Two recent listening experiences of mine echoed the overblown praise Jon Landau lavished upon Bruce Springsteen after he heard <I>The Wild, the Innocent & the E-Street Shuffle</I>. But all hype aside, Landau was right: Springsteen <I>was</I> the future of rock'n'roll&mdash;or at least what passed for the future of traditional rock in those pre-MTV, pre-techno, pre-house, pre-gangsta, pre-rap, pre-hip-hop, pre-grunge, pre-Mariah Carey, pre-Garth Brooks, pre-sampling, pre-digital days. And I believe that, Landau-like, I too will be right. I have heard the future of audio, and it is digital&mdash;digital technology has finally surpassed the sound quality of analog.

Two recent listening experiences of mine echoed the overblown praise Jon Landau lavished upon Bruce Springsteen after he heard <I>The Wild, the Innocent & the E-Street Shuffle</I>. But all hype aside, Landau was right: Springsteen <I>was</I> the future of rock'n'roll&mdash;or at least what passed for the future of traditional rock in those pre-MTV, pre-techno, pre-house, pre-gangsta, pre-rap, pre-hip-hop, pre-grunge, pre-Mariah Carey, pre-Garth Brooks, pre-sampling, pre-digital days. And I believe that, Landau-like, I too will be right. I have heard the future of audio, and it is digital&mdash;digital technology has finally surpassed the sound quality of analog.

Two recent listening experiences of mine echoed the overblown praise Jon Landau lavished upon Bruce Springsteen after he heard <I>The Wild, the Innocent & the E-Street Shuffle</I>. But all hype aside, Landau was right: Springsteen <I>was</I> the future of rock'n'roll&mdash;or at least what passed for the future of traditional rock in those pre-MTV, pre-techno, pre-house, pre-gangsta, pre-rap, pre-hip-hop, pre-grunge, pre-Mariah Carey, pre-Garth Brooks, pre-sampling, pre-digital days. And I believe that, Landau-like, I too will be right. I have heard the future of audio, and it is digital&mdash;digital technology has finally surpassed the sound quality of analog.

That was the question asked by a reader who was perfectly happy with his CD-based system. He was using the gain control provided by the variable output of his CD player and was apparently in no need of phono playback or greater flexibility. He asked us to answer this question, ignoring for the moment the obvious functions of switching, volume and tone control, and phono preamplification. With those hardly trivial qualifiers&mdash;and bearing in mind the high output available from many of today's line sources, CD players in particular&mdash;do you really need the added expense and complexity of a preamplifier?

On a number of occasions we have commented on the effects of an amplifier's output impedance on a system's performance. A high output impedance&mdash;such as is found in many tube amplifiers&mdash;will interact with the loudspeaker's impedance in a way which directly affects the <I>combination</I>'s frequency response. The <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//amplificationreviews/740/">Cary CAD-805</A>, for example, has a lower output impedance than most tube amplifiers, and should be less prone to such interaction. Some months back&mdash;before the CAD-805 arrived&mdash;I investigated this phenomenon in conjunction with measurements for a forthcoming review of the Melos 400 monoblock amplifier. Since the Melos 400 also had a relatively low output impedance for a tube amplifier (at 0.43 ohms at low and mid frequencies, rising to 1.2 ohms at 20kHz, from its 8 ohm tap), I took that opportunity to run some frequency-response measurements using an actual loudspeaker as the load for the amplifier.

On a number of occasions we have commented on the effects of an amplifier's output impedance on a system's performance. A high output impedance&mdash;such as is found in many tube amplifiers&mdash;will interact with the loudspeaker's impedance in a way which directly affects the <I>combination</I>'s frequency response. The <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//amplificationreviews/740/">Cary CAD-805</A>, for example, has a lower output impedance than most tube amplifiers, and should be less prone to such interaction. Some months back&mdash;before the CAD-805 arrived&mdash;I investigated this phenomenon in conjunction with measurements for a forthcoming review of the Melos 400 monoblock amplifier. Since the Melos 400 also had a relatively low output impedance for a tube amplifier (at 0.43 ohms at low and mid frequencies, rising to 1.2 ohms at 20kHz, from its 8 ohm tap), I took that opportunity to run some frequency-response measurements using an actual loudspeaker as the load for the amplifier.

By now you've no doubt realized that Stereophile has changed its size—from 5½" by 8 7/16" to 7½" by 10¼". (All right—maybe you didn't know the exact dimensions of the change, but that's what they are.) We have Edward Chen, Publisher of Stereophile's Chinese edition, to thank for our new size. It is the same size as the Chinese Stereophile and a common size in the Far East. We've been admiring it in Chinese for the last two-and-a-half years, and we thought it would make sense in English as well.

By now you've no doubt realized that <I>Stereophile</I> has changed its size&mdash;from 5&#189;" by 8 7/16" to 7&#189;" by 10&#188;". (All right&mdash;maybe you didn't know the <I>exact</I> dimensions of the change, but that's what they are.) We have Edward Chen, Publisher of <I>Stereophile</I>'s Chinese edition, to thank for our new size. It is the same size as the Chinese <I>Stereophile</I> and a common size in the Far East. We've been admiring it in Chinese for the last two-and-a-half years, and we thought it would make sense in English as well.

By now you've no doubt realized that <I>Stereophile</I> has changed its size&mdash;from 5&#189;" by 8 7/16" to 7&#189;" by 10&#188;". (All right&mdash;maybe you didn't know the <I>exact</I> dimensions of the change, but that's what they are.) We have Edward Chen, Publisher of <I>Stereophile</I>'s Chinese edition, to thank for our new size. It is the same size as the Chinese <I>Stereophile</I> and a common size in the Far East. We've been admiring it in Chinese for the last two-and-a-half years, and we thought it would make sense in English as well.

By now you've no doubt realized that <I>Stereophile</I> has changed its size&mdash;from 5&#189;" by 8 7/16" to 7&#189;" by 10&#188;". (All right&mdash;maybe you didn't know the <I>exact</I> dimensions of the change, but that's what they are.) We have Edward Chen, Publisher of <I>Stereophile</I>'s Chinese edition, to thank for our new size. It is the same size as the Chinese <I>Stereophile</I> and a common size in the Far East. We've been admiring it in Chinese for the last two-and-a-half years, and we thought it would make sense in English as well.