|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.188.229.200
I received my Absolute Sound today and was reading a review of the Rotel RDD 1580 DAC by Spencer Holbert.The meat of the review I did not take exception to. It was the fact that he refused to divulge the mystery DAC that was so thoroughly trounced by the Rotel RDD-1580. Here is a excerpt from TAS:
With the comparison DAC the effect was "similar", but the soundstage was truncated, never extending beyond the edges of the speakers, and about half the depth.This was using the same USB cable, the same computer - the same everything. For the same price, the RDD-1580 put the comparison DAC to shame, and was far more engaging in it's ability elicit a viceral response to the music. Several times during the track "Discovering" I caught myself clenching my fists and sliding toward the edge of my seat, all because the RDD-1580 made the music that much more gripping.
Ok; great DAC. What is the "comparison" DAC that was as Spencer put it, "put to shame"?
In the comments following the online review one reader asks; "Did I miss something, or did the author really refuse to say what the comparison DAC was?" To which the author replies;
"I admit, guilty as charged. But I feel it is not my place to denigrate companies, but rather point out the good ones. I think it would be unwise to be too negative about a brand, because they can turn around and come out with great products overnight. Rotel had some rough years, but they have really made a comeback."
What bravery! This kind of SH!T makes me want to puke!
Certain editors of magazines wonder why subcribers question their integrity and ethics.We sure wouldn't want upset the company of the "comparison" DAC, as they might not be so intersted in doing business with us in the future........
I wonder if reviewers at TAS are issued one of these (pictured) when they accept a position at TAS?
☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆
Adendum
I find it curious that only one reviewer thus far has chimed in. It makes me wonder if there is a unwritten rule amongst reviewers to not have an opinion in a public forum that may be seen as critical or supportive to one of their own - curious......
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Edits: 04/07/14 04/09/14Follow Ups:
Thanks! for sharing.
Geezerrocket,
The review wasn't about the comparison DAC, but rather the Rotel.
I stated that the comparison DAC was the same cost and featured the same specs.
If I had stated the comparison DAC, I'm sure I would have lots of comments about "all the other DACs I should have compared."
A review is supposed to be about the product being reviewed, not a laundry list of every comparable component that may or may not be better--or worse. Such a list would take up an entire issue of a magazine.
Reviews are meant to be a guide to what products are worthy of review and purchase.
Polemic serves no purpose other than to instigate irrelevant debates. Remember, we are all in this hobby together. My only goal is to bring as many people into this hobby as possible, and to point out the good products worthy of audition.
I was a consumer before I worked for The Absolute Sound. I never wanted to see lists of products that were "bad," because such lists would be unnecessary and take up too much time. There are far more bad products than good, and our goal is to find the products that offer the best sound for the money. The Rotel RDD-1580 DAC is one of those products. Nobody slipped me a check or gave extra advertising for me to write a review. It is simply a good product.
Spencer
Your logic is flawed. There is no necessary assumption that by naming the comparison DAC you were obligated to compare all similarly situated DACs. If one compares equipment, then there is an obligation for offering a fully transparent review, which includes the name of the compared product, it really is not complicated. You owed your readers full disclosure and you did not meet your reviewers burden
But then being female, I'm an oddity amongst audiophiles and audio reviewers and as such have never considered myself one of "them".
I would not question another reviewer's sonic assessment of a product because there are simply too many variables such as associated gear, etc.
As far as not being willing to name a comparison product? Why use it then? Do you think Rotel will be bragging how their DAC is so good it shamed an unknown mystery DAC?
...it shamed an unknown mystery DAC?"
That cost several 'times' more, or even 'thousands' more?
(who knows for sure)
And why?
Because it's a 'name brand' DAC that's so expensive and so popular, even the reviewer is not free to disclose its name!
Will Rotel be bragging?
Of course they will!
The ad copy almost writes itself,
I think the shelf life on high-end audio has finally expired.
Just kidding :-)
Maybe it's just the shelf life on TAS.
For the record, Mr. Holbert indicated that the comparison DAC was the same price as the Rotel RRD-1580 in the review.
I do see your point though. I'm sure Rotel has already submitted excerpts of the review to their advertising department to milk it for all its worth.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
I very much miss your reviews and wish you would get back in the game. :)
NT
Thanks so much for the vote of confidence. Now don't burn me at the stake when my first review comes out :)
Do you have a gig!?
Click on the "R" next to my name. No reviews have been posted yet but I am currently working on one.
Great news. I hope plenty more requests for your services will follow.
with a symbiotic relationship with the manufacturers. That is to be expected, but it limits the reviewers' effectiveness. Their opinions DO hold some sway as the audiophile community is small, reads reviews, and reviews do help popularize gear, which adds resale value.
The reviewers are, at the least, able to obtain gear at cost. And that is fine. But a reviewer who constantly criticizes gear will get shut out of that privilege, by either no longer being loaned gear for review and possible purchase or, worse yet, no longer being asked to review at all!
There is a degree of honesty that is possible. But this is a carefully balanced relationship, that, like a marriage, must balance hard honesty with goodwill to keep the marriage afloat!
Even before TAS accepted advertising, if they had laid bare in their fashion of writing solely criticism of weaknesses of each piece of gear, eventually they would have been given nothing to review. As in every relationship, each piece of stereo gear has its good and bad points.
Nobody wants to be stuck sleeping on the couch, even if they do have a gorgeous looking and sounding amplifier to keep them warm...
Steve
and its easy to show that its unethical to do a negative review.
We've been through this one before so in a nutshell:
A bad review can occur because:
1) the reviewer is incompetent at setup
2) the reviewer made a mistake and won't man up to it
3) the reviewer might have a personal beef with the manufacturer, unrelated to the product
4) the reviewer might be asked to write a negative review based on the fact that the manufacturer is not an advertiser
5) a product is damaged in shipment, and the manufacturer is not allowed to repair it
6) there could be politics with another manufacturer/advertiser
7) a magazine, wanting to show that they have 'hard hitting journalism' will select a sacrificial lamb (manufacturer), one that cannot fight back due to their small size or the like.
8) a reviewer/magazine is carrying out a vendetta against the manufacturer. This is not quite the same as 3)
I've seen all of the above.
If a product does not measure up to some sort of minimum standard, the best policy is to not write anything about it and return the un-reviewed product. Out of sight: out of mind.
If you look at Car and Driver, they have shootouts all the time. Imagine them doing a bad review of a car because it does not stack up to some unknown car of which nothing is revealed. That would never fly.
As someone who has spent more than 20 years as a journalist, with a professional degree in the field and time spent in a variety of roles from reporter to editor to publisher, I couldn't disagree more with either notion -- that negative reviews are unethical or that the proper policy when reviewing a product that doesn't measure up to minimum standards of performance is to return it to the manufacturer unreviewed.
I think just the opposite is true, professional responsibility sometimes demands negative reviews. Consumer electronics reviews are service journalism, nothing more. The responsibility of the reviewer is to provide information to readers to help them make better-informed buying decisions. At the very least never publishing a bad review when a products do warrant them -- because they sound bad, don't perform properly, have reliability issues, represent a lousy value, whatever -- does a disservice to readers by either giving the impression that everything is good, or that everything that's not reviewed isn't good. At worst it's putting the interests of the manufacturers -- many of whom are probably advertisers -- or at least the interest of maintaining a relationship with the manufacturers, ahead of the responsibility to inform the readers. That misplaced priority would, in my judgement, represent a breach of professional ethics.
Further, I'd say particularly in instances where -- if it ever happens -- a major manufacturer offers a project that purports to be an assault on the state of the art, and it doesn't perform to that level, it's the publication's responsibility to publish a negative review.
Having worked in a sort of trade publishing at one point in my career, I'm very familiar with the kinds of challenges faced by trade and specialty publishers whose advertisers, sources and readers all come from the same professional community. I'm also sensitive to the needs of a publication whose lifeblood is access to equipment to maintain relationships with manufacturers. These are businesses after all. Nothing's pure in this world. But specialty audio publishing seems to be an environment particularly fraught with, if not conflicts of interest certainly practices that give rise to the appearance of conflicts of interest -- the long terms loans and discounted prices made available to reviewers, for example; and the widespread practice of avoiding the publication of negative reviews is another practice that undermines credibility.
Jason Chervokas
As someone who has spent 38 years as an engineer, with a professional degree in the field, and time spent in a variety of roles from technician to engineer and CEO, it seems to me that a negative review remains an unethical act, in light of having seen all the reasons why played out at one point or another first hand. I listed these reasons in the post to which you responded.
Put another way, so far in high end audio I know of a greater number of negative reviews that are the result of politics rather than actual truth. Further, I had the opportunity to sit in on a conversation wherein I saw how money can affect the plans of a publisher, in this case one that is well-known. Thus I am aware of publishing organizations where the advertising and editorial stance are quite separate and I know of others where they are not.
Humans being what they are, the assumption that the *entire* publishing industry is on the up and up is unfortunately a foolhardy act.
I appreciate that you may find yourself well above some of the antics I have witnessed. At any rate due to my own first hand experience with this matter you will be unable to change my mind despite your sincerity. I think it important for you to understand that 'an exception' in this matter is what you may well be.
It's perfectly possible to write an unethical negative review -- as an act of revenge or something, or as pure libel with a reckless disregard for the truth -- just as it's perfectly possible to write an unethical rave -- like if you're paid off or something, or even when you write a rave about a piece of gear you're living with on a long term lone, which is tantamount to a pay off.
But the very act of writing a negative review is in no way unethical, and it's often the only responsible act for the journalist. And to my way of thinking any overarching policy to only publish positive reviews is inherently compromised and does a disservice to the readership.
The primary ethical responsibility of the journalist is to the reader -- to inform the reader fully and truthfully. The ethical responsibility to the subject of the review is fairness.
Like I said, specialty interest publishers, like trade publishers, face inherently compromising positions because their sources and advertisers come from a common pool and because they rely on access to be able to produce their product. No doubt some people in those areas do a better job maintaining their integrity than others. It may well be that the specialty audio press is a cesspool of compromised ethics, or it may be that there are a mix of good and back practitioners at work in the area, just like any area of human endeavor.
News enterprises typically have codes of ethics that are written and that practitioners are expected to adhere to. It would be interesting to know if the likes of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound have formal codes of ethics. If not, they should just like The New York Times or any other news organization does. And as I said previously I think long-term loans, discount pricing for reviewers, etc. are inherently compromising and certainly create and appearance of conflict of interest and should be done away with if the audio press wants to be taken seriously as an independent entity. And I have no doubt that on occasion in the history of the audio press worse breaches of ethics have occurred. But in no way is a negative review inherently unethical. And in no way is the reviewer's responsibility when confronted with a substandard piece of gear to not inform the readers but instead just inform the manufacturer.
Jason Chervokas
We're talking about gear reviewers in a magazine that gets its revenue from the manufacturers of that or similar gear. For this situation there is a always a potential conflict of interest. The decision to run the review with the will-not-disclose comparison was probably a bad one.
But if we ignore that issue, there is still the issue of "why do you read reviews?" If it is to find out what something is like, you are probably expecting too much. Better, I think, to read reviews to cue you in on what to listen for when *you* hear the gear. Reviews can be helpful there - sometimes they are right, sometimes not.
And sometimes reviews are just plain bad. I'm thinking 'way back to a review of double Advents (TAS?) where the reviewer endlessly compared them to KLH nines. Well I had double Advents, and KLH nines, and my ears say that whoever wrote that review was dead wrong on almost every point. Or maybe the Harry Pearson piece on the Tice clock, when he heard the enormous difference it made... even from another part of the house. It happens. (And there is no accounting for taste - mine •or• yours.)
Cut 'em some slack and enjoy reading them - some reviewers are worth reading just for their writing, but put a record on first and listen to the music.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
-
Your view of the appropriate responsibilities of the audio reviewer offers a refreshing candor and demands a level of behavioral changes that would put the needs of the street level audiophile ahead of those of the audio manufacturers and the reviewers and their editors. Of course, such a change would entail ending the cozy relationships that have been engendered over the years. Tipping over this apple cart would lead to a very different kind of audio reviewing then we now have. Reviewers would come down from their thrones and serve their real constituency, the people who actually purchase equipment at full cost, rather than the manufacturers who provide them with long term loans and sweet heart deals. The reality is, of course, that this radical shift is 'not in the cards', as the current relationships are historically entrenched and those who benefit are hardly desirous of surrendering either their positions or the benefits that they yield.
"If a product does not measure up to some sort of minimum standard, the best policy is to not write anything about it and return the un-reviewed product. Out of sight: out of mind."
The best policy for whom? Certainly not for potential users. That would simply erode what meager credibility reviews have to absolute zero.
Manufacturer's already have dealers, advertising, reputation, and hopefully pre-sales support to support their sales efforts, they don't need to have illicit reviewers also.
At least they shouldn't!
Rick
If reader does not read about a product, then maybe they won't also seek it out. It would not erode the reputation of reviewers- rather the other way around.
The problem here is that there are good number of ways that negative reviews are subject to problems outside of the review itself. How are you as a reader supposed to know that?
Ralph, I completely agree with your Car & Driver analogy - It would never fly.As for #4 on your list - Whew!
I don't know. That's some grassy knoll shit; But you would know better than I.Could you imagine if a reviewer was being pressured by a editor to do as you said because of advertising revenue, and it were caught on camera, tape, or witnessed by a co-worker? No more job for Mr. Editor because he would be hammered in the court of public opinion, not to mention the likelihood of prosecution under the various whistle blower protection laws.
I have dealt with this very thing where one of the employees that I represented as a local chairman put his hand in his sweatshirt pocket and hit record on his smart phone while the supervisor hung himself with words. The supervisor then veitamly denied that he would have ever have said such a thing. Now a he is a former supervisor.....
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Edits: 04/12/14
Regarding #4, amongst manufacturers, certain magazines had developed a reputation of sorts for that practice about 20 years ago. I was told/warned by a friend of mine at ARC. I do not know whether that practice is still in play today.
But as a manufacturer, that is something you have to look at when you look at doing a review.
One thing I forgot was the possibility of a bad review on account of the manufacturer refusing to give the reviewer the product for free. I was in a room at CES years ago and saw that one play out- that is why Gryphon was not represented in the US for a number of years. What I saw was the reviewer threatening the manufacturer that if they did not give the product to him, that he would write a scathing review, which is what he did.
Ralph;
Thanks for shining a light on reviewing that most of us consumers would never know of, much less encounter.
The fact (I'll call it that since I am taking your word) that a reviewer requested a free product in lieu of a favorable review is awful for a couple of reasons.
1) That a reviewer would be so bold as to request such a thing tells me that type of thing has been done before. This may explain his/her lack of shame in doing so.
2) That a reviewer is in such bad shape financially that he/she has to resort to such tactics. I presume this is being done because either the reviewer cannot afford the gear, or he/she intends to sell the piece to subsidize their income.
It makes me wonder just how many audio reviewers are making a viable living from reviewing only, without the support of another income/job. I'm guessing less than 25 in the world, but I may be far off the mark - dunno?
By viable I mean;
1) Own a home.
2) Own a decent car.
3) Have a retirement plan/pension that does not include social security.
4) Able to have a health, dental and vision plan that is either employee sponsored, or one is able to earn enough to pay the hefty premium out of money earned from their income.
5) Take a vacation every year that is not audio (work) related.
My father in law told me many years ago that if what you do doesn't meet the above criteria then it's not a job - it's a hobby.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
-but it seems to me that there really aren't that may reviewers on the take. I've only seen it twice.
I think your father was on to something.
...with the proliferation of ezines, it must be a jungle out there today.
But everybody associated with the audio industry and press gets accommodation pricing, even reviewers who write negative reviews so forget about that.
And if the magazine is well run, only the editor and the equipment procurement guy have relationships with the manufacturer.
A reviewer and a magazine only have their reputations and integrity to make them worthwhile.
Next conspiracy?
There's a Jewish TV Station on Directv that's
re-running You Bet Your Life, and Jack Benny TV Show.
Amazingly Funny!!!!!!
...my favorite was Sid Caesar's "Show of Shows".
Mad (X5) World!
I watched Sid and everyone when I was a kid, also Steve Allen.
It's a very warm hearted humor.
I tried a couple of Adam Sandler movers, and more recently Bridesmaids, a very aggressive and largely unpleasant form of humor.
At least I never felt like I was part of a club. In my experience, your status in the industry matters more than anything. I'm betting there's still a long line of manufacturers waiting to send HP gear to review. And an even longer line of manufacturers waiting to get their gear back lol
> A reviewer who constantly criticizes gear will get shut out of that
> privilege, by either no longer being loaned gear for review and possible
> purchase or, worse yet, no longer being asked to review at all!
Not in my experience.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
What you know about it ... find me a reviewer from any era of SF's history (not necessarily under your watch) that was known for constantly criticizing gear, in particular gear he/she reviewed.
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
Obviously one cannot go against rule number one of audiophilia:
more money = better sound ad infinitum.
"Obviously one cannot go against rule number one of audiophilia:
more money = better sound ad infinitum."
Pay attention, it was disclosed that the comparison item was the same price!
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
DACs are kind of like computers with their being viewed as obsolete if the chip doesn't process XYZ flavour of the month source. It's so passe if it's not 32 bit 384 DSD capable. And by the very fact that it can't process XYZ means it gets a failing grade - CD players can't get Class A+ due to them not being "up to date."
Most reviewers at the magazines should have some sort of link (Staff page) where you can read the gear that we own. So if he owns the DAC he compared you should be able to track down which DAC he felt got trounced.
Also, it is important to note a couple of things. One, the fact that the older DAC got beat - may only be beaten in his system.
On the other hand a comparison review doesn't really hurt the manufacturers.
MSB is doing just fine in spite of enjoythemusic.com's comparison review of two DACs. If you want the no holds barred comparison you can read Steven Rochlin's review.
You can't be serious referencing a 14 year old DAC review as a "no holds barred" comparison.Maybe we could go back and look at pager vs beepers while we are at it.
If you would like to read a few DAC comparison reviews then check out the John Darko DAC index.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Edits: 04/10/14 04/10/14
The point of the article I linked was not about the DACs in question but about reviewers "NAMING" a product nearly double the price from a "big name" DAC company (MSB) and ripping it to shreds while raving about a DAC with inferior technical numbers as for nearly half the price as being a lot better. The DACs themselves were completely irrelevant to the point I was making or the point the OP raised about the TAS review "not naming" the inferior DAC.And sorry I don't read every review that has ever been written on every audio product. Perhaps there are newer examples where the reviewer basically calls a twice the price DAC an unlistenable pile of poop and the other DAC the bees knees. But the old AN/MSB stands out because I happen to own several AN pieces.
The negative verbiage hardly hurt MSB who now sells DACs at vastly higher price tags. I liked what I heard from them at CES (2010).
Reviewers and review magazines seem to me to walk on eggshells to "protect" the manufacturers.
Steven Rochlin was attacked for being a "rich guy" but when you have deep pockets and you can run a magazine from spare change then you don't have to be a bootlicker. Which is not to say his reviews are always correct or that we will all agree but he doesn't have to worry about advertising.
UHF magazine ripped a few companies way back in the early 1980s those companies no longer send them anything for review. The distributor that carries other lines won't send them any of the other companies to review either. Some companies will only send stuff if they are absolutely sure they will get a rave. For them it is pure advertising (and it only costs them shipping). When you have a reputation of doling out negative reviews then other companies (that pay attention) will avoid the magazine as well.
I was at a dealer in Ontario and felt they did a shabby job of customer service. I wrote about it on the Canadian forum it went back and forth - not too argumentative but I told them what I thought. This dealer is also a distributor. A year or so later after hearing really good sound from both a speaker maker and an amp maker I contacted them a few times for a review as the carry both lines. No reply. So I burned a bridge. Understandably, if I am critical of the dealer publicly then maybe I will be critical of the product.
Even when you ask most reviewers on websites for actual no holds barred opinions you rarely get a straight answer.
Edits: 04/09/14
Rochlin runs a magazine? Lol. News to me. More like a third rate website complete with 80s style graphics.
Show me where Rochlin trashed a product In the last ten years.
Rochlin is a marginal character at best, and a mildly amusing clown.
I do give him credit however for publicly calling the over hyped "DSD revolution" for what it is....bunk.
Distributors and importers did not return your calls? Shocking!!! Cause RGA is a market maker! Your incessant shilling for Audio Note has gotten them into a position of world domination!
--Rochlin runs a magazine? Lol. News to me. More like a third rate website complete with 80s style graphics.--Well the heads of other magazines obviously feel differently
"Enjoy the Music.com is the only site that is partners with respected leading and authoritative print publications including The Absolute Sound, Australian Hi-Fi Magazine, CANADA HiFi, Hi-Fi+, HIFICRITIC, HiFi Media, Hi-Fi World, Sound Practices and VALVE Magazine."
--Rochlin is a marginal character at best, and a mildly amusing clown.--
"Steven R. Rochlin is also, or at one time was, a Member of the Consumer Electronics Association's Citizen Action Network (CEA CAN), the Boston Audio Society (BAS), has a Masters Degree from of the Academy Advancing High Performance Audio & Video (AAHPAV), plus an International Auto Sound Challenge Association (IASCA) certified judge. He was also a Member of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences (Grammy Award organization). His work has been recognized by many authorities within the industry including the President of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) and is a member to help guide CEA's high-end audio division. Side projects by Steven R. Rochlin include being a recording engineer and solo artist with a recent release of his reference-quality drum/percussion album"
--Show me where Rochlin trashed a product In the last ten years. AND do give him credit however for publicly calling the over hyped "DSD revolution" for what it is....bunk.--If what you say is true then he just gave a negative review to EVERY single product and EVERY single manufacturer that makes a DSD DAC. That means he just called all of them snake oil crooks. Sounds like a negative review and indictment to me.
--Distributors and importers did not return your calls? Shocking!!! Cause RGA is a market maker! Your incessant shilling for Audio Note has gotten them into a position of world domination!--
You know that no one with actual money reads these forums right? The people who buy AN will buy them without any need to read forums. Indeed, 5% of their market is the U.S. So it's the non English as first language world that buys their stuff - largely because unlike the west's instant gratification culture they are prepared to wait 14 months to get their product delivered.
My enthusiastic recommendations of Audio Note over the years are what they are. I have no problem being lumped in as an Audio Note fanboy. I am not going to hide from my view that they make some of the best sounding music reproduction in the audio industry and in my recent Audio Note I Zero amplifier review I put the bias up front.
"Many of us who live on things called budgets view $100,000+ components as crazy toys for the rich. However, over the years I have come to the conclusion that if I came across the bucks to spend such dollars the first company I would look to would be Audio Note UK." http://dagogo.com/audio-note-uk-izero-integrated-amplifier-tube-amplifier-review
I refuse to PRETEND to be objective and that "EVERYTHING" is equally wonderful and equally well designed and uses equal quality parts just to placate the audio business at large. I suppose I have found that Sturgeon's Law that "ninety percent of everything is crap" is largely true.
My most recent purchases have been Line Magnetic Amplifier, Audio Space integrated Amplifier, Line Magnetic CD player and DAC, KEF LS-50 loudspeakers.
There are other things I quite like - the dealer who didn't get back to me has his reasons. I stopped in to look around on the pretext of getting out of the heat. I looked around and asked to hear something (no one was in the store). Not busy. His reply was if I wasn't planning to buy something then why bother. I understand they deal with tire kickers all the time but it's a stereo store - it's not terribly difficult to open CD drawer stick a CD on and push play. Who knows maybe the stereo would be so amazing that it would impress the tire kickers to return and want to hear more and then maybe 6 months later said person comes back and drops $50,000.
I compared that store to Soundhounds who has big couches - you sit and listen and they'll put stuff on (it's usually always on) - even tubes. If you hit Soundhounds at the right time they'll make you a cappuccino - and it will be one of the best you've ever had. And they actually have real music not just 50 tester discs. And they don't blather in your ear why something is great and your stereo sucks.
I can't help if one dealer has a clue and the other doesn't. I can't help it if they want to be petty about it. I extended the olive branch that everyone has a bad day yadda yadda.
Companies don't send reviewers products for the heck of it. We get enough hits to make it worthwhile.
Edits: 04/10/14
What planet are you from? The ONLY folks that think a DAC is obsolete are reviewers..who regurgitate the marketing drivel they are handed by manufactures.The fact that 99.99999999 % of all the digital music anyone will ever own is in PCM, topping out at 192 kHz. The trail of embarrassing proclamations by the industry concerning digital music is lengthy, with Stereophile critics claiming as Far back as 2007 that physical media is dead...LOL!!!...and one jerk of a manufacturer 18 months ago claiming DXD would be the standard going forward. Apparently none of the recording and mastering studios got the memo,,lol
Robert Harley is an outright liar..he proclaimed in his famous editorial that long term loans are "good" for readers because they see what context a reviewer is reviewing in and it creates "consistency"' all with the notion that EVERY review has a complete list of associated equipment. They do not. Barely half off TAS reviews have this sidebar. There are some TAS reviewers that have NEVER revealed their reference systems,
Lastly..you are using a 14 year old DAC review to illustrate comparisons? What a joke. Shocker..Audio Note to boot. Of FAR more import are comparisons of sub $2000 DACs of today a fare more competitive market. A trust fund baby reviewer like Rochlin playing with expensive toys serves who exactly?
Edits: 04/07/14
Read the first postings after ANY review of a DAC that doesn't support DSD.It's always the same: It doesn't do DSD. Strike it off my list!
Who cares if the average music lover has precisely zero recordings on DSD and in the next five years will acquire a similarly impressive no DSD recordings? Who cares if the sum total of DSD recordings worth owning, as one of my writers so succinctly put it, "can be counted on the fingers of one knee?" Who cares if, in the process of trying to shoe-horn DSD into a DAC to tick a box on the spec sheet, it ruins the sound of many budget DACs (which would, incidentally, be better served topping out at 24/96 in the vast majority of cases)? Who cares if the said DAC is hand-built by elven folk and costs as much as a small French village, or is made by the million and costs as much as a tube of Pringles?
It doesn't do DSD. Strike it off my list!
This is the same thing as the video enthusiasts' sudden and disasterous obsession with DVD-Audio and SACD in the early 2000s. They didn't develop an overnight interest in SACD and they sure as hell didn't get it from the magazines, who initially dismissed the inclusion of these 'audiophool' formats as a pointless specification chase. It came from the buyers, pure and simple. Over the course of about a month or two, it became functionally impossible to recommend or sell a DVD-Video player unless it had SACD and DVD-Audio support, and some very good players ended up as landfill as a result.
For my part, I'd like to see recommendations of DACs based on performance, not acronyms. But, if you like a DAC with DSD today, you are an industry-promoting shill; if you like a DAC that only does PCM, you're a luddite.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, Lun-duhnn, Ingerland, innit
Edits: 04/09/14
Alan, excellent post! Maybe the post of the year for me concerning reality and perception.
Let's be clear.. there are currently approximately 12,000 SACD titles to choose from, dating back to circa 2000, and DVD-A are STILL being released in deluxe reissue packages AND in new releases. Steve Earl's latest album came with a DVD-A. The Jethro Tull and Yes reissues, and many more, came with DVD-As.
SACD is dead as far as major labels are concerned, but it is the realm of the boutique folks like MoFi, Audio Fidelity, and Analogue Productions.
One thing IMO that will slow the growth of any DSD download market is the requirement of a computer for playback. If and when file players can play DSD files from directly connected storage or via a network, that could be a game changer.
"The fact that 99.99999999 % of all the digital music anyone will ever own is in PCM, topping out at 192 kHz."
The tracks in my personal music library on my computer are 95% PCM and 5% DSD. These are essentially all the digital material that I have purchased over the decades. I guess we listen to different types of music.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I am not sure I understand your post.
I essentially said that 99% of all digital music owned by most people is in PCM..you say you have 95% PCM..how does this 4% differential to what I estimate account for different tastes in music, or anything else.
Whether 95% or 99%, should one base their entire system around an "upgrade" that accounts for 5% of their music library. I think not.
> > I essentially said that 99% of all digital music owned by most people is in PCM..you say you have 95% PCM.
Essentially? What you originally wrote was:
"99.99999999 % of all the digital music anyone will ever own is in PCM"
Tony Lauck qualifies as an "anyone". He has more than 1% DSD music. For someone
who is quick to jump on others' assertions, it seems you went overboard with yours.
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
Actually I agree with you.
What I SHOULD have said is that MOST people's digital collection will be 95% PCM..and not used such an extreme number. It left the door open for hair splitting.
There is little or no extra manufacturing cost associated with adding DSD playback capability to most new DAC designs and there is an increasing availability of demonstration quality recordings appearing as DSD downloads. So it is not surprising that many new DACs oriented to the audiophile marketplace are including DSD capability.
One can question the benefits, but if the costs are low, why bother?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I don't disagree.
What irks me, and the point I was trying to make, is that is silly to call a DAC "obsolete" or "non competitive" if it does not decode DSD. Far more important is how good does it sound.. the analog output stage, etc.
The audio press has somehow desperately latched on to this non existent "DSD Revolution" causing hysteria and getting to consumers to question their DACs value if it is not stamped "DSD Ready". Again the numbers don't lie as far as available titles.
I don't disagree. Indeed, if I hadn't already been in the market for a new DAC for other reasons, it's unlikely that I would have purchased a new DAC just because to play DSD, especially because I had no DSD files to play and would be facing a "chicken and egg" situation. Nor would I have paid a huge premium to check of the "DSD" box in my new selection. I did feel willing to pay a certain premium to satisfy my curiosity, however.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Understood.
I am ALL for DSD. But I refuse to buy the nonsense that the flood gates will open concerning available media and that DSD will enjoy anything approaching mainstream acceptance.
Where has this come from, or have you made it up?
Accurate number. There are currently less than 250 non classical DSD titles downloads for sale. Don't even bother to bring up ripped SACDs. That is a non starter.
Reality.
There are over 3500 titles not including archives.
....tick tock...still waiting for those links.....
Edits: 04/10/14
Looks to be more like 9000+, but I've not vetted the site.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Huh????? These are SACDs. I was specifically referencing DSD DOWNLOADs.
I MY SELF referenced the fact there were upwards of 12,000 SACD titles in print.
Somewhat confusing. The posts were somewhat cryptic, as fitting the style of some of the posters in the thread.
If it makes you feel better, I'll not be buying a single one of those 9000 SACDs, as they all come with DRM.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My post: There are currently less than 250 non classical DSD titles downloads for sale. Don't even bother to bring up ripped SACDs. That is a non starter.
FMAKs response: There are over 3500 titles not including archives.
My previous post:. there are currently approximately 12,000 SACD titles to choose from, dating back to circa 2000...
FYI, I own approx. 1000 SACDs.
Please provide a link where I can find 3500 POPULAR music tiles in DSD to download. Please do not include classical. I will be waiting.
Were I to take him at his word (250 DSD titles) and 99.99999999% (10 9's) aren't DSD, then there have to be 250 x 10^10 = 2.5 trillion titles in all.
It looks like the music industry is a lot bigger than I thought. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Man relax a little. Look I disagree with the long loans (free gear for indefinite periods) but the argument for it is at least plausible. Reviewers may be good writers but not able to afford "the absolute sound" so they need the tools to do the job.
So I get it. Their system should be listed. I don't want to waste time reading reviews from people who own stuff that imo sucks. Not relevant to me or helpful.
As for the example well I go with what I've heard and it was a fitting example of telling it like it is without holding back. And from an online magazine. Trust fund guys don't need to worry about advertising dollars and don't have to tread lightly.
"Look I disagree with the long loans (free gear for indefinite periods) but the argument for it is at least plausible"
Though the argument for not disclosing them to reader does not hold any water.
"Though the argument for not disclosing them to reader does not hold any water."
Agreed.
Hasn't Robert Harley stated in the past that his system consists of long term loans only? He doesn't buy a thing, he just waits for a couple of months until 'the next best thing' comes into his possession and then the cycle repeats itself.
Index.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
I posted a link to the review. Did you actually read it? It is clearly stated that the reviewer took the Rotel to a friends house (a fellow audiophile) and in his system and was able to duplicate the earlier results.
Also; I did not see anywhere in the review that the comparison DAC was older- maybe I missed it. I shall re-read it.
I think Robert Harley is just as much at fault as I am lead to believe he is the head honcho in charge over at TAS and as such decides what makes the issue, and what gets round filed.
I seriously doubt that Harry would have signed off on such garbage.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
I admit I didn't read it - I stopped reading TAS many years ago. I'll check it when I get more time.
Okay I skimmed it. I agree there are several comments surrounding the units price that are perplexing. The reviewer says $10k units will beat it but which ones? Which $10k units specifically - all of them? Just because they're $10k. I have heard $10k products that I find less musically enjoyable than $1k-$2k units.
He says that if you're looking at Dacs at $2500 to not overlook the Rotel. So the Rotel is as good as $2500 DACs - again which ones?
But the lesson to learn for other reviewers reading this is to ensure that our future reviews are not so vague and reference at least one known commodity where possible - at least compare it to whatever reference system components you have.
...is an amateur or a jerk.
His job is to tell you about the product's sound and put the review in a context where others can judge its value.
By not mentioning the comparison product's name, you don't know whether it cost $100 (so what if it was trounced) or $5,000.
Bad reviewing and bad editing from a publication way past its prime.
Spot om. That is what happens when you have a sinking ship and hire anyone of the street to write "reviews".
...The cover of "hi> fi+" no longer states "the absolute sound's...hi> fi+" as of the April 2014 issue. Isn't that special?!
Some folks WANT bad shit all the time. The worse vile spewed the better. Others just want what the review is about.
I look at the op request as just wanting to have one more bad shit thing to add to his list.
What for? I have no idea other than he is pissed he cannot have it.So I agree with the reviewer. Why put that out there for guys like the OP to cherish and be able to spread "Oh so and so said that the XYZ was crap on a stick".
When that was nothing to the point of the review.
I have had bad stuff and tried to keep the worst of the hate mongering out of the discussion.
It did not work well for me is all I can say. Or that z is better than H in my system. I also do not want others saying I said ABC was a chunk of crap... Because I did not say that.So.... I am in full agreement the name of the lesser DAC does not matter at all. As far as the review goes.
Edits: 04/07/14
Elizabeth,
As the original poster I can tell you for a fact that if the "comparison" DAC were divulged I certainly wouldn't go around saying that "XYZ is crap on a stick" as I am too busy with my life, wife, kids, paying for their higher education etc....
As far as your assumption (and that's exactly what it is) of me wanting "one more bad shit thing to add to his (my) list" - PULLLEEEZZZ!
All I want to do is to make an informed decision on a DAC purchase. I happen to be in the market for a sub $1000 DAC and it would be nice to know the DAC that was "shamed" by the Rotel RRD-1580 in view of the reviewer - NOTHING MORE!
As far as hate mongering goes; The reviewer, Mr. Holbert, was the one that said "for the same price the RRD-1580 put the other DAC to SHAME."
Now I don't know about you, but when a reviewer says item A puts item B to shame - that's a pretty damn strong statement. He didn't state that the Rotel sightly edged the competing DAC, it shamed it! The reviewer is not required to "diss" something, but he chose to.
If the fact that I and many others on this forum choose to hold the reviewer(s) accountable for what they write and what they omit bothers you then I can assure you I couldn't give a rusty Fu@€!
Could you imagine if a first flight reviewer such as Michael Fremer tried to pass off a review such as this? Where he compared one turntable to another a stated that turntable A "shamed" turntable B, and then did not divulge the manufacturer and model of the inferior table? He would be laughed to scorn!
Thankfully Mr. Fremer is a great reviewer that gives more of a shit about his reputation than offending a manufacturer (witness his recent review of the class D Levinson amps). Mr. Fremer also has an equally competent editor that I'm guessing would not allow that type of printed dreck to see the light of day.
If I were the manufacturer of the comparison DAC that was "dissed", then I would want to know about it so I could get back to the drawing board to make improvements to the product. I would not want the commoners to tell me how beautiful my clothes were when I was naked.
Maybe if the reviewer in question finds divulging comparison equipment that has been shamed by a competing piece of gear too difficult, perhaps he could stick to reviewing the items such as the one pictured in the original post - a ball washer. Ball washers are used to WASH balls.
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
Praise the component under review, only companre favourably, don't step on others' toes...all good business practices.
After all, the reviewer doesn't have any 'objective' evidence, besides his subjective impressions, that the component under review actually IS much better than the comparison piece.
But I agree, failure to name the comparison piece either shows cowardice, or lack of confidence in his conclusions. I would take any of his writing with a large grain of salt. He probably didn't even bother to level match...
In the future, I will not even give one of his reviews a grain of salt.
As far as if he level matched; I'll do you one better.
Who's to say the entire review was not a complete work of fantasy made up in his mind......
........I was a vegetarian for 15 minutes... until the main course.
"If I were the manufacturer of the comparison DAC that was "dissed", then I would want to know about it so I could get back to the drawing board to make improvements to the product. I would not want the commoners to tell me how beautiful my clothes were when I was naked."
You're assuming Holbert's ear is correct. Perhaps you will disagree with his ears as much as the way he writes.
.
must be an advertiser
I don't think I've ever seen a review that didn't say what they were comparing to.
In my opinion, if you're not going to disclose, don't bother with making comparisons at all. Just tell the reader how wonderful the product stands on its own. Either way, it makes for a poor review.
See ya. Dave
Unless he has evidence he can actually tell the two apart without knowing which he is listening to, I don't care what he says about the sound comparison.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Fully agree. Non disclosure of a comparison component is total bullshit.
There is nothing wrong; rather, you have a problem.
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: