|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.215.214.225
In Reply to: RE: Here comes number 2! posted by hesson11 on November 18, 2015 at 14:57:39
I always wish they'd tell you what the insider price is you can really get it for is if you flash a fist full of hundred dollar bills under their nose.
Follow Ups:
> I always wish they'd tell you what the insider price is...
Accommodation price for reviewers depends on the manufacturer, but it
is generally the same as the price a retailer pays, ie, 40%-70% of the
retail price, depending on the kind of product.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you for your honesty. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it but I think it is something readers should understand when they read reviews and it should not come as a surprise. I don't know if that will influence anyone's opinion of the reviews or the reviewers. It is kind of an open secret to those in many industries where products are useful to employees and clients as consumers. For example, when I worked for a pharmaceutical company that also had a division that manufactured cosmetics, toiletries, and other personal items like shaving cream, they'd sell "packages" filled with goodies at about 80% discount right in their factory. Imagine buying all kinds of colognes, shampoos, perfumes and other goop (that costs next to nothing to manufacture) for a dollar or less each than what you'd pay for the same products in a drugstore. Same with many other firms I worked for. In the phone company I got discounts on my phone bill. I also get discounts from equipment suppliers, the same discount contractors would get.
Someone below posted suggesting that I am a troll bring up this subject. Whether it is seen as a conflict of interest is up to each individual but I think this is an open secret readers should be made aware of. For example, on another blog site a manufacturer recently introduced a new product. He offered it to his contributors who post there at a 50% discount off the retail price for a time. Not a big deal. This is why I could have purchased the Revel Salon Ultima II for $16,000 instead of $22,000 without haggling and maybe a lot less if I was good at the art of the deal. Only a hunch but I'll bet favored customers also get the best possible service if equipment they get at concession prices fails in use. As an executive of my first employer's top management told my group of new employees, a very large steel company, "we like doing business with our friends." No one should have illusions that it works any differently and there is a line between a concession price offered to those in the industry and a bribe that goes far beyond that price, even made available for free or on very long term loan, like say 50 years.
Once upon a time there was a thing in they US called "The Fair Trade Laws" which allowed manufacturers to fix prices their distributors could sell their products for, that is not offer any discount. To get around it many retailers offered package deals where for one cent more you'd get a good phonograph cartridge with that record changer you bought at full retail price. I think they were eventually successfully challenged in court and ruled illegal. Jerry Rosenberg co-owner of JGE who offered appliances to civil service employees and union members at a discount even on Fair Traded items was instrumental in that as I recall. "Hey Jerry, what's the story"
Obviously the worst misdeed a reviewer can commit is to give a component a review it doesn't deserve. No one has ever been able to explain how the ability to buy a lousy component at a discount is supposed to induce a writer to give the thing a rave review, or how a discount can cause good components to be falsely disparaged. If the component is a piece of crap deserving of a negative review why would the writer want to buy it even at a discount? Here's a real - world example: long ago, I wrote a negative review for Listener of the Roksan Xerxes X. I didn't care that I could have bought it at wholesale, I didn't like the sound of it. I wouldn't have wanted it in my system even if Roksan gave it to me gratis. How was my bad opinion of the turntable affected by accommodation pricing? It certainly didn't earn Roksan a positive review. Conversely, how does accommodation pricing affect the review of a component of merit? It's going to get a good review anyway, regardless of the price to the reviewer. Again, where is the conflict that causes a false review? Are you arguing that accommodation pricing causes good components to be given bad reviews? That doesn't make any sense either.
First, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying anyone in particular is guilty of any conflict of interest. But, I get suspicious sometimes, it's my nature. A reviewer can omit or minimize shortcomings or problems that might be significant. Every time I see a review of a new and improved version of a piece of equipment that got a rave review, it tells you why it's better than its predecessor. Suddenly the shortcomings of the previous version are mentioned to explain why the new improved model is better. It seems to me almost every review I read is wildly enthusiastic. When the measurements don't agree with the review, I always look to the measurements. You can tell me how great an amplifier is 'til the cows come home but IMO if the measurements stink, so does my opinion of the equipment. I'm still puzzled by JA's assertion if I understand it correctly that poorly measuring loudspeakers almost invariably means poor sound but the same does not necessarily hold true for amplifiers. I'm thinking of a preamplifier whose signal path consists of three 6AT7 tubes, technology from the 1950s that is a more simple circuit than a five tube table radio of that era priced at around $10,000 in the 1990s and billed as the eighth wonder of the world. One indicator was that its performance was highly dependent on output loading, a flaw I find unacceptable in any preamplifier.
Another problem is service. Frankly the service of some equipment stinks while others will bend over backwards to fix your problem or replace your product ASAP. This is especially true for companies that cater to a professional clientele as much or more than a consumer market. However, if you are a favored client who personally knows the president of the company or the vice president of marketing, you may get special treatment other more anonymous customers would not.
To JA's credit, at least I've read when he or his reviewers have had problems with equipment. He's reported them and related the outcome. Not all magazines would necessarily even tell you that much. Yes JA, I have read some of your reviews and they don't take up any but a tiny obscure nook in my mind in response to one of your earlier comments. Mostly I look at the measurements. I don't have to read the reviewer's opinion, I can usually guess them correctly about 99% of the time. Some things don't get measured at all like phonograph cartridges. Compare that to any of the three major hobbyist magazines of the 1960s and 1970s.
Sure, but how does accommodation pricing affect that? Back to my example of the Roksan Xerxes X: it had a fatal machining defect and the on / off switch broke the first time I pushed it. I could have bought the thing at wholesale if I chose to, but why on earth would I buy something that was so boring that I fell asleep listening to one of my favorite records on it? Accommodation sales to reviewers have been discussed here for a couple of decades, but no one has ever been able to explain how the availability of a discount that the reviewer doesn't want to exercise will cause him or her to flatter a crap component, or how the availability of a discount will cause that reviewer to assail a good component.
The problem is the appearance of a conflict of interest, not that it's proven to be substantially true but people can suspect it. Reviewers should be purer than Caesar's wife as the saying goes. It creates doubts especially when you read one gushing review after another after another.
Bad equipment is no bargain at any price. Agreed. But very fine equipment can be a bargain at a discount especially if it can be returned for a full refund at a future date as JA has pointed out it sometimes can be for insiders. So a very expensive loudspeaker such as YG Sonja 1.1 versus 1.3 or Wilson Alexandria II versus III can have a review of its first version praise it to the skies only for the reader to find that not only is the successive version substantially better but the improvements are to shortcomings that were either omitted or dismissed as not significant in the earlier review. So what is a multi-millionaire to do when he finds his high end speaker he bought just a week ago after mulling it over for a long time has been eclipsed by the newer version that fixes all of the less than perfect attributes in the prior version he just bought but he didn't know about or were not considered important? Fortunately I don't have that problem. I buy the used equipment at a substantial discount when the prior owners take a loss because they have to get rid of them to make space for the new stuff. I have a policy though, I don't buy any audio equipment I can't lift. Sorry YG and Wilson, you're just too heavy. Could you figure out how to make them say about 40 or 50 pounds? Put them on some sort of diet.
I'm still puzzled by JA's assertion if I understand it correctly that poorly measuring loudspeakers almost invariably means poor sound but the same does not necessarily hold true for amplifiers.
and yet in a previous post, you answered your own "puzzlement":
The method of testing audio power amplifiers is invalid because it does not simulate the way amplifiers are used in the real world
Which is it?
The measurements leave a lot to be desired and are not nearly as much as I would like but they are better than nothing. Do amplifiers that perform well on bench tests and look almost textbook perfect necessarily sound the same or perform well in the real world? Not necessarily. What happens when you hook them up to e-stat speakers for example?
What about speakers? It's the same story. How many of them measure similarly in JA's (or someone else's) test reports and then sound very different? Even the same speakers can measure differently from one room to another in JA's reports. One important parameter I'd like to see that I think is important in woofers you don't see in his reports is low frequency THD. How much of that LF is real and how much of it is doubling? I still don't get a supposedly high fidelity loudspeaker system costing thousands of dollars that can't reproduce deep bass and needs an expensive subwoofer to supplement it.
Do amplifiers that perform well on bench tests and look almost textbook perfect necessarily sound the same or perform well in the real world? Not necessarily. What happens when you hook them up to e-stat speakers for example?
I agree entirely. They really tell you very little. And, generally speaking I find there is an inverse relationship between THD metrics and real world performance - those that measure best sound the worst when playing music instead of uncorrelated sine waves.
What about speakers? It's the same story.
I believe there's more continuity with a complete range of tests (some of which Stereophile doesn't conduct) that do provide real world performance. On the other hand, I would agree that like imaging with electronics, there is no metric to quantify image height and depth capability.
> I would agree that like imaging with electronics, there is no metric to
> quantify image height and depth capability.This is because these concepts are the listener's internal constructs based
on the brain's interpretation of the acoustic pressure waves emitted by the
two loudspeakers. Like "color," "sound," "taste," and "odor," there is no
external reality corresponding to these concepts, just light waves,
pressure waves, and chemical stimuli.See my postings to the "HI-FI is ALL a SCAM ?" thread on this forum.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 11/24/15
For me, the vertical image perspective of the sound field created by the performers and concert hall is really no different from localizing a bird's location high in a tree or that if a jet six miles up.Perhaps I am overly sensitive to this aspect of the sound field. I find "listening down" to a small box speaker like hearing miniature musicians playing from their doll house sized hall.
Edits: 11/25/15
> I find "listening down" to a small box speaker like hearing miniature
> musicians playing from their doll house sized hall.
That's a fair comment. But there is no height information deliberately
captured or encoded in a conventional stereo recording. (A true binaural
recording, made with a anatomically correct dummy head, is a different matter.)
Unless you are talking about the fact that the acoustic centers of a pair
of panel speakers will be higher than that of a pair of minimonitors, the
only way that a stereo recording can give the illusion of image height is
if there are response variations either in the recording or in the system
that mimic the effect of the pinnae on higher-placed sources.
This was very effectively demonstrated in a recording Bob Katz made
for a Chesky Records test CD in the early 1990s.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> there is no height information deliberately captured or encoded in a
> conventional stereo recording.
One exception: with a pure-Blumlein, amplitude-stereo recording, the
directions of the reflections of the sound sources from the floor and
other boundaries will be preserved. So it is possible that these will
be interpreted by the brain of the listener as corresponding to height.
However, the incidence of such recordings is close to zero.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Agree Vertical imaging is very important , I think Chesky did produce a disc to test vertical height. A recording famous for height is Belafonte live at carnegie hall , he is above the musicians on the stage. Box Speakers with tilted baffles will have vertical height imaging issues , not all point source speakers Suffer from vertical issues nor will they suffer from big mouth sound like some large panels, or shout like horns ..
Choose your poison .....
Go Rossi ......
nt
try it! you know you want to!
Well i disagree the test bench (if a complete set of measurements are done) will tell you any amplifier's behavior quite well, What you like or prefer, not so much..
The only bias told from measurements unfortunately, is the topology at hand. :)
Go Rossi ......
...those measurements, not matter how complete, will not tell you how that amplifier will sound playing music through any particular loudspeaker.
Yes it will , it wont tell us your preferential bias's thou ....
Go Rossi ......
...the measurements may give you clues, but that's about it.
Pick up a Stereophile, read JAs amplifier measurements and write a review about how the amp will sound playing music.
Then see how that compares with what the reviewer heard.
IMO, Johns measurements are not complete enuff, to completely rule out that strawman argument, aside, they will tell you some, especially with regards to speaker load and drive...
Reviewers have biases too, you know ... :)
Go Rossi ......
Edits: 11/25/15 11/25/15 11/25/15
> ...Johns measurements are not complete enuff...>
Guess that let's you off the hook :-)
From my experience, even the best amplifiers will sound different on different speakers.
As far as biases go, reviewers objectively describe the sound of the device they are testing then subjectively tell you what they like and don't like about it.
nt
try it! you know you want to!
You are of course right. The problem for all audio equipment test reports is that they are not complete and the test conditions do not resemble the way they will be used in the real world. That is why the measurements don't correlate to what people hear. At best they are a vague indicator of what you are buying. What's left are a lot of opinions of variable questionable merit for a number of reasons whether that's due to the reviewer himself or the particular circumstances of its use which will probably be very different from your own if you had one. This is why I find the reviews confusing, incoherent, and of little value to me. However they can be entertaining. I'm always amazed at how many ways reviewers can find to say the same things in different words month after month after month. Look at reviews from 40 years ago. They read just like the ones being published today.
nt
try it! you know you want to!
nt
I'm not so sure everyone knew. I'm also surprised the discount could go as high as 70%. I figured 40%, maybe 50%.
> I'm also surprised the discount could go as high as 70%.
Not what I wrote, which was that the accommodation price for reviewers is
generally the same as the price a retailer pays, ie, 40%-70% _of_ the retail
price, depending on the kind of product.
There are also conditions attached to such purchases, such as that the
reviewer not sell the product for a certain length of time, or that if
he does wish eventually to sell it, that the manufacturer be allowed to
buy it back for the price paid for it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
That seems entirely reasonable since the manufacturer does not want to undercut his distributors. That could get them real mad if they found out. The buyback option is of course effectively a loan, the money merely a deposit to be returned in exchange for the equipment. The loan could therefore be indefinite. The purchaser gets the free use of the equipment for as long as he wants although inflation does take its toll on the value of money over an extended time. It is in the interest of the manufacturer to remain on the best possible terms with as many reviewers who are widely read as possible since a review can strongly influence sales.
Of all reviewers and critics in the world, the wine reviewer Robert Parker was thought by many to be the greatest critic of anything. His reviews literally drove the market and could kill off the sales of some highly respected brand names while boosting the price of lesser known brands to the stratosphere. He made a lot of people very angry at him, he ruined their game. He also exposed what he called the incestuous relationship between French wine negociants and British wine merchants. The alternative critics who arose to prominence were from Wine Spectator Magazine including James Suckling and James Laube. Interestingly they didn't always agree on the merits of particular products with Parker giving them wildly different numerical ratings. But even where they agreed on the numbers, their descriptions were often so different you wouldn't know by that alone they were describing the same product. Parker and Wine Spectator relied on their unquestioned integrity to give their genuine opinions, Wine Spectator the result of single blind tests, Parker not blind tests at all.
...the higher discounts for accommodation pricing are usually on cables and accessories.
Your wine review comparisons are interesting - because of Parker's tastes, many wine makers changed the style of their wines, making them bigger, bolder, more alcoholic and fruitier to please him to get higher ratings. (Personally, I find WS more to my tastes but if you look at my latest post on the Wine Forum here, their ratings are not definitive by any means.)
In that regard HP at TAS favored midrange musical accuracy, imaging and soundstaging which revitalized the tubed electronic industry in the 1980s.
But at the end of the day, any reviewer or publication has only its ethics and integrity to sell their reviews.
It doesn't matter if the reviews are sighted are blind if they don't agree with what you taste or hear.
coming up with the fist full of hundred dollar bills. Plus, not everyone has the same sense of smell when it comes to those bills.
Where I come from, money is referred to as "green aspirin." Ultimately people who manufacture and sell stuff have to make money to stay in business. They take what they can get for their products. For audiophiles who spend thousands on power cords coming up with a fist full of hundreds should be no problem. For a guy with a factory and bills to pay it's a life preserver.
I'm curious, where do internet trolls come from?
Why, everyone knows internet trolls come from under LAN bridges....
Cerebrate!
I don't know where internet trolls come from but I'm going to take a wild guess and it is only a guess. I'd guess some of them come from the ranks of reviewers who have more than a cozy relationship with manufacturers of equipment they review. I'm not casting aspersions on any individual, I have no evidence, and I don't mean all reviewers, but I get suspicious of people whose reviews rarely if ever find fault with anything or sugar coat them when they do. Are there such a things as insider pricing? Of course there are, I knew enough influential people in the "audiophile community" who got them. It's true in many professions including my own. I make it a policy to avoid getting insider prices on the same brands I recommend to people who hire me so I often settle for less than the best available. Many people get discounts from their employers on the products they manufacture or sell. That's normal. You have to trust to the integrity of reviewers whose opinions you value. If it is ever found out they got special favors they'd lose all credibility so they have an incentive not to. Yet there are always people who take bribes feeling they'll never get caught. Happens all the time that they do and it ruins them.
...but there are a few honest, decent people here, even reviewers.
.
I do believe that. I just don't believe for the most part they are anymore qualified to render an opinion than anyone else. This even goes for manufacturers including ones I know personally. Other than the fact that they have reviewed a lot of equipment in the past, I don't see what makes their opinions more valid than other peoples'. JA himself admitted in an interview on Home Theater Geeks that he could not distinguish the sound of a recording he made of a Steinway piano and the piano itself when much of his audience could. He seemed in the interview to be puzzled by the whole thing. That's not to say he isn't honest, in fact I have no reason to believe he isn't. However these reviewers seem to me to use other audio equipment as their reference rather than live unamplified (real) music. Their familiar relationship with manufacturers and the concession prices they can get products for gives me reason to wonder if their opinions are influenced even subconsciously by that. I don't know, but in some cases it might. I'm not pointing a finger at Stereophile Magazine either, I'm speaking in broad generalities about all reviewers. In Wine Spectator Magazine, at least as it once was, a panel sits in a room, someone brings in open bottles of wine in brown paper bags so the tasters can't see the labels, they are told the generic type of wine, and they write their reviews not knowing anymore about them including the price. That seems like a more reliable way to get an accurate assessment.
...audio reviewers and wine reviewers are no better at rendering an opinion of what I might like than anyone else.However, they have more experience at critical listening and critical tasting than most everyone else - so I value their opinions to help me decide what to try to find out what may suit my tastes.
I dislike buying wine without tasting it and I would never buy an expensive audio component without listening to it.
And I can give you numerous examples of WS reviews that were way off base.
Edits: 11/28/15
Most good wine stores have tasting sessions where one can sample a variety of wines, usually if i cannot get to taste , i generally choose the prettiest label and bottle from my region of choice ...
Same for Audio .... :)
Go Rossi ......
JA himself admitted in an interview on Home Theater Geeks that he could not distinguish the sound of a recording he made of a Steinway piano and the piano itself when much of his audience could. He seemed in the interview to be puzzled by the whole thing.
Return to about the 31:00 mark and he clearly explains that while tonality and amplitude are similar, the reproduced sound lacks the "bigness". He goes on to speculate about the relative pressure differences when a small diaphragm must reproduce the same level as one far larger.
I find that apparent image size is quite important to my perception of live music. And why I favor tall line sources instead of mini monitors. :)
> > JA himself admitted in an interview on Home Theater Geeks that he could
> > not distinguish the sound of a recording he made of a Steinway piano and
> > the piano itself when much of his audience could. He seemed in the
> > interview to be puzzled by the whole thing.
>
> Return to about the 31:00 mark and he clearly explains that while tonality
> and amplitude are similar, the reproduced sound lacks the "bigness". He
> goes on to speculate about the relative pressure differences when a small
> diaphragm must reproduce the same level as one far larger.Thanks for correcting the poster on his miscomprehension of what I actually
said. I also wrote about this experience at the link below, describing
the difference between the live and recorded sounds of the piano as
"The Esoteric-CAT-Vivid-Stealth system got right not only the tone colors
of the real thing, but, to my surprise, also both the loudness and the
microdynamics. The transients were sufficiently spiky, and the impact of
the recorded piano was as viscerally overwhelming, as the real things
had been...However, as pleased as I was with both the recording and the
playback system, the 'bigness' of the 9' Steinway had been diminished.
Even with the same tone colors and sound-pressure level, the instrument
and the loudspeakers were exciting the room very differently.Sadly, this mistaken idea that I couldn't hear any difference between the
two presentations seems to be gaining currency :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 11/24/15
Says alot about the vivid speakers (and setup) John, if it captured that much of 9'Grand...
MJ, may switch gears and speakers .. :)
Go Rossi ......
When we reasonably disagree, let us at least accurately state the position to which we do.
As you might imagine, I disagree with your perspective on the realism of large panel speakers vs. small point sources. In that same HT Geek video, you opined that a panel speaker reproducing a solo flute would necessarily "get it all wrong".
My feeling is that is determined by the miking technique. While I understand your reasoning behind using a close technique for the live vs. recorded experiences in both the HT Geek video and the link in your last post, I aver that such is unnatural when the intended playback environment is one's home environment. Isn't that the target for recorded music?
When the miking does include the hall's sound and is not IN YOUR FACE, then I find that all instruments consume their relative space in the soundfield. And yes, I like that soundfield to span both the height and (exceed the) width of my room. You also commented on voices and a comment by Bob Stuart? concerning speakers the width of the human head. Similarly, with my large stats, I find that with well miked recordings, voices "float" in front of me in a natural perspective. There are definitely very closely miked examples where you feel like you're looking down their throat, but I don't optimize my system for those examples.
For me, getting a realistic image size is essential to fooling my senses that I am actually in a live space. Another more subtle aspect concerns line sources vs. point sources. I find that the sound of live music does fall off more gradually than a point source's log scale. One of the most compelling aspects of the large Sound Lab speakers is that the sound field changes very little as a walk around my room . In front of them. In back of them. Sitting down. Standing up. Near. Far. There's no need to set my listening position at "tweeter height". The result is very natural to these ears.
Perhaps that is my way of communicating what you observed in the linked article:
"Even with the same tone colors and sound-pressure level, the instrument and the loudspeakers were exciting the room very differently.
...succeeded in every sonic parameter but one: the intensity of the original sound. Intensity, defined as the sound power per unit area of the radiating surface. "
A natural ease?
I can agree and concur on the added benefits as you described when using a large linesource dipole vs that of a point source box speaker.
Unfortunately large width type panels dont do small as well as they do big and last but not least , their artificial fast decay in the bass/midbass region, does let them down some what, panel lovers like to use the axiom "speed" in describing said deficiency..
Apart from that good stuff... Yeah. :)
Go Rossi ......
Edits: 11/24/15
Whatever. While the diaphragm's mass is less than the air around them, they don't accelerate the air!
What you call "artificial fast decay" I call lack of hangover.
Ok, we disagree, pass the wine .......... :)
Go Rossi ......
n
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: