|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.5.202.6
From a recent review on 10 Audio by I believe Jerry Siegel:
"The resolution, or ability to clearly hear bass strings or a bass drum head vibrating, is lacking."
"Voices in the midrange and lower treble sound dull and lacking in sparkle and air."
"There is little feeling of 3-dimensional space and it is rarely possible to sense of the size of the recording venue."
"At $5500, I suggest that while the amplifier is built to a high standard, the S-275 is overpriced for the level of performance it offers. The Cary SA-200.2 is much more musically involving and enjoyable for $1500 less."
Ouch. The reviewer assigns the amp 6 stars, a non-price-adjusted ranking that compares to 9 for the Cary 200.2, 8.5 for the Pass X250.5, or 9.5 for the Wyred4Sound ST-1000.
An alternative view is presented in a careful Audiogon write-up by poster Dalovell that is much more positive, although it too is critical of the S-275's bass.
If I were in the market for a power amp, I would be flummoxed by the two widely different views and would probably strike the Krell from my shopping list just for convenience, despite being very conscious of the potential for 10 Audio to have got it wrong.
Do you agree with the 10 Audio review? Is it more trustworthy than the Audiogon write-up? How do you evaluate such different reactions?
Follow Ups:
I have the Krell S-150m monoblocks of this same line and love them. They power my Thiel CS 3.6 speakers like a charm. Definitely one of my favorite amps I've used. Incredible bass definition and power.
I have the Krell S-150m monoblocks of this same line and love them. They power my Thiel CS 3.6 speakers like a charm. Definitely one of my favorite amps I've used. Incredible bass definition and power.
I have the Krell S-150m monoblocks of this same line and love them. They power my Thiel CS 3.6 speakers like a charm. Definitely one of my favorite amps I've used. Incredible bass definition and power.
I have the Krell S-150m monoblocks of this same line and love them. They power my Thiel CS 3.6 speakers like a charm. Definitely one of my favorite amps I've used. Incredible bass definition and power.
Ouch! indeed.
The S275 is fabulous. Using two of them in bridged mono blew away the fpb600 in all respects. Even just one was faster and clearer but not as inviting as the fpb600. After living with these amps I am in love with them. Small, light, low heat, fabulous sound. And the convenience of multiple switched inputs, gain selector and bridging capability. These are world class amps and krell through and through. Make no mistake. Add top of the line cabling and source components and then it's up to your speakers and room.As a final note:
By Today's standards, these amps are worth twice what they cost when they were new. Two duo 575's, the closest current equivalent, are $22,500.
Edits: 03/14/15 03/14/15 03/14/15
Interesting thoughts vs the FPB600, what are you using for speakers ? Did you get a chance to compare the 275's to anything else ...?
Regards...
Ye olde 10 Audio review of Harbeth 30's wrought hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. Woe be unto those who criticize Highness Harbeth for they be cast asunder to proverbial Tower of shame for their insolence to King Shaw and his loyal subjects.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
More expensive doesn't necessarily mean better.
I have a new Krell S-275 I just put into my system. If anybody is interested I will provide my thoughts on performance AFTER break-in. Nowhere in the review was break-in time discussed and I know KRELLS require long break-in periods. The flat soundstage and lack of bass definition are tell-tale signs of a non-broken in Krell component. Feel free to email me for an opinion sometime in November!
This, and the other thread "What Would Reviewers Own", are partly why I haven't read hi-fi audio mags in ages. Who needs 'em? I think that most folks read them just for fun and fantasy, not because they actually intend to buy a particular product, and I think the publishers know that.I do read pro audio mags regularly, just to keep up on what's new and what I might want to incorporate into my recording or production system. But reviews of speakers and amps bore the snot out of me. If I want to know what something sounds like, I go listen to it. I don't need someone to tell me how they think it sounds.
As a commentary on JA's post about a professional conductor not being a good candidate as a reviewer, I'll say that a reviewer that isn't an accomplished musician with an intimate knowledge of the sounds of instruments isn't a candidate to be a good reviewer.
Edit: JA, thanks for your excellent contributions to this forum. It would be wonderful if other folks in your biz would have the where-with-all to posit their thoughts. Yes, I know RGA (whomever that is) and some other niche unknowns post occasionally, but you're the only one who regularly steps up to the plate.
Edits: 06/26/12
RGA = Richard G AustenAnyway, I agree with most points. I think people put WAY WAY too much stock into what reviewers have to say.
Let's take movie reviewers - What is a good criteria to be a film critic - maybe a literature degree - maybe a deep interest in film studies. Certainly a love of movies.
I considered becoming a film reviewer - and got some tips from professional movie critics on outlines to effectively engage the reader. Far easier IMO than writing stereo equipment reviews.
People often ask why the critic hates a movie the average population loves. And the answer boils down tot he sheer number of films they see. If the average person sees 10 movies in a year and say one romantic comedy they may go easier on it because it's the only one they saw. The film critic has seen maybe 40 romantic comedies that year and perhaps rate on a sliding scale. So they rip it to shreds if it doesn't do anything truly inspiring. Which in turn means they also like the odd ball foreign film no one else quite gets because again sheer number of films they likely latch onto anything that is remotely original.
I understand why posters want audio reviewers who are recording engineers, or pro musicians, or people who live at the symphony. But honestly - none of that means a damn thing. Those are simply things that make people feel the reviewer has more weight or credentials.
Here's why it doesn't mean anything.
Lets take speakers.
1) You will have professional monitoring speakers - say ATC, PMC, Genelec, B&W, Yamaha as examples of speakers used in recording studios world wide. You will find audiophiles, musicians, recording engineers, reviewers who attend live events (or not) regularly and of course the manufacturers themselves who will swear up and down by these speakers. They will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.2) You will have a very similar group of people who will say swear up and down about Electrostatic and Planar Magnetic loudspeakers and will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.
3) You will have a very similar group of people who will swear up and down about High Efficiency (often horns) loudspeakers and will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.
And there are many other camps (Active versus passive, omni-directionals, line arrays, single drivers, Open baffle, large diameter versus single point in space, various hybrid designs, sub-satellites) and we've not even started on analog versus digital or SETs and Tube amps. I was just in a debate about EL34 versus KT88 so people have specific takes just on the output tubes of PP amplifiers.
I don't think it is wise to "go by the reviews" and other reviewers have dogged me for saying that but when you take 1-3 into consideration there is NO CONSENSUS AT ALL on audio equipment. No consensus in the audiophile world or in the review world.
Magazines are generally smart - they have reviewers in camps 1-3 on staff - those reviewers typically get what they "prefer" and thus everything gets a good review.
People, I think, use reviews for affirmation of their own purchases and seek out reviews that support their preferences.
The problem with reviews is that virtually every product on the "audiophile" market will have a rave review by someone. When I started out I put a lot of trust in the reviews and wound up with pretty mediocre sounding gear. It was when a review publication raved about a speaker that was best in class that I went out and auditioned the speaker. I was excited as it was in my price range and looked nice. I was roundly unimpressed - it was mechanical and overly polite.
Add to this the fact that when I wrote into the magazine asking advice on a loudspeaker they write it off as being suspect because it was undamped and liked to be placed in corners. They judged it without ever auditioning it. The fact that it utterly trounced the speaker they recommended in every conceivable way (the speaker and company no longer exist and the speaker I wrote in about is now so popular they can't keep up with the demand even after opening a dedicated plant). Just saying. And even that magazine finally heard them at a show and raved about them.
I digress. You hit the nail on the head with reading for fun and fantasy. I think reviewers can be helpful for buying decisions - reviewers - NOT magazines. You find a reviewer who you consistently seem to agree with and you consistently hear stuff the same way. I put more stock in them and if they rave about something then I will try and make the time to hear it, After all if I agree with him/her on the last 5 then chances are I will on the next one.
The overall magazine doesn't work because if I typically agree with the reviewer who likes SET amps and HE speakers and TUUUUBES and single driver speakers - then what is the point of reading what the reviewer who thinks all that is obsolete junk and instead owns and claims that ONLY 1000 watt SS power amps and 6 way 8 foot speakers are the way ahead? And vice-versa.
I did and still do two things with reviews.
1) find a reviewer who hears it the same as me
2) consensus.Consensus is taking different reviewers at different magazines and if enough of them rave about something and illustrate they largely hear it the same way then they're probably onto something and at the very least it's worth auditioning.
Edits: 06/27/12
> People often ask why the critic hates a movie the average population loves.>Those people don't understand the role of a film or concert reviewer.
Their job is not to mirror public opinion, but to look for artistic merit and advancement of the art.
Fans may love a Journey concert and think it's the best they've ever seen, while the reveiwer may pan it because it's the same old stuff over again.
An audio reviewer, however, has little in common with them, for the most part, unless he's reveiwing equipment that truly advances the art of music reproduction.
Otherwise he is merely describing his observational listening experience in comparing the sound of the equipment to the sound of live music.
Edits: 06/27/12
Very thoughtful post.
btw, planars suck, and high efficiency is the only thing that reproduces the recordings properly. ;)
.
...don't need to be accomplished musicians, but they need to be very familiar with the sound of live, unamplified music, attending concerts regularly.
And they need to have excellent critical listening skills, which can be learned.
Plus they need to have insight and the ability to describe the things they hear in a way the reader can relate to, understand and enjoy.
Two of the greatest reviewers ever - JGH and HP were not musicians.
Today with the disappearance of B & M stores, audio review magazines have taken on a new importance in exposing readers to new equipment they may want to seek out and buy.
Even though I haven't bought any new components in years and have no interest in buying, I enjoy reading the two print magazines because they are entertaining and a part of my hobby.
I also enjoy reading Auto Week, even though I have no plans to buy a Porsche.
"Good reviewers don't need to be accomplished musicians, but they need to be very familiar with the sound of live, unamplified music, attending concerts regularly."
I suppose that could be true. Since you mentioned him, I'll have to try to find some old Julian Hirsch reviews and see what I think, given the intervening years and the hopefully decent level of experience I've gained during them. :)
But as an accomplished musician, I can say that there are nuances in the sound of various instruments that most people don't detect, and that only someone who is rehearsing or performing on a daily basis will hear almost immediately. Take 10 violin players playing ten different violins, and you'll have at least 2 or 3 that have a sound which sticks out from the others, either in a good or bad way, and more subtle differences among the others. So, that's one aspect of critical listening that requires an intimate familiarity with the sound of instruments, and which, in my view, can only be learned by being a musician, simply because of the time spent listening to them. (Speaking of violins, a microphone comparison recording that I did way back in the day included a violin sample. Man, did I pick the wrong violinist - he was a very fine player, but his violin wasn't representative of the sound of the instrument. It was one of those 2 or 3 mentioned above. I'm still kicking myself. I digress.)
On a related point, as a trumpet player, I've never heard a loudspeaker that sounds like a trumpet - any trumpet. So when reviewers talk about the "realism", or other such adjectives often assigned to audio components, it's almost laughable (no offense intended). Give me a dozen high-end speaker models, mate them up with a dozen high-end amps, and put on the best quality trumpet recording you've got. Then listen to a real trumpet in that same room. There's no comparison.
This is by no means a thorough reply or explanation, it's just some observations and comments to consider.
:)
JGH= J. Gordon Holt
Jack
My bad. I wrongly assumed the initials were Hirsch. Thanks for the correction!
...wouldn't make my top 50 reviewers list.
Julian Hirsch
Julian Hirsch certainly was one.
Hirsch's "If you're considering buying a receiver, this certainly qualifies as one." type reviews left me with the impression that it was all about power and features. In other words, in his world, everything sounded the same. Or, at least that's what he implied in his reviews.
I wonder what he really felt?
So, he's not on your Recommended Reviewer List (RRL)?
:)
And I probably couldn't name 50 reviewers.
Jack
Edits: 06/27/12
...the more familiar a reviewer is with a musical instrument and live music, the better they can compare the reproduced sound to that of live music.
But let's say you are the first violinist in an orchestra. The sound of the violin you hear playing will be very different than that captured by the distant microphone and reproduced on the recording.
Just saying...
Of the three criteria I mentioned for a good reviewer, familiarity with live music is only the first one.
"Today with the disappearance of B & M stores, audio review magazines have taken on a new importance in exposing readers to new equipment they may want to seek out and buy."
Can you expand upon this? I don't see the correlation. How do you grade the magazines' new assumed role so far?
...have always been in the role of exposing audiophiles to new equipment they may consider for purchase.
Ask an audio store owner how many times a customer has brought in Stereophile's Recommended Components List when shopping for new equipment.
You've got me there. I don't know how others 'today' shop.
The review itseld leaves me with more questions than answers.
For example, how do you determine the amp's performance in mid-bass and below when the low frequencies are covered by active subwoofers? The adjustments (crossover points, phase, volume, etc.) to the subwoofers can dramatically change the sound of the system.
The amplifier was also auditioned with Dali Mentor 5 speakers (paragraph 4 of the review, below), which have a -3dB spec of 43 Hz. This is sufficient to "determine the amp's performance in mid-bass". The amplifier's full bass character and capability is amply heard even with subs, although not as through a difficult woofer load such as a large electrostatic panel.
When the high level inputs of subs are used and adjusted over time with two or more amplifiers, the combination of small speakers and subwoofers can provide a reliable full range reference sound, so that further amplifier substitutions can give a very accurate estimation of the bass performance of the new power amp.
"When the high level inputs of subs are used and adjusted over time with two or more amplifiers, the combination of small speakers and subwoofers can provide a reliable full range reference sound, so that further amplifier substitutions can give a very accurate estimation of the bass performance of the new power amp."
This was a contested issue in a recent thread. For clarification, are you saying, once you know what to listen for, reviewing an amplifier with self-powered subs is an non-issue?
Yes, all things subwoofer seem to be contested issues.
No, I am saying that once the relationships (volume, crossover point and phase) between the subwoofer and main speakers are set using the sub's high level inputs, it is possible to replace the amplifier - remember that both the main speakers and the subs get their inputs from the amplifier's binding posts - and maintain that relationship. This is no different that a conventional full range speaker, except that the amplifier is not required to drive the subwoofer's drivers directly. However, and this is the important issue, the character of the amplifier in the bass is still apparent.
I mentioned phase above, and I think a little clarification is due. From my Velodyne Optimum-12 review:
"In many installations, the subwoofer is sitting behind the main speakers. The distance between the front of the sub and the front of the main speakers is often in the range of 1 to 5 feet. Sound travels at about 1 foot per millisecond. The sound of the sub is about 1 to 5 milliseconds behind the sound from the main speakers. To match the phase of the main speakers, the sub’s output would have to be advanced 1 to 5 milliseconds, or .36 to 1.8 degrees. Phase controls cannot predict what will be coming into the sub’s input 5 ms in the future. They can only delay the sub’s output, which is just the opposite of what we need. In unusual installations, or if the main speakers are wired out of phase, or for severe problems in the bass response of a listening room, the phase control could have value. But for a more standard installation, as in my room, leaving the phase control at “0” is best because the error is small."
Is it safe to presume that you always use a sub's high level inputs in your reviews?
Yes, always. This assures that the bass character of the amplifier is maintained by the sub. For example, say you had a CJ MV-55, which is a wonderful classic tube amp. Attaining a good match or blend with that amp's warm and relatively soft and "bloomy" bass character to a good sub with its tight and detailed solid state bass would be very difficult. But using the sub's high level inputs, the MV-55's bass character is fully apparent in the sub's output and a satisfactory blend between the main speakers and sub is possible.This is the reason I spent so much time and effort with the JL Audio sub, building a voltage divider. That excellent sub was difficult to match to the amps on hand during the review because it has only a line-level input. Creating a high-level input resulted in outstanding sound.
Edits: 06/28/12
Anyone can put up a web page and proclaim themselves a reviewer. The only credibility he has is what we give him.
that I didn't "proclaim (myself) a reviewer". I posted here for years as (A) until Nov. 13, 2005, when Audio Asylum insisted - under protest from me - that I change my registration to (R) or be banned.
In my view, I am an (A) who shares my audiophile journey using the vehicle of 10 Audio.
"In my view, I am an (A) who shares my audiophile journey using the vehicle of 10 Audio."
It might be helpful if your Homepage expressed this sort of sentiment. As you've said, it's a fact.
Audio Asylum was simply looking at the fact that he had his own review website, one that he linked at the bottom of his posts. In the link below the date is 2003.So on the one hand he wanted to be identified as an audiophile, but on the other provided a link to his audio review website in all of his posts. On the outside it would appear that his claim that 'I didn't proclaim (myself) a reviewer' appears to be specious.
We are witnessing this happening right in front of our eyes.
Edits: 06/28/12 06/28/12
Well personally I don't think it takes much guts to take a knock at one of the "big names" of high-end audio that appears to have been reduced to "also-ran" status.
That said I have followed this fellow's site, some might say blog I suppose, for some years and can comfortably say that anyone following for even months would realize it's a one man show.
Moreover he clearly has at lot of experience and I find him to be honest ... two critical aspects which make him worth reading.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
Essentially, 10 Audio (Jerry Siegal) is incompetent and unethical.
He panned a preamp of ours, not because it was noisy (he owned it for 7 years) but because I called him out when he reviewed one of our kit-built amps that he had bought used. He reviewed it as if it was the latest version of our fully-optioned amps factory-assembled. The amp he reviewed was a rat's nest of construction inside and was not representative of our gear to say the least. I'm not making this stuff up, when he got called out it was on this website.
When confronted with this, he changed the review of our preamp from one that was very good to bad, and trumped up some noise complaints and the like, none of which were true.
Bottom line is, 10 Audio should not be taken seriously by anyone. This is a person that suffers from what I have come to call 'AGS' - Audiophile Guru Syndrome- if it did not issue from his mouth, it is not the Gospel. Anyone who gets to the point that they cannot admit when they have made a mistake is someone who is at risk of AGS. Credibility thus suffers!
The 'bad review' point I am making is that there are politics that can influence whether the review is good or bad, which is something that should never happen. Thing is, you never know what is going on- did he get a bad sample, is he allowing his mood to influence the outcome, is he doing things that are outright unethical as he did with us? Anytime you see a bad review you have to ask these questions regardless of the source.
If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all. That is how the best players do it.
Dear sad Raplh,
You are still trotting the same tired lies from 10 years ago. I had your preamp for about 1 year, in which time you had it twice to TRY to fix it. The rest of your story is similarly inaccurate.So sad.
Readers: Please read the review below and make up your own minds.
Edits: 06/30/12
Now I hope you are not denying what you got called out on. I am still in contact with the guy you sold that kit-built M-60 to.
I am also in contact with the owner of the said MP-3. When he got if from you, the phono section was so quiet that even on horns, he could not hear the noise floor from the AUX. As you recall this preamp was equipped with SUTs. That guy lives here in Minnesota. So he brought the preamp to our place- IOW this is not hearsay.
In plain and simple language you are lying, and you are a liar. Below is a link that you posted. This link suggests you liked the preamp at the time. If one simply does a search on this website looking for your posts from 2000-01-01 and on, one finds a wealth of information that shows that at one time your opinions were quite different from what you express on your website, and why.
Jerry, your credibility would soar if you simply admitted to making a huge journalistic error here.
We did this dance over a decade ago and even though some folks would probably love to witness another juicy slugfest, your opinion, frankly, is not worth my time to respond to. Curiously, I was banned from the old thread when my facts contradicted your fascinating narrative.I have nothing to gain or lose if anyone places any value in my reviews or if they do not. The best suggestion I can give to confused or interested readers is from Deep Throat: "Follow the money."
--------------
NOTE: Any further lack of response to your claims and personal attacks should not be interpreted by anyone to mean that I think you are correct in any way, have any valid points to raise, nor would prevail if the full and accurate disclosure of the facts surrounding those old reviews were known.
Responses are futile and an example of Kobayashi Maru: the no-win scenario. (I edited this "NOTE" to permit, but not require, further responses.)
Edits: 06/30/12 06/30/12
-
...are making the hit counter on 10 Audio spin like the money meter on a gas pump as it sucks the cash from my wallet and sends it to that anti-American communist pig Hugo Chavez.
Thanks! Please don't stop!!!
P.S. Tubes are history.
(This may be my last post for a while. Last time I dueled with Mr. K, I got banned.)
Here is a quote from you, from elsewhere on this same thread:
NOTE: My further lack of response to your claims and personal attacks should not be interpreted by anyone to mean that I think you are correct in any way, have any valid points to raise, nor would prevail if the full and accurate disclosure of the facts surrounding those old reviews were known.
Its this last sentence that should raise eyebrows with anyone.
I'm not being vindictive. Merely truthful. When I say you are lying, a simple google of my name will show anyone that its not something I do often! But I didn't have to go very far to demonstrate that this is a problem for you, the proof was on this very same thread and is now seen above. My recommendation is don't make posts like that if you can't keep your word.
Jerry, if you *were* a man of your word you would have never modified that review of the MP-3 to suit your anger at me. FWIW, all reviewers are human and that means that they have their feelings and emotions like anyone else. No good reviewer will change a review after the fact, if so it can only be assumed that they did not believe what they said at the get-go, nor do they have integrity in that act. Its the old court room hack: "So, were you lying then or are you lying now?"
If you restored that review, (essentially admitting to a journalistic gaffe) it would actually restore your credibility because it would restore your integrity. As long as you accuse me of being vindictive and the like, it won't work, because I'm not being vindictive- I don't have to make anything up here. Believe me on this, I know you are angry so that may be hard, but I will be quite impressed and so will many others if you chose to restore integrity to this situation.
Hi Ralph,
We had the same experience with Jerry. He called in 2005 and asked for a specific product to "review". I declined his request and politely stated we were no longer seeking review exposure for that product. "I will get your product and write an article anyway, without your input or consent"-- were his exact words. I knew from his words and tone that he was using a threat as leverage to change my mind. I began to apologize again, but he hung up the phone without another word.
Some months later, a DIY project appeared on his web-site. The product of ours he'd gotten a hold of looked to be 2-3 years old. He represented it as current, claimed it didn't match the listed spec on our web (which it wouldn't since it was 2-3 years old). He then proceeded to DIY a Home Depot power strip with some caps for $120 and claimed it was better. That " DIY article" was his follow-through for declining to loan him a current product to "review".
I was surprised he went so far out of his way for retribution, but given that he did, I'm not surprised he's done that to others.
Grant
Shunyata Research
Hi Grant,
If that was my response, please let me offer a belated sincere apology for both the wording and my rudeness with you.The project included two Hydra 4s with some internal differences. Here is the entire paragraph with the comparison in my "DIY Hydra" project that you misinterpreted to prefer the DIY version:
"And the results? After using the two power conditioners with different components – both tube and solid state – and at different times of day and night, I reached the conclusion that the "DIY Hydra" was a sonic twin to the production Shunyata Hydra 4, taking into account the additional purity provided by eliminating the varistor in my "DIY Hydra". I found that similar performance to a $700 manufactured product could be obtained for an expense of roughly $100 and some time and effort. The downside is that the "DIY Hydra" has a resale value of effectively zero. The well-reviewed - and deservedly so - Shunyata Hydra 4 will retain its value far better."
I surely do like your CX power cables! I hope the fact that I like and use some of your excellent products doesn't keep potential buyers away.
Regards,
JerryS
Edits: 06/27/12
-
I think that you should work on designing a pre-amp that deserve to be placed in the company of your excellent amplifiers ... and on that more work, less talk, would be my advice for you.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
We did that. Years ago. FWIW not only have both of our preamps been recognized by awards in TAS and elsewhere, but the MP-1 is one of our best-selling products, and in several years outsold all of our amps put together.
There no accounting for taste I guess.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
.
in fact *purchased* it.His reply ... "Yes, my memory is playing tricks... He has a followup in the Recommended Components issue of the following year."
Memory playing tricks? ... now there's an understatement, first it's a dishonest reviewer who panned the product after using junk tubes, then it's my memory is playing tricks on me!
For such an egregious faux pas he isn't particularly hard on himself, now is he?
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
Edits: 06/27/12
While my memory of the exact time is one thing, the fact that it happened is another. You could go look it up. I identified the issue.
But you won't because your main thing here seems to be that of a troll, sockpuppet, or both.
your main thing here seems to be that of a troll
yep
> 10 Audio (Jerry Siegal)...
Perhaps I am being dense, but other than a cryptic reference to "today's
host" being "JerryS," I don't find any other reference on the 10 Audio
site to the identity of the reviewer(s). None of the reviews I looked at
are signed, which, to me, is an error. Who says something is perhaps as
important as what is being said.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/24/12
Hey John,
After 15 years, 550,000 home page hits (and well over a million on other pages), 170+ reviews, a dozen projects, countless emails from readers, 3 surveys, links from dozens of manufacturers and distributors, quotes on several other review Web sites, and my name appearing on both Internet Explorer and Firefox tabs, I assumed y'all knew.
There was a guest writer a while back his name appears on the reviews he wrote. For the other reviews, all the glory and blame is mine.
It is probably a good time to also point out the "rules of engagement" for the reviews. These are also near the top of Reviews page.
" Important Notes:
1. These reviews include opinions, reactions, and feelings about equipment that may be valid only in the context of my system during the review period.
2. Some of the reviews are based on component comparisons that may or may not be relevant in a different environment.
3. Over the course of time and experience, most people's ability to evaluate audio components improves, and I reserve the right, but assume no obligation to update a component's rating based on new information. Call it my Continuous Improvement Program.
4. And most important: YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY!!! "
Happy listening.
Regards,
Jerry Seigel
> After 15 years, 550,000 home page hits (and well over a million on other
> pages), 170+ reviews, a dozen projects, countless emails from readers, 3
> surveys, links from dozens of manufacturers and distributors, quotes on
> several other review Web sites, and my name appearing on both Internet
> Explorer and Firefox tabs, I assumed y'all knew.
Better late than never. Thank you.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Since I'm feeling generous today I'll just go with you being dense.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
In this case and for the last decade or so, all the content on that site comes from the JerryS you mentioned.
Do you just make this stuff up? (rhetorical) There was another writer.It is painfully obvious that you've had it out for me personally since I noted the relationship between your MP-3 preamp and MP3 downloads over a decade ago, but really, Ralph, it is time to get over it, be responsible, and grow a pair.
Edits: 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12
I thought you said you would not respond. Apparently you didn't mean that huh?
One of your own posts that I linked said the MP-3 was "better than the Convergent" if I might paraphrase. The simple fact is you liked that preamp no matter how much you deny it now or deny that you changed the review well after the fact. So when you say I am 'WRONG' it puts you in a tricky position. Just read the threads at the links.
Highly unusual perhaps but why an error? Someone could legitimately have something to hide. :^)
The OP initially said, "From a recent review on 10 Audio by I believe Jerry Siegel...".
Any subsequent presumptions in lieu of further corroboration were in error. IMO.
> Highly unusual perhaps but why an error? Someone could legitimately have
> something to hide. :^)
I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
comments.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
comments."
Who is someone else?
> > I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
> > comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
> > comments.
>
> Who is someone else?
Sorry for the clumsy wording. I was referring to reviewers who don't put
their names to their criticisms.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Sorry for the clumsy wording. I was referring to reviewers who don't put
their names to their criticisms."
IMHO, a name is a prerequisite to a credible review. However it seems apparent I'm among the few feeling it's (review???) unworthy of discussion. Seriously, what am I missing, here? If, names are not an issue with designers/manufactures, what does that say about them?
Yes I was wondering why there was no name - I just assumed it was a single reviewer who reviewed everything on the website. With no name - the buck stops with the editor. (I suppose everything stops with the editor since they have the decision to print it ot not).
Manufacturers don't need a name - the name of the product is the "name" they are standing behind.
all reviews are done by Jerry
"Manufacturers don't need a name - the name of the product is the "name" they are standing behind."
So, they stand nothing to gain with questionable review standards?
No pay and very little glory - just read this thread. Whether or not the review standards (see below) are questionable is wholly determined by YOU.The review standards are clearly stated on the "Zen Page" and can be summarized as "What Jerry likes". (This is the same as saying a component sounds like live music: my ears, my perception.) If you like what I like, well friends, you're rolling in clover. And if you don't like what I like, well then, just reverse the rating! This isn't rocket science.
Because of all the controversy, I fired me. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryGeez guys, lighten up.
Edits: 06/28/12 06/30/12
nt
nt
nt
nt
I was with you until you made this statement. I want honest reviews whether positive or negative. A manufacturer of bad components shouldn't be shielded by a buried review.
-Wendell
Serious audible problems can include noise, grain or harshness, uneven perceived frequency response, and poor soundstaging. Operational problems can include poor reliability or component failures, unusual tube drift or repeated tube failures, inconsistent or unexpected glitches, and turn-on or turn-off surges that can trip circuit breakers or damage speakers.
In most cases, these are NOT system dependent. You need to know about these before making a purchase because of the high probability that you will also have the same problem.
You also need to know about issues that are system dependent and that might or might not be a problem in your system. A good review, of which a few of mine might qualify, will evaluate a component with enough different gear that you can tell if the problem is a serious problem or potential system compatibility issue.
No component is perfect. Reviews that do not tell you about known problems are little more than advertising and have almost no value for the consumer. My reviews are written with the potential buyer in mind and his needs for relevant information.
A overwhelmingly positive review might help you buy a component, but the issues raised in a negative review could save you a lot of wasted time and money in either the original purchase or in tweaking your system to adapt to the the problem, or confirm those problems that you are already having.
Happy listening.
Regards,
Jerry
- Those that are untainted by politics we are unaware of, personal issues of the reviewer (doesn't personally like someone at the manufacturer for example), misuse of the product, tampering, etc.
I had a Stereophile reviewer (Steven Stone) pan one of our preamps after he swapped junkbox tubes into the preamp. The tubes were so bad that they would not even read on a tube tester. The resulting bad press gave us 0 sales for 2 quarters. It was the direct result of tampering with the unit, but no-where in his comments did he say that he was basing the review on the performance of the unit with junk tubes. Do you think that was 'honest'?
The problem is that a bad review can occur for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the how the product performs. I have now giving two examples in this thread.
Ralph's "Story" is largely a figment of his imagination. Since I purchased the preamp I seriously doubt he could have tested the tubes since it remained in my possession during the review and after and was not sent back to him for any tube testing. He also sued Stereophile and for years had a succession of lawyers on the case for contingency fees. He never brought the case to court because he had no legal grounds for a case...This is the first time I have written about this since the initial article. I do not go into Ralph's rooms or mention his products as John Atkinson and Stereophile's lawyer instructed me - which is standard Stereophile policy whenever the "L' word is mentioned by any manufacturer in any context.
I have nothing to say about the Atmasphere/10 Audio spat. All I know is that I have owned three amps that Jerry reviewed on 10 Audio. Two of them -- the Marantz MA-9S2 monos and the Wyred 4 Sound ST1000 -- got rave reviews on 10 Audio but sounded thoroughly disappointing (to put it very mildly) in my listening room. I later owned a Pass Labs X250.5, which 10 Audio did not rate as highly as the Marantz or the Wyred for Sound, and I found the Pass amp to the best I have owned. Needless to say, I stopped reading 10 Audio a long time ago. I would have saved myself some money if I had never happened upon Jerry's site.
Re: “no-where in his comments did he say that he was basing the review on the performance of the unit with junk tubes. Do you think he was ‘honest’?”
Exerpts from the December 1993 Stereophile review of Atma-Sphere MP-1 by Steven Stone (Vol. 16 No. 12).
PHONO SECTION
“It’s ironic that a product designed by a totally over-the-top analog fanatic should have problems in the phono section. Two of the three gain stages in the MP-1 are for the phono section, but I’m afraid that owners of low-output moving-coil cartridges may find the phono section’s S/N inadequate for their favorite cartridge. I tried as many different makes of 12AT7 as I could lay my hands on to try to squeeze every bit of signal I could out of the MP-1. I finally settled on RAM TubeWorks Super Select low-noise tubes ($60 each retail!) for the primary phono positions. Still, using my EMT/van den Hul cartridge (0.75mV output), the noise of electrons rushing through the tubes was as loud as many recordings’ surface noise.”
SUMMARY
“Any attempt on my part to reduce my enthusiasm for the MP-1 in print or in the real world has been futile. I’m quite entranced by this preamplifier.”
And the last paragraph of the review…
“I’ve always felt that the highest praise a reviewer can bestow upon a product are the three little words, “I’m buying it.” The Atma-Sphere MP-1 has tripped that special little switch deep inside my head. What more can I say? Yes, I’m buying it.”
(End excerpts)
I’m not sure how the reviewers “highest praise” works out to be a “pan” of the MP-1 but imagine what sales would have been if he hated it.
He has a followup in the Recommended Components issue of the following year.
.
Short’s the best position they is. Bullet in the Brain
Your original post stated reviews of "genuinely" bad components should be buried. By "genuinely" I assumed you meant components that were bad without the reviewer making them bad. I get your point about a reviewer making the component bad and then reviewing the modified component. Common sense tells me, and I would hope a reviewer, that this is, well, silly.
On the other hand, if the component really is bad without the help of the reviewer, and despite the reviewer's best efforts, then the review should be printed. Frankly, as a manufacturer, I would think you'd want the charlatans exposed.
I'm not sure where to put this in the stream of thought which is this thread, so, I'm putting it here, at what seems to be the end of the thread, whether it is, or not.I completely disagree that a "genuinely bad" component shouldn't be reviewed. How else would a prospectiver buyer know that it's not a component worth buying? If manufacturers are building bad products, isn't it valuable for the buyer to know that? Heck, look at the millions and millions of dollars that the U.S. government and NBC spent a couple of years ago to convince us that we shouldn't buy Toyota cars. Wasn't that useful to the consumer?
If a reviewer thinks it's bad, evaluate it anyway. BUT, they should go to the manufacturer with all of their concerns and observations, and give them every opportunity to respond, BEFORE finalizing the review or printing anything.
This is not only common courtesy, but it also ensures that the review sample doesn't have an unusual problem or isn't set up properly, and gives the reviewer more insight, and the consumer a more accurate picture of the product.
Once all of the bases have been covered, if it still sucks, say so - if the reviewer has the balls to do so. Isn't that part of the job, and a service to the consumer?
Edits: 06/25/12
if the organization is on the level with their 'bad review'. Perhaps it simply is that after a few hard knocks, I am less trusting...
I am a little confused here. If it was never mentioned in the review, how do you get to know that much about the junk tubes?
Thanks in advance if you take the time to answer my question.
We dealt with the preamp after the review and found the tubes in it. When I could not get a reading on our tube tester, I first suspected the tester itself, but a stock tube from our inventory tested fine. During the review he had sent it back to us with a problem that also was the result of a junk tube he had installed.
Some months later, Dick Olsher had a review of an amplifier wherein he did tube rolling. After objections from readers, to Stereophile's credit, it became official policy to not allow 'tube rolling' as part of the review, that is to say the reviewer had to stick to the stock tubes.
"If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all." I support everything else you've posted.
-Wendell
I used to think that bad reviews did serve editorial policy to warn readers of bad products. But after my own experiences that I have outlined here, neither of which mentioned the actual problem (JerryS not liking that we called him out, Steven Stone not mentioning his tampering with the unit) I realized that bad reviews are often unethical, despite the desire on the part of the readership to see them.
It all depends on if the review is bad for the reasons given, or if there are facts that directly relate to that review that get no mention.
Now if a manufacturer is unable to get any traction in the press because no-one will talk about his horrible product then the public is being served by those magazines even if the public doesn't know it . This, IMO is the ethical approach.
I appreciate that we all have our opinions, but I have yet to hear of an example that tells me I am wrong in this. It could be though that I have just seen a spat of bad luck, but in matters such as these one would hope that luck has nothing to do with it.
How is that different for some positive reviews? We know that there have been instances in reviews where the reviewer had an ownership position in the product under review, "long-term loans" that were never expected to be returned and of at least one reviewer selling review product he didn't own.
I sympathize with your position. I don't agree bad reviews should be buried.
-Wendell
I think where we might be not quite on the same page is that if a product is bad, it gets sent back before there is ever a review. So there isn't one that 'got buried'.
It may well be that I have a skewed perspective on account of my 'bad luck' in the past- trusting that people would have greater moral capacity than they did. But I can think of a number of other instances that happened to other manufacturers- Gryphon for example got a bad review that shut down their US distribution on account of they would not give one of their amps to a reviewer for free. I happened to be in their room at CES when he was threatening them that he might do that.
Do you happen to remember when that was Ralph? I'd like to read it and might have the issue if the mice haven't "repurposed" it into bedding.
Thanks, Rick
If you are referring to the Stereophile article, it was in 1993, the Recommended Components issue.
...today there are very few truly bad sounding components.
And second, no reviewer wants to waste his time doing a thorough review with all of the listening it takes, to a component he doesn't like.
And third, with no second reviewer comment system, a bad review could have a devastating effect on a company - what if it's wrong?
I don't think people realize how even a seemingly trivial comment in a review can affect a company. I know of a review long ago of a company now out of business that produced well regarded products that was almost put out of busines in a review that actually was good by a comment(incorrect by the way) in an early paragraph. It was simply that the AC cord seemed a little thin(it was the same gauge as most other manufacturer's). Sales died for 6 months.
Reviewers need to be careful what they write both as to accuracy and as to foolish connotation that can be attached to a review. Readers, coming from way less exposure to audio products, can be scared off a product way too easily with potentially bad or even catastrophic results.
It's an opinion. It should be taken as just that. If I respect the reviewer it has weight, for me. If I don't, it doesn't.
-Wendell
"A manufacturer of bad components shouldn't be shielded by a buried review."
I concur.
I really like the way Stereophile handles that sort of thing. They provide an ample opportunity to sort it out to the benefit of both the manufacturer and the reader.
Rick
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Here's my expansion on your brief comment, FWIW.
The article is incompetent, as can be seen by reading the document, without any further research. The review talks about subjective "bass" performance of an amplifier. It lists several speakers, but fails to describe how this lack of perceived bass might vary as a function of the speaker. This makes the review completely useless to a potential purchaser.
Any competent audiophile, whether subjectivist or objectivist, understands that bass performance depends on interaction between a speaker and an amplifier.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Most likely scenario:
Reviewer is familiar with all the speakers he tested the amp with, having listened to them at length with different amplifiers. With all of those, he perceived a lack of bass, or ill-defined bass, or whatever - using Krell amp under review. Therefore, he reports the problem with bass as a function of the amplifier.
Your comment would be applicable to low-powered SET, whose bass performance would vary greatly as function of the speakers, because of its limitations, including potentially high output impedance. However, it doesn't hold water when applied to something like this Krell in question.
I think it unlikely that the Krell is taking away bass. It's at least as likely that the reviewer is incompetent and associates "good" bass with uneven bass when his speakers are being driven by an amplifier with poor damping. Alternatively, perhaps he moved things around in his room and this changed the acoustics. He doesn't say. A careful, competent reviewer would tell the readers what he did to control against these possibilities.
When people hear things I do not dismiss what they heard, as it's their ears and their mind. However, when it comes to reaching conclusions I do question many subjectivist reports, as many of these people are clueless about the technology involved. Some lack a basic knowledge of logic and scientific method. There are others who are simply dishonest.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"However, when it comes to reaching conclusions I do question many subjectivist reports, as many of these people are clueless about the technology involved. Some lack a basic knowledge of logic and scientific method."
Oh, well put!
Especially their conclusions of the underlying causes which are almost always pure flummery.
Regards, Rick
As long as you understand that, since audio is purely subjective, you can take their findings only as starting point in exploring the piece of gear.
Seems no less reliable, than your posts about Paradigm or PSB speakers, or God-awful Quad amplifiers - except that they (he, actually - Jerry S.) have a lot of experience with quality gear, and you don't.
What are you struggling with, exactly?
Didn't seem like he was struggling to me, just asking a valid question.
In the sense that he's asking it for about 100th time, with different people each time trying to explain to Pat D. - unsuccessfully, apparently - the purpose and validity of subjective reviewing.
I did my best - and again in vain, it seems.
The validity of a question is not determined by who asks it anymore than the validity of a proposition is determined by who asserts it.
What it means is that you can't answer my question, or are afraid to answer it.
You maintain that auditions are only good for those who take part in them, but then you wonder why someone would suggest that there is no reason to pay much attention to subjective reviewers opinions about sound quality where there is no evidence they can actually detect the things they think they can hear. You seem to want to have it both ways.
Of course, this condition is met with speakers, but still, without a good methodology, the evaluations are likely to be severely biased. However, some reviewers tend to like the same speakers that I do, and my three favorite current speaker reviewers, John Atkinson, Doug Schneider, and Andrew Marshall present good sets of measurement results.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
But it would be pointless trying to explain it to you.
Thank you for your kind remarks.
However, carcass93 has a thing for me. He seems to find my opinions highly objectionable. Hence, he snipes at me and my equipment. This has gone on for a long time. I don't pay it much mind.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I wouldn't take 10Audio's reviews as a starting point, that is, for figuring what equipment to seek out and audition, except for speakers. But then, since most people with normal hearing tend to like the same speakers under blind conditions, I give purely subjective reviews some what for choosing what speakers to seek out for auditioning, especially if more than one reviewer likes them. This does not prevent me from auditioning something else I come across, of course.
"God-awful Quad amplifiers"
Your acquaintance with Quad amps is . . . what, esactly? On what basis do you offer your evaluation of them, if anything?
Actually, I don't often say much about my amplifier except that it is very quiet and does its job driving my speakers.
"What are you struggling with, exactly?"
Do you think I am struggling with something? Whatever prompted that question?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
When it's all said an done, I can say I don't find the S-275 overly involving, ( a friend owns one ).
Only heard it in one system, but I wouldn't call it musical, at least not compared to the better solid state and tube gear out there. It certainly has a long way to go compared to the old Krell gear too.
"A 10 LP rating means it does not take any work on your part for the component to take you "there", musically."
They give this to several products on their site that I find offer zero emotional satisfaction or take me "there" with no effort. They have amps given 10LPS that I would give 3 LPS.
Having read the review and what the "other components" listed I would not put much stock in their review, personally.
Just look at the rating and assume the opposite. This happens in the world of audiophiling with its near-unlimited variables. I offer no apologies that our opinions differ. That is what makes this hobby so fun and interesting.
If only one person agrees with the findings of a review, it is not "wrong".
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
I never said you were wrong when it comes to your opinion. I just think based on some of the other manufacturers posting in this thread that my suggestion would be to be very fair to them. Plenty of manufacturers don't give me products I request and one dealer in Eastern Canada doesn't even reply because I felt his treatment of walk ins was laughable and I called them on it on a forum. No skin off my nose. Unfortunately they're the importer of an amplifier and speaker I quite like and probably would have raved on about but there are plenty of others to rave on about.
As for personal taste I am not exactly a fan of the Bryston sound or the Krell sound (granted the specific unit is class D). I find more value in Bryston due to the lower price and longer warranties and excellent customer service and I don't recall them being recalled due to being a possible fire-hazard.
Bryston 3BSST is about the absolute maximum I would pay for SS amplification - after that tubes take over for good. They take over for good well below that price too if you have reasonably efficient speakers. IMO of course. :-)
I try to engage the manufacturer or distributor in the review process, either by requesting the component for a review loan (usually 60 days) or confirming that a component I purchased represents current manufacture. And for the last few years I have sent manufacturers notices when the review is posted and solicited a "manufacturer's comment", which is published unedited when received.I don't think I agree with your cost assessment for solid-state and tubes. Top-tier, satisfying solid state is available and can be very, very good, but until recently, it was also very, very expensive: around $20,000 or more. Below that general price, to borrow a tag line from Manley Labs, "Tubes Rule". Recently though, it is possible to get very good solid state amps under $10k. The Aesthetix Atlas and Spread Spectrum Technologies Ampzilla 2000 Second Edition (my current fave) are good examples.
To your comment on fairness. I feel that I am very fair and re-read and edit each review for days. My primary constituency is the consumer. Sometimes, as you know, you can't please everyone and to make a point, I have to be ruthlessly revealing, as they say. Some manufacturers, like Cary, accept criticism like gentlemen and still link to the review. Others, like Atmasphere (an extreme example), have the opposite reaction. Reviews are just another data point, after all.
The fact of this extensive thread seems to imply that 10 Audio has "arrived", growing from a little hobby to a relevant contribution to our shared interest. So I offer a sincere "thank you" to everyone and continue to wish you all...
Happy listening.
Regards,
JerryS
Edits: 06/30/12 06/30/12 06/30/12
Wow! One hack taking a shot at another hack. What, no internet reviewer professional courtesy?
Read the review.There isn't a lot written there about putting much effort into getting the best out of the Krell. If I ever get something that isn't sounding good I am going to try and attempt to turn over as many stones as I can to get it to sound good and I will detail those efforts. Maybe they did but that doesn't come across in the review. Which is why I said "personally" at the end.
As a critic that means being critical of not just the components but of the reviews of gear as well. And I am harder than anyone on my own reviews.
For me personally, just reading the review it didn't seem like much information was provided with regards to set-up - what music was playing so that the reader could have a chance to crosscheck what the reviewer is saying. Bass is bad. Okay how so? Which album, which CD player, preamp, and speaker?
It's fine to be negative on a product but IMO if you're going to be negative in a formal review you a duty of care to be very clear and very detailed on the reasons why.
I find all the treble comments unclear. He says it the treble is "splashy instead of clear" but that the amp has "good leading edge" behavior and is "grain-free" but "lacks resolution."
I don't complain about the results (I have not been a big Krell or SS fan in general) or that he liked some other amp for much less money - I just "personally" think it is owed a more detailed review. He mentions a song or two but I find it a really negative review and then he gives it 6 which is a recommendable rating.
Edits: 06/15/12
A reader should assume that the Krell amp was fully evaluated with all of the gear (although certainly not in every possible combination) listed in paragraph 4:
"Other components on hand during the audition included a SOTA Cosmos IV vacuum turntable with Triplanar VII u2 tonearm, SOTA Satellite turntable with Origin Live Zephyr tonearm, Basis 2500 turntable with Vector 4 tonearm, Miyajima Kansui and Premium Mono phono cartridges, Benz LP-S phono cartridge, Bob's Devices CineMag 3440 step-up transformers and Bob's new CineMag 1131 "Blue" step-up transformers, Mark Levinson No. 326S solid-state preamplifier with built-in phono stage, Rogue Ares phono preamplifier, Whest PS.30RDT Special Edition phono preamplifier, Prism Orpheus Digital Interface with custom Windows 7 computer/music server, YG Acoustics Kipod II Signature Main Modules, Dali Mentor 5 speakers (from the home theater system), and Gallo TR-3 subwoofers. Power amplifiers included Levinson 532H, Classe CT-M300, B&K Reference 125.2, Cary SA200.2, and Manley Snappers. All interconnects and speaker cables are Mogami. All front end components, including the preamplifiers, receive their AC power from a PS Audio AV-5000 power conditioner which is connected to the wall power with a 1 meter length of PS Audio PerfectWave AC-10 power cord. Other AC-10s were used elsewhere in the system, and I use Jerry's DIY power cord on the music computer and Levinson preamp. An Audience aR2p-TO power conditioner or PS Audio Quintet is normally used for power amplifiers; however, plugging the amplifier directly into a wall socket had very little impact on the findings below."
Writing negative reviews is not at all enjoyable. Since this product's musical performance was so underwhelming (but evenhanded, hence the passable "6 LP" rating), I gave just a few examples of music to highlight just a few weaknesses. IMO, the results are still apparent even without more examples of the specific music.
You take yourself way too seriously!
...you slam him, he politely responds and he's taking himself too seriously.
Seriously?
As a reviewer, he is very familiar with the process, even if you don't agree with his results.
He is criticizing the process used which gave those results.
Valid criticism.
"As a reviewer, he is very familiar with the process"
Seriously? For the most part, he is a billboard for one manufacturer with little reviewing experience.
"He is criticizing the process used which gave those results."
No, he initially and unnecessarily criticized 10 Audio because the reviewer has different taste in equipment than he. I'm sure he appreciates you agreeing with him, as it appears he is looking for mutual affirmation.
..."Seriously? For the most part, he is a billboard for one manufacturer"...
Two of my latest purchases: Line Magnetic and Audio Space (PS bought with no review attached - I may review them down the line - but bought first). That's two manufacturers. Sure I like that "other" manufacturer a whole helluva lot but it's not generally affordable or represents sane value.
"with little reviewing experience."
Well everyone has to start somewhere. I can't listen to and write 700 amplifier reviews in a week to catch up. On the flip side I would argue that I didn't need to sit through 700 amplifiers to figure out what quality sound is. Morricab on the speaker asylum has put out a pretty good list as to some of the things that represent a truly great sounding amplifier - people can quibble over some of them - but if it's high feedback it's probably not good.
I am also not 65 years old with 45 years of listening to everything that ever came down the pipe. I have been listening to gear seriously for 20 years - 10 years of that to mostly mainstream audiophile approved brands. I certainly don't claim to be the most experienced best reviewer to ever walk the earth. I don't have the depth of experience of much older product lines. I am currently reviewing an LS3/5a the first such speaker I've heard for more than 10 minutes (the last one was Grant Fidelity version and a Harbeth). But this is an old hat reference standard monitor for many other more experienced critics.
So yeah - I am out of my depth on experience. On the flip side I also don't bring any emotional attachment to the LS3/5a - I am not going to compare it to 12 other versions or the original because I might have been 3 years old when the original came out. I have no nostalgia factor where when I was 18 I always dreamed of owning one and 30 years later I am more amenable to being favorable to it. No I look at it as "just another" small box in a sea of small boxes. Sometimes a lack of experience in this kind of situation can "perhaps" provide a fresher perspective or objective perspective rather than a "fan" of the design.
..."No, he initially and unnecessarily criticized 10 Audio because the reviewer has different taste in equipment than he..."
Actually his taste wasn't the issue - he didn't like the Krell - guess what - I don't much like the Krell sound myself. I have never heard a system using a Krell that I remotely liked for that matter - indeed 6/10 is probably considerably more than I would give them based on what I have heard over the years.
I just think they deserve more of a fair shake in a publicized review is all. As for some of the items they like I may disagree with their preference but they did a good job reviewing those - namely the Brystons.
RGA,
You remind me of my five-year old special needs nephew who constantly and irritatingly craves attention. Here was your original response to this thread:
[They give this to several products on their site that I find offer zero emotional satisfaction or take me "there" with no effort. They have amps given 10LPS that I would give 3 LPS.
Having read the review and what the "other components" listed I would not put much stock in their review, personally.]
I may not have the best reading comprehension, but that sure sounds like you were criticizing the reviewer's equipment preferences and his system, which you now claim was not the issue. You spent the next three posts trying to justify and BS your way out of your original cheap shot post.
Did it dawn on you that you were the only Industry Inmate to respond to this thread and IMHO, take an unnecessary cheap shot at another industry member who did absolutely nothing to you?
You are trying way too hard to come across as an intellectual audio guru. I urge you to pay attention to John Atkinson posts and think about emulating him. The man takes a lot of shit from AA inmates and always manages to handle himself with class and dignity. At the recent "Ask the Editors" question and answer session at the Newport Beach, CA, show, Atkinson came across as intelligent, honest, and genuine. I'm sure he could have responded to this thread and torn apart the 10 Audio Krell review, the reviewer and the 10 Audio website. Guess what, he didn't.
> You remind me of my five-year old special needs nephew who constantly and irritatingly craves attention.>
...of his older sister who is always putting him down and trying to rain on his parade because of her lack of attention.
Sounds like someone's Depends need changing. I completely understand, the over the hill generation of know-it-alls has to watch out out for the next generation of know-it-alls.
> ...the next generation of know-it-alls.>...you, of course.
You sound like a petulant child.
Edits: 06/22/12
"you, of course"
Coming from the guy with more than 25,000 AA posts.
Seriously, what's your rational for condoning and coming to the aid of an industry inmate who took a cheap shot at another industry inmate. Unprovoked, no less.
...look above and you'll see additional posts confirming his criticism from Ralph, a manufacturer and PatD.I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the original reviewer was not very thorough in his approach, leading to serious questions about his results.
And then there are other ethical issues...
Unless you've done some reviewing, you have no idea what you're talking about.
But it's the internet, and....uh...elbows are like opinions - everybody has one.
Why are you so opinionated here - do own that piece of equipment or maybe know him?
Edits: 06/22/12 06/22/12
I don't know the reviewer, never heard the Krell piece in question, and have never owned a Krell component. The thread was essentially baiting people to make comments/criticisms about the reviews and reviewers. And of course someone who doesn't even know the reviewer or heard the Krell piece took the bait. IMHO, a person trying to elevate himself by tearing down another person. Completely unnecessary and unprofessional. Especially, from someone supposedly in the industry.
Whether you agree with me or not, there should have been some kind of courtesy here. All of the other industry inmates managed to refrain themselves from taking shots. Ralph's post came way after the fact and had no bearing with RGA's cheap shot post. Being a former reviewer, I'm a little surprised that you condone this type of behavior. Hey, what do I know? I'm just a lowly audiophile who has no idea of what I'm talking about :)
...criticism of him different than his criticism of the review?Pot and kettle...
He only criticized the review - you took off on him personally.
Where's your courtesy?
At least he has the experience to know what he's talking about.
Edits: 06/23/12
First, Yes I am not a fan of the gear they rave about - Bryston for example. They raved about it and attached a rating. I read the rating and said gee I would require a ton of effort to have it "take me there".So I used the word "personally" I would not put much stock int them. I certainly don't deny what I said - I disagree with their take on what is good. So personally as a person - I would not find their reviews particularly helpful.
Second, the more important issue and the "main point" was they ripped into something without, IMO, giving it a fair shake (at least it's not explained that way to me from the text). I have said why I felt that way even though I might agree with them on the sound of the unit (have not heard it but I have heard other more costly Krells). But then I would not review a Krell unless I liked what I heard at a show in a home or a dealer or somewhere.
Third - I suppose I took a shot at them and perhaps I should have thought about it because I have an R beside my name but I am a person/audiophile first. And frankly I felt Krell deserved a helluva lot better.
If you're going to review something negatively that can have serious effects on their business and could cost people jobs due to a lack of sales then you owe it to them to be bloody well thorough when you do it.
That does not mean you should placate the manufacturer because the consumer is owed the truth - certainly - but I think they deserve a really in depth detailed reasoning for why it wasn't liked. I would never deliberately review something I didn't like - and I don't like very much which is a reason I have so few reviews because unlike many I don't review "everything" to make a name for myself nor am I going to rip something to make a name for myself so I can seem more "objective."
I just find it irritating that a negative review is always latched onto to seem more "objective" as if a negative review is some holy grail to the truth.
This is the review industry - people review gear. People disagree with takes on things. I'm from the Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel school who I loved watching for all the years I was old enough to remember. They'd argue all the time about each others' ratings.
I see no problem with a debate about products - I disagree with probably half the reviews out there - in Stereophile, TAS, 6moons and dagogo and they with me no doubt. I also don't see why that can't be said on a forum. It sure would make forums a lot more FUN! Heck Gene and Roger would argue about movies they both liked because one didn't like it enough. It was a hoot. And a very successful hoot I might add.
In this thread I was called a hack reviewing another hack. Doesn't bother me.
I don't think reviewers, review publications, political parties, religion, should go unscathed from debate because they're encased in publications or corporations. Also, I don't think because you have an R or an M or a D beside your name you have to have a gag order placed over your mouth to call it like you see it.
Granted I am not American but isn't there something about Free Speech - If I write that I think the Audio Note OTO is a terrific EL 84 amplifier and someone from TAS tells me he thinks it's poo that's fine with me - we discuss it get into one of those 57 response spiral debates that ends in "you're deaf" - "no you are" and it's settled.
That's why the magazines are so successful - they have so many different "tastes" reviewing the gear. One guy may buy Stereophile for Art Dudley because they like tubes and SETs and value and High efficiency, other read Art to see what zany bad measuring thing he's going to like next, others read so they can rant about some political comment he makes - and that's just one guy. Then you have Fremer and the more watts is better sound camp and diametrically opposed love for vinyl. Then others read for the measurements. JA doesn't need to enter discussions about e-zines that are mere blips on his map - in fact doing so may just increase competitor readership - so why bother?
And to be clear I even get your valid criticism of me entering this discussion and my "shot" about their preferences. And I totally understand why you think the classy thing for me to have done would have been to not post. Can't please all the people all of the time.
Edits: 06/20/12
Somebody has to :-)
Heaven help us when a Carey product is the reviewer's reference.
Observe, don't think
I'd tend to accept Jerry's criticism before most posters on Agon. Jerry's been publishing (vetted) for over 10 years and has extensive experience with multiple amps. (Well, at least he's reviewed amps.) I've never seen Dalovell's body of work, so I don't really know his experience. I'd put as much faith into a Dalovell report as I would a Sudz report.
Not that I am a fan of Dapper Dan.
That skinny marantz long thin one channel job which did not do so well reappeared as a Krell. I was totally WTF over seeing a crappy marantz with a Krell brand stuck on it.
WAS,NT THAT THE KRELL MADE IN CHINA,, With The KRELL S-300i
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: