|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.72.164.51
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile to review Magnepan!?.... posted by John Atkinson on June 19, 2015 at 08:40:45
Protocol bypass ,an opinion review , not good John .....
Follow Ups:
> Protocol bypass...
As I explained, not a bypass of protocol for products that are reviewed by
one of Stereophile's regular columnists.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Understand John , but ..... SP reviews include ,
1. subjective review,
2. objective measurements,
3 recommended components list,
so i fail to see how this is considered a review as it only meets one of your 3 criteria.
SP takes a look at maggie .7 ..... sounds more like it......
Regards
...did you complain when none of the equipment Tellig discussed got measured?
Or any of the stuff in Art's column?
Never read a Sam tellig report in my life, no test , dont read , look at the pretty pics and move on. Better to look at the ads and pics of the internals than read some nonsensical blah, blah, with no reference.
And so it goes ........
> SP reviews include
> 1. subjective review,
> 2. objective measurementsFull reviews in our equipment reports section, yes, other than for LP
playback components, for reasons that have been discussed at length in
the past.> 3 recommended components list
No, this has never been the case.
> so i fail to see how this is considered a review as it only meets one
> of your 3 criteria.Two criteria for a full review, but as coverage in a regular Stereophile
[column] is equivalent to a full review in, for example, The Absolute
Sound, I don't see that is necessary to make the distinction you are
insisting on.Finally, and speaking personally, yes I would like to subject every
component that passed through a Stereophile reviewer's system to
measurement. But logistically, this just isn't possible. For example,
in theory there are 20 working days in a month. I spent 4 days this past
week - ie, 20% of that nominal working month - performing and writing
up the measurements on an extraordinarily complex integrated amplifier.
For a magazine to publish measurements is resource-intensive, which is
why it is rare. Much as I would like to, I can't create more time with
snap of my fingers.What I do do, therefore, is cherry-pick for measurement some of the
components reviewed in our regular columns, the ones where the initial
coverage has indicated some issues. In the case of the Magnepan .7, I
did spend an evening auditioning the speakers at Herb's, basically to
see if I heard what he had described in his copy. I did.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/20/15
@John,John I appreciate the response , I hope you mine , I read purchase and promote stereophile because of your effort to educate via measurements , your method validates ,
1. The quality
2. The sincerity of the manufacturer in their published specs
3. The confirmation of or not the personal biases of the review process
If you eliminate this , then were's the difference between you , TAS and the other opinion only WEB zines? So forgive me/ us when the feeling moves to you having apparently let Magnapan off the proverbial hook , especially knowing the contentious remarks made in the past about not testing their products , while others have to walk that gauntlet ....
@Marks,
I have in the past taken John and others to task, regarding the lack of testing of analog/TT products, truly absurd IMO , 2,3,12k cartridges with no verification as to published specs , industry disgrace on a whole ...
Regards
Edits: 06/20/15
agree and no reasonable person could expect you to especially with an unknown entity it may not be necessary in giving a column "review" , the magnapan situation is different for reasons you are well aware of John....
Disappointing really ......
Edits: 06/20/15
This has been Stereophile's approach for as long as I can remember. Are you just now noticing? And it isn't odd by any stretch. Columnists in any medium are essentially their own editors and free to do as they please. The magazine has formal reviews and it has columnists, with different criteria for each. It's a system that works, effectively doubling the amount of gear that gets heard and giving the reader a lot more content. I'm really confused as to why this is an issue for you.
As a Maggie owner, (3.7i's), I am quite familiar with ALL the threads floating around AA on this Board and the Planar Board about Magnepan not wanting Stereophile to review any of the newer .7 series...
In many of those posts, I have let my opinion be known that I do not understand why Magnepan would not want the most read audiophile magazine to review any of there .7 speaker lines...
As I am not technically savvy, here are my question...
Would Stereophile's measurements give away their "secrets" of their newer series crossover designs?
Consensus among many Maggie owners is; they would rather not have a Sphile review due to the fact Maggies do not measure well and why would they want bad measurements out there in print??? That I understand to a certain extent, but it still befuddles me...
I am very content with my 3.7i's and feel they are a great value in our hobby. I personally have not heard anything in that price range that comes close to them for SQ...
Thanks
Mark
You haven't met Wendell Diller, sales manager for Magnepan. At one point in time, he wanted Magnepan to rival Bose, and refused to acknowledge various tweaks for the speakers including spiked feet or custom stands . He actually threatened to cut off the dealer I was working for at the time if we were to market such items....
Hopefully he loosens up with age, or maybe his replacement will be more open minded.
If anything he's crankier and crazier than ever.
It will be a good day for White Bear Lake when he retires.
"A lie is half-way around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
-Mark Twain
...and refused to acknowledge various tweaks for the speakers including spiked feet or custom stands
I've never met the man but HP knew him well and used an amusing variation on his name...
Fortunately, Dr. West embraces both of the things you mentioned with the massive steel framed, spiked U-1s . :)
Yeah, 30 years ago we were experimenting with double panels and were achieving rather amazing results. When we told Diller, he in unmistakable terms said that if ever played the double panels in front of customers, he would cut us off in a heartbeat.
Same thing with spiked feet. We used to drill out the T shaped stands for the 2.7 and 3's for use with spikes or cones: The word came down: too tweaky, and it may show that the speaker design were not thought through.
Internet has forced these ideas on him though.
in his LA Apartment tri-amped Ampzillas /LP12 SME EMT cartridge-- multiple Subs as well
Sheesh-- it would rock the whole Building!
I pitied the neighbours!
Good Days--ha!
Des
How about double 922s with which Ray Kimber used to showcase his recordings?
Man always blathering about Soundlabs - what are you on their payroll?
:)
I bow down, however, to the master of promoting one brand of product.
Your experience outperforms mine by at least a factor of 100. :)
Golf clap...
thanks
Mark
And a few more.
.
regardless of the particular Sound Lab model and size, each speaker uses a single panel.
Very unlike most like Quad, Acoustat, King Sound, M-L CLS, et. al. which use multiple panels some of which are frequency specific.
or perhaps triple?It's been a few years since be brought the big Sound Labs set up to RMAF.
Don't recall the total number of panels but it sure sounded great!
Edits: 06/20/15
At four corners, too, if memory serves me right. Combined with Ray's Iso mike recordings, the sound was impressive: dynamics as well as detail wise. Imaging was unbelievable. No one else at CES was even remotely close in performance, in my opinion. Too bad stats don't last in my area ( five years max).
Double 'Pans was the old store's attempt to emulate the Tympany models. We had already brought in double Quads so were interested in doing something more than a single panel.
thanks
Mark
I worked for a dealer who carried Quad as well as Martin Logan. None of theose brands lasted longer than 5 years.
In the case of Quad, even though they have that mylar dust cover,eventually sale air and traffic dusty ( very oily) would leach in and essentially short out the high voltages.
In the case of Martin logan The horizontal strips would collect dust and the dust being slightly abrasive would cut into the conductive coating on the diaphraghm. Also in earlier models ( I have not tried the latest) the horizontal foam strips would slowly deteriorate and being under tension would c=alter the speqker parameters.
The only panels which never seemed problematic were the Acoustat. They used regular insulated wire strung up on what looked to be flourescent light grills. They offered a lifetime guarantee and they never seemd to fail, but then they did not quite have the pristine quality of sound like the other brands. Acoustat, unfortunately, did not last very long. IIIRC, Fosgate handles their service.
The ML's I have heard never really did anything for me...I could always "hear" the woofer...
The Quads I have not spent much time with either...they are in my opinion, more transparent than Maggies, but lacked weight...
Now the big SL's, they do most everything extremely well...Maggies are just much more in my price range and are great bang for the buck speakers...
I know there is a whole garden industry in rebuilding Quads...I thought it was more transformer issues than panel issues, but I really do not know...
Thank you for the reply...I just do not know allot about Stats in general...
thanks
Mark
Transformers are never the issue with Quads. I have never seen an audio transformer fail. A couple power transformers over the decades but these were either 40-50 year old original Quads or the newer ones built in China. Still very rare.
UncleStu lives in Hawaii. Humidity is what kills them in this environment. Hawaii is a temperate climate overall and some do not want to use any kind of AC to keep humidity levels under control.
For most people this is not an issue. Here in the midwest it is nearly 70% humidity outside, not good for the electrostats, but it is also 95 degrees. You bet the AC is running hard! This keeps humidity levels well under 50%.
Don't think its only humidity.
On the Quad front I have personally owned the original 57's. but have worked with the Crosby mods, the Radio People mods, the Wayne Piquet rebuilds, and there's a local guy who loves quads so much he invested in a roll of the coated miylar diaphragm material to tootally rebuild the panels.
Both the local guy and Wayne would strip the panels down to the bare wood (sanding off the black paint on older models). I know the local guy has duplicated the original weighted tensioning/stretching jig used by original Quad.
I warn customers that 'stats in Hawaii make a great SECOND pair of speakers. One of my customers was so enamored of the 57 sound that he purchased a second pair ( Wayne's) after Wayne assured him that his pair had sat in his Florida Garage for a decade with no issues. The Piquest pair lasted only two months before arcing in one panel, then the other, He no longer warranty's the speakers in "tropical" environments.
As such, 'stats here create a huge love /hate relationship with their owners. When working, they simply love the sound, but since they always seem to fail, frustration sets in, maybe not the first time, but for later failures which seem to occur with regularity.
Being on a small land mass with a hell of a lot of cars, I suspect automotive exhaust fumes. Dust accumulation here have a sticky oily feel on windows and blinds no matter where you go. The oily blow by is insidous, I believe now they cause arcng even on tube gear so repairs which come in automatically get an alcohol wash, and believe me that greasy dust is difficult to remove.
I do notice greater numbers of failures for customers living downwind of , say, the freeways...
Of course YMMV and FWIW
I appreciate the comments.
I have plenty of clients in Hawaii and other tropical islands. No problems to speak of but the clients do pay attention to humidity levels.
While I don't discount the other environmental issues you mention, the VT150SE I bought from you last year demonstrates the point nicely, I do believe humidity is still the largest issue when dealing with electrostats. No stat likes humidity some will tolerate it better than others.
Even with all these issues panels/speakers should still last much longer than a few months if working properly. I would say your original comment of about 5 years is about right if one does not watch humidity and other environmental issues in their particular situation.
Keep them dry, keep them clean and they should go decades no matter where they are located.
That VT-150 was in a hom that ran AC 24/7 then stored in an WWII underground bunker. The bunker was medium/high humidity but constant temperature.
In Hawaii, we have certain peculiar issues which occur, usually before anyone else notices it. I notified Mike Sanders that his nickel plated chassis developed large amounts of corrosion in a few years. He was flabbergasted as even his Florida customers never reported anything wrong.
I believe the thermal cycling coupled wth the humidity enables the moisture to penetrate the nickel and auses the base steel to corrode, not neessarily rusting through, but leaving unslightly blemishes.
I personally believe it is a combination of traffic dust and humidity and salt tinged air. I have seen in ocean front homes cases where after a decade the resistor leads have corroded to the point where I have to change out all the resistors on a board. Good thing tube gear does not use as many devices.
The oily traffic dust tends to accumulate dust and they, in turn, absorb moisture. In addition the slightly elevated ambient temperatures coupled with the heat of the components tends to "cook" any excesss rosin, carbonizing it and creating a pathway conducive to arcing. In the case of "stats, it doesn't take much to create arcing in the panels ( I notice that ML now advises vigrously vacuuming the panels).
Of course the environmental hazards will vary depending on your neighborhood.
Ours is fairly unique and I have learned through the school of hardknocks.
Incidentally Sound Labs with their technique of using smaller modules last longer, but not that much so.
YMMV and FWIW
Thanks for the comments and history on the VT150.
Overall the amps looked great. They actually arrived in the evening so things were dark. The next day I gave them a closer examination and my heart just sank. The corrosion on all the PCB traces was just incredible. My initial reaction was just set them at the curb and take your lose! There is no way these are ever going to work again given the level of damage to the PCB traces.
I also knew there was a way to get them working again but the solution will be drastic. Remove the boards and all the components. Carefully remove the corrosion on every trace, paste flux the board, reflow with solder, clean. About (8) cycles of this. Now the traces look perfect again time to re-populate the boards. I bought new components, sockets from the factory.
While they are apart thoroughly clean the chassis, replace all the corroded hardware, replace the main B+ caps, etc., reinstall the boards, dress all the wiring harnesses. Quite the job probably 80 hours in the pair.
I had never seen damage quite like this. Just the small amount of dust, etc., that had collected on the boards mixed with the Hawaiian environment, salt-water, etc., caused everything to corrode.
One hell of a project but I learned a lot.
Just imagine I see that on a everyday basis and on far newer devices. Even those using conformal coatings suffer from bleeding in at the solder pads which insidiously creep and corrode.
With certain brands I suffer even more issues than others. AR is one such brand, The Old Golden Tube stuff used a circuit board laid out utilizing a lot of computer techniques. They crapped out left and igh and my intial order of 6 units had only a 100% failure rate. Still have three units stashed awayy: transformers are good but boards with their ground planes and such are horrible.
Another issue I notice is that B- traces running adjacent to B+ or even ground traces cause an electrolytic issue for some reason. Its a constant battle over here. In fact on the first generation Rhue amps I took a glance at the innards and pointed out to the designer the problem and the ( the cure). Next year at CES he approached me and thanked me because the exact issue came up on certain models sold in certain areas.
And talk about batteries in remotes !!!!
I now highly recommend use of Cortex products and periodic cleaning. This is especially true if you have indoor pets like cats or dogs.....
Cortex once had Don Moses (of Wadia fame) as a resaercher and sales manager. calling the off shoot (O2 blocker), you could reach him personally, so I had the opportunity to speak to him one on one. His point in working with Cortec was that the increasingly tiny traces needed preservation in order to insure good sound. My experiences of core mirrored his comments.
Once an 02 dealer, I had a surprising customer: the USMC . A corporal called me up requesting audiophile contact cleaners because their computer mother boards had to be wiped down and cleaned every morning they were in use. In the field, the Colonel was furious, because you can't fight a war that way. They ordered some cleaner and when I explained about the 02 blocker, they called back and ordered 100 of the one inch foam squares. Colonel was so happy he came back and ordered 500 of them but I explained that this product was originally developed for the military so they had to have it somewhere in their supply system. 500 was overkill, but the Colonel did not want to ever have clean mother boards edge cards ever.
as always YMMV and FWIW
My apologies about those amps, BTW. The transformers were good, though. And you did exactly what I had to do so often:clean the traces paint them over with liquid flux and solder them over. Very tedious and painstaking. On some new components with a histor of such failures I solder over when new as the thicker layer of tin in the solder seems to resist corrosion better.
People wonder why I go through 3 to 4 ounds of solder in less than a year.....
No problem with the amps. As the old saying goes you get what you pay for!! I figured they would need some attention but I never imagined they would require that level of work.
Like many things in life if I had known up front what I know now I would have passed. But I always wanted a pair of these amps. In the end everything worked out fine.
Do you have a link for the Cortex?
Here you go; the vci stands for vapor corrosion inhibitor. In the beginning, they used oil of cloves (they still do but found a way to deodorize the chemical) so components used to smell like a Christmas ham...
They make a large variety of products including heavy duty industrial apps. Look up the VCI products when you go on their website.
They will inhibit but not completely stop corrosion. I often will tear small pieces of the foam and stick it in RCA ends and such wear open copper ends are involved. They do seem to work ( I have about a decade of experience with them so far).
.
Acoustats have better sonics than ML, Quads failed due to poor prep of their stators at assembly.
modified ones today play like no tomorrow, no issues ..
'Quads failed due to poor prep of their stators at assembly.'
And you know this how?
Huh? Reminds me of the Woody Allen line from Annie Hall :
"Are we driving through plutonium?"
Maybe his best with some great lines. "...that's okay, we can walk to the curb from here..."
I am guessing Stereo Pass Lab amps...?
thanks
Mark
one channel per panel. But wait, there's more!Why not use five pair in a multi-channel arrangement? The Prostat line is intended to be used in arrays. Since each speaker is full range and has controlled directivity (these are 22 degree models), you are able to increase the horizontal and/or vertical coverage without introducing comb effects.
Edits: 06/19/15
Not too bad a sound as I recall.
But I knew one of there lines was the 22 degree model...
I have only heard them once in the early 2000's with an all Atmosphere front end...it was one of the best systems I have ever heard...could not tell the model of the SL but looked more like your U's...truly impressive, where with the right content...brought the players into the room...goose bump city...
I am guess, in that photo, those cones sounded like a mosquito with a bullhorn...
Thanks
Mark
Columnists regularly "review" products without submitting them to JA for measurements. Only once in awhile do these products receive subsequent full reviews or follow-ups with measurements.
...unless they have been formally reviewed.
And that's the penalty?
It does seem to be splitting the baby a bit, but perhaps this is where the "romance" remains.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
It might have been the case more than 15 years ago.
As far as I know, most of the hardware items I have covered in my "The Fifth Element" column have been considered eligible for Recommended Component List inclusion, even in the absence of a follow-up.
JM
> It might have been the case more than 15 years ago.
Never was the case. From its inception in Issue No.5 (May/June 1963),
"Recommended Components" is concerned with how a product sounds, whether
covered in a full review or in a regular column.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
How does that square with JA's editorial vision on measurements then?
It seems inconsistent to apply measurements to some and not others depending upon which location in the magazine they appear, doesn't it?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
My favorite Political Science joke:
Q.: What's the difference between Perception and Reality?
A.: Reality, you can change.
In my more than 35 years of reading Stereophile, I think I can recall one headphone that had measurements published on it, but that could have been actually measurements of some associated effects processor and not earcup measurements. OK: NO headphone measurements!
I cannot recall Stereophile ever publishing measurements on a phono cartridge or turntable made by John Atkinson (with the advent of affordable personal computer vinyl-equipment testing software, MF has begun publishing screenshots of some measurements, but not consistently for all such components, and that is just one writer's doing that for his column and those measurements are not "official" in the sense of speaking for the whole magazine).
I cannot recall "official" measurements on surround-sound processors, but some graphs have appeared in Kal's column.
It is possible to make arguably meaningful measurements of audio cables--AFAIK Stereophile has never done so.
So, I think that the reality is that there is a huge amount of stuff written about in Stereophile that never gets measured and most people don't notice because they have never seen such measurements and so they don't miss them.
You do raise a valid point that the division of the editorial staff between columnists and reviewers can result in episodes of inconsistency, strictly speaking. My approach long has been that when I encounter a piece of gear that I think is worth the trouble, I ask John Atkinson if he can find the time to measure it. This past week he measured Wilson Benesch's second-generation entry-level speaker, the Square One v.2. Items that I was the first to write about that later received extensive follow-ups or even from-scratch full reviews by others have included DAC/HPAs from Benchmark and Grace Design; darTZeel's NHB-108 power amplifier, Bricasti's M1 DAC, and the B-1 and K-1 loudspeakers from Vivid Audio.
In contrast to how I have handled things, I think it is fair to say that Sam Tellig tended not to make his fave raves available for second opinions, a streak that was disrupted when his Class A+ Digital Processor rating for a budget DAC from Musical Fidelity was made provisional and then upon measurement and listening, that rating was downgraded.
I am not bent out of shape at the idea of a Magneplanar loudspeaker's receiving coverage and not full measurements--in just the same way that I don't think that my praise of Audio-Technica's M50 headphones was inherently suspect just because they received a place in the RCL with no other writer having heard them and no measurements made. More than one AA poster has thanked me for that recommendation. If people need measurements on the A-T M50, they are available elsewhere. And panel speakers are sufficiently sui generis that I think that how the speakers are actually set up in one's room is far more important than QUASI-anechoic measurements ever could be.
I hope this helps.
JM
Speaking of course only for myself.
Thank you very much for responding.
And just to be clear, I didn't wish to argue over the relative merits of measurement vs not - but rather was just wondering what the editorial policy is vis a vis measurements and how that squared with JA's statements from:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/god-lives-details
It seems that if it's a review, and depending on the type of equipment getting that review, there will be measurements. But if it appears in a column, that is not equal to a review and isn't subjected to measurements.
However, all are eligible for Recommended regardless.
Question though - are the columnists and what/how they cover treated as more independent entities apart from the review portions of the magazine?
Is there an over arching editorial vision or mission statement that is wound through the whole?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
> It seems that if it's a review, and depending on the type of equipment
> getting that review, there will be measurements. But if it appears in a
> column, that is not equal to a review and isn't subjected to measurements.
That is correct, with the exception I occasionally make when a product
reviewed in a regular column appears to have issues that require further
investigation.
> However, all are eligible for Recommended regardless.
That is also correct, as a review in one of Stereophile's regular columns
is equivalent to a full review both in other magazines and in Stereophile
before I implemented the policy of including measurements in our full
reviews a quarter century ago.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I see your Four Goals as honorable and worthwhile.
Do you really feel as far away from goal #4 as ever? Do you envision some day publishing extended thoughts on that?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
> Do you really feel as far away from goal #4 as ever?
You are referring to what I wrote in the essay linked below: "build up a
measurement database that will eventually reveal correlations between
what is heard and what is measured."
> Do you envision some day publishing extended thoughts on that?
There are some broad correlations, yes, but nothing that I feel confident
enough to publish. But from my 2011 Richard Heyser Memorial lecture to
the Audio Engineering Society, said only half tongue-in-cheek: "if you
want to make and play back recordings that people will prefer, you use
spaced omni mikes to capture the sound at at least 176.4kHz, and play it
back through an NOS DAC, a zero- or low-negative-feedback amplifier with
very low static distortion below 1W and primarily second-harmonic
distortion at higher powers, driving large panel speakers via exotic cables."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Yes, that's the one I was referring to.
That's some good advice..and as an Apogee owner I am inclined to agree.
Thanks - Good luck and Godspeed in the pursuit.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
Thank you very much for responding.
And just to be clear, I didn't wish to argue over the relative merits of measurement vs not - but rather was just wondering what the editorial policy is vis a vis measurements and how that squared with JA's statements from:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/god-lives-details
It seems that if it's a review, and depending on the type of equipment getting that review, there will be measurements. But if it appears in a column, that is not equal to a review and isn't subjected to measurements.
However, all are eligible for Recommended regardless.
Question though - are the columnists and what/how they cover treated as more independent entities apart from the review portions of the magazine?
Is there an over arching editorial vision or mission statement that is wound through the whole?
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
But seriously...
Speaking only for myself, and as I understand things, columnists are given a wide latitude to request equipment for evaluation for possible inclusion in a future column, equipment that might not meet Stereophile's normal criteria.
I think that in my experience the riskiest such move I ever made was to request darTZee's NHB-108 before they had a US importer. In the event, the NHB-108 turned out to be not only the sweetest-sounding solid-state amp I have ever heard, it turned out to be a real product from a real company, and was later reviewed and tested.
As I understand it, while reviewers may suggest equipment to be reviewed, it is John Atkinson who assigns gear for review. Which only makes sense. He has to be able to make sure that there is an absolutely fetching mix of reviews in any given issue, and he has to be able to schedule his time dedicated to measurements.
Beyond those pragmatic concerns, I think that columnists in general write from a more personal perspective while reviewers write from a more objective perspective, but that might be overstating things. A review has to include subjective reactions, and a column has to impart objective data points that are relevant to a reader's deciding whether something is worth further pursuit.
And just to tweak your restatement of what I said above, column coverage does not necessarily involve measurements, but in certain cases, there may be a measurements Follow-up. Recent examples from my column include the Lindell AMPX Class A power amp and a couple of ATC loudspeakers.
In rare cases, something that I write about will turn out to merit a review and not just measurement, so the readers get the benefit of more than one complete perspective on an important product, examples being Vivid's B-1 loudspeaker and Bricasti's M1 DAC.
Ciao,
john
It's always nice to get a flavor for the mechanisms behind the curtain as to how things are structured.
I'm still not 100% on the editorial policy regarding when a component does or does't merit a visit to the test bench. But it sounds like there is a fair degree of latitude given in that regard.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
JA once tersely remarked in print that I had not "suggested" that he listen to the Bricasti DAC; I had ORDERED him to.
OK, so what if I did?
It ended up on the cover of the issue that his review of it ran in, didnn't?
jm
Maybe it's because recommendations are based primarily on how something sounds rather than how it measures. For me, the measurements are just mildly interesting icing on top of the reviews, which focus entirely on sound and ease of use. I get that you can usually tell how something sounds by how it measures, but how it sounds is always, without exception, the bottom line.
But I am just saying, shouldn't there be some editorial consistency in that regard?
They are not treating all manufacturers the same where one can appear in one space and not receive measurements and one can appear in the other and be subjected to them.
Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it.
--Celine
It's not a review , it's an infomercial , figure it as such and all is well.
how it sounds is always, without exception, the bottom line.- Jeffery Lee
Who determines this, the reviewer ? IMO, both are reviews, one objective the other subjective, the combination is necessary in forming an opinion...
Regards...
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: