Changing variables in a review
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
The X1 (Grand Slamm ) had higher sensitivity and was a real 8 ohm speaker (never lower than 5 ohm in the audio band) . The X2 (Alexandria) was a couple of dB less sensitive and was a 4 ohm speaker, IMHO inadequate to the LAMM ML2.
Or let say steve s X2 with ML 3 .
Could it outperform the XVX combined with some sterile SS amp .
I m sure it could.
How can reviewers with XVX Loudspeakers provide a good guidance regarding top amplifiers on the market .
There are limited from the get go because of power requirements
Guidance? We are discussing highend reviewers, not shepherds! IMHO a reviewer should report his opinion, not guide audiophiles. Considering the diversity of the high-end equipment, audiophiles should know about the scope and limits of such opinions, we do not expect reviewers to write disclaimers longer than the review. BTW, it is why IMHO we should read magazines, not occasional isolated reviews.
Anyway, why would we pair the XVX with a "sterile" SS amplifier?
Audiophiles in general assume reviewers know more and can provide some sort of guidance due to the vast expirience of having heard a lot of amplifiersGuidance? We are discussing highend reviewers, not shepherds! IMHO a reviewer should report his opinion, not guide audiophiles. Considering the diversity of the high-end equipment, audiophiles should know about the scope and limits of such opinions, we do not expect reviewers to write disclaimers longer than the review. BTW, it is why IMHO we should read magazines, not occasional isolated reviews.
Anyway, why would we pair the XVX with a "sterile" SS amplifier?
.
I saw them as some sort of authority during my early " High end " years .
If audiophiles are so smart as you say , why dont they ever stop swapping gear ?
Are they in it for gear or music?
I know, a lot of dealers in Holland and probably also in the rest of the world will stock what magazines like the absolute sound will declare as the best gear available .
As we all know these are advertisement based magazines and simply cannot declare older products as better as that would destroy the business model .
A lot of audiophiles can then indeed end up with not the best gear for their system.
Ching Cheng makes hundreds of types power chords. I find curious why we never refer to Belden or many other similar high quality manufacturers of industrial power cables?
We should refer that Lamm is atypical in this discussion - they are fitted with powerful mains filters - I can easily see why they react poorly to most aftermarket power cables.
Some reviewers seem to have a more controlled process than others but the assessment we see in the end is fundamentally by nature a heavily subjective (individual experience and perceptions) supported also at times by some objective (measurement based and quantified) assessment. David’s observation that he doesn’t see a review as essentially as a controlled science experiment is the crux here for me. That final experiential filtration undoes the notion of a hands off kind of science in the process. Also the context of review over some time implies a sea of changes and variables finding their way into the process. Reviews are only opinions greatly coloured by circumstances ultimately.
We can try and make subjective assessments as objective as possible but these assessment processes are still about individual perceptions and realistically the science behind the approach is only kind of broadly applied if much at all.
Interpreting reviews (good luck with 6 moons reviews
) is full of unseen hazard and the limitations of writing and the expectations of the reader factor in yet still reviews can put us in the ballpark of some points of understanding. But how exact the findings are is always the issue more so than any variations in process.I see points for and against using specific determinations in approach in the process but in reality reviews can have value as data points providing at times variable levels of information but largely are still just subjective data points. So not sure any of these points can lead us to any form of great validation in reviews, they are still just as much about opinions as they are about findings. The inexactness in our perceptions kind of undermines the whole notion of expecting an absolute scientific rigor in the process. Not saying we shouldn’t have controls but there are no standards really and maybe just a few conventions but the kinds of variables each reviewer’s system and room context outweighs all other parameters I’d feel.
I suppose the best we can hope for is authenticity, reasonableness and balance. We can suggest frameworks for approach in assessment process but realistically there are limits to how useful or ‘right’ these might be as every usage in our hobby is ultimately unique in context.
Ingredients like reason, method and logic are useful. Honesty, wisdom and perspective are genuine assets. Feelings, instinct and expectation likely play as much a part as any other elements in the assessment process. We are all works in progress and other’s individual assessment of gear isn’t really a very validated process. In teaching we spend huge bucket of time applying validation review in assessment process… but in processes that are heavily based in the synthesis of human experience it’s just impossible to be exact.
Last edited:
Microstrip please take into account what you are causing .
Dont make it to difficult
Audiophiles already swap cables like there is no tomorrow , let alone having to swap hundreds of types per brand , to get the best sound
This may be getting off topic of the idea of more than one change when a reviewer does a review, but this thread is somewhat circling around, what is the reviewers baseline. Is he moving from his baseline. Is he making a wholesale change that may may influence his understanding of where something stands to how he hears other things in his system.
I would call a wholesale change a situation where a reviewer is reviewing an amp which he normally plugs into the wall, but this time decided to plug it into a power conditioner. He has never done this with any other amp, but the power conditioner showed up for review at the same time as the amp, so he decides to plug the new review amp into the new power conditioner to get 2 birds with one stone. In my mind, this would make for an inaccurate understanding of the amps potential.
If on the other hand the reviewer over the course of some time tries a few different power cords, interconnects and speaker cables, as well as preamps, I would say we are getting a more accurate review as we now know how the amp reacts in a variety of situations. And I think most reviews are presented in this way for this reason.
Think about the synergy of a preamp to amp. This is very important relationship. Probably as important as the amp to speaker. What if there was an impedance mismatch between a preamp and amp. Yet this idea that you can't change two things persists. So now the review is the amp has very high distortion and a grating sound to it. Would this be an accurate review of the amp.
My belief is every review needs to incorporate a variety of component changes throught the time the reviewer has the product in order to known how something performs. Lots and lots of things need to change. Without changing multiple components, a reviewer has a very limited scope of understanding.
Rex
I would call a wholesale change a situation where a reviewer is reviewing an amp which he normally plugs into the wall, but this time decided to plug it into a power conditioner. He has never done this with any other amp, but the power conditioner showed up for review at the same time as the amp, so he decides to plug the new review amp into the new power conditioner to get 2 birds with one stone. In my mind, this would make for an inaccurate understanding of the amps potential.
If on the other hand the reviewer over the course of some time tries a few different power cords, interconnects and speaker cables, as well as preamps, I would say we are getting a more accurate review as we now know how the amp reacts in a variety of situations. And I think most reviews are presented in this way for this reason.
Think about the synergy of a preamp to amp. This is very important relationship. Probably as important as the amp to speaker. What if there was an impedance mismatch between a preamp and amp. Yet this idea that you can't change two things persists. So now the review is the amp has very high distortion and a grating sound to it. Would this be an accurate review of the amp.
My belief is every review needs to incorporate a variety of component changes throught the time the reviewer has the product in order to known how something performs. Lots and lots of things need to change. Without changing multiple components, a reviewer has a very limited scope of understanding.
Rex
Totally utterly disagree. Any reviewer worth his salt knows his system sound pretty much accurately. By changing multiple components he’s destroying the entire basis of reviewing a new component. In his case a 200K amp. And the reviewer who caused this thread now casts doubt on his reviewing cred IMHO.
Don’t forget advertising bucks and the occasional ‘inducements’. A Rolex also helps Im told.Some reviewers seem to have a more controlled process than others but the assessment we see in the end is fundamentally by nature a heavily subjective (individual experience and perceptions) supported also at times by some objective (measurement based and quantified) assessment. David’s observation that he doesn’t see a review as essentially as a controlled science experiment is the crux here for me. That final experiential filtration undoes the notion of a hands off kind of science in the process. Also the context of review over some time implies a sea of changes and variables finding their way into the process. Reviews are only opinions greatly coloured by circumstances ultimately.
We can try and make subjective assessments as objective as possible but these assessment processes are still about individual perceptions and realistically the science behind the approach is only kind of broadly applied if much at all.
Interpreting reviews (good luck with 6 moons reviews
I see points for and against using specific determinations in approach in the process but in reality reviews can have value as data points providing at times variable levels of information but largely are still just subjective data points. So not sure any of these points can lead us to any form of great validation in reviews, they are still just as much about opinions as they are about findings. The inexactness in our perceptions kind of undermines the whole notion of expecting an absolute scientific rigor in the process. Not saying we shouldn’t have controls but there are no standards really and maybe just a few conventions but the kinds of variables each reviewers system and room context so outweighs all other parameters I’d feel.
I suppose the best we can hope for is authenticity, reasonableness and balance. We can suggest frameworks for approach in assessment process but realistically there are limits to how useful or ‘right’ these might be as every usage in our hobby is ultimately unique in context.
Ingredients like reason, method and logic are useful. Honesty, wisdom and perspective are genuine assets. Feelings, instinct and expectation likely play as much a part as any other elements in the assessment process. We are all works in progress and others individual assessment of gear isn’t really a very validated process. In teaching we spend huge time applying validation review in assessment process… but in processes that are heavily based in the synthesis of human experience it’s just impossible to be exact.
"I suppose the best we can hope for is authenticity, reasonableness and balance"Some reviewers seem to have a more controlled process than others but the assessment we see in the end is fundamentally by nature a heavily subjective (individual experience and perceptions) supported also at times by some objective (measurement based and quantified) assessment. David’s observation that he doesn’t see a review as essentially as a controlled science experiment is the crux here for me. That final experiential filtration undoes the notion of a hands off kind of science in the process. Also the context of review over some time implies a sea of changes and variables finding their way into the process. Reviews are only opinions greatly coloured by circumstances ultimately.
We can try and make subjective assessments as objective as possible but these assessment processes are still about individual perceptions and realistically the science behind the approach is only kind of broadly applied if much at all.
Interpreting reviews (good luck with 6 moons reviews
I see points for and against using specific determinations in approach in the process but in reality reviews can have value as data points providing at times variable levels of information but largely are still just subjective data points. So not sure any of these points can lead us to any form of great validation in reviews, they are still just as much about opinions as they are about findings. The inexactness in our perceptions kind of undermines the whole notion of expecting an absolute scientific rigor in the process. Not saying we shouldn’t have controls but there are no standards really and maybe just a few conventions but the kinds of variables each reviewer’s system and room context outweighs all other parameters I’d feel.
I suppose the best we can hope for is authenticity, reasonableness and balance. We can suggest frameworks for approach in assessment process but realistically there are limits to how useful or ‘right’ these might be as every usage in our hobby is ultimately unique in context.
Ingredients like reason, method and logic are useful. Honesty, wisdom and perspective are genuine assets. Feelings, instinct and expectation likely play as much a part as any other elements in the assessment process. We are all works in progress and other’s individual assessment of gear isn’t really a very validated process. In teaching we spend huge bucket of time applying validation review in assessment process… but in processes that are heavily based in the synthesis of human experience it’s just impossible to be exact.
Probably comes from my own values, this is what I believe too Graham. I don't see how restricting a reviewer's basic setup efforts will benefit anyone including the manufacturer. I have a very hands on approach to this, I can be over at someone's home replacing a cartridge and end up setting everything. I realize that I don't need to do this specially when the new installed will trump the old but I find my job incomplete knowing the listening experience can be further enhanced with a little more effort.
The reader and the audiophile are the other half of the equation, not everyone understands what they read and/or hear
!david
I disagree he is the stand out or above those who don’t take the time to do it right. It’s not a 1000 amp
it’s 200 k it deserves the utmost effort
Well we all make the best of what we have. I think what seems to be getting lost is the reviewer has all ready done that and is putting a new piece of gear in his set-up. I think that his/her first impressions should be the basis for the review as far as changes WRT what changed when it was put into the system.
Now if he experiments and makes other changes he at least has a baseline comparison from the start. As long as he tells you what he is doing and what his impressions are fine. But to start making multiple changes at once makes no sense. And as far as changing speaker placement it makes no sense as they should already be dialed in and the review is not about his room speaker interface it's about the "amp".
Rob
I also get that instinct in dynamic directions in the drive to find balance and rightness David… for me also its a process and not a step. It’s like there’s a grit of sand in my shell and out of this an unfolding process of responses need to take place till things are better centred again and more rightly within their place."I suppose the best we can hope for is authenticity, reasonableness and balance"
Probably comes from my own values, this is what I believe too Graham. I don't see how restricting a reviewer's basic setup efforts will benefit anyone including the manufacturer. I have a very hands on approach to this, I can be over at someone's home replacing a cartridge and end up setting everything. I realize that I don't need to do this specially when the new installed will trump the old but I find my job incomplete knowing the listening experience can be further enhanced with a little more effort.
The reader and the audiophile are the other half of the equation, not everyone understands what they read and/or hear
david
When the sense of grit is gone the focus can return to the music… that’s a sign for me that a period of a more passive sit back and listen to the music and become aware phase in evaluation can then happen.
Last edited:
No wonder why there are so many unhappy people out there! Once you dial your speaker positions in that's it. As soon as you start dragging them all over the room you are quickly going to get lost. The idea of changing speaker positions to dial in an amp is nuts IMHO
Now if you changed speakers then it makes sense.
Rob
Correct. And you don’t need a Nordost front cover to know this to be true.No wonder why there are so many unhappy people out there! Once you dial your speaker positions in that's it. As soon as you start dragging them all over the room you are quickly going to get lost. The idea of changing speaker positions to dial in an amp is nuts IMHO
Now if you changed speakers then it makes sense.
Rob
I heard them in three familiar systems, and repeatedly separated by time in my two of them. I heard the same sound when switching between alternatives. My goal in a power cord is to do as little harm as possible. I found the Zenwave enhanced certain things and the sound became less balanced as a result. Others disagreed with my assessment. We tend to have different priorities and preferences when it comes to reproduced sound.
Actually, I largely agreed with your observations at the time. Different systems than my current one, and a different type of power cord too. This was one of the instances that confirmed my skepticism about audiophile power cords that I had harbored for a long time.
On the other hand I am pleasantly surprised about the ZenWave power cords that I auditioned in my system lately, but I found the results undeniable, all uniformly positive as outlined in post #83. A more natural sound than with stock power cords. With these results the purchase of two different types of power cords covering all my seven electronic components, at a very to rather affordable price, was a no brainer for me.
Similar threads
