Home General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Re: A reviewer`s opinion is no more valid than your`s or mine - they`re guides, not gospel.[nt]

Well, yes and no, Chris.

First off, most reviewers (at least the ones who have a track record) have listened to a lot more equipment than you and I, so, if they charactize something as "the best I've heard at the price" that statement means a lot more than it would coming from me (or perhaps from you).

Secondly, the best reviewers do a pretty good job of describing the sound of a component, whether they "like" it or not. That's valuable information; because sound is, to some degree, a matter of taste. Given that auditioning multiple examples of the same component usually involves going to several stores, often not close to you, being able to narrow your audition list is a useful thing.

A good example that I have followed with amusement for some time was TAS's damning with faint praise the current BAT CD player. The two TAS reviewers who listened to it, said they preferred a number of less expensive players, including the Sony 777ES SACD player (playing CDs, not SACDs). A few months later, in a Stereophile review of BAT's big tube power amp, there was a sidebar review of the same BAT CD player that was much more complimentary. Picking up on the TAS's characterization of the player as "dark", Stereophile's reviewer wrote that "even in a room with the lights out, it wasn't 'dark'." (that's as exact a quote as I can remember) Clearly, the boys are having a little fun with each other.

If you go back in Stereophile's on-line archives, you can find the 1998 review of the original BAT CD player (by JA), who compares it to a much different-sounding player (apparently) at the same price -- the Wadia 850. Guess what? JA doesn't use the term "dark" but he implies something similar when he says it obscures detail in good recordings that is evident in playback on the Wadia. (On bad recordings, he says he likes the BAT, which is forgiving.)

When you combine JA's comments from 1998, his colleagues' comments from this year and the TAS comments from late last year, they are all pretty much in agreement as to how the BAT player sounds. (I'm assuming that the newest version sounds much like the older version.) Where they disagree is whether they like that sound. TAS clearly doesn't; JA is mildly enthusiastic; the recent Stereophile reviewers (sorry, folks, can't remember who they were) are definitely enthusiastic.

What's important to the reader is not whether JA or the guys at TAS like the machine, but the accuracy of their description of how it sounds. If the reader is someone who does not like that kind of sound, he probably will take the BAT player off his audition list. If that sound quality appeals to him, then he will no doubt have a listen. For that, I think the combined efforts of these guys is a service not necessarily available from a web reviewer of limited experience (typically an owner).

As for the conspiracy theory stuff, somebody dumps that garbage here about once a month. I would note that the fact that a reviewer can buy a piece of equipment at wholesale is not likely to influence his view of the product. Most likely, he can by any product at wholesale. The effect is that the might be able to own a more fancy stereo than a "civilian" with the same discretionary income; that's all.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Michael Percy Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.