I suppose one could evaluate food based solely on its' on its' nutritional value rather than taste, or evaluate a car on on its' carbon footprint rather than its 0-60 time or its' performance on a skid pad. Although if you sad you found the food or the car "boring and neutral" , my first impression wold be, how it taste or driving impression. I think that is why I thought it was "odd." Any way I accept your clarification.
Do You Always Get What You Pay For?
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
I suppose one could evaluate food based solely on its' on its' nutritional value rather than taste, or evaluate a car on on its' carbon footprint rather than its 0-60 time or its' performance on a skid pad. Although if you sad you found the food or the car "boring and neutral" , my first impression wold be, how it taste or driving impression. I think that is why I thought it was "odd." Any way I accept your clarification.
Same old dull straw argument. No further comment justified.
A new straw man, but no less dull. Of course you were arguing that I was saying the driving was neutral, not the car. A car that is neutral - one does not favor steering to the left or right, for example - is, of course, desirable. Just like neutral audio equipment. The word "boring" was only used for emphasis. You pedantry makes me regret that bit of colorful language.
P
I guess the real question is why any of these arguments apply to me? The constant allegation that I or any subjectivist prefer a formatted sound. That is just so much ipse dixit. If we could get pass that you and I would not have much to argue about at all.
Jeff, i agree on the Talon's. i was a Tenor OTL amplifier owner back in 2001-2003 and Talon used Tenors at shows so i would listen to them; they never achieved reasonable coherence in their sound.
for years i owned the Placette passive RVC (remote volume control), $1100 retail, because i could not find a preamp which sounded better. it replaced a very expensive, beautiful to look at, preamp. finally; i did come across a pre that did better it, and that one was expensive. but many different expensive preamps came and went from my room before i found that one. most listeners would likely agree that the pre that replaced the Placette is better, but many might say it's not that much better for many mutiples more dollars. here is where only the buyer can determine what additional increment of performance is worth to them. price/value will never be universally agreed upon.
i do think that in general; you get what you pay for. OTOH there is no way to predict without listening in the proper context, exactly which products are best for you.
the issue of likeing flavors will always be controversial. how could someone pay so much money for something that measures so poorly? or is so obviously colored?
the only answer is you gotta be happy. and you cannot look to others for validation. the objectivisits may have a need to protect you from yourself but you are the one listening.
for years i owned the Placette passive RVC (remote volume control), $1100 retail, because i could not find a preamp which sounded better. it replaced a very expensive, beautiful to look at, preamp. finally; i did come across a pre that did better it, and that one was expensive. but many different expensive preamps came and went from my room before i found that one. most listeners would likely agree that the pre that replaced the Placette is better, but many might say it's not that much better for many mutiples more dollars. here is where only the buyer can determine what additional increment of performance is worth to them. price/value will never be universally agreed upon.
i do think that in general; you get what you pay for. OTOH there is no way to predict without listening in the proper context, exactly which products are best for you.
the issue of likeing flavors will always be controversial. how could someone pay so much money for something that measures so poorly? or is so obviously colored?
the only answer is you gotta be happy. and you cannot look to others for validation. the objectivisits may have a need to protect you from yourself but you are the one listening.
sub·jec·tiv·ism (sb-jkt-vzm)
n.
1. The quality of being subjective.
2.
a. The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states.
b. A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience.
3. Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. For example, ethical subjectivism holds that individual conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.
By definition then I am not a subjectivist. I think we often confuse the definitions. Objective suggest reasoned and rational, while subjective suggests arbitrary and capricious. I do have a standard-live music.
I think Harry Pearson put it best when he calls himself an "Observationist,"
Someone said, if it measures bad and sounds good you measured the wrong thing."
So Jeff is telling us that the speaker measured bad and sounded bad.
From that we conclude the reviewer had strange tastes, was incompetent or biased.
There is no way to compensate for incompetence or strange taste. Bias can often be detected but is sometimes hidden.
For example a car that pulls to the left is malfunctioning. A car that exhibits oversteer is obeying the laws of physics. For the former you need a wheel alignment. For the latter you need proper design and driver skill. Both the pulling to the left and oversteer can be measured and and detected by the driver. So a magazine reviewer who failed to report either would be incompetent. Incompetence is always easier to prove than corruption.
I know what argument is coming and I'll let soemone else say it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n.
1. The quality of being subjective.
2.
a. The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states.
b. A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience.
3. Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. For example, ethical subjectivism holds that individual conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.
By definition then I am not a subjectivist. I think we often confuse the definitions. Objective suggest reasoned and rational, while subjective suggests arbitrary and capricious. I do have a standard-live music.
I think Harry Pearson put it best when he calls himself an "Observationist,"
Someone said, if it measures bad and sounds good you measured the wrong thing."
So Jeff is telling us that the speaker measured bad and sounded bad.
From that we conclude the reviewer had strange tastes, was incompetent or biased.
There is no way to compensate for incompetence or strange taste. Bias can often be detected but is sometimes hidden.
For example a car that pulls to the left is malfunctioning. A car that exhibits oversteer is obeying the laws of physics. For the former you need a wheel alignment. For the latter you need proper design and driver skill. Both the pulling to the left and oversteer can be measured and and detected by the driver. So a magazine reviewer who failed to report either would be incompetent. Incompetence is always easier to prove than corruption.
I know what argument is coming and I'll let soemone else say it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Million Dollar question. For me the answer is simple: The educated consumer understands that most subjective reviews are worthless. This also applies to food reviews, and other product types. I know too many people whose taste I do not trust or agree with. So why would I risk my dollars on the opinion of a total stranger just because he's "in print" in a magazine or webzine? The clincher for me is reviewers who believe they can hear the effects of magical tweaks like cable elevators and LP demagnetizers. That's the fastest way to lose all credibility with me. When I read that I know they're just making it up as they go.
--Ethan
I would like to see at least some type of peer review system for reviewers. Even if the magazine itself is 'to small to measure." Often there are perfectly good measurements out there that are ignored by the reviewer. Research would give him the heads up for a potential problem. Is it time for the formation of the The World Wide Society of Audio Revierwers where some standards are set. Look what happened with car crash reports. Conventional wisdom said that car safety did not sell. Yet now a bad car crash result paid for by the insurance agency is the kiss of death. Even a lsitening guy like myself is impressed by the measurements and price of the Harmon kardon HK 990 integrated amp.
That being said Ethan there is some responsibilty on the ordinary consumer not to buy the " The Brooklyn Bridge." After all title searches and escrow where designed to prevent that very problem.
That being said Ethan there is some responsibilty on the ordinary consumer not to buy the " The Brooklyn Bridge." After all title searches and escrow where designed to prevent that very problem.
In my opinion it's a question of credibility. I no more trust a subjective review than I trust a battery of measurements if the source of the measurements is not credible.
Sorry Ethan. The educated consumer knows how to discern what is useful and what is not. It is the arrogant that throw everything away without more careful consideration.
Sorry Ethan. The educated consumer knows how to discern what is useful and what is not. It is the arrogant that throw everything away without more careful consideration.
IMHO, the main question is not trusting in the measurements, but trusting in the interpretation of the measurements. Unless the measurements are very poor and the piece is flawed, you learn almost nothing concerning the sound from them.
I understand what you're saying Tom, there are many cases where buyer's remorse may set in even if one has had the benefit of an extended in home audition. Even if we put aside sound quality for the meantime, reliability and after sales service comes directly to mind.
Some times though, the best way to learn is the hard way. Audio isn't exactly a high risk sport anyway.
Some times though, the best way to learn is the hard way. Audio isn't exactly a high risk sport anyway.
I'm not sure what arguments you're talking about and even less sure if they apply to you. What's a "formatted sound?"
P
Sure, but many consumers are not educated, so they read reviews because they want to become educated. Which is sort of my whole point. I could have been clearer though. I do not dismiss all subjective reviews, only those from people I do not know, which is most of them. I also dismiss everything from someone who claims to hear an improvement after adding cable elevators or other magic tweaks. Wouldn't you? Is there nothing a reviewer might write that would disqualify him or her from your further consideration? That's all I'm saying. On the other hand, if Kal Rubinson writes an opinion I'm likely to pay attention because I know Kal, and I've heard his system, and I know his expertise with audio matters and hearing.
--Ethan
Fair enough Ethan, that was indeed much clearer as far as the un-educated consumer goes. I will not get into semantics as I think we both understand each other anyway.
Every time a reviewer, and there are a few, that does indeed go all gaga and throw out far out observations, yes I could actually put them in the ignore box. The examples you gave along with pebbles, clocks, and burnt toast with the image of religious figures certainly qualify. The greater majority on the other hand do stay within the realms of reason, sometimes it's stretched a bit by sheer exuberance or artistic license perhaps but not totally out of bounds. While our (mine and the reviewer's) observations may differ greatly regarding a piece of equipment, I am also cognizant of the fact that such differences may be caused by a myriad causes definitely including the author's own biases, listening environment and associated equipment. Thus whether I know him or not I treat any review like I treat any post here or any comments I hear elsewhere the same.
Honestly I don't over think the process and reading reviews is entertainment not study. It's like talking to someone in the hallways of a show and asking him what he thought of room X. I might not know him from Adam, but it does give you a glimpse of at least what a very small percentile thinks of it. A review is just another guy's opinion. Whether that opinion is something of lesser or greater value is another story.
Jack
Every time a reviewer, and there are a few, that does indeed go all gaga and throw out far out observations, yes I could actually put them in the ignore box. The examples you gave along with pebbles, clocks, and burnt toast with the image of religious figures certainly qualify. The greater majority on the other hand do stay within the realms of reason, sometimes it's stretched a bit by sheer exuberance or artistic license perhaps but not totally out of bounds. While our (mine and the reviewer's) observations may differ greatly regarding a piece of equipment, I am also cognizant of the fact that such differences may be caused by a myriad causes definitely including the author's own biases, listening environment and associated equipment. Thus whether I know him or not I treat any review like I treat any post here or any comments I hear elsewhere the same.
Honestly I don't over think the process and reading reviews is entertainment not study. It's like talking to someone in the hallways of a show and asking him what he thought of room X. I might not know him from Adam, but it does give you a glimpse of at least what a very small percentile thinks of it. A review is just another guy's opinion. Whether that opinion is something of lesser or greater value is another story.
Jack
To you, hopefully to most here, but not to the average audiophile sadly.
It is often more akin to gospel (I know we agree on this, not disputing you even tho I quoted you)
A crazy example?? On our 'local' audio forum a thread appeared today, '$100 for a review'. A guy from the other side of the country (australia, BIG place) can't decide between CDP A or B over here in sydney. So, he is asking for a volunteer to go and audition them and report back to hiom so he can decide which one to spring for!!
Talking $15 000 cdp's here.
Ok, so it is not a professional reviewer, so maybe does not strictly fit in here, but the mind boggles!! This guy cannot audtion them for himself, is wary of making the wrong decision, so wants someone else...that he has NEVER met...to go and do it for him???
crazy stuff. They are NOT at some dealer, but in two different private peoples homes!!! Different systems, different rooms, some otherguy's (who wants to make $100) ears....
Absolutely insane in my book (and who would be happy recommending a cdp that he potentially would NOT like?? who wants that responsibilty), yet somehow bizarrely indicative of the power of 'The Review'.
It is sad Terry. I know a few guys who have been crushed after their favorite reviewer(s), whose influence on them prompted the purchase, declare that there's a new "best". I politely reminded one such reviewer to remember that there are people like this and that he should at least be mindful of the consequences of his style apparently to no avail. Oh well.
As for the crushed, well, they lived. After hearing the supposedly next best thing, one of them scratched his head and said....That thing?!!!!! Needless to say he's happily listening to music now and complains only about acoustics. I have no doubt he'll get around to it.
To get back on topic, I rarely make definitive or sweeping statements but in this instance I will. The easiest way to not get what you pay for is to not know what you want.
Knowing what one wants I feel is best taught by experience so I keep out of peoples' ways unless advice is asked. My opinion is just another guys opinion also after all.
As for the crushed, well, they lived. After hearing the supposedly next best thing, one of them scratched his head and said....That thing?!!!!! Needless to say he's happily listening to music now and complains only about acoustics. I have no doubt he'll get around to it.
To get back on topic, I rarely make definitive or sweeping statements but in this instance I will. The easiest way to not get what you pay for is to not know what you want.
Knowing what one wants I feel is best taught by experience so I keep out of peoples' ways unless advice is asked. My opinion is just another guys opinion also after all.
Then let's get past it. First of all, all I'm saying is that quite a bit of "high-end" gear is deliberately colored, and that quite a few audiophiles prefer their systems deliberately colored. It's not an allegation against all subjectivists; one could judge audio subjectively only and still choose neutral equipment. And it's not an allegation against you. If you've stated what is in your system, other than your Martin Logans, I honestly don't remember what it was, so I can't criticize it. I will admit I have assumed you may have such tastes because you've defended them so vehemently, but they require no defense. If someone likes an "exciting" or "forward" or whatever you want to call it sound, well-known and unsubtle examples of which can be found, for example, in Naim and Linn gear designed for "PRaT", enjoy. Conversely, if someone loves a "warm," "smooth" sound of the kind often found in tube electronics, NOS dacs, vinyl, etc, I'm fine with that as well. Enjoy. But when the fact that such systems don't measure as accurately as those well-designed to deliver a neutral signal to the transducers causes their proponents to dismiss the measurements, declare those who respect them to "listen to charts and graphs" and claim, in pseudo-scientific language, that deliberately colored systems are more "natural" or "resolving," I will object.
I've limited my comments here to electronics because while you can deliberately choose colored transducers, it is also all but impossible to avoid them. They are the weak link in the reproduction chain, and the rooms they are played in are even weaker. Discussing their neutrality or lack thereof, their measured response vs. subjective impressions is all but pointless. Your MLs are a perfect example; in the right room, from the right position, playing the right material, they can deliver a transcendent listening experience. Change the toe-in and they can fall apart.
I hope that settles us. I really don't want to argue with you.
Back to getting what you pay for, I think respecting the measurements is a great place to start. Look for electronics with the appropriate input and output impedances, low noise, low distortion, flat frequency response and the current and wattage to properly drive the transducers you have in mind. You're going to find that all of the above is available in a shockingly wide range of prices. Now listen. As objectively as you can. Blind if possible. You'll end up getting a LOT for what you pay.
P
When that happens call me.
Meet me in the woefully neglected music forums. Let's talk Jazz. I'm very focused and dedicated to the quest, and acquiring new music weekly, but I'm still a relative newbie who has barely gotten past Hard Bop. Much to learn...
P
