|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.113.30.26
In Reply to: RE: Okay, a serious, non-obtuse, Stereophile (the clue) review thread posted by rebbi on December 14, 2014 at 06:18:15
Profuse and humble thanks for starting this thread!
The conclusions you reach, in re: the review in question, mirror our own. We really don't think that we got a fair shake - and are heartened that other AA members agree.
Follow Ups:
Admittedly, I'm late to this party and have no desire to wade through dozens of the usual tedious/snarky posts. So let’s cut to the chase: What do you think prevented the reviewer from duplicating the favorable results he is purported to have heard at various shows?
...getting kind of lazy in your old age, eh sport?
The manufacturer's instructions weren't complete and the difference is they tweaked the placement of the speakers at the shows.
"...getting kind of lazy in your old age, eh sport?"
Guilty, dear boy. But in this particular case I think "indifference" would be more accurate. Since the sine qua non of the subjectivist position is that listeners really hear what they claim to hear and are not delusional, I was merely curious as to why hundreds of hobbyists achieved splendid results with this speaker while a professional reviewer did not.
You attribute sloppy editing as partly responsible for the reviewer’s difficulties, but, again, hobbyists seem to have coped with that “problem” while achieving great results, whereas it was just too much for the reviewer to overcome. As for “tweaking the placement,” are you suggesting this was done without disclosing that fact to listeners? If so, anyone wishing to receive maximum benefit from this speaker in his room would probably hit upon the correct positioning eventually, through trial and error. Assuming he cared enough to expend the effort.
...many audiophiles fail to achieve maximum benefit of even ordinary loudspeakers by getting them positioned optimally in their room.
Much less quirky speakers like these.
Did you read the posts? It was "Quick Start-Up Installation Guide," not the "MI".
I think, two very different things.
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
provide him the podium to whine some more.
"It's all fun and games until someone doesn't pick up on the sarcasm"
...I believe you got one.
Sounds great in some shows set up by the manufacturer.
Not so great in Herb's room following manufacturer's instructions.
Measurements confirm what he heard.
At best a quirky speaker capable of sounding very good for the money in the right situation.
If nothing else, people will be interested in hearing the speaker for themselves.
"There's no such thing as bad publicity."
I have been able to read the online edition of the January 2015 Stereophile. As you may remember, I like to use measurements to screen out speakers from my audition list. The measurements of this speaker are mediocre enough to convince me not to bother looking for it.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
As Jim Croft, the speaker's designer, said in his post on this thread, JA did NOT measure the speakers correctly. (the clue) depends on there being at least three room boundaries for correct bass reinforcement; JA had only one for his testing. JA measured the tweeter on-axis, whereas, on the recommended 18"-22" stand, the tweeter will be below ear level. When measured at ear level, the tweeter is exceedingly smooth - as is the midrange/tweeter when measured in-room with adequate boundary reinforcement.
I am not much concerned about the bass response. It is the large peaks and dips above 600 Hz that bother me and the dip in the off axis dispersion, though as JA said, this would ameliorate one of those peaks off-axis.
I certainly appreciate the importance of vertical dispersion, but I am not much interested in a speaker that is so sensitive to listening height.
The measurements and your remarks indicate to me a speaker that is not very room friendly.
I cannot possibly audition every available speaker and I prefer to screen out some from my audition list based on measurements.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
So STFU.
"We are all in God's hands... and God is a malign thug."
-Mark Twain
...sounds like you're an owner or a big fan.
No need to be so defensive. Whew!
Like most everyone here I read the article and the manufacturer's comments both here an in the mag.
Never said they don't have the ability to sound good.
This thread poses multiple questions: Is "Stereophile" too cozy with the manufacturers with 'pedigree' (the main stream hifi companies)...Awards, the cocktail parties - do they practice "too big too fail" review policy? Is (Stereophile) too powerful that one botched review can potentially destroy the "Indy" company?
LOL we could rename this thread to "Occupy Stereophile" :)
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
If Stereophile was "too cozy with the manufacturers with 'pedigree'" there never would have been a review in the first place.
I think Mr. Kuller has nailed the situation. The speaker is unusually idiosyncratic, to the point where a very experienced audiophile couldn't get it to sound good following the instructions that came with it.
"...there never would have been a review in the first place." That would be too obvious. On the other hand, I do not believe there is any deliberate conspiracy - just a human condition. Incidentally, if the speakers in question were Aerial Acoustic, the proven and solid Giant of the industry we would already 'know' they would perform at their 'usual' level.
As I mentioned earlier, the reviewer made an effort to switch multiple amps...didn't bother to move speakers an inch! LOL!
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
> As I mentioned earlier, the reviewer made an effort to switch multiple
> amps...didn't bother to move speakers an inch!
That's not correct. The speakers were placed close to the wall as
practicable, within 2" of the boundary as recommended. Moving the speakers
further out in the room resulted in an even leaner low-frequency balance
and experimenting with the lateral spacing didn't give an appreciable
improvement. In addition, while not mentioned in the review, two other
Stereophile reviewers tried the Sjofn speakers but were not able, as I
understand it, to get the speakers to produce the anticipated sound quality
in their rooms.
Usually, in cases like this, I would have auditioned the speakers in my
own room. However, my room is not suitable for speakers that require
boundary reinforcement to obtain their intended bass response. (See the
photo at the link below.)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
...but let's say Mr. Framer gets them to review them, and they don't work in his room. How would you classify them then? He say's NO, you say Class A! What in the case YOU don't get the chance to review them and make them 'work'. Are measurement then a tiebreaker? Why would the laymen trust the measurements?
Thanks!
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
> ...but let's say Mr. [Fremer] gets them to review them, and they don't
> work in his room.He would get to write a follow-up review saying so. Just as when I audition
a product that has already been reviewed in Stereophile, I write a followup,
as I did with the Revel M106 in the current (January) issue of Stereophile.> How would you classify them then? He say's NO, you say Class A!
The ultimate decider of the rating is myself. I am the boss, after all :-)
But if you read Stereophile's "Recommended Components," you can find
plenty of examples where my reviewers disagree. But what matters to me is
that my team doesn't disagree on the description of a product's sound
quality - they are all all expert, experienced listeners and their
descriptions are indeed transportable. Where they _do_ disagree is on the
relative value of the various aspect of a product's sound. Description is
one aspect of a reviewer's skill set; preference is a different thing,
which is why all our reviews include details of the music used to reach
value judgments.> Why would the laymen trust the measurements?
Because they are by definition transportable. If you read Stereophile's
review of the Sjofn (the clue), the measurements sidebar reveals why the
speaker sounds lean even when used against the wall; why its balance
will be susceptible to small changes in toe-in; why the speaker's balance
will depend on how damped the listener's room is; and why, even, its
reproduction in the lower midrange was odd, in that some musical notes
went missing in action, something that bothered our reviewer more than
the lean upper bass.Again, these measured caveats will be found in Stereophile's "Recommended
Component" listings.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 12/23/14
.
nt
“Somebody was always controlling who got a chance and who didn’t. - Charles Bukowski
nt
NT
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: