[prepress]

Originally Posted by Still-One

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.

Another way of looking at the term, and one I'm familiar with, having read a gazillion reviews. I noted on Mac's website that the MCD12000 is referred to as "reference," and the MCD600 as "premium;" the MCD350 and MCD85 didn't get a specific designation. Even as a relative novice, I understand what those terms mean within the context of Mac's SACD player line. In a reviewer's context any of them could be reference. And while my basic thoughts on the term "reference" haven't changed, I do have other, legitimate perspectives to consider if I choose to. Nothing wrong with that.

This is why AA is cool. The perspectives you can get here are usually insightful, and come from people who have been around audio much longer or dug in much deeper than I have. I will wait for someone to spend real time with the 12000 and give a report on how it sounds.