dilutes the special nature the term implies. Now, when I see it in a component's name, my first thought is "Ho hum;" my second thought is "Compared to what?" Since there's no objective standard, everything comes down to opinion or preference. With this new MCD12000, my only concerns would be can I afford it (no), would it sound noticeably better than what I have (most likely yes), and does it fit in with the rest of my gear (I think not). Still, it looks like a masterpiece and I won't be surprised if it sounds like one.
Got that out of my system. I'm okay now.  |
I believe the term Reference is used two ways in this audio hobby of ours. First, as the current "State of the Art" within a given manufacturers line-up. An example of this would be how Audio Research identifies their latest top of the line offerings. Second, when a audio writer is auditioning a product in his set-up. They often compare the review product against his "reference" (small r) gear that he probably owns. That reference could have nothing to do with a top of the line offering, just whatever he normally listens to.
I have no issues with the use in either instance.