The audio reviewer's workload.
- Thread starter Fast/Forward
- Start date
This should go in my thread: "Post a picture, a Photograph, an Image, a Drawing, ... but Without Texts, no Words."
* Only referring to that animated photo; it is very cool.
________________
Myles, happy return!
Six months ? Honestly, when you know your system well, and it is a high resolution system, you will know most of what you want to know about a component after 2h of listening (provided you listen you your test playlist consisting of various music, not just a single CD). Some additional listening maybe handy, but most of the time will not change the initial impression.
Speakers are more tricky, as you need to spend extra time with placement (hate that part).
All that assuming all components are already broken in.
Speakers are more tricky, as you need to spend extra time with placement (hate that part).
All that assuming all components are already broken in.
I'm with you on this. 2 hours typically. Sometimes 2 minutes, worse case two days.
Why not 2 seconds?
I'm sorry but what the ear initially likes rarely holds true with extended listening. Just saying....
Or what it dislikes.
Take notes of your observation after an hour or two days...then do the same in two months or longer. They won't be the same.
I need some time with a piece of gear for two reasons. First is that having it for a longer time helps strip away predispositions. So no "crush" stage or whatever might be the opposite of that where you might key in to where it falls short. The second is that I make it a point to use the piece under different system configurations since it's the only way I can get a feel for what that particular piece might be contributing consistently to the overall sound. Just using it in one system configuration doesn't tell me as much about it as I would like. All I'd get from that is that the device worked or didn't within that very narrow context. Now if one is just a consumer, that narrow context is all that matters. If you are a dealer however you need to have a good idea of what your product's limitations are. One bad recommendation can break your reputation. I imagine it is the same for a reviewer. You just can't "get" a single product's sound from using it in just one configuration even if you know that system very well because it just might behave differently in another one. Maybe not much but differently all the same.
I'll let the professionals duke this one out, but I do have a few observations, having worked as a lawyer in various areas of publishing (music, books, etc.) for decades (and having done my share of analytical writing, research and having been published in the form of various monographs, contributions to books, essays, studies and the like in my field for decades. I also write occasionally for amusement and get published every once in a while):
1. Equipment set up and burn-in: I would think this could take weeks;
2. Optimizing the gear in the system- I would assume that some gear works better with the 'right' associated components; also, I would assume that changing even one component may require commensurate changes in other parts of the system to obtain the best sound from it. Perhaps moving the speakers, changing the cables, whatever.
3. Tube gear is often tested with the factory supplied tubes, but it isn't unusual, in cases where the component contemplates tube rolling, e.g. VAC, or Einstein, to experiment with different tube complements.
4. Finding time to listen using a variety of source material, and sources. I'm assuming most reviewers have a 'day job' so uninterrupted time to spend with the gear, even after it has been burned in and the system optimized means devoting several hours to concentrated listening. And, I would assume a thorough review isn't just based on initial impressions, but repeated listening, over several sessions.
5. Converting notes or thoughts to a draft, and editing the document takes time.
6. All of this assumes that the reviewing process is not interrupted by other reviewing deadlines, equipment glitches, further research- not just discussions with the manufacturer but perhaps more in-depth research into the circuit or mechanical design. (I'm assuming here that a reviewer is doing real journalism, not just reciting from the PR materials supplied by the manufacturer). If there are problems with the gear, that adds another dimension to the review process. Is that an anomaly?
I assume the reviewer discloses that Sample A failed, and a Sample B was supplied. And to what extent does the reviewer have an ethical obligation to ensure that the samples reflect actual production? (A rhetorical question, one I know has been debated).
7. Are there any lab tests or other measurements? Perhaps some testing can be done by the reviewer personally, but I would assume that in some cases, additional help is needed here.
8. How many components are on a reviewers 'plate' at a given time and under what time constraints- e.g. the reviewer may be in the midst of working on a review on component X but have a chance to review a loaner of a new piece of gear only by dropping everything to turn to that within a shorter time window before returning to the review on the original component.
9. I want longer term impressions as a reader, not just first blush stuff. At first blush, we might be taken in by particular attributes that the unit does well, but over the longer haul, used with a variety of components, some things become evident that may not be apparent at first.
To concretize this, the speaker I use (an Avantgarde Duo) sounds pretty nasty out of the box. It has to burn in, it has to be set up just so in the room, and requires associated gear to maximize its performance. For me to get that nailed actually took months. And I was just fiddling with my system for my personal use, not trying to write a review that presented some form of unvarnished truth.
1. Equipment set up and burn-in: I would think this could take weeks;
2. Optimizing the gear in the system- I would assume that some gear works better with the 'right' associated components; also, I would assume that changing even one component may require commensurate changes in other parts of the system to obtain the best sound from it. Perhaps moving the speakers, changing the cables, whatever.
3. Tube gear is often tested with the factory supplied tubes, but it isn't unusual, in cases where the component contemplates tube rolling, e.g. VAC, or Einstein, to experiment with different tube complements.
4. Finding time to listen using a variety of source material, and sources. I'm assuming most reviewers have a 'day job' so uninterrupted time to spend with the gear, even after it has been burned in and the system optimized means devoting several hours to concentrated listening. And, I would assume a thorough review isn't just based on initial impressions, but repeated listening, over several sessions.
5. Converting notes or thoughts to a draft, and editing the document takes time.
6. All of this assumes that the reviewing process is not interrupted by other reviewing deadlines, equipment glitches, further research- not just discussions with the manufacturer but perhaps more in-depth research into the circuit or mechanical design. (I'm assuming here that a reviewer is doing real journalism, not just reciting from the PR materials supplied by the manufacturer). If there are problems with the gear, that adds another dimension to the review process. Is that an anomaly?
I assume the reviewer discloses that Sample A failed, and a Sample B was supplied. And to what extent does the reviewer have an ethical obligation to ensure that the samples reflect actual production? (A rhetorical question, one I know has been debated).
7. Are there any lab tests or other measurements? Perhaps some testing can be done by the reviewer personally, but I would assume that in some cases, additional help is needed here.
8. How many components are on a reviewers 'plate' at a given time and under what time constraints- e.g. the reviewer may be in the midst of working on a review on component X but have a chance to review a loaner of a new piece of gear only by dropping everything to turn to that within a shorter time window before returning to the review on the original component.
9. I want longer term impressions as a reader, not just first blush stuff. At first blush, we might be taken in by particular attributes that the unit does well, but over the longer haul, used with a variety of components, some things become evident that may not be apparent at first.
To concretize this, the speaker I use (an Avantgarde Duo) sounds pretty nasty out of the box. It has to burn in, it has to be set up just so in the room, and requires associated gear to maximize its performance. For me to get that nailed actually took months. And I was just fiddling with my system for my personal use, not trying to write a review that presented some form of unvarnished truth.
It took me months to dial in my system as well. I suppose that comes with the territory with anything in which the full potentials are being sought. A snap review would in my mind be like taking a car on a test drive and going full speed into a corner while hoping for the best. LOL.
+1.
it took 6 years to figure out and dial in my new room after it was built.
then i got new amps and speakers and it has changed significantly every month for 6 months. i seem to have the full measure of it and then some small things takes me to another place.
so first impressions are not likely to be complete (they could be correct, only lacking in degrees). the higher the resolution the more time it takes to get to the bottom of what gear can do.
I think reviews should be regarded at best more or less ad hoc impressions from an experienced (and hopefully trustworthy) set of ears rather than unvarnished truth. If all of those criteria were met, it would be impossible and too lengthy to write any kind of review. By the time a review came out, it would be past time for the next FOTM anyway.
Preferences shift day to day, week to week, moods alter, biorhythms alternate with gremlins and bliss, there are infinite permutations in each set up. Each piece of music represents a thousand different paths, each time you hear it you take a different one.
I find it hard enough juggling my own set up, much less inserting a foreign piece and then commenting on it with perhaps other foreign pieces randomly tossed into the mix. I do find that eventually my own preferences tend to mold the sound within a certain limiting framework or frequency balance etc.
Preferences shift day to day, week to week, moods alter, biorhythms alternate with gremlins and bliss, there are infinite permutations in each set up. Each piece of music represents a thousand different paths, each time you hear it you take a different one.
I find it hard enough juggling my own set up, much less inserting a foreign piece and then commenting on it with perhaps other foreign pieces randomly tossed into the mix. I do find that eventually my own preferences tend to mold the sound within a certain limiting framework or frequency balance etc.
You're right Carl and hell your system sounds different from hour to hour and day to day. You should hear my friend's system. Despite everything he's done, don't listen to his system on Sunday from 10-12 AM when everyone in his building is home. Then miraculously, his system starts to sound better at 12:30 PM.
Yup. It just makes sense to try and get the most out of anything one has. That takes time. I would expect any reviewer worth his salt to do the same.
Interesting post, Mike. But surely you knew the essence of the sound of the gear you bought after a certain period of time. 85%? 95%? Otherwise, no one would ever pull the trigger.
I tend to try out my new components the same way buy installing them into two systems at home. Both systems have a line stage by the same manufacturer which I feel at least gives a ground zero point to evaluate and to try to find compatibility or synergy. I have used headphones a lot as well to remove the room as a factor but this does not give the same results when factors of imaging or sound stage come into play. The second system is in the living/dining room and unfortunately is not optimally placed for the factors above to come into play for a truer comparison.
I have not yet had a component placed into two different systems (or more) at a dealer. I had asked this once to be done at a dealer and just got rolled eyes as a response. No sale that day!
Not to mention that moving cables affects their sound for 24 hours.
This phenomena with cables drove me nuts! A laserdisc player when occasionally installed into my main system was connected with ICs which were normally installed into a universal disc player, needed to be rerouted and seemed to have a need to break in each time. One day I decided to "dress" all the cables (Virtual Dynamics - so I needed the day) properly. I dotted the i's and crossed the cables like t's and had a WTF moment after powering everything up. It took two to three days for the sound to return to it's previous state.
Similar threads
