Home General Asylum

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

Stereophile reviews

212.211.83.26


From “Different Strokes” 1994 : “I therefore demand from my writers that their reviews accurately reflect the results of their auditioning so that readers, listening to the same components under the same conditions, will share the same experience. Stereophile’s reviewers are therefore instructed to make available to readers all the details of equipment and recordings used in their evaluations so that their prejudices, tastes, methodologies, and biases are laid out for public inspection.”

Acoustic properties of the listening room are considered to have a major effect on the overall sound. “The same conditions” would mean a similar room of similar acoustic properties and similar setup of components and furniture. How is the reader supposed to know whether or not his listening conditions are similar to the ones of the reviewer, given the fact that no detailed information is given in the review.

I would therefore suggest that the standard review includes e.g. a drawing of the reviewer’s room with dimensions, location of speakers, listening chair, furniture, openings, room treatment devices etc. Further, indication of parameters like reverberation time (over frequency), Schröder frequency would give some more insight into what’s going on in that room.

Further, Stereophile seems to have been quite enthusiastic about “review accessories” like LEDR or the NMR (Noise Masking Ratio) measuring device. The LEDR has been used a only couple of times, the NMR probably not at all. Why this loss of interest ?

Klaus


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


Topic - Stereophile reviews - Klaus 06:27:08 02/08/04 (12)


You can not post to an archived thread.