Hi,

I don't know if anybody out there uses the Airport Express much? I just read John Atkinson's review of it, and I have some questions, particularly if you don't have a thousands-of-dollars DAC...

Just bought a used Airport Express, and I'm not crazy about the *analogue* sound. I don't really understand all the technical audiophile stuff, but I do know the sound isn't as crisp, clear and resonant as I'd like. I have a Tivoli Radio Two - I love the sound, but it doesn't have a digital in, Toslink or anything like that.

Starting in August of '07 I began a major upgrade of my system, adding the Vienna Acoustic Baby Grand speakers and a Pro-ject RM10 turntable in quick order with dramatic results. Next came a Conrad Johnson CA200 control amplifier (see review) and, most importantly a Sumiko Master Set placement of my speakers (see review).

Hello all,

I am stuck in the receiver realm of things, most likely because I have certain criteria for this new receiver.

I am looking for a receiver with ample output power and a good THD %... I need at minimum of 100W cont. power with at least 4 channels. I really don't have a need for anything 5.1 and above. But, I guess I can foresee me expanding the surround sound in the future. So anything up to a 7.1 will suffice.

I am also looking for a recevier to have quality internal components with a rugged chassis build.

I am in the process of building a 7.1 home theater using in-wall speakers and need some advice. The room is only 12'5"(w) x 15'5"(l) and the back of the room is open to the game room. The current plan is designed to include a typical L,R,C in-wall layout around a mounted plasma with 2 Rear in-wall surrounds and 2 Rear in-ceiling surrounds.

After reading about many products I have it narrowed down to either the Boston Acoustics VRi-Series, PSB CW-Series, Klipsch R-Series or the Polk LCi-RTS Series. I can

It's February, it's R2DF time, and that means it's time for my annual plea to JA and co. to collect all of the R2DFs and publish them in book form.

This year really shows however that most of the records that one would really die for have been cited already. This year's list is really more like records-I- would-accept-a-serious-illness-that-I-ultimately-recover-from-for. I just can't see Wes accepting death over losing that Bobbie Gentry collection. He might agree to get the flu though.

Hi everyone!

I'm a lifelong music fan, 32 years old, and looking to finally get a "proper" stereo. I currently have cheap bookshelf stereos in a couple of bedrooms in my house, and in the living room, I have a surround sound dvd player/receiver all in one that I got from a big box store. This is my main source for listening to music. The music sounds okay to me, but I keep reading online that I'm missing so much more from my music, and to fully appreciate music, you should have a proper 2 channel stereo. My questions are this:

I'm thinking about adding a sub strictly for my two channel listening. These two have peeked my interest. Any thoughts or experience with either of these two? Feel free to chime in & offer your opinions on what subs you would recommend. It's key for me to keep the heighth of the sub under 19"

I recently read in Stereophile of someone cleaning the non-read side of a cd (and with a way overpriced cleaner I might add) and would like to know what purpose that serves? Is there a measurable difference or is there science behind it? Don't tell me it sounds better. It's supposed to sound better because that's what the manufacturer wants you to believe.

I don't have the 2/08 issue right here, but in the Letters column, someone (JA?) commented that perhaps blind tests don't have "sufficient resolving power" to pick up differences that ears can hear. The easiest way to increase the statistical power of a blind test is to increase the number of blind raters. Given reasonable listening conditions (e.g., familiar source material, components other than what's being tested that are familiar to the raters, sufficient listening time), the more listeners you have, the more chance that a difference noticed by the raters is not the result of chance.