The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.

[Ron Party]

Surely, half the point of being involved in a hobby is never being content with it.

I hope you didn't mean that literally. I mean, "never"? Otherwise, what's the point? Constantly needing change? Forever pursuing better, or at least, different sound? Sounds more like an addict chasing the next high.

I'm with Terry. If I'm on an endless pursuit of upgrades, then I'm listening to the gear, not the music.

 

[audioguy]

I'm with Terry. If I'm on an endless pursuit of upgrades, then I'm listening to the gear, not the music.

Totally agree. OR, as you said, need to invest some serious time in a 12 Step Program !

 

[amirm]

I hope the *learning* about the hobby never stops.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I hope the *learning* about the hobby never stops.

Exactly! And I'm a learning by doing kinda guy!

 

[Alan Sircom]

I get a kick out of the "gear crazies" that always say "it's all about the music"....R-I-I-I-I-GHT!

It's a curious thing, but it's rare to find an audio gearhead who admits he's a gearhead. I think that's unique; wander into a gearhead PC forum everyone is proud of their gearhead status, and say you are happy with your unmodified Dell and you are but chum to the forum sharks.

In fairness, most audio folk have a good music collection too. But only by 'normal' standards. I can only name a couple of people in audio who could hold their head up in a record collector forum. Then again, you have so many unplayed records that it would take you until you were 157 years old to listen to them to make the grade in most of them!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Not only do they dump upbeat praise on virtually every product they review, they continue to extol the virtues of the 2010 equivalents of goof ball products like the Tice Clock and lose whatever credibility was left to any new reader (and potential high end audiophile) that may pick up one of the magazines.

A lot of people want to believe in magic, and Stereophile is glad to oblige. I agree that the most egregious misuse of whatever authority they may have is defending obvious nonsense products. I have seen many products as ridiculous as the Tice Clock promoted by their editors, including in their own forum. Not just products that cannot be shown to work, but products that cannot possibly work unless the laws of physics are repealed. For example, too-small acoustic treatment products and "demagnetizers" for vinyl records and CDs.

Years ago I had dealings with an unethical and/or incompetent vendor. It was unrelated to audio but the principles apply universally. At some point it doesn't matter if the cause is dishonesty or incompetence. Either way the customer (in this case, the trusting reader) loses.

I will half-defend Stereophile on one point though:

Everyone thinks the lack of negative reviews is due to a lack of integrity. Could there possibly be another reason (s)? I can thing of quite a few.

Years ago I contributed to a non-audio magazine that never printed a negative review. When I asked the editor why they never say bad things, the answer I got was reasonable and made sense. He told me there are so many good products that deserve praise and exposure, their policy is simply to not review bad products! And if a product looks cool at first but they discover it's a POS when they get it, they will not do the review as planned.

Now, John Atkinson once told me that Stereophile does not work that way. He said that once they commit to a review they go ahead and publish their findings regardless. However, I'm quite sure this is not true. I can post a link to a pathetic tedious thread as proof if anyone cares.

--Ethan

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I can point to several different products with a similarly valid - but very different - claim to neutrality. None of them make a claim for a 'house sound' but none of them go after the same neutrality goals.

You're going to have to point to them, then, and describe for me what these different neutrality goals are, because while I accept that neutrality is illusive in transducers, I'm under the impression that it is pretty well-defined, and pretty easily verified in electronics. But I could be missing something...

Of course you don't need to compare a product against all its peers. But you should at least include a listening test. It's taken you this long to admit that you have performed such tests. Why? Do you consider them a confirmatory exercise, or a key part of the evaluation process?

It has taken me no time to "admit" that I listen. I've said from the beginning that I order gear, listen to it in my own system and send back that which does not earn it's keep. Why do you find this challenging? It is nothing more than a shopping and testing methodology born of necessity. It works for me. You have access to plenty of high-end gear, and no need to adopt it.

Surely, half the point of being involved in a hobby is never being content with it. My system, and my record collection, is in a constant state of work in progress because that's the fun part.

Depends on what your hobby is, I suppose. For years, mine was collecting records, then CDs, playing, recording, listening to and learning about different kinds of music and slowly upgrading the instuments and systems I used for all of the above. Then the last part evolved into in interest in headphones and headphone systems. Then it evolved into an interest in active speaker systems. Then it evolved into an interest in the computer as source.

The last few stages addressed, for me, many of the challenges of the first 40 years, and so yes, I'm content for now, perhaps for years. This is a good thing, is it not?

Given that your next post will be your 250th and your joining date was last month, you can hardly claim cool detachment from audio. So, what's the story?

Not much of a story, really. I am contented with my current systems; they started evolving toward that state several years ago and are close enough for all practical purposes. But I just can't turn off the desire to think about it and talk about it after 40 years. And I'm semi-retired. I have the time.

Cool detachment? Good Lord no. I'm neither cool nor detached when it comes to audio. I have very strong feelings on the subject, as I'm sure you've noticed, in less than 250 posts.

P

 

[MylesBAstor]

A lot of people want to believe in magic, and Stereophile is glad to oblige. I agree that the most egregious misuse of whatever authority they may have is defending obvious nonsense products. I have seen many products as ridiculous as the Tice Clock promoted by their editors, including in their own forum. Not just products that cannot be shown to work, but products that cannot possibly work unless the laws of physics are repealed. For example, too-small acoustic treatment products and "demagnetizers" for vinyl records and CDs.

Years ago I had dealings with an unethical and/or incompetent vendor. It was unrelated to audio but the principles apply universally. At some point it doesn't matter if the cause is dishonesty or incompetence. Either way the customer (in this case, the trusting reader) loses.

I will half-defend Stereophile on one point though:



Years ago I contributed to a non-audio magazine that never printed a negative review. When I asked the editor why they never say bad things, the answer I got was reasonable and made sense. He told me there are so many good products that deserve praise and exposure, their policy is simply to not review bad products! And if a product looks cool at first but they discover it's a POS when they get it, they will not do the review as planned.

Now, John Atkinson once told me that Stereophile does not work that way. He said that once they commit to a review they go ahead and publish their findings regardless. However, I'm quite sure this is not true. I can post a link to a pathetic tedious thread as proof if anyone cares.

--Ethan

With a disgruntled manufacturer and lots of innuendos? The web is famous for that. You don't believe your ears but everything written on the web is gospel. Hmmm... Try and trace the source and there isn't any. Like the anonymous teamate who says...

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Now, John Atkinson once told me that Stereophile does not work that way. He said that once they commit to a review they go ahead and publish their findings regardless. However, I'm quite sure this is not true. I can post a link to a pathetic tedious thread as proof if anyone cares.
--Ethan

Sure. AFAIK, the rule applies. The only exception I have seen is when the manufacturer fails to supply a functional unit.

 

[terryj]

I hope the *learning* about the hobby never stops.

amen amirm ahem (haha bit of rapping as I type)

And applying it.

It is not the usual audiophile way tho, to them (and very apropos to this thread) it is the 'latest and greatest', ie SWAP a piece of kit.

Are we to say that is wrong? It is the bread and butter of the industry, the turnover needs to happen, else the industry would die.

Yep, than that audiophile gets on the net armed, with what he thinks is knowledge, then the fights happen.

I don't particularly consider a magpie knowledgable. Sure, he has collected many a pretty object over the years for his nest, but a magpie only picks what looks good to him really.

I am always on the lookout for something I've never considered before, something I can try and see whether or not it works for me. Most, I find, are there simply to pick and choose whatever little tidbit they can that backs up their pre existing viewpoint.

Having an argument on the net about audio? Well then, do a google search to find someone else's opinion that you agree with, then use that to back up your case.

Human nature. Ever gone and borrowed a book from the library and find some other (arrogant...as if we think his opinions are worthwhile) borrower has underlined passges or made comments in the margins?? They are either things he already agrees with or things he already strongly disagrees with. In other words, he is NOT reading the book to see where the arguments lead, so he can evaluate the argument or possibly find new ways of thinking about things.

I LOVE the new viewpoint, the things I had never considered before. They are the source of enjoyment and satisfaction for me, to have learned something new. To see a familiar old thing in a completely new light.

Early days yet, depending on what I find out soon, but I think I am going to give a very big thankyou to DonH50 for an insight he gave yesterday, been checking it out last night and boy, am I excited!!!!

Yep, things like that are pure gold.

 

[jazdoc]

OK, I'll take the bait and be the non-reviewer to 'defend' the audio press!

IMO, the function of the audio press is not to tell the consumer what to purchase. Rather its function is to educate and review a variety of equipment so the consumer can make their own choice.

By way of (long-winded) analogy, let's compare audiophiles and investors. Some 'investors' react to the latest news on CNBC and call their brokers hot to purchase their taxi drivers latest stock tip. They churn 'investments', typically with lousy returns and then blame the market for being rigged. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, "calling these folks 'investors' is akin to calling a young Cassanova who engages in a series of one night stands romantic". True investors ignore the latest trends and do their research. They realize that a stock analyst can only provide rudimentary information supplied by the companies they cover. They will read the annual reports, 10-Ks and proxies. They will do the same homework to understand that company's competitors. They purchase securities they understand and reduce their trading costs. True investors sleep well at night.

Some 'audiophiles' purchase equipment based on the latest reviews. They furiously buy and sell equipment and yet are always just one upgrade away from happiness. They may become embittered and lose interest in music. They are outraged when a reviewer writes a less than glowing review of a product they own. They blame the crooked reviewers and stereo magazine publishers who become rich at their expense. Other audiophiles use magazine reviews in conjunction with other resources to expand their knowledge base and develop a screen for equipment upgrades. They audition any equipment prior to purchase, preferably in their system (and are willing to pay for the expense of the audition). They rarely purchase equipment that does not provide long-term satisfaction. They understand the importance of developing an internal standard and attend live performances. These audiophiles typically are satisfied with their systems and upgrade infrequently; usually with good results. They rarely note what a reviewer says about a piece of equipment they own unless a trusted reviewer has found a previously unknown synergy. They spend their money on software rather than equipment and spend their time enjoying music.

Are their conflicts of interest in the audio reviewing 'industry'...of course. As a consumer, I recognize that these conflicts likely exist and I take all reviewers opinions with a grain of salt. I read Stereophile, TAS and HiFi+ and believe I have some understanding of the various reviewers biases. That said I own several pieces of equipment that have never been reviewed. While I'd love to see those manufacturers reach a larger audience via a mainstream audio press review, lack thereof causes me no distress. And yes, I rarely change equipment. My Galibier Stelvio/Triplanar/Dynavector replaced a 20 year old Linn system. My new preamp will replace a 8 year old BAT. My current Einstein amplifier replaced 7 year old Levinsons and my Daedalus Ulysses upgraded 15 year old Watt/Puppies. OK, I recently purchased a Talea tonearm which replaced the Triplanar as my stereo tonearm and it was only 3 years old -- my equivalent to a 'day trade'

As I don my asbestos undergarments, let the flames begin!

 

[Alan Sircom]

You're going to have to point to them, then, and describe for me what these different neutrality goals are, because while I accept that neutrality is illusive in transducers, I'm under the impression that it is pretty well-defined, and pretty easily verified in electronics. But I could be missing something...

Very well. None of the Japanese amp manufacturers forward a 'house sound' concept. So, does a Denon sound like an Onkyo sound like a Rotel sound like a TEAC sound like a Yamaha? Do any of these sound like a Bryston, or a Cambridge Audio, a Parasound or a Quad? They have consistent, repeatable and distinctive 'signatures'. Of course, if you hold that all amplifiers sound the same when working within their operating limits, then they will all sound the same no matter how different they are. But, if that's the case, surely the whole 'house sound' argument disappears in a puff of logic, too.

It has taken me no time to "admit" that I listen. I've said from the beginning that I order gear, listen to it in my own system and send back that which does not earn it's keep. Why do you find this challenging? It is nothing more than a shopping and testing methodology born of necessity. It works for me. You have access to plenty of high-end gear, and no need to adopt it.

There's nothing wrong with this back end of your methodology. What's wrong is the front end (the selection process you mentioned earlier) appears logically inconsistent.

Depends on what your hobby is, I suppose. For years, mine was collecting records, then CDs, playing, recording, listening to and learning about different kinds of music and slowly upgrading the instuments and systems I used for all of the above. Then the last part evolved into in interest in headphones and headphone systems. Then it evolved into an interest in active speaker systems. Then it evolved into an interest in the computer as source.

The last few stages addressed, for me, many of the challenges of the first 40 years, and so yes, I'm content for now, perhaps for years. This is a good thing, is it not?

It clearly is for you. It is not for everyone, as some of us are still interested to see what comes next. I am still not content with my music collection, and I hope that the day I'm finally content with it is the last day I draw breath, because if it isn't, it will like a big part of me died anyway. And I'm a gearhead about several things. I change my lenses every other production cycle, not because they are worn out, not because the new ones are particularly better that the old, but simply because I enjoy the collecting part of that hobby as much as I do taking pictures. What is it about audiophiles that they consider this some kind of mortal sin (in public, at least)?

Not much of a story, really. I am contented with my current systems; they started evolving toward that state several years ago and are close enough for all practical purposes. But I just can't turn off the desire to think about it and talk about it after 40 years. And I'm semi-retired. I have the time.

Cool detachment? Good Lord no. I'm neither cool nor detached when it comes to audio. I have very strong feelings on the subject, as I'm sure you've noticed, in less than 250 posts.

P

But you appear to advocate doing as you say, not as you did. Some are still happily on the journey. The 'are we there yet' excitement is from the anticipation of the next big thing, regardless of whether or not it turns out to be nothing of the sort. I would hate to lose that starry-eyed excitement of what's next, in any of my passions. It would seem such a grey way to draw things to a close.

And to my mind, that's the biggest problem quality audio faces today. A generation of audio buyers who have just lost the spark, maybe through making wrong turns (we've all done that... I went through Olympus, Pentax and Canon SLRs before settling for Nikon... for now), maybe through price creep, watching the pinnacle of aspiration slip away from the hands of anyone apart from the billionaire, from what they perceive as an emphasis on the wrong thing* or just slowly having that spark dim over the years. That, and future generations of potential audio buyer who seem actively disinterested in the whole audio experience.

*From experience, the wrong thing to an audiophile means everything that isn't their key interest at that time. I've received enough letters and emails about any given issue of the magazine has simultaneously way too much and far too little coverage of a topic to suspect any different.

 

[caesar]

I will half-defend Stereophile on one point though:



Years ago I contributed to a non-audio magazine that never printed a negative review. When I asked the editor why they never say bad things, the answer I got was reasonable and made sense. He told me there are so many good products that deserve praise and exposure, their policy is simply to not review bad products! And if a product looks cool at first but they discover it's a POS when they get it, they will not do the review as planned.


--Ethan

I think this statement is very true. If you see something in any audio magazine, it has been listened to at a show or at a dealer and someone from the magazine liked it. If you don't see it in an audio magazine, it probably sucks.

Why directly put some audio manufacturer our of business with a bad review? Let them just "fade away" on their own.

 

[caesar]

Occasionally, when the product is so outstanding that you need to make a statement that steps outside the day-to-day reviewing, you are duty bound to make a definitive statement. This year, I've made those statements about the Ayre QB-9 and the Magico Q5, because I think both set a benchmark that all high-end products in those categories should be measured against at this time. I reserve the right to make a few more.

What products did you compare the Ayre Dac to? I know that product very, very well. There is nothing as good at its price point. But the BEST? Please!! What are you smoking there in the UK? The dCS Debussy blows it away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that is not even the best of dCS.

 

[Alan Sircom]

What products did you compare the Ayre Dac to? I know that product very, very well. There is nothing as good at its price point. But the BEST? Please!! What are you smoking there in the UK? The dCS Debussy blows it away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that is not even the best of dCS.

Please re-read what I said. The Ayre is a benchmark (perhaps not the best choice of words, given the DAC competition) to be measured against. A meter-long benchmark isn't chosen because it's the best meter-long ruler around, but because it allows you to establish a baseline. Ideally, I feel you need to set upper, lower and midline benchmarks, especially in audio where setting 'the best' as your one and only benchmark often ends with products that are so expensive as to make the process pointless. The Ayre represents that midline.

The Q5, by way of contrast, represents my upper limit benchmark for loudspeakers at this time.

For the record, we did test this against the dCS Puccini and U-Clock in the same issue and the dCS was better than the Ayre, although I can't help feeling not so much better as to justify the additional cost. The Debussy would be a better comparison, but it was still on dCS's test bench at the time of publication.

 

[caesar]

Please re-read what I said. The Ayre is a benchmark (perhaps not the best choice of words, given the DAC competition) to be measured against. A meter-long benchmark isn't chosen because it's the best meter-long ruler around, but because it allows you to establish a baseline. Ideally, I feel you need to set upper, lower and midline benchmarks, especially in audio where setting 'the best' as your one and only benchmark often ends with products that are so expensive as to make the process pointless. The Ayre represents that midline.

The Q5, by way of contrast, represents my upper limit benchmark for loudspeakers at this time.

For the record, we did test this against the dCS Puccini and U-Clock in the same issue and the dCS was better than the Ayre, although I can't help feeling not so much better as to justify the additional cost. The Debussy would be a better comparison, but it was still on dCS's test bench at the time of publication.

Thanks for qualifying your definition of "benchmark". (I just googled the definition of "benchmark", and the first definition is the "best'. However, it may be a cultural thing.) With this defintion, I completely agree with you about the Ayre.

I think out of all of the magazines, The Absolute Sound is the only one that breaks components into price categories and lists the better components for that price point. Stereophile, on the other hand, would have a $3k or a $5K piece in the same "Class A" bucket as a $29K piece. Just dumb.

 

[Steve williams]

But Caeser

Not everything which is most expensive is necessarily the best. This is the premise upon which we built this site. So not so sure that I agree with you

 

[FrantzM]

I think out of all of the magazines, The Absolute Sound is the only one that breaks components into price categories and lists the better components for that price point. Stereophile, on the other hand, would have a $3k or a $5K piece in the same "Class A" bucket as a $29K piece. Just dumb.

Caesar

I take exception to the last part of your post... What should the more expensive products be the best? There are countless examples of inexpensive products outperforming extremely expensive ones ... The list is very long of almost-budget priced components beating the crap out of more expensive models .. This very notion of "Price Class" is what is killing slowly this industry. I'll stop there because the thread is not about component price

 

[caesar]

easy, guys! I am looking for value as much as anyone out there - I am as value conscious as anyone out there in terms of all the purchases I make, not just audio.

But let me give you 2 examples that I personally experienced in my system. First is bat Vk-3i preamp. An amazing piece that hits way above its price point. But it is nowhere near the VK51se or the rex or the CJ Act 2 or Arc Ref 3. Another is the Ayre V5 amp. Is it a great amp? Yes. But the Ayre V1 SMOKES IT!!! So rating the V5 as class A is misleading at best.

Should they be in the same category? Personally, I - and many, many, many others - find it confusing. I would prefer categories based on price point (as Mr. Sircom clarified and as TAS currently does) and a single file ranking of components based on value with a rationale behind the rankings as HiFi Critic does.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I think there might be some confusion here. I don't go for price classes, particularly. The trouble is I don't think there is a simple solution. Any kind of ranking system is prone to problems, IMO. There is always a call for one, because people want to buy the best, or more accurately the best they can afford. This simple and obvious drive can wreck the whole schema.

If you have Good, Better and Best without price categories, the instinctual assumption is to go for the products that you can afford in the next class up, rather than buy the best product you can afford. The two are not necessarily identical. OTOH, if you have the same with price bands, you risk making artificial price strata.

A perfect example of this in the UK arena was the Pioneer A-400 amplifier (early 1990s). It was a remarkably good, inexpensive amplifier, but one that only showed how good it was when partnered way out of context. For example, the A-400 would shine when used with a Rock turntable with a good MC cartridge, a Wadia CD player, a Michell Iso phono stage and Townshend Glastonbury loudspeakers, a package that cost something in the region of 30x as much as the amplifier. In that context, it was better than almost any amplifier on the market. Use it with products in its same price range and it sounded worse than many of its rivals. If you set this product in a simple ranking system, where do you place it?