State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[Lee]

That’s an interesting read. I can really relate to this particular passage having hired Jim Smith to voice my former system and David Karmeli to help set up and fine tune the system he sold me. I learned a lot in each case, and their efforts certainly resulted in better sound.

“At the upper end of the market, more and more customers will deal more closely with the manufacturers of the products they buy; more and more manufacturers will become increasingly involved in the installation and set up of their products; more and more often, the both manufacturers and customers will call on the experience and expertise of the emerging class of independent, set up specialists. It’s a whole new way of building a system, with a redistributed cost structure and responsibilities – but it’s also a sure route to significantly better sound.”

Same here. He is definitely correct about the setup experts adding tons of value.

 

[Lee]

If nothing else mqa yielded a renew interest in high quality sound of old favorite music to me.
on small or headphones to me it sounds great an uptick over all.
the issue not discussed is why do dacs vary in sound so differently. one dac may do great mqa
another bad compared to non unfolded tracks.
my only experience is not from my big rig
because of mqa I can now enjoy many remixes of old rock tunes. For one jethro tull. non of the remastered were good until mqa got involved
as for honesty in reviews
there long gone due bad equipment forced to get good reviews
Atkinson is one of a few left who if you read between the lines tells truth.
but if you point out in other ways his true findings well you get bashed
it’s not just audio that’s a complete corp takeover
it’s our lives. But this is for other threads.

What convinced me on MQA’s value add were two events. The first was Bob playing Peter McGrath’s files on Wilson Alexx speakers at the LA Show. There was a noticeable improvement in the MQA encoded files.

The second and more important test was listening to Peter’s files (both MQA and non-MQA files of his orchestral and choral works) on my home reference system. At home on both the Rossini and Mytek DACs, you can really hear more of the hall and a more natural presentation.

 

[Lee]

Lee, i respect your feelings regarding the attacks on your team. there is a fine line between dissing MQA, and making that personal toward proponents and connecting that to some sort of commercial interests. Stenho will tend find the dark side of stuff like that and mostly gets ignored. so don't take that too seriously.

personally i'm not a fan of Mr. Stewart between MQA and MLP, both of which i have never seen the positive side of. i do see his efforts to monetize these things as not in my best interests. his love affair with digitizing the signal path years ago with PCM was crossways with my views. although my first high end product 3 decades ago was a Meridian transport and dac, since then not much Meridian (other than their digital players) i've liked. but that does not push me to connect the press opinions with some sort of plot. but forums will inevitably go down that road.....it's what they do. just let it go.......

can MQA improve sound quality? not with the gear (MSB and Wadax) i use that i have so far heard. it tends to slightly soften dynamics and smear music focus in my system. might tame edgy systems though. no use for me. it's not 'bad'.....just not anything 'net' helpful.

Neither the Wadax nor MSB have optimized MQA implementations. That is likely what is causing the softness you are hearing. On Meridian, dCS, and Mytek implementations, it definitely makes a difference.

I hope you can visit me here in Atlanta one day and I can demonstrate the differences on the dCS Rossini.

 

[microstrip]

Introduction - Gy8

gy8.eu

Wow! Always learning ... Nothing to add. But if this is the future I think we will have a problem somewhere.

 

[microstrip]

That’s an interesting read. I can really relate to this particular passage having hired Jim Smith to voice my former system and David Karmeli to help set up and fine tune the system he sold me. I learned a lot in each case, and their efforts certainly resulted in better sound.

“At the upper end of the market, more and more customers will deal more closely with the manufacturers of the products they buy; more and more manufacturers will become increasingly involved in the installation and set up of their products; more and more often, the both manufacturers and customers will call on the experience and expertise of the emerging class of independent, set up specialists. It’s a whole new way of building a system, with a redistributed cost structure and responsibilities – but it’s also a sure route to significantly better sound.”

Although I recognize the contribution and value of such specialists, I do not see an "emerging class of independent, set up specialists" - I only see always the same half of a dozen, doing a great job, but becoming older and more focused.

IMHO the future is in the trend of developing equipment that delivers great performance in a reliable and confident way, due to its technical qualities and non fussy setup, as well as better understanding of the behavior of gear. The future must rely in qualified dealers, that sell several lines of equipment and use their experience and knowledge to set up systems their customers enjoy and can afford. The high end survives on a continuous human relationship and musical enjoyment, not in systems that need an accuracy of one millimeter and special blessings. Surely IMHO and YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

Neither the Wadax nor MSB have optimized MQA implementations. That is likely what is causing the softness you are hearing. On Meridian, dCS, and Mytek implementations, it definitely makes a difference.

I hope you can visit me here in Atlanta one day and I can demonstrate the differences on the dCS Rossini.

Yes, Lee, I can also confirm that MQA also sounds great on the dCS Vivaldi. But it although it is now dead subject, it always manages to poison threads.

 

[PeterA]

The future must rely in qualified dealers, that sell several lines of equipment and use their experience and knowledge to set up systems their customers enjoy and can afford.

I would replace the word “must“ with the word “might“. And even then, I doubt it. Among my friends in the Boston area I don’t know a single person who relied on a dealer to set up their systems except for me. And David is not a dealer in the conventional sense and he is certainly not local. So I’m describing eight systems none of which were sold by a single local dealer and set up by the dealer. The systems are all a hodgepodge of assembled gear from various sources all set up by their owners. Mine is the only one from a single source and no one would consider it a conventional high-end audio system.

I don’t know what the future of the industry is, but it will be different from the remnants of what we see now, in my opinion.

 

[Alrainbow]

Yes, Lee, I can also confirm that MQA also sounds great on the dCS Vivaldi. But it although it is now dead subject, it always manages to poison threads.

Sometimes honesty and reality must be called out.
soon the mqa debate in it’s not msb or wadax fault hahaha

 

[Gregadd]

Well the issue with MQA never been sound quality. The issue is having to have a license when you can open source an equal or superior format.
Oops! Did I just "poison this thread?" Maybe the eye doctor can wash "MQA of the back of my eyelids" when I see him on Tuesday.

 

[Sampajanna]

I don’t understand and perhaps never will why folks like Stehno have such stubborn views about an innovation like MQA. If you don’t like the sound then that is one thing and everyone is entitled to an opinion on it. But to slander good people like Robert Harley and John Atkinson is another. These are good people forming an opinion based on what their own ears heard with MQA. There were no commercial considerations. There is no MQA electronics brand and MQA as an entity barely advertises with our magazines. The apodizing filters were a genuine innovation as was the folding process.

The bottom line is that Robert Harley, Andy Quint, and myself have talked up MQA because we hear the sound quality improvement.

One of the big accusations was that MQA would implement DRM but after ten years of religious debate there is not a single instance of DRM.

Bob Stuart is a well-regarded scientist and audio engineer who created a good solution to bandwidth limitations.

Let me start by saying i subscribe to magazines and do enjoy reading some of them, but would NEVER follow their advice. In other words, I am one of your customers or potential customer types.

How would you respond to the real criticism that a magazine should not be 90% written by one man. I don’t know if that is due to a lack of staff or funds, but there is no way for a single human to review so many products well and offer meaningful help to us consumers, even though he is a good writer. It literally reads like adverticles, as do many “reviews.” Every article follows the same cookie-cutter formula: Humorous intro, specs and the manufacturer’s “features” followed by “sound,” without much detail on the music used, system or room and then “verdict,” which is always favorable. The nonsense that a selection process was used so only favorable reviews get print is rubbish. Negative reviews would go a long way towards establishing integrity and honesty that SO many audiophiles suspect is missing from publications. After all, as an audiophile I go to shows and visit friends and dealers and listen to many products in different settings. I like some, dislike others, love some and hate some. I think that is the experience of most audiophiles, so why don’t “reviewers” have similar experience? The “I only write about the good” spiel comes off as sketchy even if it is true. It betrays what most of us know: the relationship between adventisers and the products “reviewed” is suspect at best and corrupt at worst.

These articles also promote the idea that a product on its own is a block in a chain of blocks and ignore the influence of compatability, system as whole that is more than the sum of parts, room, music preferences… I prefer the magazines that include album reviews and the authors write about their love of music and albums they discovered and used in the review. That way I find new music instead of just reading a 100-page advertisement. I cancelled subscription to those, especially because 90% of the magazine is written by one person.

 

[Lee]

Let me start by saying i subscribe to magazines and do enjoy reading some of them, but would NEVER follow their advice. In other words, I am one of your customers or potential customer types.

How would you respond to the real criticism that a magazine should not be 90% written by one man. I don’t know if that is due to a lack of staff or funds, but there is no way for a single human to review so many products well and offer meaningful help to us consumers, even though he is a good writer. It literally reads like adverticles, as do many “reviews.” Every article follows the same cookie-cutter formula: Humorous intro, specs and the manufacturer’s “features” followed by “sound,” without much detail on the music used, system or room and then “verdict,” which is always favorable. The nonsense that a selection process was used so only favorable reviews get print is rubbish. Negative reviews would go a long way towards establishing integrity and honesty that SO many audiophiles suspect is missing from publications. After all, as an audiophile I go to shows and visit friends and dealers and listen to many products in different settings. I like some, dislike others, love some and hate some. I think that is the experience of most audiophiles, so why don’t “reviewers” have similar experience? The “I only write about the good” spiel comes off as sketchy even if it is true. It betrays what most of us know: the relationship between adventisers and the products “reviewed” is suspect at best and corrupt at worst.

These articles also promote the idea that a product on its own is a block in a chain of blocks and ignore the influence of compatability, system as whole that is more than the sum of parts, room, music preferences… I prefer the magazines that include album reviews and the authors write about their love of music and albums they discovered and used in the review. That way I find new music instead of just reading a 100-page advertisement. I cancelled subscription to those, especially because 90% of the magazine is written by one person.

I think you must be thinking of other magazines. Both TAS and Hi-Fi+ use multiple writers in every issue and always have.

We have discussed here and elsewhere why negative reviews don’t make any sense.

Our magazines promote how important system compatibility and setup are in almost every issue. Indeed, we included multiple articles on this subject in our recent Global Dealer Showcase.

 

[tima]

Negative reviews would go a long way towards establishing integrity and honesty that SO many audiophiles suspect is missing from publications.

I speak only for myself.

As a reader who is a reviewer, imo there are some mediocre poorly written reviews and a modicum of poor editing to be found on the Web. Nowadays anybody can slap a decal on his truck and call himself a contractor and anyone with a word processor and a Web site can call himself an audio publication. In the 21st century there has been an explosion of audio Web sites. Be selective in what you read. Yes, there are are a few reviewers who don't know how to critque a product fairly, pointing out both pluses and minuses; and a few writers who find hyperbole difficult to avoid. And yes there are readers who don't recognize criticism when they read it.

I agree that there is something of a standard review format: introduction, maybe some manufacturer history or design philosophy, clear product description and perhaps some technical detail, product setup and review system context, sonic description, brief compare and contrast with a similar component, and a conclusion or wrap up. I think it is a format that works and its broad adoption bears that out. Sometimes you don't want to break your reader's expectations for structure.

But I will challenge folks who require negative reviews to demonstrate integrity and honesty. Don't attribute an intent to deceive or mislead when faced with simple incompetence, lack of talent or lack of hard work.

Whether you find it 'sketchy' or not, I have no interest in writing about poorly performing components. I value my own time. There are plenty of excellent components to cover. I believe reviewers have no obligation to seek out mediocre products and tell people to avoid them.

If you want to find a product with a negative review, look instead for the product with no reviews or no forum buzz. Learn how to read advertising copy with scrutiny.

I definitely agree with you about describing products using music examples to backup generalized characterizations or to discover strengths and weaknesses. I am wary of reviews that talk only in broad terms without specific music examples. And there needs to be some detail about what you hear with a music example - "Lena's voice was clear and there was plenty of slam and smooth treble" doesn't cut it.

 

[ddk]

Wow! Always learning ... Nothing to add. But if this is the future I think we will have a problem somewhere.

This isn’t the future Francisco it’s really the past some of the current but not the the future IMO, this article is behind the curve by several decades. Maybe it was different in Europe but the importer/pseudo distributor direct retailer model has always been there in parts of Far East and Middle East as far back as I can remember for higher end brands and even mass market ones in some of these markets. In US Mark Levinson had his direct to consumer business from the start and established the Cello boutiques back in the 80’s. People like Mike Kay and Andy Singer really controlled the market here and internationally in some countries for several American and European brands, I established the same model here in the US back in 2000 when I moved back to US with Kharma, Weiss, Final Labs and several other brands with Kharma being the most successful. Contrary to this article the once industry stalwarts like JBL, McIntosh, Marantz, Grundig, Telefunken, etc. made little headway in the high end during its boom years starting from 70’s to around 2010. Almost all high end brands during this time were small cottage startups, even today. "Industry" is a relative term considering the market size.

We’ve had our exchanges over the likes of Harry Pearson and audiophile rags since I‘ve been on this forum, my own disagreement with these people goes back to the 90’s. Mr. Gregory is right about the corruption of high end magazines but what he doesn’t mention is the absolute ignorance of the so called reviewers who worked at TAS and Stereophile incredibly some of whom are considered specialists and mavens even today by unsuspecting audiophiles. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reviews out there just not many. This isn’t unique to high end everywhere you look there are myriads of these bullshitters in every industry and their numbers are growing with the internet just look at what‘s on youtube. I believe good high end magazines, print and digital can be valuable marketing tools and a place to find out about new products but what do we do about the actual industry that IMO outside a few for the most part is not producing anything worth buying. Sky rocketing prices is a different topic.

IMHO the future is in the trend of developing equipment that delivers great performance in a reliable and confident way, due to its technical qualities and non fussy setup, as well as better understanding of the behavior of gear. The future must rely in qualified dealers, that sell several lines of equipment and use their experience and knowledge to set up systems their customers enjoy and can afford. The high end survives on a continuous human relationship and musical enjoyment, not in systems that need an accuracy of one millimeter and special blessings. Surely IMHO and YMMV.

You’re contradicting yourself all over this paragraph!

True high end and high performance will always require expertise, the one millimeter accuracy you mention is what makes an expert special blessings, ie tweaks is the audiophile way who lack the expertise!

You don’t need to wait for the future to get your great nonfussy set up performer you already have this dream product, BOSE!

High end systems aren’t required to enjoy music 99.9999% of the world do it without, it’s high end that needs the music source to survive digital isn’t the answer it’s the end of it.

david

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Neither the Wadax nor MSB have optimized MQA implementations.

i'll take your word for it.

That is likely what is causing the softness you are hearing. On Meridian, dCS, and Mytek implementations, it definitely makes a difference.

maybe i'll be able to try an MQA compare at Axpona on one of those. honestly i did not attach much value to Bob's MQA demo on the Wilson's at the LA Show.....neither positive or negative. it was staged. figured later i would get a chance to hear it in my system. which i did, and still do.

I hope you can visit me here in Atlanta one day and I can demonstrate the differences on the dCS Rossini.

love to if i get down that way, Lee. thanks for the invite.

 

[microstrip]

This isn’t the future Francisco it’s really the past some of the current but not the the future IMO, this article is behind the curve by several decades. Maybe it was different in Europe but the importer/pseudo distributor direct retailer model has always been there in parts of Far East and Middle East as far back as I can remember for higher end brands and even mass market ones in some of these markets. In US Mark Levinson had his direct to consumer business from the start and established the Cello boutiques back in the 80’s. People like Mike Kay and Andy Singer really controlled the market here and internationally in some countries for several American and European brands, I established the same model here in the US back in 2000 when I moved back to US with Kharma, Weiss, Final Labs and several other brands with Kharma being the most successful. Contrary to this article the once industry stalwarts like JBL, McIntosh, Marantz, Grundig, Telefunken, etc. made little headway in the high end during its boom years starting from 70’s to around 2010. Almost all high end brands during this time were small cottage startups, even today. "Industry" is a relative term considering the market size.

I addressed mainly the situation in Europe. IMHO the US is no more the center of the high-end world - several manufacturers tell that their market is now mainly outside the US.

As far as I see it, good brands with good quality and good marketing skills managed to sail along the years in the market with success.

We’ve had our exchanges over the likes of Harry Pearson and audiophile rags since I‘ve been on this forum, my own disagreement with these people goes back to the 90’s. Mr. Gregory is right about the corruption of high end magazines but what he doesn’t mention is the absolute ignorance of the so called reviewers who worked at TAS and Stereophile incredibly some of whom are considered specialists and mavens even today by unsuspecting audiophiles. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t good reviews out there just not many. This isn’t unique to high end everywhere you look there are myriads of these bullshitters in every industry and their numbers are growing with the internet just look at what‘s on youtube. I believe good high end magazines, print and digital can be valuable marketing tools and a place to find out about new products but what do we do about the actual industry that IMO outside a few for the most part is not producing anything worth buying. Sky rocketing prices is a different topic.

Sorry I am not going to debate your vendetta on practices of the 80's . We have different opinions on what is good high-end, but we agree on the need for good established magazines.

You’re contradicting yourself all over this paragraph!

True high end and high performance will always require expertise, the one millimeter accuracy you mention is what makes an expert special blessings, ie tweaks is the audiophile way who lack the expertise!

Not at all, but I could have been more clear. Surely one millimeter accuracy can be important, but in such case must be objectively done by anyone skilled. In some sense high-end needs to be more predictable.

Tweaks are a valid way of entertainment and enjoyment in a subjective hobby.

You don’t need to wait for the future to get your great nonfussy set up performer you already have this dream product, BOSE!

High end systems aren’t required to enjoy music 99.9999% of the world do it without, it’s high end that needs the music source to survive digital isn’t the answer it’s the end of it.

david

I am an optimist. IMHO digital saved the high-end. We are living great days and WBF is a confirmation of it.

 

[Sampajanna]

I speak only for myself.

As a reader who is a reviewer, imo there are some mediocre poorly written reviews and a modicum of poor editing to be found on the Web. Nowadays anybody can slap a decal on his truck and call himself a contractor and anyone with a word processor and a Web site can call himself an audio publication. In the 21st century there has been an explosion of audio Web sites. Be selective in what you read. Yes, there are are a few reviewers who don't know how to critque a product fairly, pointing out both pluses and minuses; and a few writers who find hyperbole difficult to avoid. And yes there are readers who don't recognize criticism when they read it.

I agree that there is something of a standard review format: introduction, maybe some manufacturer history or design philosophy, clear product description and perhaps some technical detail, product setup and review system context, sonic description, brief compare and contrast with a similar component, and a conclusion or wrap up. I think it is a format that works and its broad adoption bears that out. Sometimes you don't want to break your reader's expectations for structure.

But I will challenge folks who require negative reviews to demonstrate integrity and honesty. Don't attribute an intent to deceive or mislead when faced with simple incompetence, lack of talent or lack of hard work.

Whether you find it 'sketchy' or not, I have no interest in writing about poorly performing components. I value my own time. There are plenty of excellent components to cover. I believe reviewers have no obligation to seek out mediocre products and tell people to avoid them.

If you want to find a product with a negative review, look instead for the product with no reviews or no forum buzz. Learn how to read advertising copy with scrutiny.

I definitely agree with you about describing products using music examples to backup generalized characterizations or to discover strengths and weaknesses. I am wary of reviews that talk only in broad terms without specific music examples. And there needs to be some detail about what you hear with a music example - "Lena's voice was clear and there was plenty of slam and smooth treble" doesn't cut it.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree with some of your views. I do read between the lines and have picked up on when a reviewer in a major mag is being critical, but I often wish they could just say what they mean outright. Why write in some double speak unless you are forced to by poor editing guidance? I don't think it is necessary to trash bad products. That is not what I meant by negative reviews. I guess I wasn't clear enough about that. I just meant a greater, clearer representation of products' strengths and weaknesses, as you also mentioned. Also, I think you can dislike something or prefer something else without dismissing the product completely, especially since that may be due to the surrounding components, room or musical preferences, or even due to one person's opinion. I like reviews with comparisons, lots of music references and great writing, not a magazine where most the reviews are written by the same guy with cut and paste product inserts like one of the magazines mentioned above.

I also think opinions are fine. I think an honest magazine can share the varying views of its authors. I don't know enough to comment too long or much, but I can say that magazine after magazine of great reviews of every dac, amp and speaker can be very misleading and costly for us, as it promotes the idea that this great X can be inserted into any system/room/music preference and do great things. "Buy it now if you need an X." It makes finding synergy and connection to the music you love and road you want to take all the more difficult, at least I see that as potential for those who see the magazines as more than entertainment. I would like it if the magazines more reflected the real terrain I navigate in forums, shows, friends' houses, dealers and real conversations I have. Maybe the rest could still be there, but be a spice. I dont think the "tried and true" recipe is always best. I would like to read more about long-term audiophile's journeys to get where they are, about who and where a product can be used and for what music. I would like to know some of its weaknesses and preferences of the author. And some reviewers do do all that, as you say. But not enough. Most conversations I have online or in person are negative towards the magazines. I read submitted letters at the beginning of mags enough to know that there are fans out there like me, but I resonated with the criticisms of the author this piece. There are issues with the review process and the real or perceived integrity between reviewers and manufacturers. If I was working as a reviewer, I would want to understand and address that, not in a people-pleasing kind of way, but in a better and better kind of way.... Just my two cents.

 

[Alrainbow]

You cant be critical of gear being reviewed let’s be honest man. Who would pay or keep using any magazine who was totally honest. once you get past this true comment all your left is cryptic messages. we are lucky to get this.
if anyone thinks it’s possible to be honest your fooling yourself period
even when we are honest here as I am I get ignored
so to ask for more is not possible
having said this there are levels to how bad lies go
also how skilled are the reviewers in setup or basic usage of the stuff.
has anyone used a vol control on a dAC fed into a active preamp in a review ? Has a reviewer made comments on the use of passive preamps over active ? during said reviews maybe some but most not.

 

[ddk]

I addressed mainly the situation in Europe. IMHO the US is no more the center of the high-end world - several manufacturers tell that their market is now mainly outside the US.

Far East and parts of Asia have been the main markets for Western brands for some time now.

As far as I see it, good brands with good quality and good marketing skills managed to sail along the years in the market with success.

Good brands don't necessarily make products. agree on the marketing skills

Sorry I am not going to debate your vendetta on practices of the 80's . We have different opinions on what is good high-end, but we agree on the need for good established magazines.

According to Mr. Gregory the same practices continue today I can't confirms since I stopped reading reviews since late 90's even if they were of my own products. Is there a print version of this article?

Not at all, but I could have been more clear. Surely one millimeter accuracy can be important, but in such case must be objectively done by anyone skilled. In some sense high-end needs to be more predictable.

Tweaks are a valid way of entertainment and enjoyment in a subjective hobby.





I am an optimist. IMHO digital saved the high-end. We are living great days and WBF is a confirmation of it.

How so? High end was extremely healthy when digital was introduced and it was 20 years before digital even became listenable!

I agree with you that streaming is the future but not for high end. Digital is mass access and success opposite of what analog high end is about and not just in audio.

david

 

[bonzo75]

As far as I see it, good brands with good quality and good marketing skills managed to sail along the years in the market with success.

Yes like Coke and Pepsi.

 

[wil]

You cant be critical of gear being reviewed let’s be honest man. Who would pay or keep using any magazine who was totally honest. once you get past this true comment all your left is cryptic messages. we are lucky to get this.
if anyone thinks it’s possible to be honest your fooling yourself period
even when we are honest here as I am I get ignored
so to ask for more is not possible
having said this there are levels to how bad lies go
also how skilled are the reviewers in setup or basic usage of the stuff.
has anyone used a vol control on a dAC fed into a active preamp in a review ? Has a reviewer made comments on the use of passive preamps over active ? during said reviews maybe some but most not.

Al, can you cite some examples of when you have ben honest, but ignored?