6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.

[MadFloyd]

I can't see how he would maintain credibility in his reviews if the manufacturers were also paying for advertising.

Not that I read his reviews (when I've tried I read the words but don't really get any meaning from them).

The only positive aspect of his review is that he includes photos of his room.

 

[Andre Marc]

Great question, Andre. I have choosen the second hypothesis, with a few almost invisible changes to the room.

BTW, I really appreciate the 6moons site contents, but would not mind if they improved the site navigation.

Interesting.

I agree about navigation.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Write a review, post it and then be a critic. Gheez!

 

[puroagave]

Well I must ask, have you seen any other pictures of say those that review on Stereophile like JA or Kal or anyone else for that matter that reviews on a on-site or mag ? just wondering .
I'm just thrilled someone somewhere is actually reviewing audio equipment instead of reading an (1) owners opinion on a forum or a manufacturers (trust me) praise of their own equipment. Subjective or Objective at least someone is reviewing something.

I read TAS religiously from the beginning, hanging on their every last word 'til a photo of HPs main room at sea cliff surfaced. I had to pick myself off the floor, but those that heard his system declared his room to be perfectly suitable for the task. in hindsight it didn't diminish what they wrote just because my mental image of his listening room, and the reality was far from a perfectly treated acoustic environment. I've seen plenty of pics of Srajan listening space, I guess I don't see what Tim does.

 

[TheMadMilkman]

I can't see how he would maintain credibility in his reviews if the manufacturers were also paying for advertising.

If nothing else, it's an interesting experiment. Personally, I think it will ultimately fail by artificially limiting the gear available for review, but I might be wrong. I do like that he's attempting to do this in a very upfront and transparent manner. I've always felt that 6moons displayed a strong bias towards their best advertisers (First Watt and Zu come to mind), but I haven't followed the site well enough to know if this was coincidental, or if the ads came after a string of good reviews, or what. Knowing that everybody is stuck in the same "pay to play" will affect how I view things.

I should also note that I may be seeing a bias where it doesn't exist because I like both of the aforementioned brands.

I also find the writing on 6moons to be somewhat difficult to slog through. But I think they provide excellent product photos, which alone is enough to guarantee that I'll keep browsing the site.

 

[TheMadMilkman]

Write a review, post it and then be a critic. Gheez!

If this were the standard for criticism, nothing would ever be criticized.

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

I just got this email from Andre Marc who started this thread:

Hi Srajan:

I am a full time reviewer, like your self, for www.avrev.com, and I contribute to every issue of Tone Audio, and PFO. I am writing to show FULL SUPPORT for your editorial and asking manufacturers to support the publication. It is about time. I won't go on, as I agree with ALL your reasons, the ones you eloquently laid out.

P.S. I have started a thread on the subject, link below. Feel free to join in, but please, NO obligation. Very kind regards, Andre Marc

Well, here I am. I've not been here before just because I've got my hands full. And I can't promise prompt replies for the same reason. But if people have reasonable questions, I'll do my best.

It seems some of you folks are doing a good job of criticizing me or my site already. I don't think you need any help from me on that count -

One thing though does baffle me. How can you guys look at photos of my room and predict bad sound? I've had quite a number of manufacturers over in my various places. None have ever commented on them in that fashion. And before you say "of course they wouldn't"... wouldn't they simply elect to walk out the door with their gear and cancel the review since I clearly had the wrong conditions to do a proper job? And as Andre said, how come he can duplicate my descriptions of gear we both have reviewed if my rooms are such a mess?

This really cracks me up. I had Christof Faller from Illusonic over this weekend. They are heavily into DSP, room correction and various enhancement algorithms to improve the basic 2-channel experience. He took his 8-point microphone measurement and then did very subtle room correction. It was barely audible. He admitted that my room was 'too good' already. Mind, that doesn't imply perfection. Far from it. The basic fact of being in a room means it colours the results. He simply meant (and the A/Bs with his corrections showed it) that unless one did very heavy-handed correction which would give with one hand whilst taking away with the other, my room was already too spacious and the speakers properly matched to it to not require any major corrections. Sure, with DSP you will *always* be able to improve *something* - but as a reviewer, whatever results I'd get from that wouldn't be replicable by anyone else unless they too EQ'd their room (albeit very differently of course).

That's the major point I'd respond to in this thread so far. On likes and dislikes everyone has their own opinion. Our stats prove that we've got plenty of 'likers' even if it's not for my reviews but those of other contributors; or just to look at the pictures. As long as everyone who visits gets *something* out of it (and free of charge I might add), I'd say it's served a purpose. And those who absolutely hate everything about it - well, if you keep coming back just to rag on about it, I think you've waaaay too much free time on your hand and a very strange way of spending it -

Now, if anyone has specific questions for me they want to engage, fire away. Obviously I won't engage in insults or other attacks. For that my time is too valuable, sorry. But reasonable questions related to Marc's thread subject here... by all means, I'm game.

 

[TBone]

I also find the writing on 6moons to be somewhat difficult to slog through.

you're not kidding, prose that go on and on and on, delaying the inevitable end result, in which case one must navigated thru pages & pages of advertising ...

I do like that he's attempting to do this in a very upfront and transparent manner.

Considering the potential credibility issues he would face, he had no choice.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Even in the near-field?

I don't know if you're teasing me or not, but a true near-field placement would help a lot of the problems faced in those set-ups. In fact, decent speaker placement would be good start.

Tim

 

[TBone]

I don't know if you're teasing me or not

Ponk, although I don't fully agree with you in this particular case, I hold your opinions in high regard, so my intent was not to tease. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

 

[TBone]

But reasonable questions related to Marc's thread subject here... by all means, I'm game.

How do you expect the industry to respond, and have they ... ?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, you make some interesting points.

But in the end, when you say, as far as listening spaces, "it's what most listeners get and, therefore, a legitimate choice", that is what it comes down to.

The fact is the rooms that manufacturers use to voice and listen to their products would shock you. I have seen it.

The question Art Dudley once asked was, "do you adapt your environment to an audio system, or should the audio system adapt to your environment".

We often agree, Andre, but not this time. I'm not a bit proponent of heavily treated rooms. Untreated rooms are not the issue, dramatically poor conditions are. I hope most audiophiles can do better than all the glass, hard floors with the thinnest types of rugs, spartan furniture, etc, seen here -- thick rugs and carpet, big pieces of soft furniture, shelves full of diffusing books and nicknacks are the saving graces of the domestic listening space. And I hope the overwhelming majority of audiophiles know how to place speakers better than what is demonstrated in some of those photos. YMMV, but what I see is not the average domestic listening space, but particularly bad listening spaces. I wouldn't trust any conclusions reached under such conditions. Sorry to say it, but there it is.

Tim

 

[Bruce B]

. Obviously I won't engage in insults or other attacks. For that my time is too valuable, sorry. But reasonable questions related to Marc's thread subject here... by all means, I'm game.

But you did when you came on here trying to defend the photos/sound of your room!

 

[Revel Salon 2]

Ponk, although I don't fully agree with you in this particular case, I hold your opinions in high regard, so my intent was not to tease. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

Hi Srajan!! While you are here can I please ask you to concentrate more on the audio aspect of the reviews and less on the patchouli/tantra side.. I'm trying to make sense of some of your reviews but with the constant flowery metaphysical proses it's hard for me to understand what you are trying to convey,cut to the chase and trim some Sanskrit fat around your text.
I'm not the only one feeling this way, I think Egyptian's hieroglyphs are easier to decipher, maybe it's the tons of knicknacks in your room
blocking your tantric energy. As for your new policy I'm 100% in agreement with you.

Regard

Guy ;-)

 

[TBone]

But you did when you came on here trying to justify the photos of your room!

I think he has that right, considering the circumstance. Let's invite discussion, not barbs ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I just got this email from Andre Marc who started this thread:

Hi Srajan:

I am a full time reviewer, like your self, for www.avrev.com, and I contribute to every issue of Tone Audio, and PFO. I am writing to show FULL SUPPORT for your editorial and asking manufacturers to support the publication. It is about time. I won't go on, as I agree with ALL your reasons, the ones you eloquently laid out.

P.S. I have started a thread on the subject, link below. Feel free to join in, but please, NO obligation. Very kind regards, Andre Marc

Well, here I am. I've not been here before just because I've got my hands full. And I can't promise prompt replies for the same reason. But if people have reasonable questions, I'll do my best.

It seems some of you folks are doing a good job of criticizing me or my site already. I don't think you need any help from me on that count -

One thing though does baffle me. How can you guys look at photos of my room and predict bad sound? I've had quite a number of manufacturers over in my various places. None have ever commented on them in that fashion. And before you say "of course they wouldn't"... wouldn't they simply elect to walk out the door with their gear and cancel the review since I clearly had the wrong conditions to do a proper job? And as Andre said, how come he can duplicate my descriptions of gear we both have reviewed if my rooms are such a mess?

This really cracks me up. I had Christof Faller from Illusonic over this weekend. They are heavily into DSP, room correction and various enhancement algorithms to improve the basic 2-channel experience. He took his 8-point microphone measurement and then did very subtle room correction. It was barely audible. He admitted that my room was 'too good' already. Mind, that doesn't imply perfection. Far from it. The basic fact of being in a room means it colours the results. He simply meant (and the A/Bs with his corrections showed it) that unless one did very heavy-handed correction which would give with one hand whilst taking away with the other, my room was already too spacious and the speakers properly matched to it to not require any major corrections. Sure, with DSP you will *always* be able to improve *something* - but as a reviewer, whatever results I'd get from that wouldn't be replicable by anyone else unless they too EQ'd their room (albeit very differently of course).

That's the major point I'd respond to in this thread so far. On likes and dislikes everyone has their own opinion. Our stats prove that we've got plenty of 'likers' even if it's not for my reviews but those of other contributors; or just to look at the pictures. As long as everyone who visits gets *something* out of it (and free of charge I might add), I'd say it's served a purpose. And those who absolutely hate everything about it - well, if you keep coming back just to rag on about it, I think you've waaaay too much free time on your hand and a very strange way of spending it -

Now, if anyone has specific questions for me they want to engage, fire away. Obviously I won't engage in insults or other attacks. For that my time is too valuable, sorry. But reasonable questions related to Marc's thread subject here... by all means, I'm game.

I don't know what to say. Maybe it's not your room I'm reacting to but the rooms of some of your other reviewers. The pictures are not all of the same room. But, WBF is telling me your picture file is too large to reference here so I'll have to describe --

There is one set-up pictured in which one speaker is only about 8 inches from the wall, the other looks to be about 3 feet away, and there is no back wall - it's open into the next room.

Another, thankfully, has the speakers out into the room, away from the walls, but the back wall behind them is glass and the floor is hardwood, with nothing but very thin rope rugs.

Another has what appears to be linoleum floors, very thin rugs, glass back wall, furniture that doesn't appear absorptive...

A fourth has a big, curved glass front TV wedged between the speakers, back a couple of inches, but almost on the same plane.

Can it sound good in these rooms? Yes, anything is possible. Will the equipment in review sound anything like it would in the kind of domestic space most knowledgable audiophiles would go for -- thick rugs or carpet, overstuffed furniture, speakers a couple of feet away from all walls and stuff on those walls that will absorb or softly diffuse? Of course not. The pictures show loud, reflective rooms, and one does not have to be in them to understand that. A practical domestic listening environment - no treatment - will be a quiet space that is a combination of absorption and diffusion. Not reflection. This is just common sense.

Tim

 

[Srajan Ebaen]

Well, Phelonious - glass itself ain't so bad. In fact the BBC today builds entire recording studios out of it. Yep, they do. Whatever treatments they require, they put in the ceiling or floor. Speakers from Crystal Cable, Perfect8, Waterfall and others are made out of glass. The right glass can be a terrific material for sound. Very large relatively thin glass panels will of clourse flex and leak a lot of bass. The Munich show traditionally suffers that. In my room however we're talking far smaller double-paned heavily framed French doors which are all angled relative to the listening position. Then we've got a two-storey ceiling above the speakers into an open 30sqm loft with a compound-angled ceiling. There's no wall behind the seats until you get into the open floor-plan kitchen...

I've tried overdamped rooms. I've even had corner and sidewall traps. Guess what? They sucked all the life out of the sound. I made them available for free. Couldn't give 'em away -

What is important at least in my experience is path-length equality between speakers and seat down to a millimeter; perfectly symmetrical toe-in (or not); sufficient distance for early sidewall reflections to arrive outside where the ear/brain sums direct and reflected sound to smear; preferably higher ceilings or cross beams on lower ceilings for some break-up. Just as important is not to have too much speaker for the room. Rear-firing ports close to front-wall corners become big pressure zones for LF which damps HF and causes booming which sound like room modes until you plug the ports and they, poof, disappear (or reduce significantly). Each room's decay behaviour is its signature and apparent already in your own foot fall and by listening to your own voice and that of others. If they sound natural, intelligible at low levels... then the acoustics aren't bad as long as you're not using a speaker which overloads the room. Hence my general preference for two-ways, with perhaps some very mild active sub assist below 40Hz.

Your type of comment reminds me of a forum whose owner predicts the sound of installations purely on their photos. He then describes everything that's wrong and what the sound is like. If I could do that, I wouldn't have to do any listening at all. Manufacturers would send me photos of their equipment in their room and presto. Or, they could just send me the measurements. Again, no equipment necessary. Am I jesting? Only half.

I don't expect you to believe me by the way. I will simply add this. I've gone to many CES shows as a manufacturer to set up rooms. Before that I was a sales manager who visited dealers across the US. As a reviewer I've covered numerous shows for the last 12 years to hear a lot of stuff in a lot of different spaces - from atrocious to stunning as this and last year's Vox Olympian installation by Living Voice. I think I have a fairly decent take on what's possible. Using that as a reference, I find my room a most suitable tool for the job. A particularly bad listening space? You're convinced. So be it -

 

[Bruce B]

I think he has that right, considering the circumstance. Let's invite discussion, not barbs ...

He shouldn't have added the last paragraph then. Seems no manufacturer or industry folk take the time to register and come on here unless they are defending themselves. I agree that he has every right to correct misconceptions.

 

[Joe Whip]

I appreciate that he is open and honest about what they are doing. One can take the financial interests of the manufacturer and the review site into consideration when judging the worth of the review. For me, it sounds too much like buying a review and guarantees a positive one lest they forego more ad revenue. I get some of the audio mags as the yearly subscriptions are so low but take at all their reviews, even music reviews, with a large grain of salt. A very large one.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think you make some sweeping statements here. A picture of a listening room is nothing but fodder for internet posters, and is a losing proposition for any web zine.

I am NOT discounting the importance of the room, but any of the reviewers at 6Moons are going to have a better circumstance than any hotel room at CES or Rocky Mountain,
in which gear routinely gets glowing reviews.

If the hotel room has drywall walls, carpeted floors and enough space to get the speakers out into the room at least a couple of feet away from all walls, I would beg to differ. Put a couch and a couple of big, soft chairs in there for good measure (and listening comfort), and I'd beg even harder.

Tim