Myths and Suspicions

[MylesBAstor]

The Julian Hersch bit was a joke, Miles. That's why it was followed by "Seriously." Here: . The rest of the was quite serious. Present company, and all other exceptions excepted, but they are exceptions. Much of the audiophile press - both print and internet - is devoid of both measurement and sound listening methodologies. They may as well be wine reviews, and I don't think it's good for the industry or the hobby. It is, at the very least, uninformative for potential buyers. There are plenty of measurements that could be taken that would be much more useful than THD, and there are ways of listening "subjectively" that would be much more telling than one guy's sighted listening providing one guy's personal opinion. But sadly, it is rarely being done.

P

You know no one is twisting anyone's arms to buy the high-end magazines. As they say, people vote with their wallets.

It seems like though there's a few Ralph Nader's among us that think it's their God given duty to protect the rest of us from ourselves. It's time people lighten up-it's a damn hobby not brain surgery. Enjoy what you have.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

A natural and unintended reaction to this on the part of the naive reader is "Methinks thou dost protest too much".QUOTE]

It's a fair criticism. I knew that I would run the risk of looking holier than thou, or that I was attempting to play audio-reviewer police.

On the other hand, we do our best to run a clean, responsible, but still authoritative group of publications. And given that day-to-day business, there are things that frustrate me in this industry that I just have to write about.

 

[MylesBAstor]

A natural and unintended reaction to this on the part of the naive reader is "Methinks thou dost protest too much".QUOTE]

It's a fair criticism. I knew that I would run the risk of looking holier than thou, or that I was attempting to play audio-reviewer police.

On the other hand, we do our best to run a clean, responsible, but still authoritative group of publications. And given that day-to-day business, there are things that frustrate me in this industry that I just have to write about.

Jeff-While I understand your frustration with the constant postings about the subject, the fact is that no matter what you [or I] do or say, whatever evidence we present, there will always be those who see conspiracies around behind every column

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You know no one is twisting anyone's arms to buy the high-end magazines. As they say, people vote with their wallets.

It seems like though there's a few Ralph Nader's among us that think it's their God given duty to protect the rest of us from ourselves. It's time people lighten up-it's a damn hobby not brain surgery. Enjoy what you have.

Sorry an alternative opinion rubs you so wrongly. I'm not trying to protect anyone from themselves, I just think a little substantive reporting might be helpful. Here, however, I'm just contributing to the discussion on a discussion forum. Kinda thought that was the point.

P

 

[MylesBAstor]

Sorry an alternative opinion rubs you so wrongly. I'm not trying to protect anyone from themselves, I just think a little substantive reporting might be helpful. Here, however, I'm just contributing to the discussion on a discussion forum. Kinda thought that was the point.

P

And so am I -and that reference was in general not specific.

 

[The Smokester]

A natural and unintended reaction to this on the part of the naive reader is "Methinks thou dost protest too much".QUOTE]

It's a fair criticism. I knew that I would run the risk of looking holier than thou, or that I was attempting to play audio-reviewer police.

On the other hand, we do our best to run a clean, responsible, but still authoritative group of publications. And given that day-to-day business, there are things that frustrate me in this industry that I just have to write about.

I meant to qualify my statement as a general one...Not targeted at anyone in particular and especially you. It's just going to be a human reaction on the part of the audience.

 

[tonmeister2008]

OTOH many magazines plainly state they have no interest in reviewing bad products. That is they choose products which they have already auditioned and think might be of interest to their readers. There is a difference between a "critic" and a reviewer. The critic sees himself more as a policeman of the arts. His mission is to ferret out the negative. The reviewer merely brings things to the readers attention allowing them to make their own decision.
The real quandry for the reviewer is what to do when a big name lays an eggg. If Dace Wilson puts out a bad product that the reviewer knows will be purchased based on brand loyalty, does the reviewer have only obligation to report that to his readers? Hopefully the answer will be yes.

Can you think of a case where that has happened: big name lays an egg and the reviewer calls it like he/she hears it?

 

[Gregadd]

Can you think of a case where that has happened: big name lays an egg and the reviewer calls it like he/she hears it?

First of all you need a consensus that they did in fact lay an egg. I don't read that many reviews anymore. My own experience is they are more likely to bury their opinion in measurements or damn the product with feint praise.

I remember J.Gordon Holts disapproval of the ARC SP9. ARC then challenged him to an ABX/DBT. He was unable to distinguish the ARC SP9 form the SP14. (Available in the Sterophile Archive)May have been more of a slap at ARC. Maybe there was no difference between the two. The SP14 cost $1300 more. I owned both.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can you think of a case where that has happened: big name lays an egg and the reviewer calls it like he/she hears it?

I'm not sure what goes on in the review process, but I read quite a few of them and it seems like many are effusive, on the edge of poetic. And very often, the products don't live up to the press. I recently auditioned a pair of speakers that have an great reputation in the audiophile world, with one rave review after another. I was very excited to get the opportunity to hear them, here in my small city. These speakers, like many contemporary 3-way floor-standers are, essentially, a small monitor sitting on top of a large passive subwoofer, and that's what they sounded like. Don't get me wrong, they were very good. The upper mids and trebles were quite clear for a passive design and the bottom was well-behaved. The imaging was not extraordinary, but many people prefer a softer sound stage to precise imaging and it's probably a more realistic reflection of most performance venues, so that may be more of a flaw in my taste than in the speakers. Still, they were very good, but they were not extraordinary. If you were willing to forego the beautiful furniture and the audiophile rep, you could better them, sonically, at a fraction of their substantial cost. I've seen very few audiophile reviews that came to that kind of conclusion, much less "the big guy laid an egg." Maybe it's just too dull to report that something is beautiful, that the build quality is extraordinary, but it is sonically unremarkable. Maybe it just makes for poor reading.

P

 

[FrantzM]

Hi
The thread has evolved / devolved in a thread about the merit or lack of it in High End Audio reviewing. Criticism is an important part of the creative process... It needs to be objective. It does not have to be "constructive" but it needs a certain amount of objectivity. In things human that are highly subjective... The valuee of criticism implies a profession of faith: Wine tasting, Food tasting, fashion and the likes.. Music appreciation, etc... However our endeavor is not music producing/making .. it is the faithful reproduction of sounds aka as high-Fi.. it is an eminently physical process which in itself is deterministic. The means to reproduce the sounds are physical and must be deterministic ...

This out of the way and of my chest. Reviewing a component whose purpose is to reproduce sound is determining how well (also how much) it accomplishes that purpose. We know that we are not yet at a point where we have a set of metrics that would let us know how the components the component accomplish the task at hand. Thus the review, the need for reviewers whether we want t accept it or not .. Reviews are an important part of choosing a components, that it be from friends, from casual perusal of store fronts or the Internet , etc.. We read reviews, organized or not ... We read words account of what what we cannot (hopefully, yet) accomplish with ONLY a set of measurements. I don't think that a simple reading of a FR graph tells me how I will react to a speaker .. We are not there yet ... Emphasis on yet. Yet it remains that reviews must be objective and repeatable ... That is where many of today's reviews fail. I am quickly adding that I am not singling out any reviewer .. I am just stating that the review process seems flawed to me. I do understand the enormous difficulties, I don't see for example how a magazine can simply acquire any component it wishes to review unless this magazine is owned by Bill Gates ...

I understand the ethical minefields and many (not all ) of the problems associated with reviewing Audio products , specially High End Audio products .. Yet it is not because it is difficult that it should not be pursued. Good reviewing is needed in the High End and could restore some of the Industry credibility. Reviewing is needed for it however to have real value it must be better done...

I am not suggesting solutions but running away from the facts that there are severe ethical breaches and problems in the current High End Audio reviewing process, is not a recipe for success. The current model has too many problems. I could address some I perceive but would prefer the collective to fill in..
Done for now

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

Robert Harley once explained in TAS, in response to some foaming-at-the-mouth comments along simlar lines, that some of the vendors high on the foamer's list of corrupting influences had not in fact ever advertised in TAS, while others had done so infrequently. Conversely, there are heavy advertisers in TAS whose products are seldom reviewed. Sure, advertisers pay the rent, but quality products and quality reviews have their own integrity, advertising budgets aside.

And of course some reviews in TAS are less than flattering to the vendors.

 

[mep]

First of all you need a consensus that they did in fact lay an egg. I don't read that many reviews anymore. My own experience is they are more likely to bury their opinion in measurements or damn the product with feint praise.

I remember J.Gordon Holts disapproval of the ARC SP9. ARC then challenged him to an ABX/DBT. He was unable to distinguish the ARC SP9 form the SP14. (Available in the Sterophile Archive)May have been more of a slap at ARC. Maybe there was no difference between the two. The SP14 cost $1300 more. I owned both.

I never heard the SP-9, but I did own the SP-14 and did not care for it. It is basically a SS product. It just happens to have one tube in the phono section. It wasn't for me and I moved it on down the road.

Mark

 

[amirm]

I do understand the enormous difficulties, I don't see for example how a magazine can simply acquire any component it wishes to review unless this magazine is owned by Bill Gates ...

Actually, consumer reports magazine manages that just fine. They even buy expensive stuff like cars and in the old days, used to smash their bumpers and such. They then sell them to employees or auction them off. So the actual cost doesn't need to be the cost of the equipment (only its depreciated value) but of course, it does take a lot more resources than typical audio magazine seems to have.

 

[Gregadd]

I never heard the SP-9, but I did own the SP-14 and did not care for it. It is basically a SS product. It just happens to have one tube in the phono section. It wasn't for me and I moved it on down the road.

Mark

I thought they were excellent. I think that was the problem. Everyone was expecting a tube sound. Judged on thier own merit there were first rate.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Take a few moments to read/view the link I provided. It doesn't exactly say much about integrity for some .......including Consumer Reports.

http://autos.ca.msn.com/editors-picks/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=23701004

John

EDIT: View then read Photos 1, 2 and 5

 

[mep]

I thought they were excellent. I think that was the problem. Everyone was expecting a tube sound. Judged on thier own merit there were first rate.

I judged the SP-14 on it's role in my system as a preamp and I didn't like it. If I buy something and am going to keep it, it has to sound better than the component it replaced. And I know I do have a bias for tubes and against SS, but I came by it naturally.

Mark

 

[The Smokester]

Hi
...it is an eminently physical process which in itself is deterministic. The means to reproduce the sounds are physical and must be deterministic ...

Franz, When I read your posts I usually learn and agree. However, I think this statement neglects the human (subjective) part of listening to reproduced sound. My position is that reproduced sound is a trick of the mind and if so its perception cannot be deterministic.

 

[FrantzM]

The Smokester

Reproducing music is a deterministic process our response to music is not.

 

[tonmeister2008]

I'd like to know who offered the 80% (maybe it was a B stock or something they really couldn't resell???). In my 30 years of reviewing, no company has ever offered me that sort of discount. The industry standard is 50% (as in pretty much other profession) with discounts ranging from 40 to 60% depending upon the company.

While we're on the subject, lets also talk about the restrictions that manufacturers place upon reviewers-the biggest being have to sign a form stating that they will not sell that piece for a period of a year. So if something else comes up in 6 months, you're stuck with what you have. And when reviewers sell gear (for what they paid, no more), someone is getting a hell of a bargain on Audiogon!

The we can talk about all the money that the magazines (and not all do) pay their writers. I doubt few here would work for the hourly wages reviewing pays (figure out three months of listening on average to a piece of gear and getting paid $100); Stereophile pays the most around $1200/piece--but one is not going to live on that either). And not to mention, paying one's own way to CES and other audio shows.

So it's not all fun and glory for reviewers Or it's like being a trainer-where everyone goes oh isn't it great that you can work out for free anytime? Yeah, right. Try getting up every day @4:30 AM and having some energy to work out by 1 PM!

Good thing you have a day job. I don't envy reviewers and what they are paid. It seems that the wealthy ones either live in Japan, inherited their wealth or have good day jobs.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So if something else comes up in 6 months, you're stuck with what you have.

If you can't stand to keep it in your system for more than a year, I can only hope you gave it a very bad review.

P