I think I have caught up…
I assumed that you were ASC, and then that you must have started the company when your were in grade school or maybe junior high.’’
What is a reviewer?
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
I assumed that you were ASC, and then that you must have started the company when your were in grade school or maybe junior high.’’
I've modified my signature to clarify my position here. I'd like to say I invented TubeTraps and started the company. But I didn't!I think I have caught up…
I assumed that you were ASC, and then that you must have started the company when your were in grade school or maybe junior high.’’
By the way the Locomotive record was called "the power and the majesty" I believe and also had a huge thunderstorm on it. Yes this material is fun and has some cool effects however IMO speakers/systems are judged by thier ability to play music and musical instruments. I remember vividly the first time I heard this Mobile Fidelity , was stoned at Harry Pearsons and it scared the crap out of me when the lightning struck and the door flew open in his listening room. Lots of fun but truly has little to do with music and much more to do with sound effects.
Attachments
So since we have kind of beaten this to death I wanted to see what the readership feels anout this
who do you rate as the best audio reviewer that is still doing it/or not
1- Robert Harley
2- Jon Valin
3- David Robinson
4- Roy Gregory
5- Tom Martin
6- Michael Fremer
7- Jacob Heilbrun
8- Alan Taffel
9- Robert Greene
10). Andre Jennings
11).John Atkinson
12), Harry Pearson
13). Gordon Holt
14) -any others that I can't think of off the top of my head as a write in vote
Lets see what the survey says - Please just the name not an essay!!
who do you rate as the best audio reviewer that is still doing it/or not
1- Robert Harley
2- Jon Valin
3- David Robinson
4- Roy Gregory
5- Tom Martin
6- Michael Fremer
7- Jacob Heilbrun
8- Alan Taffel
9- Robert Greene
10). Andre Jennings
11).John Atkinson
12), Harry Pearson
13). Gordon Holt
14) -any others that I can't think of off the top of my head as a write in vote
Lets see what the survey says - Please just the name not an essay!!
The best by a country mile was martin Colloms - didn't even make your list !
Given the intensity of views on this subject, I'll play it safe and say HP. For all his idiosyncracies, Harry is the journalist from whom I learned the most about evaluating the sound of high-end components. Like our dear departed friend and my mentor, Mike Kay, they each believed that to assess the sound of a component or system properly; one should compare it to the sound of live, unamplified music.
Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on winning the Robert Koda representation for the US. As you know, like yourself, I admire small creators devoted to advancing the art of high fidelity, and RK certainly is one of the best. No doubt both Harry and Mike would agree.
Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on winning the Robert Koda representation for the US. As you know, like yourself, I admire small creators devoted to advancing the art of high fidelity, and RK certainly is one of the best. No doubt both Harry and Mike would agree.
Thank you Gary and I will even foregive the paragraph lol. You and many others already know my choice and it wasn't close as HP changed everythingin my audio life and knowledge
Sorry Elliot
1- Robert Harley* Likes MQA so I question his hearing and expertise and see below.
2- Jonathan Valin Didn’t like his views on the Mobile Fidelity scandal and don’t get me started on his cable issue.
3- David Robinson* I like him but wonder about his qualifications.
4- Roy Gregory* Kind of gadfly, has conflicts that seem influence his reviews. He shouldn’t be on your list.
5- Tom Martin Shouldn’t have rescued TAS but he writes crazy stuff and I like crazy.
6- Michael Fremer* Two time loser MQA and Mobile Fidelity
7- Jacob Heilbrunn MQA “latest and greatest in the digital world, including MQA decoding” so I pass.
8- Alan Taffel MQA On 3/27/20 Chris Conneker said “Not everything is a nail to your hammer.” I answered on 3/29/20 The following people can be considered nails: Robert Harley, Alan Taffel and two others.
9- Robert Greene I enjoy him when he gets technical, would love to spend some time with him.
10- Andre Jennings He is unknown to me but has an interesting bio. Be fun to meet him someday.
11-John Atkinson* I think he understands he messed up with his support of MQA both as editor of Stereophile and behind the scenes.
12-Harry Pearson I wouldn’t give him the time of day in audio. And the small matter of his education a Duke Sociology degree.
13-Gordon Holt History shows he started the audiophile hobby down the wrong path. The only way I tolerate people who reek of tobacco like he did is if I’m fleecing them out of hundreds of dollars on a golf course.
* Are people I’ve met and interacted with.
1- Robert Harley* Likes MQA so I question his hearing and expertise and see below.
2- Jonathan Valin Didn’t like his views on the Mobile Fidelity scandal and don’t get me started on his cable issue.
3- David Robinson* I like him but wonder about his qualifications.
4- Roy Gregory* Kind of gadfly, has conflicts that seem influence his reviews. He shouldn’t be on your list.
5- Tom Martin Shouldn’t have rescued TAS but he writes crazy stuff and I like crazy.
6- Michael Fremer* Two time loser MQA and Mobile Fidelity
7- Jacob Heilbrunn MQA “latest and greatest in the digital world, including MQA decoding” so I pass.
8- Alan Taffel MQA On 3/27/20 Chris Conneker said “Not everything is a nail to your hammer.” I answered on 3/29/20 The following people can be considered nails: Robert Harley, Alan Taffel and two others.
9- Robert Greene I enjoy him when he gets technical, would love to spend some time with him.
10- Andre Jennings He is unknown to me but has an interesting bio. Be fun to meet him someday.
11-John Atkinson* I think he understands he messed up with his support of MQA both as editor of Stereophile and behind the scenes.
12-Harry Pearson I wouldn’t give him the time of day in audio. And the small matter of his education a Duke Sociology degree.
13-Gordon Holt History shows he started the audiophile hobby down the wrong path. The only way I tolerate people who reek of tobacco like he did is if I’m fleecing them out of hundreds of dollars on a golf course.
* Are people I’ve met and interacted with.
I cannot say about 'the best' but I enjoy Paul Bolin's writing. Don' think he is active anymore.
Elliot, you forgot Don Saltzman. He's been reviewing for The Absolute Sound for around 25 years.
Oh, and Art Dudley should be on any list of respected reviewers.
Oh, and Art Dudley should be on any list of respected reviewers.
Yes he is v good with English language.. He covered almost all of the Wilson and Lamm products. He was my editor at Soundstage and The Audio Beat.
I’ve been negative about many reviewers so let’s talk about the ones I like.
Kal Rubinson, saw through MQA immediately (CES 2014), I like his approach and enjoy him talking about multi-channel audio. Andy Quint, we got off to a rough start (MQA) but he came around and like Kal enjoys multi-channel audio. Andy was helpful when I was appointed to a COVID-19 essential workers task force. Paul Seydor but we generally talk about his books and research not audio. Now two you probably don’t know Josh Mound and Rajiv Arora. They both have interesting viewpoints.
All have outstanding academic backgrounds something I value.
My favorite is still Fremer, he is a wonderful writer. I have lost a little of my respect for his reviews over the years, taking them with a grain of salt these days. This audio business has so many agendas and affiliations.
Totally agree
He was the only reviewer that pointed out the design flaw in the VTL 7.5 when he reviewed it.
It was fine with 26db gain amplifiers, but far too noisy with higher gain amps like his then Lamm or cj.
Unfortunately for me I had already bought the pos 7.5 hifi anchor
️ Luke Manley refused to accept he had designed a preamp with a serious design flaw and told me to use it with normal gain amps.
Funnily enough, he changed the preamp gain structure completely for his V2 pretending it was a step forward, rather to fix a design flaw.
I have never considered VTL again.
Why didn’t you look at the specs of the amp and preamp before making the purchase? A number of preamps have very high gain but that doesn’t make them a POS.Totally agree
He was the only reviewer that pointed out the design flaw in the VTL 7.5 when he reviewed it.
It was fine with 26db gain amplifiers, but far too noisy with higher gain amps like his then Lamm or cj.
Unfortunately for me I had already bought the pos 7.5 hifi anchor
Luke Manley refused to accept he had designed a preamp with a serious design flaw and told me to use it with normal gain amps.
Funnily enough, he changed the preamp gain structure completely for his V2 pretending it was a step forward, rather to fix a design flaw.
I have never considered VTL again.
Where did I say all high gain pre amps were a pos?
I said the VTL 7.5 was a pos.
I ran cj preamps that had 25db gain and those are silent. Any correctly designed high gain preamp should be free of tube rush noise not matter what the amp gain is.
The VTL 7.5 was fundamentally flawed where the gain from the tubes were set at maximum gain and attenuated. No issue with 26db gain amps, but the noise floor of the tube came out LOUD for any amp with 29db gain or higher.
As I said, the correctly designed cj preamps with 25db gain have zero noise .
Last edited:
For me, the criteria for an audio journalist are pretty simple:
1. Technical nous, so that the gear they listen to is set up sensibly. An example of how not to do it is Stereophile's review of the Oladra, which left all sorts of configuration queries open — at least with dCS gear.
2. The ability to write an informative, enjoyable review. I think Michael Fremer does this well.
3. No fence-sitting. If I can't tell what they actually think of a piece of gear or music then what's the point?
4. Impartiality. This one warrants a few paragraphs on its own...
I think it's important that anyone purporting to be a reviewer is actually a journalist, rather than a PR consultant or shill. Wouldn't we'd all question the motives of someone directing us to a car dealership/restaurant/tuk-tuk if we had a hunch they were incentivised to do so? Why should audio reviews be any different? Aren't they just florid press releases otherwise?
Topical example: I enjoyed Roy Gregory's writings and respected his opinions (in the belief that they were objective) for a long time. Right now I feel I've been taken for a fool. Whether or not there is truth to Roy's claims about darTZeel in the now-locked thread, he seems to be lying low rather than providing any further evidence or commenting about any conflicts of interest.
From my perspective the optics are horrible. Maybe some here see the same picture but don't think it's a biggie.
I like Roy's writing, and he passes #1 and #2 of my criteria above. He may well have written negative reviews and pass #3 also. Respect if so! Until recently, however, I had no idea Roy and his wife had the relationships they do (each other, plus CH Precision, Wadax, and Nordost in the past — see https://gy8.eu/intro/). Why not list these relationships on each review, @RoyGregory or at the very least link to them in every review so that it's not up to your readers to go digging?
Two things can both be true here:
1. You can provide a valuable service by calling out potential trouble for a manufacturer.
2. You can have conflicts of interest.
For me, though, picking #1 and not making #2 crystal clear right there and then — not cool. I hope others feel similarly, though I write only on my own behalf.
Declaration of interests: I sell a few brands in New Zealand (website in my profile — I do not sell darTZeel, however), and am a darTZeel owner (NHB-18NS and NHB-108 Model Two, bought used at prices I would pay again tomorrow even knowing what I know). I have had a few very pleasant interactions with Hervé, and others at the factory. He seems to be a gentleman and takes excellent care of his customers — even if, like me, they bought used. I see this as my end-game amplification (bar some NHB-468s one day, perhaps ;-)) and don't tend to churn equipment so I may never resell or only do so so long in the future that depreciation has come out in the wash. I do of course care about service though, and hope that the gear I own continues to sound wonderful long after I've shuffled off. I suspect my nephew may have his eyes on it...
Enjoyable idea for a thread, @Elliot G.
1. Technical nous, so that the gear they listen to is set up sensibly. An example of how not to do it is Stereophile's review of the Oladra, which left all sorts of configuration queries open — at least with dCS gear.
2. The ability to write an informative, enjoyable review. I think Michael Fremer does this well.
3. No fence-sitting. If I can't tell what they actually think of a piece of gear or music then what's the point?
4. Impartiality. This one warrants a few paragraphs on its own...
I think it's important that anyone purporting to be a reviewer is actually a journalist, rather than a PR consultant or shill. Wouldn't we'd all question the motives of someone directing us to a car dealership/restaurant/tuk-tuk if we had a hunch they were incentivised to do so? Why should audio reviews be any different? Aren't they just florid press releases otherwise?
Topical example: I enjoyed Roy Gregory's writings and respected his opinions (in the belief that they were objective) for a long time. Right now I feel I've been taken for a fool. Whether or not there is truth to Roy's claims about darTZeel in the now-locked thread, he seems to be lying low rather than providing any further evidence or commenting about any conflicts of interest.
From my perspective the optics are horrible. Maybe some here see the same picture but don't think it's a biggie.
I like Roy's writing, and he passes #1 and #2 of my criteria above. He may well have written negative reviews and pass #3 also. Respect if so! Until recently, however, I had no idea Roy and his wife had the relationships they do (each other, plus CH Precision, Wadax, and Nordost in the past — see https://gy8.eu/intro/). Why not list these relationships on each review, @RoyGregory or at the very least link to them in every review so that it's not up to your readers to go digging?
Two things can both be true here:
1. You can provide a valuable service by calling out potential trouble for a manufacturer.
2. You can have conflicts of interest.
For me, though, picking #1 and not making #2 crystal clear right there and then — not cool. I hope others feel similarly, though I write only on my own behalf.
Declaration of interests: I sell a few brands in New Zealand (website in my profile — I do not sell darTZeel, however), and am a darTZeel owner (NHB-18NS and NHB-108 Model Two, bought used at prices I would pay again tomorrow even knowing what I know). I have had a few very pleasant interactions with Hervé, and others at the factory. He seems to be a gentleman and takes excellent care of his customers — even if, like me, they bought used. I see this as my end-game amplification (bar some NHB-468s one day, perhaps ;-)) and don't tend to churn equipment so I may never resell or only do so so long in the future that depreciation has come out in the wash. I do of course care about service though, and hope that the gear I own continues to sound wonderful long after I've shuffled off. I suspect my nephew may have his eyes on it...
Enjoyable idea for a thread, @Elliot G.
Similar threads
