Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Critic's Corner

Guide to Reading Audio Reviews

97.65.184.7

When writers revert to clichés, they're being lazy or they're just trying not to tell you anything meaningful. (Politicians are masters of the latter.) There are certain clichés that are frequently used in audio reviews. What's the hidden meaning behind these clichés?

Cliché: Even my wife could notice the difference.
Translation: Most of the time when I hear a difference, it’s pure delusion. This time it’s real!

Cliché: It’s as good as equipment that costs twice as much.
Translation: There’s a lot of overpriced equipment out there. This one actually isn’t overpriced.

Cliché: It’s worth every cent of its price.
Translation: You can probably find equipment that’s just as good at half the price (see above).

Cliché: It’s a no brainer.
Translation: Don’t think for yourself. Just buy what I tell you. If you actually follow that advice, you ain’t got a brain.

Cliché: You’ll have to decide for yourself whether it’s worth the price (usually used for outrageously priced equipment.)
Translation: This thing is way overpriced. If you decide to buy it, I ain’t gonna call you crazy but you are.

Follow Ups:

I love it...reminds me of something MAD magazine used to do. - Arvind Kohli 09:40:21 10/23/09 (0)
NT
My favorite: - caspian@peak.org 19:12:46 10/16/09 (15)
"Careful system matching is required."

Depending on context, this can mean:

(A) This speaker has such low sensitivity AND impedance that you need a mama grizzly bear of an amp to drive it to reasonable levels.

(B) This amplifier is so underpowered that it will have serious trouble driving ANY real-world speaker to reasonable levels.

(C) This speaker (or amplifier) has such grossly inaccurate frequency response, that it requires an inversely inaccurate amplifier (or speaker) to level things out.

Then again, there are certain reviewers who consistently and predictably PREFER the sound of grossly inaccurate speakers driven by pathetically underpowered amplifiers. Remind me again why I should believe ANYTHING they write?
- because "accuracy" is not defined and does not exist? -t - Sordidman 06:34:30 10/18/09 (11)
  .
  
  There are no more humans
  Finally, robotic beings rule the world
  The humans are dead
  - OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . - caspian@peak.org 13:31:25 10/18/09 (10)
    . . . as the most lifelike possible reproduction of the original recorded sonic event.
    
    This has been the stated goal of hi-fi from the outset, and one to which many dedicted engineers and manufacturers have devoted their entire careers.
    
    Perhaps it doesn't "exist" in an absolute sense (what does?), since we have not reached the point where the reproduced sound is utterly indistinguishable from the original, but the industry has come incrementally closer to this ideal since its inception, and has certainly come a LONG way from Edison's windup phonograph!
    
    If accuracy does not "exist" as a worthy goal, why have so MANY designers of everytning from microphones to studio consoles to recording/mastering/disc pressing equipment to playback sources (analog or digital) to pre/power amplifiers to speakers worked so HARD, for so LONG, to maximize bandwidth, flatness of frequency response, and dynamic range, while minimizing distortion and noise? Why is there even an Audio Engineering Society? Why aren't we all still listening to Edison phonographs?
    - ". . . as the most lifelike possible reproduction of the original recorded sonic event." - Analog Scott 16:18:14 10/20/09 (1)
      Well we fall flat on our faces with the first step if that is how we define accuracy. stereo (and mulit-channel) recording and playback are not designed to do any sort of "reproduction of the original recorded sonic event." The original event, recorded or not is one that takes place in a three dimensional soundspace in real time. Unless we are talking Star Trek holodeck we aren't going to pull this off and, as I said, this ain't what stereo or multi-channel is designed to do. What it is designed to do is create an *illusion* of an original acoustic event from a chosen point of view. The soundfields of the original event and the playback room will be utterly different even if one achieves a perfect illusion. It will only be the same at two points if one achieves a perfect illusion. The left ear and the right ear. so now lets talk accuracy again with this in mind.
      - For once you're making sense! - Pat D 09:33:54 10/21/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: ". . . as the most lifelike possible reproduction of the original recorded sonic event." posted by Analog Scott on October 20, 2009 at 16:18:14
        
        Of course, Julian Hirsch said something similar long ago, that the purpose of high fidelity is to create a plausible illusion of the real thing.
        
        "Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
    - RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . - RGA 13:59:38 10/18/09 (7)
      What the problem is that Accuracy is either "accurate" or it is not accurate. 2+2=4 and 4 is the ONLY correct answer. It is either 4 or it is an innacurate answer.
      
      Using the notion that if something has flat response it is more accurate doesn't mean much if it doesn't SOUND or is not PERCEIVED as being more accurate. No matter what an engineer tells you it is completely irrelevant is the perceived response is that it sounds "unlike" the real thing.
      
      And now you have a serious problem because without an Accurate baseline where every engineer and perfect pitch listener agrees that stereo system A is perfectly accurate and so now you can compare system B and C to A then all you're doing is relying in a highly incomplete set of measurements and looking for broad correlations.
      
      And then you're left with perception and subjective opinions on what is "closer" to the real thing. Ask engineers what is more accurate and you get everything from horn speakers to panels to line arrays to single drivers. Engineers with degrees in the field can;t even agree on a speaker design that is "accurate" or "closer to the ideal". People bicker about tubes and SS but speakers make the bigger difference and on one is even remotely close on agreeing about them let alone the smaller differences of Tubes and SS or vinyl and CD.
      
      And if we learn to accept the fact that nothing is perfectly accurate then why not look at what is subjectively enjoyable and reminds the listener that this "seems" to be the "real thing." For instance by far the most realistic sound to my ear when it comes to transient attack of instruments and decay (body) of acoustic instruments of piano comes from SET amplifier than something like a Bryston. Yet every scientific aspect and measured response that I've seen makes that a curious proposition that is highly frustrating for me.
      
      I want to trust the measurements and the specs but I can't listen to the two and walk away from it saying the Bryston sounds more like the real thing - it may in fact be more "accurate" but it sure as hell doesn't sound more accurate. So what is the consumer to do - buy what it is "said" to be "accurate" because that is the goal or buy what makes a piano sound like a piano despite the second harmonic distortion goofball impedance problems and high THD. The fact is the brain ear interface is what provides us with the notion of "accuracy" and this is not a perfectly accurate interface.
      
      And over the years of endless arguments why can't both coexist? It's like the vinyl CD debate - to me it's irrelavent - if this is about music there is SOOOO much music on vinyl not on CD that you should have a turntable. Conversely there is SOOOO much music on CD not on vinyl that vinyl philes should buy a CD player. If someone likes one over the other - so what? Why does everyone get upset?
      - Unfortunately, there is no such thing as 100% "accurate" in home music reproduction... - mkuller 10:03:06 10/19/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by RGA on October 18, 2009 at 13:59:38
        
        ...so *everything* varies from that ideal in one way or another.
        
        Whether it's measured "accuracy" or "musical accuracy", compared to live unamplifed music in a real space, no audio component or speaker gets it all right.
        
        It is the reviewer's job to identify the sonic signature of the DUT and describe it, with musical examples, in terms the reader can understand.
        
        Moreover.... - RGA 21:34:43 10/19/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Unfortunately, there is no such thing as 100% "accurate" in home music reproduction... posted by mkuller on October 19, 2009 at 10:03:06
        
        There is little point in describing my reference if reader's have never heard any of the components of my reference. To say a Sim Audio is "dark" doesn't really mean much because it may be "dark" because of the interaction with the overly bright reference I am using.
        
        I am of the view (and unfortunately it doesn't work this way even with best intentions) that system reviews are more helpful to people than component reviews.
        
        If I review and all Linn system - then you and everyone else on the forum can go out and determine if RGA's review of the Linn system holds merit with what you heard. If I suggest that the Linn system is polite or a little laid back compared to say an all Bryston/PMC system and you have easy access to the latter as well then you can determine if I'm hearing it the way you're hearing it.
        
        But if you read a lot of reviewer's systems they have speakers perhaps that have not been sold on the market for more than 15 years. UHF magazine have reference system pieces few have heard. Their baseline reference is no help to you if you have not heard it - or likely will never be able to hear it.
        
        At the end of the day I found reviews not to be very helpful to me. I decided that instead of "trusting" reviews I would get my butt off the couch and out of Chapters and listen to the stuff myself. Then I would create a list of stuff that I liked and see which reviewers were on the same page.
        
        With the myriad of possible system combinations it seems ridiculous to me to be able to say "Rotel" sounds bright or Cary is veiled or whatever.
        
        Just last week I auditioned a Rotel RC 1082 preamp - changed out the CD players and got wildly different results. The Tube CD player actually took on SS stereotypes of being open fast lean and a little bright while the SS CD player sounded dark heavy and a little veiled.
        
        However with the tube misconception that tubes are soft and mushy and thick sounding if you heard the combination "most" people would blame the Rotel for being bright - after all it is Solid State. In reality I found the Rotel extremely commendable because it really did what it was supposed to do and give the listener a wide open window to what both CD players sounded like.
        
        Was the tube CD player the problem - perhaps a mismatch - but it did bring IMO "more of the recording" out than the SS Sim Audio player. The leanness in the rock recordings simply didn't paper over the cracks and that tube cd player in a different system was pure excellence - still the Sim Audio CD player with the Rotel while a little veiled was easier in many respects to listen to longer term. But the tube CD player IMO was considerably better sounding in the system it was designed for - SETs and tube friendly speakers.
        
        It's awfully difficult to review when confronted with such varying differences in sound. It's all well and good to have a "reference" amp or speakers but the fact is some stuff is just not going to get along with other stuff.
        
        And IMO no words or graphs substitute the actual visceral experience of listening. The the trick is to have the confidence to buy what your ears tell you rather than some review, because after all - next month that reviewer will be telling you about some other amp that is absolutely wonderful.
        
        If a reviewer does a thorough job... - mkuller 10:46:56 10/20/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Moreover.... posted by RGA on October 19, 2009 at 21:34:43
        
        ...of reviewing a component, he uses other associated equipemnt, besides his references, to insure what he is hearing and describing is the DUT's sonic signature and is not a result of component or system interactions.
        
        It's a lot of hard work.
        
        That way the reader can decide if the DUT's strengths and weaknesses are appealing enough to add to his list for audition.
        
        Any reader who purchases a component on the basis of a review without auditioning the component for himself deserves what he gets.
      - If only reviewers understood "neutral" - mt10425 04:35:57 10/19/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by RGA on October 18, 2009 at 13:59:38
        
        the way you explain "accuracy". It either is or it isn't. Instead, we get:
        
        more neutral,
        less,
        closer to,
        on one side or the other of neutral,
        almost,
        etc.
        
        "Apparently, people now believe that mental telepathy is the foundation of communication and magic is the source of daily events. Consequently, we no longer have to participate in our own lives."
      - RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . - caspian@peak.org 19:18:14 10/18/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by RGA on October 18, 2009 at 13:59:38
        
        "Accuracy is either "accurate" or it is not accurate. 2+2=4 and 4 is the ONLY correct answer. It is either 4 or it is an innacurate answer."
        
        Unfortunately, outside the realm of simple arithmetic, there are few "only" correct answers in the universe. In the real world (of, say, capacitor or resistor tolerances), you might have to settle for 3.997 as being RELATIVELY closer to perfect than 3.826. With slightly more advanced mathematics, many uncertainties come into play. Consider the case of Pi, which has been calculated out to thousands of decimal places, but still seems to keep going forever. How far do you need to calculate it for acceptable results? Maybe that depends, if you're an architect, on how big a round thing you're trying to build.
        
        "And then you're left with perception and subjective opinions on what is "closer" to the real thing. Ask engineers what is more accurate and you get everything from horn speakers to panels to line arrays to single drivers. Engineers with degrees in the field can't even agree on a speaker design that is "accurate" or "closer to the ideal"."
        
        Very true. Since absolute perfection is unattainable, these engineers focus on those aspects of performance which they personally (and dare I say "subjectively"?) find most important. Those who love efficiency and lifelike macrodynamics gravitate toward horns. Those into microdynamics and resolution of the finest midrange details like planars. Those who value wide, even dispersion and a huge soundstage like line arrays or omnidirectionals. And so on. But I suspect that MOST of them agree on the importance of reasonably flat frequency response, smooth (if declining) off-axis response, good phase tracking, low distortion, and lack of audible cabinet resonances. As a DIY speaker guy, nowhere near their level of expertise, I focus on these things because they are variables I can control. When I can measure precisely the response I modeled (and it sounds good to boot!), I know I've done something right.
        
        "For instance by far the most realistic sound to my ear when it comes to transient attack of instruments and decay (body) of acoustic instruments of piano comes from SET amplifier than something like a Bryston. Yet every scientific aspect and measured response that I've seen makes that a curious proposition that is highly frustrating for me."
        
        A lot of people have observed this, and I wonder if it has to do with complementary and cancelling distortions. The piano is notoriously the most difficult instrument to record. Microphones don't "hear" exactly like human ears, so maybe some of the piano's extremely complex overtone structure simply fails to get recorded, at the mic or somewhere down the signal chain? Maybe the SET's overtone structure "restores" something approximately similar to what got lost in the recording process, while the Bryston just tells you what is on the recording, and doesn't add its own commentary? Dunno--just speculating.
        
        "And over the years of endless arguments why can't both coexist? It's like the vinyl CD debate - to me it's irrelevent - if this is about music there is SOOOO much music on vinyl not on CD that you should have a turntable. Conversely there is SOOOO much music on CD not on vinyl that vinyl philes should buy a CD player. If someone likes one over the other - so what? Why does everyone get upset?"
        
        Sir -- let me shake your hand and buy you a beer! I love my vinyl (which includes hundreds of obscure titles that will NEVER see the light of laser) and I love my CDs. I've heard a number of different speaker types, including horns and planars, and have built conventional dynamic monopoles and omnidirectionals: I'm aware of the virtues and drawbacks of each type. I'm quite happy with my SS amp, but would certainly be open to listening to a good SET. I may yet build one from a kit or plans, just to see what all the fuss is about. (The only tube amp I have much experience with is the Dynaco ST-70, which I built from a kit when I was 16, and had frustrating reliability issues over the years).
        
        I think people should listen to whatever they enjoy and can afford, even if it's only a table radio, regardless of whether I would enjoy it as much. I only get "upset" when I see GROSSLY misperforming or shoddily built products marketed as "high end," for ridiculous prices, and know I could build something far better at a fraction of the cost.
        
        RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . - John Atkinson 11:56:53 10/19/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by caspian@peak.org on October 18, 2009 at 19:18:14
        
        > > "Accuracy is either "accurate" or it is not accurate. 2+2=4 and 4 is
        > > the ONLY correct answer. It is either 4 or it is an innacurate answer."
        >
        > Unfortunately, outside the realm of simple arithmetic, there are
        > few "only" correct answers in the universe. In the real world (of, say,
        > capacitor or resistor tolerances), you might have to settle for 3.997 as
        > being RELATIVELY closer to perfect than 3.826...
        
        Excellent post, Caspian. It is even worse than you describe, however, as
        the performance of an audio component is _multi_dimensional. Any
        particular component will depart from true accuracy to a different degree
        on all of the possible axes, and will also be different from any other
        component on every one of theose axes. A straight one-dimensional score,
        as is being discussed, is both arbitrary and misleading. This is why we
        insists that readers of Stereophile's "Recommended Components" listing
        read the original review of a component to get the full picture.
        
        John Atkinson
        Editor, Stereophile
        
        a question about accuracy which should shed some light on the obvious difficluties . - Analog Scott 16:24:19 10/20/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: OK, first let us define "accuracy" . . . posted by John Atkinson on October 19, 2009 at 11:56:53
        
        What is more accurate a photo taken of an object with a telephoto lens and a wide apature or a wide angle lens and a small apature? recordings are more like snap shots of the original event than a reconstruction of it. that alone almost kills the notion of absolute accuracy to an original event. a recording artist ultimately chooses a listener perspective and that choice is not an objective one. It is a purely subjective aesthetic choice.
- I consider "careful system matching required" useful - clearly communicates a reservation t - keith_d 10:06:55 10/17/09 (0)
  t
- Careful system matching is required - Steyr 06:01:40 10/17/09 (1)
  In all systems if you want a great end result. And many hi-eff loudspeakers measure better than conventional. Lower distortion, higher SPL, less need for excessive power,greater dynamic range less compresion of signal. You think needing hipower to run a loudspeakers a good thing? More costly to build proper hi-eff transducers than low eff ones with weak motors. These are what need hi-power. So the aproach of low power with hi-eff makes sence from a performance stand point. And is a great way to get good sound. As is the hi=power weak motor loudspeaker with massive power hungry networks. One can with care assemble quality systems with ea. No oneway for everyman. I use both types of system.
  - Agree, mostly - caspian@peak.org 08:16:59 10/17/09 (0)
    I dearly love the sound of my reconditioned Dahlquist DQ10 speakers, but they are power hogs (maybe 82dB sensitivity, or less?), and get down below 3 Ohms at some frequencies. My Adcom 545 amp is barely adequate to drive them -- they are the only speakers that ever made its clipping light blink.
    
    I also have a nice pair of DIY 2.5 way towers which clock in around 90dB sensitivity. Impedance drops below 4 Ohms in the bass, but the Adcom can drive them to neighbor-scaring levels without breaking a sweat. I suspect a decent modestly powered tube amp with a 4 Ohm tap could make them sing beautifully.
    
    I haven't heard too many true high-efficiency (95dB+) speakers, except for horn-based pro models. I like their dynamics, but the horn colorations come to grate on my nerves rather quickly. Most of the non-horn hi-eff speakers I've seen reviewed had rather horrid measurements, including roller-coaster frequency response and high distortion.
No, this is what the "cliches" really mean - JustJoe 17:02:11 10/16/09 (5)
Cliché: Even my wife could notice the difference.
ScottZ Translation: Most of the time when I hear a difference, it’s pure delusion. This time it’s real!

My translation: Most hi end gear is subtly different and only someone who listens a lot can tell. In this case, even someone who is a casual listener not attuned to subtle differences, can tell the difference.

Cliché: It’s as good as equipment that costs twice as much.
ScottZ Translation: There’s a lot of overpriced equipment out there. This one actually isn’t overpriced.

My translation: It's as good as gear that is more expensively priced. It's a good bargain.

Cliché: It’s worth every cent of its price.
ScottZ Translation: You can probably find equipment that’s just as good at half the price (see above).

My translation: If I (the reviewer) were buying it, I wouldn't mind paying the price or it.

Cliché: It’s a no brainer.
Scott Z Translation: Don’t think for yourself. Just buy what I tell you. If you actually follow that advice, you ain’t got a brain.

My translation: It's obviously a great buy.

Cliché: You’ll have to decide for yourself whether it’s worth the price (usually used for outrageously priced equipment.)
Scott Z Translation: This thing is way overpriced. If you decide to buy it, I ain’t gonna call you crazy but you are.

My translation: It's very expensive and does make subtle improvements, but you would have to decide if these improvements are worth the price.

There's no need to be bitter.
Can't we all just get along
:)
Just "Rodney King" Joe
Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then it doesn't sound better!
- Good Translation Joe! - thetubeguy1954 09:44:29 10/18/09 (4)
  JustJoe,
  
  I found your translations to be a lot closer to what I'd think a reviewer would mean "if' he said the things ScottZ used as an example.
  I don't know ScottZ but, if this post is any indication of his beliefs on audio I'd suspect he's bit bitter & cynical.
  
  Thetubeguy1954
  
  ~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
  - No, not bitter or cynical... - ScottZ 21:41:28 10/20/09 (0)
    ...mainly amused by the always half-glass-full (and sometimes a third-glass-full) perspective of paid audio reviewers. The original post was intended to be satiric. Astralnavigator obviously got it. I find the cliches funny--crude justifications offered by the reviewer to the reader to purchase new gear.
    Case in point: JA's review of Aerial Acoustics speakers in the current Stereophile. At the end of the review he compares the AAs to three other "reference" speakers, all of which cost substantially less than the AAs. He identifies some incremental differences between the speakers, some positive, some negative. The evaluation leads one to believe there's really no clear "winner" among the four speakers, He could have left the reader to draw his own conclusions. (I would've thought the AAs were overpriced compared to the competition.) But, nooooooo. He has to conclude the review of the Aerial Acoustics with a typical audIio review cliche: "It's a winner!" Ha ha ha! It's that kind of ridiculous hyperbole that undermines an otherwise good review.
    
    Edits: 10/20/09
  - RE: Translating the translation - astralnavigator 19:00:18 10/19/09 (1)
    "I don't know ScottZ but, if this post is any indication of his beliefs on audio I'd suspect he's bit bitter & cynical."
    
    Translation:
    
    I've spent a real pissload on endless upgrades, especially Italian gear like Sam loves, I kinda feel a bit guilty and foolish about it, and ScottZ is really conflicting with my validation needs.
    - LOL, and for the record - JustJoe 20:44:27 10/20/09 (0)
      TubeGuy speculated on ScottZ beng bitter and cynical...I said no such thing.
      
      Can't we all just get along?
      Just Joe
      Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then it doesn't sound better!
  - +1 on that - Bruce from DC 14:03:40 10/19/09 (0)
    nice work
RE: Guide to Reading Audio Reviews - hifitommy 16:17:47 10/16/09 (19)
"Cliché: Even my wife could notice the difference."

given the fact that most women dont give an aeronautical intercourse in a rotating torroidal pastry about audio matters, i for one consider that as a good reference. i use my daughter that way at times.

Cliché: It’s as good as equipment that costs twice as much.
Translation: There’s a lot of overpriced equipment out there. This one actually isn’t overpriced.

some people believe that the build quality of a product is as important as the sound. personally i will go for the sound due to budgetary reasons.

"Cliché: It’s worth every cent of its price.
Translation: You can probably find equipment that’s just as good at half the price (see above)."

the traslation doesnt say that to me. it means just what it says.

"Cliché: It’s a no brainer.
Translation: Don’t think for yourself. Just buy what I tell you. If you actually follow that advice, you ain’t got a brain."

of course people dont see what the DUT sounds like for themselves, we are all lemmings. NOT.

"Cliché: You’ll have to decide for yourself whether it’s worth the price (usually used for outrageously priced equipment.)
Translation: This thing is way overpriced. If you decide to buy it, I ain’t gonna call you crazy but you are."

now THAT translation seems close to the truth. its good to see a reviewer use that reference.

it seems like everyone now wants to be mentioned in one of the review magazines. i hope we dont get flooded with this kind of fluff in this forum. there are enough legitimate concerns to deal with.

...regards...tr
- RE: Guide to Reading Audio Reviews - Spendor Harbeth 16:29:26 10/16/09 (18)
  Who put salt in your coffee this morning?
  
  While the poster could have more elegantly framed his thoughts, its a legitimate post. This IS Critics Corner the last time I checked.
  
  He has every right to call out lazy reviewing.
  
  While we are at it, let's ban the words "bloom", "extension", "PRAT" (this one is total nonsense), "etch", and especially "bright".
  
  The next time some gutless review end with "only YOU can decide the value of component/speaker X" it should be called out. Thankfully, these types of review conclusions are becoming less frequent. There is nothing wrong with the readership helping to shape the review process. I think it has a long way to improve...in MY opinion.
  - Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - powermatic 21:08:26 10/17/09 (12)
    not vinyl is part of your rig, but believe me, 'PRAT', when referred to the LP medium, is not "total nonsense". In fact, far from it.
    
    "dammit"
    - RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - Spendor Harbeth 22:20:28 10/17/09 (11)
      No vinyl insanity in sight in my rig.
      
      To quote Sam T, hifi journalists prattle on about PRAT.
      - RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - Myles B. Astor 06:43:56 10/18/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 17, 2009 at 22:20:28
        
        Unfortunately you're wrong there. Leading designers and engineers such as Keith Johnson have talked about it as I already referenced on AA.
        
        Too bad Sam subscribes to shooting from the hip before researching facts.
        Myles B. Astor
        
        RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - Spendor Harbeth 06:46:52 10/18/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by Myles B. Astor on October 18, 2009 at 06:43:56
        
        How am I "wrong"? Because people have "talked" about PRAT it exists?
        
        In my opinion it is the fantasy of middle aged hifi enthusiasts who listen to components and not music.
      - RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - powermatic 22:42:55 10/17/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 17, 2009 at 22:20:28
        
        "No vinyl insanity in sight in my rig."
        
        I can understand your not having the ability to play records in your music reproduction system, but to call it "insanity" is, to be kind, a negative commentary on your ability to discern any nuance, at all, in your play back system, and makes me question any, and all, comments you've made previously. That kind of all-encompassing negative face-slap is usually reserved for those with little nuance, and less tact. This from someone who has, to a certain degree, supported your campaign against the Critic Establishment.
        
        As for "Sam T", I don't give a shit what he thinks.
        
        vaya con dios
        
        "dammit"
        
        RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - Spendor Harbeth 22:49:37 10/17/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by powermatic on October 17, 2009 at 22:42:55
        
        Don't Fremer Out on me.
        
        Just to be clear, are you saying that since I don't spin LP's I have no idea how to listen to a system? I don't think that is fair.
        
        I'll admit I do enjoy ribbing the Vinyl Fetishists in good fun. If I was a vinyl head I would have be on a dozen medications in dealing with tone arms, phono stages, phono cables, isolation, cleaning...etc.etc...
        
        And I do appreciate your support by the way.
        
        RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or - Spendor Harbeth 23:56:37 10/17/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 17, 2009 at 22:49:37
        
        Just for this convoluted, muddled reply I repeat...
        
        PRAT is OLD British hifi rag NON SENSE.
        
        Let's review... - powermatic 23:20:50 10/17/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Since you don't reveal your system I have no idea whether or posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 17, 2009 at 22:49:37
        
        -you referred to PRAT as "nonsense"
        
        -I asked for your bona fides as per vinyl play back, relative to the 'PRAT' issue
        
        -you, in reply, termed playing vinyl as "insanity", with no mention of how LP musical reproduction may, or may not, have an effect on PRAT.
        
        -you somehow, oddly, brought Sam Tellig into the equation. May I say-WTF?
        
        Now, let's look at another potential response:
        
        "You're right-my system does not have the ability to play LPs, so perhaps I'm missing the potential of PRAT to be a viable and discernible part of my listening experience. Thanks for bringing that to my attention."
        
        I'd call attention to the irony vis'-a-vis' the general 'critics' review, but I'm assuming you're seeing it without my assistance.
        
        "dammit"
        
        RE: Let's review... - Spendor Harbeth 23:57:56 10/17/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Let's review... posted by powermatic on October 17, 2009 at 23:20:50
        
        Just for this convoluted, muddled reply I repeat...
        
        PRAT is OLD British hifi rag NON SENSE.
        
        According to my dictionary: - b.l.zeebub 05:11:34 10/18/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Let's review... posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 17, 2009 at 23:57:56
        
        Prat, Noun Informal (Brit.): an incompetent, foolish or stupid person; an idiot.
        
        AFAIK in audio the term was invented by Linn as a marketing tool (Linn did have some very dodgy marketing techniques bordering on the deceitful like the infamous foot-tapping dealers were urged to use when the Linn product was playing).
        The terms it allegedly an abbreviation for are all characteristics inherent in the software (music) and in no sensible way applicable to replay systems.
        Btw I do use vinyl and my vinyl set up has got no PRaT at all but is perfectly capable to replay music which has these in spades.
        
        RE: According to my dictionary: - Spendor Harbeth 06:00:53 10/18/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: According to my dictionary: posted by b.l.zeebub on October 18, 2009 at 05:11:34
        
        I may need to call on you in my defense during the trial!
        
        I really do laugh to myself at all the sheep who repeat some of the drivel printed in the audio hobbyist publications.
        
        Besides PRAT, they include such nonsense as Naim is known for "pace", silver cables are "bright", only powerful amps can create dynamics, Redbook cd is "low resolution", and best of all, men over 60 can actually hear better than younger people.
        
        If you repeat such dreck often enough, it is perceived at true.
        
        LOL! Yes, your heroic benefactor composed this - powermatic 21:02:38 10/20/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: According to my dictionary: posted by Spendor Harbeth on October 18, 2009 at 06:00:53
        
        cryptic sentence:
        
        "The terms it allegedly an abbreviation for are all characteristics inherent in the software (music) and in no sensible way applicable to replay systems"
        
        Good luck with your key witness in whatever is the "trial" you see forthcoming. Sad as it may be, and despite my aforementioned support of your 'wag the fist at the man behind the curtain' posts, I'm beginning to suspect you're not the experienced audiophile necessary to carry on any kind of fight. Despite your having listened to two different brands of British speakers.
        
        vaya con dios
        
        "dammit"
        
        RE: LOL! Yes, your heroic benefactor composed this - Spendor Harbeth 02:35:50 10/21/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: LOL! Yes, your heroic benefactor composed this posted by powermatic on October 20, 2009 at 21:02:38
        
        How laughable. You are the authority to judge my audiophile "credentials"?
        
        What utter rubbish. Sit back, enjoy the ride while I entertain you, and open up your old, crusty brain. Enjoy your PRAT while I listen to music.
        
        Peace out. Wait till you see my next beautiful masterpiece. And tell Artie thanks for the shout out.
  - RE: Guide to Reading Audio Reviews - Dave Pogue 07:51:14 10/17/09 (1)
    I find bloom, etch, and especially bright to be very useful words in a review. They may not mean exactly the same to a specific reviewer as they mean to me, but they sure help me decide whether I'm likely to love or hate the product.
    - RE: Guide to Reading Audio Reviews - Spendor Harbeth 15:31:05 10/17/09 (0)
      Fair enough.
  - i was pretty clear - hifitommy 18:12:42 10/16/09 (2)
    i meant EVERY word. unfounded criticism is a waste of breath and bandwidth.
    
    "You’ll have to decide for yourself" should be the mantra of EVERY reviewer! they CAN'T decide for you. and that has nothing to do with price. listen for yourself.
    
    sooner or later you'll make a mistake and buy the wrong thing, and conversely, sooner or later you'll buy the bargain of a lifetime.
    
    ...regards...tr
    - RE: i was pretty clear - Spendor Harbeth 18:44:26 10/16/09 (0)
      ..and I forgot to add, deciding if a high end audio product is a good value is EXACTLY what they are paid to do. If not then what purpose do they serve.
    - RE: i was pretty clear - Spendor Harbeth 18:32:12 10/16/09 (0)
      I get your point. But...
      
      Reviewers who are long in the tooth who have seen every fad come and go and have professionally and personally evaluated and heard hundreds of components and speakers to claim that they can't figure out if $24,000 Redbook cd player or a $6000 interconnect is a good value they are full of it and toeing the line as not to offend. Its NOT up to the reader to figure it out. Again, I'm focusing on the value, not on quality of the product.
      
      Its common sense, and they DAMN well know their are alternatives in every case.
      
      There is no fancy argument, spin, or hair splitting that can convince otherwise.
RE: Guide to Reading Audio Reviews - Spendor Harbeth 15:58:02 10/16/09 (0)
A man after my own heart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the club!!!!! Get ready for all the backlash,
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn - bjh 11:41:19 10/16/09 (0)
Another day, another bitch.

Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.