After reading all this I flew to NJ, snuck into Fremer's yard and removed all the copper wire I put in for his electrical supply.
"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Uhmmm, a void…. unfinished sentences……….a failure to proof read…. a serious lack of keyboard endurance…OK you win lol, errrmmm dunno.
L
Lol. I am a listner.listener. you see my point? I did not learn anything from my post. I picked up a few things from yours.
Haha… as a fellow read/write challenged soul I can only say, I get it and yes, but spellcheck is our friend apparently lol.
Audio based learners are usually stronger at both listening and talking than they are at reading or writing so yes, I m also listna…
The first Review From Head of Stereophile Mr. John Atkinson .
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tad-compact-reference-cr1-loudspeaker
please look at Review System :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Equipment Digital Sources: Ayre Acoustics C-5xeMP& DX-5 universal players; Apple G4 Mac mini running OS10.5.8, iTunes 10, Pure Music 1.8; Shuttle PC with Lynx AES16 soundcard & dual-core AMD Athlon processor running Windows 7, Foobar 2000, Adobe Audition 3.0; dCS Debussy, Logitech Transporter, Bricasti M1 D/A converters; Halide S/PDIF Bridge, Empirical Audio Off-Ramp4 USB-S/PDIF converters.
Preamplifier: Ayre Acoustics K-5xeMP.
Power Amplifiers: Classé CT-M600, MBL Reference 9007 (both monoblocks).
Loudspeakers: BBC LS3/5a, Sonus Faber Amati Futura, Vivid B1.
Cables: Digital: DH Labs Silver Sonic. AES/EBU: AudioQuest Coffee, Belkin Gold USB. FireWire: AudioQuest FireWire 400 (prototype). Interconnect (balanced): AudioQuest Wild. Speaker: AudioQuest Wild. AC: PS Audio Lab, manufacturers' own.
Accessories: Target TT-5 equipment racks; Ayre Acoustics Myrtle Blocks; ASC Tube Traps, RPG Abffusor panels; Shunyata Research Dark Field cable elevators; Audio Power Industries 116 Mk.II & PE-1, APC S-15 AC line conditioners (computers, hard drive). AC power comes from two dedicated 20A circuits, each just 6' from breaker box.—John Atkinson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first problem is that John Atkinson does not have a reference digital source and also that computer playback is awful for reviewing a reference speaker. I also see no high performance Reference Turntable in the system and no one can review a high performance loudspeaker with low-mid level digital source.
micro dynamics (end of decays), micro harmonics (Beauty), emotion, power and presence of low-mid level digital players is not good.
you can not review a component with a low performance digital source.
the second problem is the amplifiers (Classe and MBL) connected to TAD CR1. It seems John Atkinson does not know Speaker/Amplifier Matching is the most important thing for judging a speaker. without good/perfect matching between amplifier and speaker you absolutely can not judge a speaker.
both Classe and MBL are high feedback high power amplifiers that are not good match to CR1.
I have connected more than 10 high power amplifiers to TAD CR1 but none of them were good and it seems only TAD M700 should be connected to TAD CR1. I have no access to CH M10 or Vitus MP-M201 to check matching.
I also have no idea about the AC quality of John Atkinson room. TAD loudspeakers are transparent and easily show you bad AC quality .
I also have no idea about Room acoustics, TAD reference Speakers need space and average to low RT rooms.
let check what John wrote about TAD CR1:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the CR1 is ostensibly a stand-mounted design, it didn't lack low frequencies. The one-third–octave warble tones on Editor's Choice (CD, Stereophile STPH016-2) were reproduced with full weight down to the 32Hz band, but with a fast rolloff below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first question is why John uses the bass test tone? It seems he wants to be sure his judgment about bass is not wrong.
The second problem is that his digital source is not good for bass reproduction.
actually he should not judge the bass quality of TAD CR1.
John in his review focused on Bass quality of TAD CR1 and I guess he is trying to convince audiophiles the CR1 is like floorstands to help sell more TAD CR1 . As you know most audiophiles do not pay so much for bookshelf speakers and prefer to have floorstands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MBL Reference 9007 monoblocks, for example, are superb amplifiers, but with the TADs, the sound was just too forward in the mid-treble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems none of those amplifiers had good matching and the midrange beauty was not as good as expected.
John tries to show us TAD CR1 can show all details but does audiophiles need only resolution?
I think both amplifiers (Classe and MBL) do not let the listener feel the emotion/beauty of the midrange.
I have both TAD reference one and CR1 and I know TAD Reference Speakers are not musical in most systems, TAD Speakers are not lifeless but they need proper setup and proper speaker placement they need proper amplification they need proper source they need proper cables they need proper AC quality they need proper room to give you emotion of music.
John Atkinson does not say to readers he never finds any beauty in the sound of TAD CR1 because stereophile should help TAD to sell more in USA.
all words of John Atkinson are just about bass , soundstage and details , these words are not about Music Experience and I think this type of Audio Reviewing is far from a good Review.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/tad-compact-reference-cr1-loudspeaker
please look at Review System :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Equipment Digital Sources: Ayre Acoustics C-5xeMP& DX-5 universal players; Apple G4 Mac mini running OS10.5.8, iTunes 10, Pure Music 1.8; Shuttle PC with Lynx AES16 soundcard & dual-core AMD Athlon processor running Windows 7, Foobar 2000, Adobe Audition 3.0; dCS Debussy, Logitech Transporter, Bricasti M1 D/A converters; Halide S/PDIF Bridge, Empirical Audio Off-Ramp4 USB-S/PDIF converters.
Preamplifier: Ayre Acoustics K-5xeMP.
Power Amplifiers: Classé CT-M600, MBL Reference 9007 (both monoblocks).
Loudspeakers: BBC LS3/5a, Sonus Faber Amati Futura, Vivid B1.
Cables: Digital: DH Labs Silver Sonic. AES/EBU: AudioQuest Coffee, Belkin Gold USB. FireWire: AudioQuest FireWire 400 (prototype). Interconnect (balanced): AudioQuest Wild. Speaker: AudioQuest Wild. AC: PS Audio Lab, manufacturers' own.
Accessories: Target TT-5 equipment racks; Ayre Acoustics Myrtle Blocks; ASC Tube Traps, RPG Abffusor panels; Shunyata Research Dark Field cable elevators; Audio Power Industries 116 Mk.II & PE-1, APC S-15 AC line conditioners (computers, hard drive). AC power comes from two dedicated 20A circuits, each just 6' from breaker box.—John Atkinson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first problem is that John Atkinson does not have a reference digital source and also that computer playback is awful for reviewing a reference speaker. I also see no high performance Reference Turntable in the system and no one can review a high performance loudspeaker with low-mid level digital source.
micro dynamics (end of decays), micro harmonics (Beauty), emotion, power and presence of low-mid level digital players is not good.
you can not review a component with a low performance digital source.
the second problem is the amplifiers (Classe and MBL) connected to TAD CR1. It seems John Atkinson does not know Speaker/Amplifier Matching is the most important thing for judging a speaker. without good/perfect matching between amplifier and speaker you absolutely can not judge a speaker.
both Classe and MBL are high feedback high power amplifiers that are not good match to CR1.
I have connected more than 10 high power amplifiers to TAD CR1 but none of them were good and it seems only TAD M700 should be connected to TAD CR1. I have no access to CH M10 or Vitus MP-M201 to check matching.
I also have no idea about the AC quality of John Atkinson room. TAD loudspeakers are transparent and easily show you bad AC quality .
I also have no idea about Room acoustics, TAD reference Speakers need space and average to low RT rooms.
let check what John wrote about TAD CR1:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the CR1 is ostensibly a stand-mounted design, it didn't lack low frequencies. The one-third–octave warble tones on Editor's Choice (CD, Stereophile STPH016-2) were reproduced with full weight down to the 32Hz band, but with a fast rolloff below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first question is why John uses the bass test tone? It seems he wants to be sure his judgment about bass is not wrong.
The second problem is that his digital source is not good for bass reproduction.
actually he should not judge the bass quality of TAD CR1.
John in his review focused on Bass quality of TAD CR1 and I guess he is trying to convince audiophiles the CR1 is like floorstands to help sell more TAD CR1 . As you know most audiophiles do not pay so much for bookshelf speakers and prefer to have floorstands.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MBL Reference 9007 monoblocks, for example, are superb amplifiers, but with the TADs, the sound was just too forward in the mid-treble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems none of those amplifiers had good matching and the midrange beauty was not as good as expected.
John tries to show us TAD CR1 can show all details but does audiophiles need only resolution?
I think both amplifiers (Classe and MBL) do not let the listener feel the emotion/beauty of the midrange.
I have both TAD reference one and CR1 and I know TAD Reference Speakers are not musical in most systems, TAD Speakers are not lifeless but they need proper setup and proper speaker placement they need proper amplification they need proper source they need proper cables they need proper AC quality they need proper room to give you emotion of music.
John Atkinson does not say to readers he never finds any beauty in the sound of TAD CR1 because stereophile should help TAD to sell more in USA.
all words of John Atkinson are just about bass , soundstage and details , these words are not about Music Experience and I think this type of Audio Reviewing is far from a good Review.
Last edited:
Of all the people I thought could be dinged in this thread, Atkinson was not on my list.
Because he knows that measuring the physical characteristics of a device matters. That's why. I'm surprised that you ask that question.
Mr. Atkinson's listening room (see https://www.stereophile.com/content/mofi-electronics-sourcepoint-10-loudspeaker-page-2)
Agreed but I have rarely ever come upon on one so gifted in the audio world videos. Even the best of them are merely fluant and the vast majority make me fidget throughout. The advantage of print (on paper or screen) is that I can adjust my pace to the content and/or my interest and, if necessary, re-read what comes off as pithy.
Excellent point. Some of us take issue with those who associate music and emotion with hardware because we associate those solely with the music. We regard the hardware (and these days, the firmware and the software) as vehicles which convey as well as they can what is in the music source. Hardware makes sound, not music. That is the province of the composer, the performers and the recording process.
N.B.: I am not speaking for JA but responding to the critique quoted.
IMHO long term loan will enable the magazine to threaten manufacturers. Obviously highest bidding manufacturer’s equipment will be used as “long term loan” and will be mentioned in the reviews until another manufacturer offers higher.
This is another way of making money for the magazines. It doesn’t have to be handing over money directly or a wire transfer. Advertisement can be used as cover.
BTW reviews in those magazines are nice to read but don’t help you to apprehend how that specific equipment sounds. Some vague descriptions are always in force such as “transparency”, “stage depth” “detail retrieval” etc. Those hypothetical terms are used for confusion cause how much stage depth is adequate, how much transparency is needed or how much detail is right, nobody can say. Reviewers rarely mention if piano sounds like a real piano or when a kick drum hits if he feels it on his chair or not or how a tenor sax sounds compared to real one etc. Instead of more comparisons to real instruments they talk about depth, stage or 3D image of the recorded music which is almost always recorded as two channel mono not stereo. There are some stereo recordings made by two or three microphones and they’re mostly 50’s or 60’s classical recordings but that’s all. There are only a handful of stereo jazz recordings and almost no rock or pop.
IMHO some reviewers are good story tellers. That’s all we can get from those reviews.
This is another way of making money for the magazines. It doesn’t have to be handing over money directly or a wire transfer. Advertisement can be used as cover.
BTW reviews in those magazines are nice to read but don’t help you to apprehend how that specific equipment sounds. Some vague descriptions are always in force such as “transparency”, “stage depth” “detail retrieval” etc. Those hypothetical terms are used for confusion cause how much stage depth is adequate, how much transparency is needed or how much detail is right, nobody can say. Reviewers rarely mention if piano sounds like a real piano or when a kick drum hits if he feels it on his chair or not or how a tenor sax sounds compared to real one etc. Instead of more comparisons to real instruments they talk about depth, stage or 3D image of the recorded music which is almost always recorded as two channel mono not stereo. There are some stereo recordings made by two or three microphones and they’re mostly 50’s or 60’s classical recordings but that’s all. There are only a handful of stereo jazz recordings and almost no rock or pop.
IMHO some reviewers are good story tellers. That’s all we can get from those reviews.
Last edited:
I use to get spun up over this topic. I wrote Robert directly about this topic and he responded in print naming me twice.
As I have aged I have come to view magazine as entertainment, little more. Story Tellers. I get some technical knowledge from periodicals such as Popular Woodworking or Milk Street. All the audio, car, boat, home magazines to me are fancy adds packaged with multi page editorial adds. So I really could care less how the author got a hold of the product. I am much more bothered by my entertainment being dominated by a select few named brands with only a small peppering of something new. Even forums have found themselves slotted into the same sort of rail. Same old products day in and out.
Anyone know how much gear Valin has on "long term" loan? He seems to be the "poster child" of this policy. You could open up an audio store with his "reference" gear listed at the bottom of his reviews.
Last edited:
The threads devoted to the “Beyond turntables“ are certainly not about the same old products day in and out.
There was going to be a “Beyond speakers“ and a primer on room construction and acoustic treatment solutions in the same series. Those too would’ve been anything but the same old products day in and out.
There is much more out there. It is just not covered by the mainstream.
Last edited:
Ron, look at it from the audio manufacturer’s perspective. They loan, give discounts, or give away equipment to influence people’s opinions. You don’t commit the resources to send a reviewer a piece of equipment without expecting a return on your investment.
This is a commercial relationship that should be disclosed to readers.
Not everyone needs to Francisco… when it comes to recall some people are better at read and recall while others are better at listening and recalling. So some of us are better (and so enjoy) reading more and others are better at listening and so instruction from video can be preferred by some. When it comes to visual perception (graphics, symbols, diagrams etc) some people like to watch… but that is a story for a different day lol.
My read/write modality simply isn’t as strong as my listening and visual perception skills… even my kinaesthetic learning is generally less challenged than my read/write function. I’ve spent my whole life trying to get better at read/write but it’s an uphill battle.
None of these modes are necessarily an inherently better way of perception but they are just different modes of perceiving and most of us have a different mix of perceptual strengths and weaknesses. So a publisher who uses both written and video communication is making their content more successfully accessible to a greater number of people.
Reading the way some people write very complex sentences can feel for me more like (assumption) giving birth to a watermelon… without the anaesthetic.
Give me a good orator over a good writer any day. But better still it’s great to have access to both.
Surely people have different skills and recall abilities. But I am a pragmatic person - as far as I have seen I have never watched a proper debate about a video in WBF and I have read many debates on written articles.
For example, how do you quote a video? How long do you take to find a ten second affirmation in a thirty minute video a few weeks after you have watched it? And, extremely important in these days where there is too much information available, how do you pre-scan a video to know if it is worth seeing and how do you search in videos?
I will give you a personal anecdotal evidence - Jim Simith excellent book and DVDs "Get Better Sound". I have both, and find that unless you have read the book first and own it, the DVDs are disappointing.
MHO, YMMV - I will be happy to learn about cases where a video review per se is better than a proper written material. And surely what matters most is the content, not the container!
...I don't have an example of better video vs. written review, @microstrip but I do think that is due to the creators, not the medium itself.
I recognize the physical aspect of actual pages (even online) offers advantages in quoting, re-reading, etc. And skimming to determine a top-level value assessment for further time investment.
That said, we can scrub/fast-forward videos, "rewind" and otherwise move around them as desired. I do think we will/can also come to know and trust certain video reviewers by reputation and past offerings.
I agree that written reviews have an edge here at the moment, but videos do have a certain "reality" that is attractive to me. I do find myself fast-forwarding videos, but I do that with some magazine reviews too, only coming back to them due to boredom, waiting for Sweetie, or just having a few minutes available in proximity to the mag.
I recognize the physical aspect of actual pages (even online) offers advantages in quoting, re-reading, etc. And skimming to determine a top-level value assessment for further time investment.
That said, we can scrub/fast-forward videos, "rewind" and otherwise move around them as desired. I do think we will/can also come to know and trust certain video reviewers by reputation and past offerings.
I agree that written reviews have an edge here at the moment, but videos do have a certain "reality" that is attractive to me. I do find myself fast-forwarding videos, but I do that with some magazine reviews too, only coming back to them due to boredom, waiting for Sweetie, or just having a few minutes available in proximity to the mag.
Similar threads
