Is a "Review" of a Component in an Unfamiliar System in an Unfamiliar Room Really a Review?

[thedudeabides]

Lee, I have some real estate in the palisades you can buy really cheap

I lost my house to the South Fork fire in Ruidoso, NM on 6/17/24 along with 1,200 other home owners. People died. I, along with the rest of our small mountain town of approx. 10,000, were devastated. Some businesses went bancrupt. Others, without insurance, lost everything with no means to recoup the loss. Then the rains came and hundreds of peoples' properties were severely damaged if not rendered inhabitable. Repeat the above described impacts for those folks.

I find your comment regarding the fire in the Palisades, CA area to be inhumane and abhorrent. How dare you make fun of a tragedy of that size and scope. This is not something that is humorous by any metric. Shame on you.

My apologies to all for going off topic but I simply could not let that comment stand without a reply.

To answer the thread question, my answer is yes. It may not be consistent with other folks view of what a review should be, but it is consistent with the broad parameters of the words' definition and is a review nonetheless.

 

[hopkins]

This guy has the ability to listen to a speaker alone and "compare it to the absolute sound"!



Does he have special powers?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Compare it to the absolute sound ???

Can i please see a picture of the Tape machines of the Absolute magazine and the collecttion of tapes and titels they use for this comparison

 

[hopkins]

Since I was curious to understand, I looked at their website and got this answer in the section where they explain their review methodology:

The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles - The Absolute Sound

The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles - This is perhaps controversial and somewhat philosophical, so we invite readers to consider our methodology and philosophy and decide for themselves whether it suits their purposes.

www.theabsolutesound.com

So absolute sound is the sound of "real music and real musical instruments".

"An audio system that can reproduce a guitar or a singer or a jazz band or a symphony so that it sounds believably real, will tend to be more satisfying for most listeners most of the time. This latter point is our experience from over 50 years"

So to that reviewer, the Magico seemed to produce a sound that was closer to real music than anything he has heard?

Ok, fair enough. There's nothing groundbreaking here. He is telling us why he feels that way (technical explanations on the design of the speakers).

At the end of the day, it is his personal opinion. If you trust the reviewer, because your tastes align with his - and you have come to that conclusion by listening to some of the things he's reviewed - then maybe you will be curious to go listen to the Magico.

Does it matter whether the room and equipment is new to him? I don't think so. None of this is an exact science.

 

[tima]

I am starting this thread to question whether Tom should be describing his reporting of the M7 as a "review."

I believe that going to someone else's listening room with which you are unfamiliar and listening to a collection of components none of which are familiar and purporting to opine on the sonic attributes of one particular component in that system is methodologically invalid.

I believe that it is invalid to go to an unfamiliar room and listen to a system composed entirely of unfamiliar components and claim to isolate the sound of one of those component and characterize one's comments on that one component as a "review."

Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things.

When I visit someone and listen to an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room I call it a "visit report."

Professional reviewers: when you go to listen to an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar room and purport to report on the sonic contributions of one component in that system, please do not call it a "review." Please call it a visit report.

What do you think about this matter?

I think the above post and most of the responses to it do not establish what is 'an audio review' before determining whether the Martin video is one. The OP says "Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things." We see some quibbling over the varietals 'review', 'in-home review', 'visit report', 'impression review'.

Having written reviews for 3 different on-line audio publications for some 21 years, I have a clear notion for myself as to what counts as an audio review and what I work to achieve when writing one. YMMV. The OP addresses one particular characteristic, namely the context in which the review listening takes place.

I believe a review needs to take place with the reviewer's system as the context. And it should take place over a fairly extended period of time. The reviewer should live with and use the product for a minimum of one month. Typically I take 3-4 months, sometimes longer. Going somewhere else, to a dealers or a friends house, even to a so-called 'familiar system' doesn't cut it. To me a proper or true review requires the reviewer to actually use the product -- to live with it -- as well as listen to it with a variety of music over a period of time.

Of course there are other attributes to a proper expository audio review such as:
-- a description of the review system,
-- an account of using the product on a daily basis, (not someone else using or operating it.) If you review a phono cartridge, install it yourself, if speakers talk about positioning, if a DAC or streamer what parameters did you try and end up with, etc. etc.
-- basic specifications,
-- a technical description of the product at least to a high level that explains in basic terms how the product works, special features,
-- cogent sonic descriptions of at least 3-4 pieces of music selected to make specific observations about the product (not necessarily only what the reviewer likes to hear),
-- preferably at least a brief comparison to another product, and
-- basic housekeeping info such as manufacturer contact information, options, warranty and msrp.

Of course anyone can have impessions, observations, comments and critique after listening to a product/system in a familiar or unfamiliar system. Their value is a function of how adept at description is the person making them. We all have opinions but reviewing is about more than listening. Other forms of commentary (listening with friends, show reports, dealer visits, etc.) can provide helpful information.

 

[hopkins]

I think the above post and most of the responses to it do not establish what is 'an audio review' before determining whether the Martin video is one. The OP says "Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things." We see some quibbling over the varietals 'review', 'in-home review', 'visit report', 'impression review'.

Having written reviews for 3 different on-line audio publications for some 21 years, I have a clear notion for myself as to what counts as an audio review and what I work to achieve when writing one. YMMV. The OP addresses one particular characteristic, namely the context in which the review listening takes place.

I believe a review needs to take place with the reviewer's system as the context. And it should take place over a fairly extended period of time. The reviewer should live with and use the product for a minimum of one month. Typically I take 3-4 months, sometimes longer. Going somewhere else, to a dealers or a friends house, even to a so-called 'familiar system' doesn't cut it. To me a proper or true review requires the reviewer to actually use the product -- to live with it -- as well as listen to it with a variety of music over a period of time.

Of course there are other attributes to a proper expository audio review such as:
-- a description of the review system,
-- an account of using the product on a daily basis, (not someone else using or operating it.) If you review a phono cartridge, install it yourself, if speakers talk about positioning, if a DAC or streamer what parameters did you try and end up with, etc. etc.
-- basic specifications,
-- a technical description of the product at least to a high level that explains in basic terms how the product works, special features,
-- cogent sonic descriptions of at least 3-4 pieces of music selected to make specific observations about the product (not necessarily only what the reviewer likes to hear),
-- preferably at least a brief comparison to another product, and
-- basic housekeeping info such as manufacturer contact information, options, warranty and msrp.

Of course anyone can have impessions, observations, comments and critique after listening to a product/system in a familiar or unfamiliar system. Their value is a function of how adept at description is the person making them. We all have opinions but reviewing is about more than listening. Other forms of commentary (listening with friends, show reports, dealer visits, etc.) can provide helpful information.

Fair points as well, but a reviewer may not have the space for these speakers in his/her home to "live with them". Does that disqualify him/her?

With speakers it's not so easy to do real comparisons. With other components it is much easier.

I find that the best thing a reviewer can do is to articulate their preferences. I like Arthur Salvatore because he does just that, at length.

The "absolute sound" is a pretty easy and convenient way of explaining your preferences. It does not tell us much...

 

[tima]

Fair points as well, but a reviewer may not have the space for these speakers in his/her home to "live with them". Does that disqualify him/her?

It disqualifies his room.

With speakers it's not so easy to do real comparisons. With other components it is much easier.

Have you ever reviewed speakers? If you have speakers and review a pair of speakers, there is your comparison.

The "absolute sound" is a pretty easy and convenient way of explaining your preferences. It does not tell us much...

I don't use that locution -- at least I don't recall using it.

 

[hopkins]

I don't use that locution -- at least I don't recall using it.

I did not say you did.

 

[hopkins]

Have you ever reviewed speakers? If you have speakers and review a pair of speakers, there is your comparison.

It may take some time to setup each speaker properly, and the speaker/room interaction may be different and require adjustments. So serious speaker comparisons may not be so easy to accomplish.

 

[tima]

I did not say you did.

Then why did you say this:

"The "absolute sound" is a pretty easy and convenient way of explaining your preferences. It does not tell us much..."

Use the language properly. Say what you mean. You are writing to a reader -- don't make him guess at what you are saying.

 

[tima]

It may take some time to setup each speaker properly, and the speaker/room interaction may be different and require adjustments. So serious speaker comparisons may not be so easy to accomplish.

Okay Captain Obvious. No one said it was easy, but it can be done. Put your own speakers on sliders to get them out of the way. Preferably out of the room if possible. Get the review pair in their best position -- of course you will do that for their review. Mark that with tape so you can return to the right spot for an A/B/A with your own pair which you've already marked off. It's mostly grunt work. Moving speakers is a pita.

 

[exupgh12]

Ron,

You’re absolutely right—spot on.

The interaction between speakers and the room is indeed the cornerstone of any audio system. Judging a system without understanding its room acoustics or complementary components can easily lead to misinterpretation. It’s a reminder of how critical context is in audio evaluation.

Moreover, it seems the reviewer was unfamiliar with the entire system, which makes their impressions less reliable. Without reviewing the loudspeakers in the context of a known, well-understood system, the evaluation becomes subjective at best. To truly assess a specific component like loudspeakers, one must first understand the entire system and then compare the component against others in the same setup. Anything less is not a review—it’s simply impressions of the system as a whole in that particular room.

Context isn’t just critical; it’s everything.

 

[andromedaaudio]

He states in the " review " the FR is resolutely flat " .

Any graphs to support that claim , like an independant magazine measurement like JA at Stereophile does ?
You cant establish that claim with your ears alone thats for sure.

In my business measurements are always verified by a notified body from TUV / LLoyds.

It comes across as mostly marketing to me

 

[hopkins]

Then why did you say this:

"The "absolute sound" is a pretty easy and convenient way of explaining your preferences. It does not tell us much..."

Use the language properly. Say what you mean. You are writing to a reader -- don't make him guess at what you are saying.

Correct, I should have said "one's preferences".

 

[hopkins]

Okay Captain Obvious.

Thanks.

No one said it was easy, but it can be done. Put your own speakers on sliders to get them out of the way. Preferably out of the room if possible. Get the review pair in their best position -- of course you will do that for their review. Mark that with tape so you can return to the right spot for an A/B/A with your own pair which you've already marked off. It's mostly grunt work. Moving speakers is a pita.

It is funny how you can argue this point to death yet you (and this time, it is "you") spend your time on this forum taking into consideration people's impressions of gear from listening sessions where no such comparisons are made, or even worse, express opinions based on system videos.

 

[Lagonda]

Then why did you say this:

"The "absolute sound" is a pretty easy and convenient way of explaining your preferences. It does not tell us much..."

Use the language properly. Say what you mean. You are writing to a reader -- don't make him guess at what you are saying.

I think Hopkins is french, i find his writing in english impressive, if not always perfect.

 

[Charles S]

I can't tell you all how much i enjoy this forum. This is where the industry professionals have serious exchanges. As a layperson of 60 plus years in the high end, it is absolutely fascinating. And I can see your limitations as professionals as I have mine as a layperson.

I would never consider having an M7 as my final speaker. The limitation of course is in the low bass. I love organ music. In order to properly produce a large organ correctly you need far more bass capability than an M7 or even an M9 can produce. You need 10 Hz to really get 20 Hz. My system has prodigious output at 20 Hz and this means that the 20-40 Hz range is adequately produced at any sound level.

I do not like sealed systems. What is the resonance frequency of the M7? It's probably around 30Hz, maybe a little lower. I asked my friend RH if he's ever seen the XVX woofers move, even when up close within a foot looking at them on really heavy loud bass. No, was the answer. That's mine too. I want a main speaker that cannot be overloaded in the bass, period. The XVX will do 110dB at 24 Hz with inaudible distortion, and it's impossible to overload it no matter what LF material you subject it too. It sings well at 15 Hz. The M7 is not a full range speaker. That's a fact.

Believability, as discussed here is a qualified adverb. The M7 will not remotely produce a believable large organ, period. No main speaker including an XVX will, and this includes an M9, even with its 15"woofers. You need a supremely powerful subwoofer system. In addition, I know that for my tastes, the M7 would never produce the slam, the bass impact, that will knock you off your seat, on my rock recordings.

Most of the observations you guys make are academic in nature, but this doesn't make them less valuable, quite the opposite. They are better than any magazine review. And they are so interesting, to see the dealers and industry experts have serious passionate discussions, it for me a layperson's dream.

Charles

 

[hopkins]

I think Hopkins is french, i find his writing in english impressive, if not always perfect.

I am actually half French, half American; my French is better, but I could have probably made the same mistake in French

 

[andromedaaudio]

I can't tell you all how much i enjoy this forum. This is where the industry professionals have serious exchanges. As a layperson of 60 plus years in the high end, it is absolutely fascinating. And I can see your limitations as professionals as I have mine as a layperson.

I would never consider having an M7 as my final speaker. The limitation of course is in the low bass. I love organ music. In order to properly produce a large organ correctly you need far more bass capability than an M7 or even an M9 can produce. You need 10 Hz to really get 20 Hz. My system has prodigious output at 20 Hz and this means that the 20-40 Hz range is adequately produced at any sound level.

I do not like sealed systems. What is the resonance frequency of the M7? It's probably around 30Hz, maybe a little lower. I asked my friend RH if he's ever seen the XVX woofers move, even when up close within a foot looking at them on really heavy loud bass. No, was the answer. That's mine too. I want a main speaker that cannot be overloaded in the bass, period. The XVX will do 110dB at 24 Hz with inaudible distortion, and it's impossible to overload it no matter what LF material you subject it too. It sings well at 15 Hz. The M7 is not a full range speaker. That's a fact.

Believability, as discussed here is a qualified adverb. The M7 will not remotely produce a believable large organ, period. No main speaker including an XVX will, and this includes an M9, even with its 15"woofers. You need a supremely powerful subwoofer system. In addition, I know that for my tastes, the M7 would never produce the slam, the bass impact, that will knock you off your seat, on my rock recordings.

Most of the observations you guys make are academic in nature, but this doesn't make them less valuable, quite the opposite. They are better than any magazine review. And they are so interesting, to see the dealers and industry experts have serious passionate discussions, it for me a layperson's dream.

Charles

I dont know about your subwoofer .
But regarding the XVX , .... if they use scanspeak woofers as i think they do the free air resonance freq FS @ 23 hz is about where the party stops.
it can be minus -3 - 6 db - 9 db depending on the designparameters/room

 

[Lee]

I think the above post and most of the responses to it do not establish what is 'an audio review' before determining whether the Martin video is one. The OP says "Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things." We see some quibbling over the varietals 'review', 'in-home review', 'visit report', 'impression review'.

Having written reviews for 3 different on-line audio publications for some 21 years, I have a clear notion for myself as to what counts as an audio review and what I work to achieve when writing one. YMMV. The OP addresses one particular characteristic, namely the context in which the review listening takes place.

I believe a review needs to take place with the reviewer's system as the context. And it should take place over a fairly extended period of time. The reviewer should live with and use the product for a minimum of one month. Typically I take 3-4 months, sometimes longer. Going somewhere else, to a dealers or a friends house, even to a so-called 'familiar system' doesn't cut it. To me a proper or true review requires the reviewer to actually use the product -- to live with it -- as well as listen to it with a variety of music over a period of time.

Of course there are other attributes to a proper expository audio review such as:
-- a description of the review system,
-- an account of using the product on a daily basis, (not someone else using or operating it.) If you review a phono cartridge, install it yourself, if speakers talk about positioning, if a DAC or streamer what parameters did you try and end up with, etc. etc.
-- basic specifications,
-- a technical description of the product at least to a high level that explains in basic terms how the product works, special features,
-- cogent sonic descriptions of at least 3-4 pieces of music selected to make specific observations about the product (not necessarily only what the reviewer likes to hear),
-- preferably at least a brief comparison to another product, and
-- basic housekeeping info such as manufacturer contact information, options, warranty and msrp.

Of course anyone can have impessions, observations, comments and critique after listening to a product/system in a familiar or unfamiliar system. Their value is a function of how adept at description is the person making them. We all have opinions but reviewing is about more than listening. Other forms of commentary (listening with friends, show reports, dealer visits, etc.) can provide helpful information.

Tim, there is a lot of great content here, but I politely differ. If know the system really well, then it doesn’t have to be at your house. In my view, it’s more about the number of critical listening hours.