All that is wrong with "HiFi"

[treitz3]

I could care less about sales or any other factor. I care about what hits these ears.

For those that aren't lucky to get your listen on? My advice would be to research, research and research even more. Read between the lines and pay attention to certain things that people say.

I rely more heavily on what real users say, rather than any reviewer. I read a rag or 4 back in '88 and quickly came to the conclusion.....that doesn't matter.

Take all of the combined information and make your best choice. You would be better served doing that, than relying on the one latest and greatest, that would be replaced by the next a couple of months later. (Although in some cases, this is true)

The best case scenario is to get your own ears on the actual products. That will guide you along the path you want to go.

If you are on a budget? Consider your audio journey slowed down....but not thwarted. You do have to make the effort though, if you want to advance along your own personal audio journey.

Tom

 

[tima]

I want to clarify that my comments were not intended as a direct attack on anyone, but rather as a general observation on how many reviewers tend to operate. I apologize if my post came across as too personal. Thank you for sharing your perspective and for the work you do in providing detailed and informed reviews.

...

Not all reviewers adhere to the same ethical standards. While you may be as transparent as possible, this isn't true for everyone. It's well-known that hidden agendas can influence reviews. Although there are some honest reviewers, many don't follow the same principles. We've often seen situations where, when a reviewer is candid about a product, manufacturers may try to undermine them.

My post isn't meant to cast reviewers in a negative light; it's simply highlighting the actions and behaviors of some. I can't speak for all reviewers, as there are a few I trust as well.

Thank you for your follow-up. Since you said little positive about reviewers and reviews and since I am a reviewer of 20 years, I took what you wrote not personally but I did take it seriously. Most dealers appreciate the media function in the audio industry so it is unusual to hear otherwise. My goal was to address what I took as your largely incorrect complaints.

Unless you've run into unusual circumstances, I would say "perhaps a few" or "in a couple of instances" where you say "many".

Generally speaking if a reviewer writes for an established publication he will be held to the ethical standards of that publication. Those standards are often available at the review Web site. Publications do not want to be associated with the unscrupulous and they seek a positive reputation because a) they are run by honest people and b) they want to attract readers to their site. If you find a review you think is compromised in some way, write to the publication's editor.

As a dealer, I encourage buyers to view reviews with a critical eye. Ultimately, the decision should rest with the buyer, who is making the purchase, rather than relying solely on a reviewer's personal opinion.

You are right to say read with a critical eye -- I will add to listen with a critical ear. I'll agree that some reviews are more professional than others and a reader should have some grasp of who they are reading and what is the writer's level of experience. If a buyer makes a purchase soley based on a review, that is his responsibility and not a fault of the reviewer.

Reviews are not sales vehicles written by the reviewer. They may be used by a publication to garner advertising from the manufacturer for the publication's Web site. Where else would manufacturer's advertise? I have never been told by my editors what to write.

 

[tima]

I rely more heavily on what real users say, rather than any reviewer.

Reviewers are real users. They frequently live with a product for several months.

 

[andromedaaudio]

All those magz reviewers opinions you can flush through the toilet .

The occasional " better " audioproduct appears may be at the rate of 1 product a year .

 

[andromedaaudio]

The worst are the Cable / powerconditioner nonsense

 

[treitz3]

Reviewers are real users. They frequently live with a product for several months.

Hey, Tim. Good evening to you!

I do agree with this, without a doubt....

But (and there is always a "but")...

Sway, a certain way/lean or bias may happen along the way to said printed review. We both know this (along with most other folks reading this thread)

With that said, we are getting off course from the thread topic here. That said, I will veer off so that the thread can remain on topic.

Tom

 

[Rensselaer]

Hey, Tim. Good evening to you!

I do agree with this, without a doubt....

But (and there is always a "but")...

Sway, a certain way/lean or bias may happen along the way to said printed review. We both know this (along with most other folks reading this thread)

With that said, we are getting off course from the thread topic here. That said, I will veer off so that the thread can remain on topic.

Tom

From my perspective, it is not that I believe a review is biased because of payment or freebies, but rather a compartmentalisation of the item reviewed into a “price point” where it can stand head and shoulders above other such products at that “price point” (but not be referenced, and ranked against, the best). Where does it stand amongst all the rest?

The other perspective that the newbie (and not so new) audiophile might want from the reviewer (I certainly did) is synergy. Instead of reviewing a single CD player (amongst the reviewers gear) spend more time trying it in different systems and against different known performers (reviewed item compared with Wadia, Wadex, etc.). In the end tell the reader how he would get the most from the item reviewed. That front end with this amplifier with these particular speakers and cables creates a system that compares with some of the very best out there, or these horn speakers and those SETs, those Electrostatics with this particular subwoofer, etc., have always set the bar to me for the most real sounding of that type of system.

In regards to the point made by the OP, that hifi’s direction towards detail has made equipment less musical, some of us, as a result of that, have turned back to vintage equipment that we know it to be musical. Magazines like Sound Practices that offer schematics and build layouts for rolling your own cables, speakers, turntable or amplifier are greatly appreciated by those of us who wished we could afford a $700,000.00 system (or more) but can’t. Using home made and worn but serviceable vintage gear mixed with decent items (like cartridges) has allowed me to build a very “musical” system at a fraction of the cost of the best new off the shelf gear.

 

[Rexp]

This is a subject that has driven me crazy, especially since the obsessive drive for more "detail" has risen to insane proportions. But the departure from "musically correct" reproduction didn't begin there.

No. It actually began with the use of high feedback in the pursuit of vanishingly low harmonic distortion. This inturn led to the focus of designing solely by numbers as a dominating criteria instead of listening to what truly sounds good, and what doesn't. This has proven to be a mistake time and time again, but few have seemed to learn from it.

What I hear when I listen to the majority of modern hifi components and systems is a bright, hard and fatiguing presentation, often bordering on severe stridency while being harmonically distorted and/or threadbare, and noticeably lacking in musically engaging qualities. What you end up with is an over-hyped sonic microscope that is overly detailed and brutally revealing of everything that is wrong with the recording.

The problem compounding this is that nearly all of the so-called hifi components that I have heard over the last 40 years clearly displays one or more of the above traits to the level of distraction, especially since the majority of them often possess distorted and/or unrefined high frequencies. You may not be able to hear it as well as I do, but I am really sensitive to it.

To sum up this rant, I would like to say that I am looking to form a conglomerate of audio-oriented manufacturing associates with the goal of producing more musically correct components at reasonable prices.

Are you talking about systems with digital sources?
Budget analog systems sound great with companies like Project offering excellent value all-in-one turntable packages for under $1000.

 

[tima]

From my perspective, it is not that I believe a review is biased because of payment or freebies, but rather a compartmentalisation of the item reviewed into a “price point” where it can stand head and shoulders above other such products at that “price point” (but not be referenced, and ranked against, the best). Where does it stand amongst all the rest?

Lacking a back room replete with components at different price points, I use what I have (which I know well) to compare with the review product. Sometimes that is in the same price range and some times not. I don't select a product for review based on price range though some reviewers do. On the other hand I don't select a review product that will exceed my systems capacity to reveal all it can do Some components play outside their price range.

The other perspective that the newbie (and not so new) audiophile might want from the reviewer (I certainly did) is synergy. Instead of reviewing a single CD player (amongst the reviewers gear) spend more time trying it in different systems and against different known performers (reviewed item compared with Wadia, Wadex, etc.). In the end tell the reader how he would get the most from the item reviewed. That front end with this amplifier with these particular speakers and cables creates a system that compares with some of the very best out there, or these horn speakers and those SETs, those Electrostatics with this particular subwoofer, etc., have always set the bar to me for the most real sounding of that type of system.

I can understand the desire for advice about matching components. I kinda think what you describe goes outside the boundaries of a product review because it goes very broadly into other components and possibl component combinations. If I'm aware of a particular synergy or the lack thereof within the context of the review system I'll speak to it as well as describing how I used the product. Advice may better remain the province of dealers and forums.

 

[Charles S]

From my perspective, it is not that I believe a review is biased because of payment or freebies, but rather a compartmentalisation of the item reviewed into a “price point” where it can stand head and shoulders above other such products at that “price point” (but not be referenced, and ranked against, the best). Where does it stand amongst all the rest?

The other perspective that the newbie (and not so new) audiophile might want from the reviewer (I certainly did) is synergy. Instead of reviewing a single CD player (amongst the reviewers gear) spend more time trying it in different systems and against different known performers (reviewed item compared with Wadia, Wadex, etc.). In the end tell the reader how he would get the most from the item reviewed. That front end with this amplifier with these particular speakers and cables creates a system that compares with some of the very best out there, or these horn speakers and those SETs, those Electrostatics with this particular subwoofer, etc., have always set the bar to me for the most real sounding of that type of system.

In regards to the point made by the OP, that hifi’s direction towards detail has made equipment less musical, some of us, as a result of that, have turned back to vintage equipment that we know it to be musical. Magazines like Sound Practices that offer schematics and build layouts for rolling your own cables, speakers, turntable or amplifier are greatly appreciated by those of us who wished we could afford a $700,000.00 system (or more) but can’t. Using home made and worn but serviceable vintage gear mixed with decent items (like cartridges) has allowed me to build a very “musical” system at a fraction of the cost of the best new off the shelf gear.

I hear you loud and clear. That's why I mentioned my Dad's system. It had an excellent wide range frequency response and excellent dynamic range. It could play extremely loud with no signs of strain or compression. It made beautiful music. Some folks like the ultimate resolution of an expensive modern system. I want both and it costs a lot of money. It also requires the use of tubes, or SS amplification that I can't afford. This would push my system towards one million. My TAS friend who has a complete XVX/Subsonic system has the Wadex reference, CH-Precision, etc. but my cables and power are competitive with his and that is the key, the necessity. With my MC3500's, C-12000 An and, MCD12000 An, and 2.1KW An, i.e.my use of tubes, I am competitive with his system at a fraction of his cost. Sadly, it just takes a lot of money to build a true reference system with FR from about 12Hz-to 30K with inaudible distortion and massive dynamic output that is truly musical. There's simply nothing to do about this. I wish there were. But I'm finished, through. About the only thing I'd like to have is a better LD player because my optical out has some breakup when I switch tracks but this is only a nuisance. And I have 100 green EL509S output tubes and 45 small tubes for my 3500's and source gear, enough to last me the rest of my life.

Amps: McIntosh: MC3500MKII (2); MC1.25KW (2); MC2.1KW An
Preamp: C-12000 An
Sources: MCD12000 An; MVP881; MVP851; MR87; Marantz 510LV; Lenovo Yoga laptop
Speakers: Wilson Chronosonic XVX
Sub-Woofer: Wilson Thor’s Hammer; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables Main System AQ: WEL Signature speaker cables; 24’ balanced IC; balanced 1-meter Dragon IC ; WEL Signature digital, Coffee digital coaxial cables; Diamond optical (2); Diamond USB; Dragon (5 HC, 3 source cords); Thunder & Monsoon power cords
Cables Subwoofer System AQ: Redwood speaker cable; Wolf balanced subwoofer IC; Wind balanced IC to ActivXO; Hurricane HC; Firebird HC; Firebird Source; Dragon HC, power cords
Power Conditioners: AQ Niagara 7000; Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines.
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals; Bassocontinuo McIntosh Ultra Feet; X-material plinth
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD)
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes

 

[Rensselaer]

Lacking a back room replete with components at different price points, I use what I have (which I know well) to compare with the review product. Sometimes that is in the same price range and some times not. I don't select a product for review based on price range though some reviewers do. On the other hand I don't select a review product that will exceed my systems capacity to reveal all it can do Some components play outside their price range.



I can understand the desire for advice about matching components. I kinda think what you describe goes outside the boundaries of a product review because it goes very broadly into other components and possibl component combinations. If I'm aware of a particular synergy or the lack thereof within the context of the review system I'll speak to it as well as describing how I used the product. Advice may better remain the province of dealers and forums.

Sorry Tim if I led you to believe I was speaking about you specifically, I wasn’t. Generally about reviews I read back in the day from magazines like (I guess best not to mention specifics if negative). Reviewing cables, I would think, would be harder to stratify as the change in sound one offers might help an overly bright piece of equipment, yet be horrible with an already bright/detailed/harsh sounding piece of equipment?

As for a piece of equipment that plays outside its price point, with what other equipment that plays outside that same price point, or other price point, is it specifically synergistic? That would be most useful to someone planning a big upgrade or foray into the hobby. Think how happy we all would be if our current system (assuming we are satisfied now with it) was our first system?

 

[Rensselaer]

Sure, but that’s not what was written. The post claimed they were “literally blown away”. That would mean the air pressure from the instruments physically blew them away from their listening seats to somewhere. At least that’s my understanding of the term “literally“. Don’t we try to convey meaning through words on these post?

Peter, I usually agree and often “like” your posts, but this particular conversation, in my opinion, looks like you are batting beneath what I have come to expect from you.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Peter, I usually agree and often “like” your posts, but this particular conversation, in my opinion, looks like you are batting beneath what I have come to expect from you.

He is simply defending proper usage.

 

[Audiohertz2]

The worst are the Cable / powerconditioner nonsense

Hahahaha, still growing i see ...

BTW how did this go from a HiFi discussion to a reviewer discussion ..!

 

[andromedaaudio]

Hahahaha, still growing i see ...

BTW how did this go from a HiFi discussion to a reviewer discussion ..!

Because reviewers " especially american magz " decide for a large part where the industry is going.

I hope the " department of efficiency " will take care of that too

 

[Phantom-Audio]

Because reviewers " especially american mags " decide for a large part where the industry is going

Have to agree on this.

 

[Rt66indierock]

Sure, but that’s not what was written. The post claimed they were “literally blown away”. That would mean the air pressure from the instruments physically blew them away from their listening seats to somewhere. At least that’s my understanding of the term “literally“. Don’t we try to convey meaning through words on these post?

This thread is about things wrong with HiFi. One of the things wrong is using unamplified music as reference. The music I listen to can be heard unamplified and amplified. But most people would rather hear it amplified.

Your posts about my use of literally are also part of the problem. See my definitions in my response to Kal.

 

[Rt66indierock]

He is simply defending proper usage.

I think we can agree that blown away means very impressed in the context I used it. Informally literally is used to add emphasis. I added the emphasis because Molly Tuttle & Golden Highway opened with Eldorado and turned the place into a party. People moved up front to dance, people were dancing in the aisles and in their seats. Security was nervous the whole time.

 

[Rensselaer]

He is simply defending proper usage.

Yes, I know what he is doing. Thank you for your input.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I usually agree and often “like” your posts, but this particular conversation, in my opinion, looks like you are batting beneath what I have come to expect from you.

That’s fine, we disagree.

I am defending the proper use of language and words to convey meaning accurately. One of the problems when talking about this hobby is the challenge of conveying meaning through words.

The author clearly does not mean that the listeners were “literally blown away”. So what does he mean? I would prefer a written description of what the listener actually heard.

This excessive hyperbole is one of the problems with the “hi-fi” industry, or those who write about it, in my opinion, and that is the topic of this particular thread.