So it didn’t bother you when as I recall around FIVE Nordost cables appeared on their front cover in I think a 12month period. Not even a whiff of WTF? No suspicion of something amiss whatsoever?
Oh and IMHO magazines and their often corrupted churnalist reviewers are an embarrassment to the hifi industry.
It’s tough to review products say it’s great and some love you
say it’s got issues whom ever owns one is upset. i think what he was saying in a very simplified way is this
one can take a given product and use it in many ways to achieve varying results
and this is in part why we don’t all agree.
i like reviews and knowing that process is going on, and that i can plug into it and find additional data points. or be entertained. they feed my passions. i appreciate that these print and on line sites exist. i like reviewers as i have much in common with them. i think they support the hobby with a feedback loop and advertising structure for manufacturers.
they are easy targets for negativity and second guessing, and healthy skepticism is reasonable. there is a line somewhere on how our forum should treat reviewers......which we get mostly right. we need to not take ourselves so seriously.
some struggle with the idea of respect and just being nice. YMMV.
I totally agree. I am not sure why many readers here are so threatened by the reviewers or opinions of others. I think this could be a great place for many who have limited experience to learn but alas the internet has failed with that thought process. It is easier to be hidden with an avatar and be a critic with no consequence then accept that maybe they don't know everything.
I totally agree. I am not sure why many readers here are so threatened by the reviewers or opinions of others. I think this could be a great place for many who have limited experience to learn but alas the internet has failed with that thought process. It is easier to be hidden with an avatar and be a critic with no consequence then accept that maybe they don't know everything.
But I think we can all learn regardless of our level of experience. In this hobby, as in many other areas, the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.
As an old friend of mine is fond of saying, “if you’re not careful, real really careful, you just might learn something!”
Imagine what it would be like without the magazines or on-line reviewers. It would be very difficult knowing what is what. Even if you just viewed them as entertainment (which I do) and marketing they are still useful in letting us know about new products. Reviewers can be biased (like every other human) but if a product is reviewed in multiple outlets and there is general consensus I think that is useful. As magazines make a profit from advertisement from products they review I think it is useful to read between the lines on what and how something is stated if it is a product that I am actually interested in purchasing. Reviews and magazines are a tool (or a data point as Mike would say).
On the topic of repositioning speakers based on amplifier ... unless you have experienced it in person then you shouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean it is not true or mean it doesn't work. This type of thinking reminds me of the story of Richard Feynman explaining his famous QED diagrams to a group of his colleagues and getting laughed off stage because they though it was ridiculous. I guess they ate some crow later when he won the Nobel prize.
Imagine what it would be like without the magazines or on-line reviewers. It would be very difficult knowing what is what. Even if you just viewed them as entertainment (which I do) and marketing they are still useful in letting us know about new products. Reviewers can be biased (like every other human) but if a product is reviewed in multiple outlets and there is general consensus I think that is useful. As magazines make a profit from advertisement from products they review I think it is useful to read between the lines on what and how something is stated if it is a product that I am actually interested in purchasing. Reviews and magazines are a tool (or a data point as Mike would say).
On the topic of repositioning speakers based on amplifier ... unless you have experienced it in person then you shouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean it is not true or mean it doesn't work. This type of thinking reminds me of the story of Richard Feynman explaining his famous QED diagrams to a group of his colleagues and getting laughed off stage because they though it was ridiculous. I guess they ate some crow later when he won the Nobel prize.
If you have to alter the speaker positioning to ‘accentuate the positive’ of the amp then you ain’t done a genuine amp to previous amp comparison. In fact you’ve totally destroyed the evaluation process
If you have to alter the speaker positioning to ‘accentuate the positive’ of the amp then you ain’t done a genuine amp to previous amp comparison. In fact you’ve totally destroyed the evaluation process
Have you done this? Or even witnessed it in anyone's system? If not then you are just speaking theoretically. Just like theoretically cables should make zero difference.
Imagine what it would be like without the magazines or on-line reviewers. It would be very difficult knowing what is what. Even if you just viewed them as entertainment (which I do) and marketing they are still useful in letting us know about new products. Reviewers can be biased (like every other human) but if a product is reviewed in multiple outlets and there is general consensus I think that is useful. As magazines make a profit from advertisement from products they review I think it is useful to read between the lines on what and how something is stated if it is a product that I am actually interested in purchasing. Reviews and magazines are a tool (or a data point as Mike would say).
On the topic of repositioning speakers based on amplifier ... unless you have experienced it in person then you shouldn't dismiss the concept out of hand. Just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't mean it is not true or mean it doesn't work. This type of thinking reminds me of the story of Richard Feynman explaining his famous QED diagrams to a group of his colleagues and getting laughed off stage because they though it was ridiculous. I guess they ate some crow later when he won the Nobel prize.
The problem is many unknowingly follow magazines and their corrupt reviewers without realising the extent of the ‘symbiosis’ tween reviews/ reviewers/ magazines/ advertising budgets. By and large it’s a scam that’s worked for far far too long and we’ve let it be by not calling a halt to it, whilst knowing it to be true.
You only need to see some of the hilarious bend over backwards comments and now deleted comments in this thread to see what going on
Have you done this? Or even witnessed it in anyone's system? If not then you are just speaking theoretically. Just like theoretically cables should make zero difference.
Done what. Altered a speaker position to suit a particular amp thus destroying the whole concept of amp / component evaluation? No of course not. That would be just dumb IMO
The problem is many unknowingly follow magazines and their corrupt reviewers without realising the extent of the ‘symbiosis’ tween reviews/ reviewers/ magazines/ advertising budgets
I've been a reviewer for -17 years so your comment caught my eye. Could you explain what you believe is this symbiosis and why you think reviewers are corrupt?
After exhaustive research I have not found this in the Ten Commandments. You state this as though it were a law of nature or a maxim of science. It is neither; it is merely your opinion..
You have your opinion as to how amplifiers should be evaluated. Repositioning the loudspeakers to maximize the subjective sound quality of the combination is an alternative review protocol.
I would think that the fewer variables in a review, the better. But I have no dog in this hunt.
I think either amplifier review protocol is rational and defensible. All that really matters, I think, is that a reviewer follows his/her selected protocol consistently.
I've been a reviewer for -17 years so your comment caught my eye. Could you explain what you believe is this symbiosis and why you think reviewers are corrupt?
I've been a reviewer for -17 years so your comment caught my eye. Could you explain what you believe is this symbiosis and why you think reviewers are corrupt?
I think the symbiosis is bleeding obvious and yes I know first hand of corrupted individuals. Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to the corruption?
BTW. Where are your reviews published usually. I find the less mainstream the less apparent the correlation.
The problem is many unknowingly follow magazines and their corrupt reviewers without realising the extent of the ‘symbiosis’ tween reviews/ reviewers/ magazines/ advertising budgets. By and large it’s a scam that’s worked for far far too long and we’ve let it be by not calling a halt to it, whilst knowing it to be true.
I think the symbiosis is bleeding obvious and yes I know first hand of corrupted individuals. Are you suggesting we turn a blind eye to the corruption?