The reviewer's reviewing system.
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I think one has to be mindful of reviewer systems and sound preferences. But over time, one gets familiar with reviewer's style and honesty to the sound experienced. I tend to place more faith in reviewer's whose experience matches mine with a product. But I still only use them as a guideline and seek to shorten the stack of gear to audition.
I don't what you are yelling at me for. I have listened to the ML twice in blind tests and found them to sound really poor compared to the other loudspeakers. I had no idea which loudspeaker was which when I voted. You said these measure poorly and sound good. Well, it didn't work out in my case. Nor with a much larger population who took the same test and found the same outcome.Excuse me. Sure. Whatever you say. It must be true.
Based on that statement, there was something very wrong with the controlled tests.
As an example, why do you think the ML Montis has received repeated rave reviews and cited as a trully spectacular speaker system for the money?
And why don't you ask Myles why he had the ML Summits as his reference speaker for years?
And why don't you ask Mr. Ron Resnik regarding his opinion of Martin Logans versus the other current SOTA speakers he's recently auditioned?
And why does Jonathan Valin have the CLX as one of his reference speakers?
And why did the recent TAS review of the Monolith read as it did.
What a silly, naive thing to say Mr. Moderator.
Oh I know, they're all wrong.
This doesn't mean others in ad-hoc evaluations dislike them. The company is very successful and has sold many loudspeakers. What they are not, is a test case that bad measuring loudspeaker generates good sound when we have controlled testing that shows otherwise. That's all.
BTW this was not the monolith. I have only heard them at RMAF playing lousy music and so left with no impression.
Indeed. http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/#QT3IuARsvDVwf4wV.97
"It doesn't seem possible that it's been almost four years since Halcro exploded onto our radar screens, the dm58 emblazoned on that issue's cover alongside the banner headline "THE BEST AMPLIFIER EVER!"
I think we have to accept that the whole subjective review system is broken, as are ad-hoc observations from vast majority of audiophiles. So there, shoot me.
Indeed. http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/#QT3IuARsvDVwf4wV.97
"It doesn't seem possible that it's been almost four years since Halcro exploded onto our radar screens, the dm58 emblazoned on that issue's cover alongside the banner headline "THE BEST AMPLIFIER EVER!"
I think we have to accept that the whole subjective review system is broken, as are ad-hoc observations from vast majority of audiophiles. So there, shoot me.
Bang.
I don't think it is broken completely. I think there just needs to be more recognition that it is a guideline.
"the Halcro (on my Watt/Puppy 6s) were the fastest, most detailed and transparent amps i have heard; amazing detail and extension.....very neutral....could be too lean in some systems. with the right system absolutely fantastic (maybe a tube preamp)."
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/edge-vs-boulder-vs-halcro
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/edge-vs-boulder-vs-halcro
I think it is a perfectly reasonable expectation to have, that a reviewer of high end gear...and particularly of some of the highest priced gear, have ancillary gear commensurate with the gear under review. The speaker rep that I mentioned in my OP believed that the reason that his speakers were not fully appreciated, was due to the fact that the reviewer's upstream gear wasn't resolving enough to do the speakers justice. Since, i know the reviewer ( and his gear make up/room) of whom he spoke, I would have to agree with him 100%. As to how seriously we take these reviews, well I think the manufacturer's take them very seriously. Rightly so IMHO, as I think we can all remember instances where the 'rare' luke warm review has sunk a product.
I am not familiar with the review or TJN's system - would you mind filling in all the details, including language in the review.
Indeed. http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/#QT3IuARsvDVwf4wV.97
"It doesn't seem possible that it's been almost four years since Halcro exploded onto our radar screens, the dm58 emblazoned on that issue's cover alongside the banner headline "THE BEST AMPLIFIER EVER!"
I think we have to accept that the whole subjective review system is broken, as are ad-hoc observations from vast majority of audiophiles. So there, shoot me.
Except for the fact that the Halcro's are probably the best measuring amps ever...
And I thought the blind test system had already been debunked for planar dipoles, which really can't sound good under those testing parameters. I hope people don't really think that no planar dipoles are good speakers...
You say that as if the better something measures, the worse it must sound. If so, that is completely backward. The better something measures, the higher you need to climb to say it sounds bad. After all, the former is verifiable, your subjective stance in ad-hoc listening, not so much. Fortunately the data that is related to the context of this thread shows otherwise: http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ck-power-amplifier-page-2#bVds3Og4BFZ5vthh.97
"To establish a baseline without having to repeat several pages' worth of superlatives, I refer the reader to Paul Bolin's listening impressions of the dm58 in the October 2002 issue: "The dynamics, purity, and total transparency were beyond anything in my prior experience." Check. "Transcendentally neutral." Check. "I was hearing...the unalloyed sound of the music as recorded." Check. Silence, reproduction of the tiniest detail, superb soundstaging, "dynamics that mere mortal amps cannot manage"—all were there with the dm88 Reference, as they'd been with the dm58. In fact, with regards to these aspects of their performance—in my system and room—the two amps were all but indistinguishable."
"But on the new playing field, where neutrality, precision, speed, clarity, etc., are all givens, the dm88 Reference is as revolutionary as the dm58 was in 2002. It is the best audio component I've heard, and as far beyond its competition, including the dm58, as the latter was beyond its contemporaries. As Paul Bolin said of the dm58, "Whatever its flaws may be, their discovery may have to wait until someone, somewhere, has developed an even better amplifier." If the past is any indication, that someone may, once again, be Bruce Candy."
My sense is that this is indeed a superb sounding amplifier. Whatever notion has been created on the Internet that there is something wrong with it, stands in front of a very tall mountain.
A little story
. I was in UK years ago where my brother and his family lived. They had kids so when it came to having lunch it was fast food. We were in front of McDonald's so I asked if that is where we are going. My sister in law gave a big "NOOOO." I asked why. She said "people say they are using horse meat in their hamburgers!" She continued to say that no one wants to go there and she was right. McDonald was empty compared to Burger King. I am pretty confident McDonald did not use horse meat and if they did, it would take a hell of a lot more than a rumor to make me believe it. Yet here it was, folks believed it. Such may very well be the case for Halcro.Here you are worried about the reputation of this class of product but not Halcro? What gives? Anyway, people need to make decisions based on collective set of data in front of them. Ignoring things like good measurements and excellent design and engineering should be done at one's peril. Not as a badge of being audiophile.
Amir, I heard the Halcro amps on two occasions...Sorry it has been a while and I cannot remember which model. However, the amps in the system that I heard them in were very thin and were also very 'etched', as Mike L stated. If I recall, there have been instances in the past wherein a reviewer touted a well measuring piece of gear that subsequently turned out to sound less than worthy. All we have to do to see instances of that is look at some of the well measuring integrated amps and receiver's from the Japanese companies from the 70's. While some were good sounding, most were not. Personally, I believe measurements are of "interest" to me in regards to a piece under consideration, but they take a distant second to what my ears are telling me.
I remember hearing a predominantly Naim room at the Heathrow show, many years ago, the sound contained so much HF that it was literally unbearable, for years I imagined that Naim amps were designed to set one's teeth on edge, but in the subsequent years I have heard many systems containing Naim amplification, and they haven't ( all) been shrill.
You would really need to hear the component at home or at least in a room with a system you know extremely well.
Keith.
Except for gain, I do not remember of any amplifier measurement that has been of real use to me when choosing an amplifier.
You have to look at the measurements of an amplifier and your loudspeaker as a system. Then the measurements become more useful. And can explain some of subjective impressions people have.
Alas, to perform a technical analysis is not easy so people do what you say. Ignore it all. Which is fine as long as they are not trying to then be persuasive to others with such unreliable foundation as ad-hoc listening tests. This is why I said the whole notion of professional high-end reviews and and informal ones on forums is broken. You can get completely opposite views of the same device. I don't care how much one hates measurements and such. If you can't bring consistency and reliability to the table in your methodology, then the only logical thing is to ignore such evaluations.
Fair enough, but how would you ( and Amir also) explain that Mike L and I basically heard the same thing with these amps and in two very different venues and systems?
Yes but if an amp has a flat FR and low distortion and is capable of diving the requisite loudspeaker, then there is no mechanism for
it to create a thin sound, one would have to alter the frequency response of the amp.
I find that if a listener has been used to a digital/solid state sound then vinyl /valves may well sound a little warm and of course vice versa.
I think we all believe that the sound we have at home is 'right' .
Keith.
it to create a thin sound, one would have to alter the frequency response of the amp.
I find that if a listener has been used to a digital/solid state sound then vinyl /valves may well sound a little warm and of course vice versa.
I think we all believe that the sound we have at home is 'right' .
Keith.
How do you explain the difference between your opinion and glowing review I posted?
And which version of Mike's opinion? This one that Dallas posted? https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/edge-vs-boulder-vs-halcro
"i've listened to all three at various times but only the Halcro DM-58 in my room for a few days.....
the Halcro (on my Watt/Puppy 6s) were the fastest, most detailed and transparent amps i have heard; amazing detail and extension.....very neutral....could be too lean in some systems. with the right system absolutely fantastic (maybe a tube preamp)."
How could the most transparent amp he has heard be "too lean?" Is it that he wants less transparency and more bass???
Similar threads
