Peter, in the main, we are in agreement if you are 'calling out' mean spirited, cowardly criticism. Totally agree. Where we diverge, consider the source and move on.
Negative show report posts... enough is enough.
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
Moricab your fantastic. I agree with you 100% Most of these reviewers have learned to kiss ass with the manufactures especially today. I don't feel bad for a lot of the rooms that get bad sound. A lot of them bring equipment that is brand new and not broken in. They also share the room with other companies and have no idea how the matching is going to be into the show. Shame on them and I'm suppose to be quiet about it. They then use these as excuses as to why the sound is bad. If I were going to show I know for sure that I would show with stuff that works and iron this out way in advance. No excuse you have a year to prepare dam it. If I were to buy a speaker or any component, I'm buying what sounds good to me period. That is why many people who buy what the reviewers like sell their stuff in a couple of months because they find that they don't like them. I use to do this years ago when I first started buying because I thought the so called experts who review new more than me. Boy did I learn a lot since then.
Peter B you probably would not invite me over to your house because If your sound sucked I would tell you. If the sound was great I would also tell you. I don't care what people think if I like it that is what counts, you should feel the same way.
Slightly off topic - but not exactly. I have read more than one review of a room at a show by some of the very best known reviewers with something like this: "in the X room, amplifier Z sounded incredibly open" and the facts are that this reviewer has never heard any piece of equipment in the room previously nor has he ever been in the room previously. . It would be imposble for him to have any clue what piece of equipment in the room or the room itself played in what he was hearing. But because he is an "expert" he can state and get away with such nonsense
It's usually either that the reviewer knows the other components well (even if the room is not a constant), or - more usually - the reviewer is trying to draw attention to what is potentially the most interesting thing in the room. A lot of manufacturers who share rooms could be politely described as 'psychotic hot heads with a massively overinflated sense of their own worth' who treat their products like an over-protective parent and if you simply describe what was playing in the room, you have to list everything down to the screw-heads, or reap the whirlwind.
If you do describe every room right down to the name of the cat of the person who put the heat shrink on the cables, a show report becomes a 1000 page dirge. So, the best short-cut here is to point out the one interesting thing in the room by saying 'it sounds good'.
Edit: For the record, I try not to do this and describe potentially the most interesting thing in the room as 'potentially the most interesting thing in the room'. As a consequence, I do have more than my fair share of equipment support manufacturers who personally blame me for not being able to put their kids through college, just because I didn't think their plank of MDF was the most interesting thing in the room.
Last edited:
Very well said. Peter Breuninger is off my list of reviewers that I can potentially take seriously, too. Boy, that list has become short over the years!
As Peter A. said, for many audiophiles the forums have become a more useful source of information than audio magazines. Yet there are some few truly professional (not just 'professional') reviewers remaining in whose writings I still am very much interested in. But even these should be less cautious in describing the weaknesses of components under review, not just their strengths. Reviewers should seriously ask themselves the question: do I want to serve the consumer or the manufacturer?
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
I'm not sure that's being very fair to Peter B. If we cut him some slack for the OP, which I think is as much about blowing off steam on one issue more than a condemnation of every jerk who is quick to offer their not particularly insightful comments about the sound of a room under show conditions, we should still acknowledge that Peter does some very good work everywhere he writes, including AV Showrooms, which is often educational event though its obviously impossible to form a sonic opinion from those snippets. Furthermore, Peter is clearly a gentleman, which sadly, can be in short supply in this business. I think there's a long line of reviewers that you may not wish to take take seriously, hailing back to Bert Whyte (Bose 901s) and Julian Hirsch (never met a piece of gear he didn't like) , but I'm reluctant to kick anyone to that group based on the opinion expressed in an editorial piece that is about something other than the sound of specific equipment.
The reviewer gets paid by the magazine and the magazine gets paid by the advertisers and the advertisers are manufacturers. Certainly some magazine revenue comes from subscribers. I'm not suggesting every reviewer is totally in the manufacturer's camp but I would suggest that if a fair reviewer were TOTALLY in the consumer camp (manufacturer be darned), some of the reviews might be a bit more open about the true feelings on the sound of a product.
All of that said, once I finally figured out reviewers were actually human and may or may not have any better ability to hear differences than I do, I began to use reviews as nothing more than a product introduction. And the other component that is necessary to remember is that even if the reviewer is totally in the consumer camp AND has great ability to hear, it is is still his opinion based upon his PREFERENCES. Mine may or may not align with his. The best judge of what is good and what I like is still me.
Thanks Marty. I have to call them as I see them. I am a reviewer. If I get called to task for making valid, IMO, criticism, so be it.
Perhaps you have a point here, thank you for contributing a calming voice.
That IS a problem, however.
Yet I believe the best reviewers step beyond that and indeed deliver reviews that are truly useful, and not just 'advertorials'.
I agree. Also, ads generate far more revenue than subscriptions. In the case of our own trade mags, the prices to advertise are extremely high. It's been a while since I looked but the cheapest you'll spend is about $5k/mo on the smallest ad you can buy with a 1 year commitment. If you pay these prices you'll probably get a favorable review, if not your products will be ignored. Many manufacturers pay these mags $10k+/month, this is A LOT of cash, so much so that it creates a disturbing relationship between what is supposed to be a neutral reviewer and the manufacturer who is paying so much. The truth is they aren't just paying for ad space. 6moons is now CHARGING MANUFACTURERS for reviews. I wonder if good reviews cost more, lol. How anyone can take a 6moons review seriously ever again, I don't know... Smaller reviewers are also afraid to publish anything negative as nobody will send them equipment to review anymore. The solution for me is simply to ignore them. I won't pay to read their material and I won't subscribe. If their circulation and readership goes down their ads will be worth less.
When you take the above and combine it with Peter B's OP it certainly seems like he's part of the problem but I also agree he has a valid point, it was just worded in perhaps the worst way possible. But, if you're going to show your system in public to anyone who feels like coming by and having a listen, you have to expect to see comments and you have to understand that there is a large subjective factor, especially from inexperienced and untrained listeners. People know this and IMO, it's pretty obvious when someone has no clue what they are talking about when they criticize a room.
Finally, it is amazing how bad a job some audio manufacturers can do setting up a room, even people I like and respect have had what I consider inexcusable issues with their system setup. They act like they had no idea a show was coming up, had no idea what room they would be in, and well... the excuses are just not valid. There are some manufacturers who put in the effort and always get good sound, so it's not like it can't be done. But otoh, it's not like the nasty bass mode or untreated 1st reflection points define the system so it really isn't fair to condemn the entire system and all the gear in it due to setup issues. I've heard gear I know has excellent potential sound not-so-good, it's unfortunate but it's fairly common. Certain manufacturers should also step up and assume some responsibility for their dealers and demand a proper setup. It's not like Focal can't setup a system but they allow dealers to use their speakers in absolutely horrible environments and it reflects poorly on them. Of course it's not easy to treat a large room but if you're spending thousands to be there and hauling in 6 figures worth of equipment then hauling in a bunch of room treatments as well shouldn't seem like such a big deal.
Because it is like taking a test, not getting any score and having to decide if you knew the material or not
.The nature of the training is that the test harness inserts an audible distortion and then asks if you can identify it. Once you do, the curtains are raised and you are presented with the answer. That answer cannot be disputed. The variation presented is controlled and isolated. One filter is inserted and you are asked if you can identify it. This is the critical and only path I know to become an expert listener. That is, learning one individual aberrations sound like.
Listing to live music and then listening to some other recording with the same instruments doesn't do any of this so it is not helpful in that regard.
There is no compression. Just the ability to hear and identify what is wrong with the sound.
That is the the training software. The real listening tests are done with music. It just happens that such training, aids you when you listen to the full meal. You learn to listen past the totality of the music and asks, "is that mid-range correct?" "Is the bass exaggerated or anemic?"
Importantly, the results are diagnostic in nature. A designer can't do anything with "it doesn't sound right." He needs to hear what is not right. Training such as what is presented in the tool, enables one to be very specific.
Again, there is a difference between training and listening tests. What the training does is force to to think of colorations in frequency domain. We have a gross sense of this as evidenced by the fact that when it is presented in huge amounts over wide range of frequencies, such as tone controls used to do in hifi gear, we are all able to hear it. This is why everyone gets to level 2 or 3. As these aberrations get smaller, we are not able to hear and identify them with authority. The training forces you to learn to do that. To ignore everything else and determine if you are hearing boomy bass, poor 1 Khz mid-range, etc.
The goal in using one's ear to evaluate equipment is not the same as attempting to enjoy music. It is to make us act just like a measurement system would. A measurement system is analytical. The same must happen with our ears when used in testing mode. We need to be able to push away may distracting factors from look of the equipment, to countless other distortions that may be distracting us. Training does that.
Ultimately I don't think I can explain in words the true meaning of any of this because I did not know the true meaning either until I experienced it
. I took the test here casually and then ignored it. It was not until I was at Harman with Sean presenting the test to a group of us that I all of a sudden realized that I could do so much better than others in the room. And when it came to blind speaker testing with real music, I was better able to analyze the differences I was hearing. I was able to listen past the boring and uninteresting content and act like an instrument. As such my results mirrored that of their trained listeners. Mind you, I have not completed the "course." So I would rate myself half way between untrained and trained listeners with respect to acoustics. But I was overjoyed to see that with little training I could advance my acuity so much. This was a much faster journey than hearing compression artifacts.
Speaking of compression artifacts, there I am a trained listener with a decade of experience. During that time, I/we tested many groups of listeners. Unfortunately we found no correlation between ability to hear compression artifacts and being either an audiophile or musician. And that matches experiences others have had. Being a musician does enable one for example to hear room reflections far better (I think it is 10X the normal acuity). But doesn't lend one the ability to hear non-linearities nor do I think it helps with acoustic testing.
The ability comes from being in controlled scenarios and formally getting trained. That said, there are rare exceptions that I have run into with some individuals having native ability to do well here and in the case of one individual, beat me at my own game
. The number of those people though is a fraction of audiophiles.
With as much respect as I can muster here, how do you know?
You not only don't advertise in any of the magazines, you aren't approached by any advertising people (as reflects your express wishes) to the best of my knowledge, you have not been even been given a rate card or media pack. We don't even review any of your products (despite actively wanting to) because you are so hostile to the idea of reviews.
My relationship with Weiss seems to be limited to conversations that go:
"Nice Product, Mr W."
"Thank you."
"I'd love to review it, but..."
Then followed by two minutes of eyebrow raising.
Can you point to the part on the doll where the nasty magazine touched you, Keith?
Business motivation can be a bias. But if we are to discuss bias, then there are far bigger ones. Take the review of Mark Levinson No 53 amplifier in Stereophile magazine. Fremer crucifies it:
"I went through everything from "It's Good News Week," by Hedgehoppers Anonymous, to Howlin' Wolf's "Smokestack Lightning," to Arvo Pärt's Kanon Pokajanen, with the Estonian Philharmonic and Chamber Choir conducted by Tõnu Kaljuste (ECM New Series 1654/55), and noted the overall transient precision, superb if not unprecedented speed and clarity, resolution of inner detail, and black backgrounds. However, there was also a dose of listening fatigue partly caused by high-frequency hardness, and partly by the overall dryness, which also produced well-rendered outlines but little in the way of nuanced textures: all outer shell, very little creamy center.
Women's voices were problematic through the No.53. For instance, "Fields of Gold," from an out-of-print edition of Eva Cassidy's Songbird (LP, S&P 501), features a pristine recording of her stunningly pure voice, bathed in reverberation. The voice should be pinpoint sharp in the best sense of that phrase, compact in size, and well separated from the engulfing reverb. That reverb should be a cushion, not a trap. Through the No.53s Cassidy's voice was pinpoint sharp but the reverb, instead of being airy and ethereal, sounded like a hard haze that obscured detail at low levels and became fatiguing at higher ones. Reverb should be experienced as an event separate from the main one, but with every record or file I played through the No.53s, instruments, voices, and reverb seemed to blend into a single event."
Let's say he is wrong for the sake of the argument. Which bias do you think led him to say all of this? Clearly it is not to support the magazine need to make money. Or is it the bias against all things "digital" (the 53 is a class-D amplifier)?
Same amplifier was reviewed by Robert Harley in The Absolute Sound. Nothing remotely like this impression was presented there: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mark-levinson-no53-monoblock-power-amplifier-tas-213-1/
"Conclusion
The Mark Levinson Nº53 is an intriguing product that represents a new direction for this venerable company. As the company’s first switching amplifier and current flagship at $50k per pair, the Nº53 shatters the stereotype of the switching amplifier as the technology of sonic compromise. The Nº53 is a pivotal product for Mark Levinson, and one that says much about the brand and the company’s direction. The fact that it uses such a radically different topology is a daring move.
But it’s a move that has paid off, in my view. The Nº53 has some remarkable—even stunning—sonic qualities. These include dynamics, bass grip, midbass articulation and expression, and the ability to present music as separate instruments rather than as slightly homogenized. In these areas, the Nº53 was world-class."
So which is it? Homogenized mess that Fremer says it is, or separate instruments that Harley says? There can't be two versions of the same audio truth, so directly opposed to each other.
I don't know how anyone puts weight on any such subjective review where one can find two opposing stances like this. And for Peter, which does he say we should read and trust? The two are considered experts of subjectively listening, no?
I agree mostly with this but I would go way further and say we are dealing with super inaccurate observations by many. One look at the design of the amplifier may have written the "review" prior to Fremer even hitting the keyboard. If you want some piece of audio gear to sound bright, I can guarantee that it will sound bright to you!
Deciding whether there are objective explanations for what people write by definition invites the discussion of any of these subjective evaluations being valid at all. By objectivity, none have any foundation. As such we need to give up on logic and analysis in figuring out what to trust. As you say, the articles should be an introduction to the product existing, something about its design, features and capabilities and that is it. What words are used to say it is good or bad for myriads of reasons is not trustworthy.
I think, on the one hand, people give far too much credence to reviews in professional commercial publications, and on the other, not enough credit where credit is due. While the Internet has democratized many things, and, in things audio, has enabled the users of particular gear to chime in- like never before- on their experiences, views, and issues like reliability, almost everything, in my estimation, is "context." What are the associated components; what source material (and which pressing or mastering?); what are the biases of the writer, acknowledged or otherwise?
This industry, like very few left, is still filled with 'cottage' manufacturers- which can be a blessing and a curse. (If you know anything about the history of the automobile, there were many, many manufacturers that disappeared in the intervals after the first and second world wars- the economy of scale makes car manufacturing an unbelievably costly endeavor). Yes, there are some quirky manufacturers- who don't provide the goods, or support them- and yes, there are some bad dealers- we have all probably had some experience with that- but by and large-- and I say this having been around this industry for a long, long time, never having sought to make a dime in it (other than a stint selling gear as a high school and college-aged enthusiast, circa the late 60's and very early 70's), that, in general, the industry and the people in it, should be applauded. The cordial relationships among press and trade do not imply some conspiracy, in my estimation. Sure, you'll rarely find a negative review in the mainstream, but I suspect that's due in part to the fact that the 'zines are, by and large, reviewing pretty decent equipment. (And, to be sure, you can read between the lines of many reviews to see the back-handed comment). But, at bottom, this is all in service of some shared goal, I think, and whether you like brand X, or reviewer Y, is only part of the equation.
When I do research, I try to gather as much information as possible and try to make my own assessment. Reviews, professional or otherwise, commentary, from users, owners, passers-by, all may be relevant (or not). To me, context is everything. Fremer, as most of you know, correctly it seems, said a few years ago that reviews were "informed entertainment." My initial reaction to that comment was that he was diminishing the importance of what he and others do (or should do). But, reflecting on that, I think he's right in the sense that it is grist for the mill. You ultimately have to make your own assessments, by whatever means you do that.
This industry, like very few left, is still filled with 'cottage' manufacturers- which can be a blessing and a curse. (If you know anything about the history of the automobile, there were many, many manufacturers that disappeared in the intervals after the first and second world wars- the economy of scale makes car manufacturing an unbelievably costly endeavor). Yes, there are some quirky manufacturers- who don't provide the goods, or support them- and yes, there are some bad dealers- we have all probably had some experience with that- but by and large-- and I say this having been around this industry for a long, long time, never having sought to make a dime in it (other than a stint selling gear as a high school and college-aged enthusiast, circa the late 60's and very early 70's), that, in general, the industry and the people in it, should be applauded. The cordial relationships among press and trade do not imply some conspiracy, in my estimation. Sure, you'll rarely find a negative review in the mainstream, but I suspect that's due in part to the fact that the 'zines are, by and large, reviewing pretty decent equipment. (And, to be sure, you can read between the lines of many reviews to see the back-handed comment). But, at bottom, this is all in service of some shared goal, I think, and whether you like brand X, or reviewer Y, is only part of the equation.
When I do research, I try to gather as much information as possible and try to make my own assessment. Reviews, professional or otherwise, commentary, from users, owners, passers-by, all may be relevant (or not). To me, context is everything. Fremer, as most of you know, correctly it seems, said a few years ago that reviews were "informed entertainment." My initial reaction to that comment was that he was diminishing the importance of what he and others do (or should do). But, reflecting on that, I think he's right in the sense that it is grist for the mill. You ultimately have to make your own assessments, by whatever means you do that.
Similar threads
