Valin's new MSB Reference dac & transport review, AS Product Year Award

[PeterA]

I think value means worth much more than price, not necessarily low priced.

I'll let Al respond about his definition of value. My comment is simply based on what he wrote here: "I got a monitor that in my view easily can compete with the Magico monitors -- at half the price." That seems about value: performance/price. I suspect that Al feels the same way about his Yggy DAC based on the listening and direct comparisons I've made with him of particular DACs.

And the fact that JV's review of the MSB did not really get into this subject of value or comparisons to other DACs may reduce its "value" to some readers.

 

[Al M.]

I'll let Al respond about his definition of value. My comment is simply based on what he wrote here: "I got a monitor that in my view easily can compete with the Magico monitors -- at half the price." That seems about value: performance/price. I suspect that Al feels the same way about his Yggy DAC based on the listening and direct comparisons I've made with him of particular DACs.

And the fact that JV's review of the MSB did not really get into this subject of value or comparisons to other DACs may reduce its "value" to some readers.

Yes, it's about performance/price. Same as with DACs for me, spot on, Peter. That is not to say there are no limits to that approach. For example, Reference 3A don't have an equivalent to your Magico Q3 speakers, which are just outrageous performers in their category. But then, you got them at extreme value yourself, second hand.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I got a monitor that in my view easily can compete with the Magico monitors -- at half the price. (...)

Al M.,

Now you just have to look for another monitor than in your view can compete with the 3A at half the price ...

IMHO this is the wrong way of analyzing things. The "competition" is determining which item is the best for our preferences at a defined budget. Rationalizing our expenses comparing with the performance of more expensive items is meaningless in this hobby ruled mainly by preference. People get pleasure reading that they get 95% of the performance at 50% of cost. IMHO only the later percentage has some real meaning - the other is completely arbitrary, but nice for reviews and forums as it sis quotable.

BTW, as very few people have listened to WAMM's and I hope Tima is not reading my post, I can risk that the XLF's are 99% of the WAMMs! (Please also quote the three smiles when answering....)

 

[Elliot G.]

Who is Michael Jordan?

Not a sports fan Ron?

 

[PeterA]

Not a sports fan Ron?

My father loves music, but had no idea who Micheal Jackson was.

 

[PeterA]

Al M.,

Now you just have to look for another monitor than in your view can compete with the 3A at half the price ...

IMHO this is the wrong way of analyzing things. The "competition" is determining which item is the best for our preferences at a defined budget. Rationalizing our expenses comparing with the performance of more expensive items is meaningless in this hobby ruled mainly by preference. People get pleasure reading that they get 95% of the performance at 50% of cost. IMHO only the later percentage has some real meaning - the other is completely arbitrary, but nice for reviews and forums as it sis quotable.

BTW, as very few people have listened to WAMM's and I hope Tima is not reading my post, I can risk that the XLF's are 99% of the WAMMs! (Please also quote the three smiles when answering....)

Fransisco, when assessing the value of an audio purchase, is there anything the matters more than "in my view'? There are countless examples of audiophiles choosing different paths, completely independent of the "competition" at some defined budget. They are equally valid approaches, IMO.

 

[Kingsrule]

Nice post, Caesar. I do think Magico for one deserve their good reputation. But when I was in the market for a reference monitor speaker, I decided that Magico was a too expensive (and for some other reasons less attractive) option for me, even though I had heard the Mini II many times (in Peter A.'s system) and liked it a lot. I also liked the Magico Q1 very much. I opted for the top Reference 3A monitor, the Reflector, based on my ownership experience with their MM DeCapo BE monitors.

I got a monitor that in my view easily can compete with the Magico monitors -- at half the price.

I don't care how popular a brand or model is. I am not into status symbols either. I care about bang for the buck. I drive a cheap (and surprisingly fun to drive) Nissan Versa SV sedan even though I could easily afford a more expensive car. In fact, I take a perverse pride in driving such a cheap car to work at my company, where I enjoy a respected status. And I smile about those who think they still need to prove themselves and drive up to work in a typical status-symbol car (a fun expensive sports car is a different matter, imo). Interestingly, our executives don't care about fancy cars either.

So you're just the exact opposite of what you are saying...proving yourself by driving a "cheap" car...sometimes u just crack me up LOL

 

[Kingsrule]

The Absolute Sound
The Absolute Value Sound
The Absolute Bang for the Buck Sound
The Absolute Used Value Sound.....

Valin writes for The Absolute Sound

WTF...get over it

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, when assessing the value of an audio purchase, is there anything the matters more than "in my view'? There are countless examples of audiophiles choosing different paths, completely independent of the "competition" at some defined budget. They are equally valid approaches, IMO.

Exactly what I think about "in my view". It affects so much our valuation that comments such as X versus half price Magico or Y versus 1/n DCS are meaningless. And the reference to second hand goods also makes it very complex.

Although it is just semantics, different paths is completely different from different views.

 

[tima]

Exactly what I think about "in my view". It affects so much our valuation that comments such as X versus half price Magico or Y versus 1/n DCS are meaningless. And the reference to second hand goods also makes it very complex.

Although it is just semantics, different paths is completely different from different views.

Yes, I tend to agree. If your desire for a component is predicated on its worth relative to some more expensive component, you've gone off the track. But I'll speculate that is not what Al is doing.

 

[PeterA]

The Absolute Sound
The Absolute Value Sound
The Absolute Bang for the Buck Sound
The Absolute Used Value Sound.....

Valin writes for The Absolute Sound

WTF...get over it

Very funny. Great post. I would love to hear your speakers. Congratulations.

 

[KeithR]

So you're just the exact opposite of what you are saying...proving yourself by driving a "cheap" car...sometimes u just crack me up LOL

+1. and might be the most nauseating post of the new year.

 

[Tango]

Well, that's a clever but fairly slippery reply. You say that forum comments and what I'll call formal reviews (print reviews) are no different, but then you go on to talk about equality of people comments. Then you note that print reviews and forum comments (I'll leave out dealer remarks because that was not in my question.) can be as interesting or as entertaining or as informative, etc. as one another. That is to say you have a reaction to or opinion about what you read; though having a reaction or opinion for each is not grounds of equivalence.

While just about anybody who knows a little HTML and buys some Web hosting service can call himself a reviewer, there are some differences between formal reviews and forum comments. There are requirements and structure in formal reviews that do not obtain in forum comments. Perhaps such differences don't make a difference for you, but they still exist.

Formal component reviews go through a vetting process apart from the author before they get published. Forum comments do not. Formal reviews are fact-checked by manufacturers for technical accuracy prior to publication. Formal reviews are edited for grammar, spelling, concision, readability, comprehension, rambling, etc. before publication. Forum comments don't get edited or evaluated by a third party. Formal review authors have hands-on experience with the product covered in the review and follow certain protocols and processes while reviewing a product.

Formal reviews can be and often are less overt in their conclusions, especially if they are negative than forum comments; few reviews will say 'this product is not very good', at least not in such terms, though they may say so in other ways. Forum comments can say pretty much anything with or without explanation. Forum comments are usually written in a few minutes while formal reviews are written over days, weeks or longer. Formal reviews generally have a structure to them and must include certain pieces of information. Almost all formal reviews include product cost, manufacturer's contact information, system review context, sonic description and usually information about how the product is designed and constructed. Forum comments have no content requirements and can say whatever they want.

Formal review authors have hands-on experience with products under review typically for several months, sometimes longer - in their own systems, where operating contexts are well understood. I know you said to me that you can make jugement about a product in a very short time and don't need weeks to form an understanding; a formal review substantially reduces the liklihood of snap decisions - you may disagree but there is value in having the perspective of someone who has spent time with a component in a constant environment. Formal reviews are not based on what was heard at a show or a friend's house or some dealer's showroom for a day or two. Many, though not all, formal review authors have acquired years of review experience - it is pretty straightforward to identify those who do. Maybe some forum comments have some of these characteristics, maybe not.

This is not putting put down forum comments, their entertainment value nor their practical value (some quite valuable), nor forum participants (heaven forfend), but there are differences between forum comments and formal reviews. Imo, that's a good thing.

It is all good Tima. Just a different plane of thought. You are focusing on a micro picture or the process in which the report went through. While I am looking at the macro picture of the nature of this hobby. It doesn't matter how legit the report, doesnt matter how many year of experience you have, how well known you are or how good or bad the review said of the product at the end, it is still just a data point from a person with his hearing preferences, under his system and his own subjective sonic benchmark. 99% or more of readers don't know the reviewer, never ever sit next to him listening together to get a hold how he listens, tone he likes, etc., never heard what his system sound like which, by the way, is so important to beable to understand the "degree" of meaning of words he used to describe sound. For example your "exceptional" transparency might be just a "good" transparency to me under my system or vice versa. So readers cant take the data point from a printed reviewer for granted just as not taking info from Bonzo, ddk, MikeL, Peter, Gian, DaveC, etc for granted. What I am saying is data point is just data point in this hobby, no different whether it comes from individuals in a forum or a printed reviewer. Convention buffet analogy from MikeL, that's what it is.

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[Al M.]

Yes, I tend to agree. If your desire for a component is predicated on its worth relative to some more expensive component, you've gone off the track. But I'll speculate that is not what Al is doing.

Correct. Thanks, Tim.

 

[Al M.]

+1. and might be the most nauseating post of the new year.

Hehe, I expected that my post would rub some the wrong way.

 

[Al M.]

The Absolute Sound
The Absolute Value Sound
The Absolute Bang for the Buck Sound
The Absolute Used Value Sound.....

Valin writes for The Absolute Sound

WTF...get over it

I guess than Valin should have reviewed the Select II, not the Reference DAC.

 

[PeterA]

I guess than Valin should have reviewed the Select II, not the Reference DAC.

That's funny, but haven't we agreed that there is no such thing as the "absolute" sound? Even TAS must review components that are not State of the Art. Valin does review Magico speakers below the M6.

 

[Al M.]

That's funny, but haven't we agreed that there is no such thing as the "absolute" sound? Even TAS must review components that are not State of the Art. Valin does review Magico speakers below the M6.

Hehe, sure.

To use Kingsrule's words:
"WTF...get over it"

 

[tima]

You are focusing on a micro picture or the process in which the report went through. While I am looking at the macro picture of the nature of this hobby. It doesn't matter how legit the report, doesnt matter how many year of experience you have, how well known you are or how good or bad the review said of the product at the end, it is still just a data point from a person with his hearing preferences, under his system and his own subjective sonic benchmark.

Among other things, we have different views on provenance and sourcing Tang. I don't see yours as a particularly macro perspective, you're just separating comments from their makers and their context, distilling them into datapoints - a type of reductionism. I can appreciate why you might take that perspective. And now maybe I understand why you think there are no differences between formal reviews and forum comments. We disagree of course but I have a thought that our different perspectives go much deeper than audiophilia; that informs me but here I leave it be, and we can both enjoy listening to music.

 

[microstrip]

It is all good Tima. Just a different plane of thought. You are focusing on a micro picture or the process in which the report went through. While I am looking at the macro picture of the nature of this hobby. It doesn't matter how legit the report, doesnt matter how many year of experience you have, how well known you are or how good or bad the review said of the product at the end, it is still just a data point from a person with his hearing preferences, under his system and his own subjective sonic benchmark. 99% or more of readers don't know the reviewer, never ever sit next to him listening together to get a hold how he listens, tone he likes, etc., never heard what his system sound like which, by the way, is so important to beable to understand the "degree" of meaning of words he used to describe sound. For example your "exceptional" transparency might be just a "good" transparency to me under my system or vice versa. So readers cant take the data point from a printed reviewer for granted just as not taking info from Bonzo, ddk, MikeL, Peter, Gian, DaveC, etc for granted. What I am saying is data point is just data point in this hobby, no different whether it comes from individuals in a forum or a printed reviewer. Convention buffet analogy from MikeL, that's what it is.

Kind regards,
Tang

Dear Tang,

Yes, opinions are data points. However listening to stereo is an individual experience, and our navigation in such adventure is strongly influenced by the weight we give to these data points . The total experience is driven by a weighted average, and the weighs are different concerning the value we attribute to the opinions. For me, in general, the formal reviews from reviewers I know well have a much higher weight than forum debates. Surely YMMV.

Factors such as music preference, their listening room and the way people listen to music, their previous systems and realtions with the distribution or dealership have great importance in this weighting system.