Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275

192.5.202.6
Posted on June 14, 2012 at 10:25:45
jult52
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: May 27, 2009
 From a recent review on 10 Audio by I believe Jerry Siegel:

"The resolution, or ability to clearly hear bass strings or a bass drum head vibrating, is lacking."

"Voices in the midrange and lower treble sound dull and lacking in sparkle and air."

"There is little feeling of 3-dimensional space and it is rarely possible to sense of the size of the recording venue."

"At $5500, I suggest that while the amplifier is built to a high standard, the S-275 is overpriced for the level of performance it offers. The Cary SA-200.2 is much more musically involving and enjoyable for $1500 less."

Ouch. The reviewer assigns the amp 6 stars, a non-price-adjusted ranking that compares to 9 for the Cary 200.2, 8.5 for the Pass X250.5, or 9.5 for the Wyred4Sound ST-1000.

An alternative view is presented in a careful Audiogon write-up by poster Dalovell that is much more positive, although it too is critical of the S-275's bass.

If I were in the market for a power amp, I would be flummoxed by the two widely different views and would probably strike the Krell from my shopping list just for convenience, despite being very conscious of the potential for 10 Audio to have got it wrong.

Do you agree with the 10 Audio review? Is it more trustworthy than the Audiogon write-up? How do you evaluate such different reactions?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Since D'agostino is gone, you have to wonder about the engineering talent and vision there...., posted on June 14, 2012 at 12:00:36
viridian
Audiophile

Posts: 2499
Location: Portland, Oregon
Joined: May 26, 2005
Contributor
  Since: February 1, 2012
 Not that I am a fan of Dapper Dan.

 

Personally the 'Krell which is just some old failed marantz is what I thought sucks, posted on June 14, 2012 at 14:20:07
Elizabeth
Audiophile

Posts: 10281
Location: Great Lakes Region
Joined: December 20, 2000
 That skinny marantz long thin one channel job which did not do so well reappeared as a Krell. I was totally WTF over seeing a crappy marantz with a Krell brand stuck on it.

 

RE: Personally the 'Krell which is just some old failed marantz is what I thought sucks, posted on June 14, 2012 at 18:56:38
zako
Audiophile

Posts: 712
Location: Mo.
Joined: March 29, 2004
 WAS,NT THAT THE KRELL MADE IN CHINA,, With The KRELL S-300i

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 10:36:14
Bob Rex
Audiophile

Posts: 585
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Joined: July 28, 2000
 I'd tend to accept Jerry's criticism before most posters on Agon. Jerry's been publishing (vetted) for over 10 years and has extensive experience with multiple amps. (Well, at least he's reviewed amps.) I've never seen Dalovell's body of work, so I don't really know his experience. I'd put as much faith into a Dalovell report as I would a Sudz report.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 18:25:11
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 "A 10 LP rating means it does not take any work on your part for the component to take you "there", musically."

They give this to several products on their site that I find offer zero emotional satisfaction or take me "there" with no effort. They have amps given 10LPS that I would give 3 LPS.

Having read the review and what the "other components" listed I would not put much stock in their review, personally.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 19:09:06
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Wow! One hack taking a shot at another hack. What, no internet reviewer professional courtesy?

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 20:47:25
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Read the review.

There isn't a lot written there about putting much effort into getting the best out of the Krell. If I ever get something that isn't sounding good I am going to try and attempt to turn over as many stones as I can to get it to sound good and I will detail those efforts. Maybe they did but that doesn't come across in the review. Which is why I said "personally" at the end.

As a critic that means being critical of not just the components but of the reviews of gear as well. And I am harder than anyone on my own reviews.

For me personally, just reading the review it didn't seem like much information was provided with regards to set-up - what music was playing so that the reader could have a chance to crosscheck what the reviewer is saying. Bass is bad. Okay how so? Which album, which CD player, preamp, and speaker?

It's fine to be negative on a product but IMO if you're going to be negative in a formal review you a duty of care to be very clear and very detailed on the reasons why.

I find all the treble comments unclear. He says it the treble is "splashy instead of clear" but that the amp has "good leading edge" behavior and is "grain-free" but "lacks resolution."

I don't complain about the results (I have not been a big Krell or SS fan in general) or that he liked some other amp for much less money - I just "personally" think it is owed a more detailed review. He mentions a song or two but I find it a really negative review and then he gives it 6 which is a recommendable rating.


 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 21:12:00
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 You take yourself way too seriously!

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 15, 2012 at 23:55:47
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Somebody has to :-)

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 16, 2012 at 14:28:34
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...you slam him, he politely responds and he's taking himself too seriously.

Seriously?

As a reviewer, he is very familiar with the process, even if you don't agree with his results.

He is criticizing the process used which gave those results.

Valid criticism.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 18, 2012 at 23:57:03
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 "As a reviewer, he is very familiar with the process"

Seriously? For the most part, he is a billboard for one manufacturer with little reviewing experience.

"He is criticizing the process used which gave those results."

No, he initially and unnecessarily criticized 10 Audio because the reviewer has different taste in equipment than he. I'm sure he appreciates you agreeing with him, as it appears he is looking for mutual affirmation.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 18, 2012 at 23:59:28
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 13165
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Heaven help us when a Carey product is the reviewer's reference.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 19, 2012 at 19:36:23
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 ..."Seriously? For the most part, he is a billboard for one manufacturer"...


Two of my latest purchases: Line Magnetic and Audio Space (PS bought with no review attached - I may review them down the line - but bought first). That's two manufacturers. Sure I like that "other" manufacturer a whole helluva lot but it's not generally affordable or represents sane value.

"with little reviewing experience."

Well everyone has to start somewhere. I can't listen to and write 700 amplifier reviews in a week to catch up. On the flip side I would argue that I didn't need to sit through 700 amplifiers to figure out what quality sound is. Morricab on the speaker asylum has put out a pretty good list as to some of the things that represent a truly great sounding amplifier - people can quibble over some of them - but if it's high feedback it's probably not good.

I am also not 65 years old with 45 years of listening to everything that ever came down the pipe. I have been listening to gear seriously for 20 years - 10 years of that to mostly mainstream audiophile approved brands. I certainly don't claim to be the most experienced best reviewer to ever walk the earth. I don't have the depth of experience of much older product lines. I am currently reviewing an LS3/5a the first such speaker I've heard for more than 10 minutes (the last one was Grant Fidelity version and a Harbeth). But this is an old hat reference standard monitor for many other more experienced critics.

So yeah - I am out of my depth on experience. On the flip side I also don't bring any emotional attachment to the LS3/5a - I am not going to compare it to 12 other versions or the original because I might have been 3 years old when the original came out. I have no nostalgia factor where when I was 18 I always dreamed of owning one and 30 years later I am more amenable to being favorable to it. No I look at it as "just another" small box in a sea of small boxes. Sometimes a lack of experience in this kind of situation can "perhaps" provide a fresher perspective or objective perspective rather than a "fan" of the design.



..."No, he initially and unnecessarily criticized 10 Audio because the reviewer has different taste in equipment than he..."

Actually his taste wasn't the issue - he didn't like the Krell - guess what - I don't much like the Krell sound myself. I have never heard a system using a Krell that I remotely liked for that matter - indeed 6/10 is probably considerably more than I would give them based on what I have heard over the years.

I just think they deserve more of a fair shake in a publicized review is all. As for some of the items they like I may disagree with their preference but they did a good job reviewing those - namely the Brystons.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 19, 2012 at 23:13:03
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 RGA,

You remind me of my five-year old special needs nephew who constantly and irritatingly craves attention. Here was your original response to this thread:

[They give this to several products on their site that I find offer zero emotional satisfaction or take me "there" with no effort. They have amps given 10LPS that I would give 3 LPS.

Having read the review and what the "other components" listed I would not put much stock in their review, personally.]

I may not have the best reading comprehension, but that sure sounds like you were criticizing the reviewer's equipment preferences and his system, which you now claim was not the issue. You spent the next three posts trying to justify and BS your way out of your original cheap shot post.

Did it dawn on you that you were the only Industry Inmate to respond to this thread and IMHO, take an unnecessary cheap shot at another industry member who did absolutely nothing to you?

You are trying way too hard to come across as an intellectual audio guru. I urge you to pay attention to John Atkinson posts and think about emulating him. The man takes a lot of shit from AA inmates and always manages to handle himself with class and dignity. At the recent "Ask the Editors" question and answer session at the Newport Beach, CA, show, Atkinson came across as intelligent, honest, and genuine. I'm sure he could have responded to this thread and torn apart the 10 Audio Krell review, the reviewer and the 10 Audio website. Guess what, he didn't.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 20, 2012 at 02:09:28
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 First, Yes I am not a fan of the gear they rave about - Bryston for example. They raved about it and attached a rating. I read the rating and said gee I would require a ton of effort to have it "take me there".

So I used the word "personally" I would not put much stock int them. I certainly don't deny what I said - I disagree with their take on what is good. So personally as a person - I would not find their reviews particularly helpful.

Second, the more important issue and the "main point" was they ripped into something without, IMO, giving it a fair shake (at least it's not explained that way to me from the text). I have said why I felt that way even though I might agree with them on the sound of the unit (have not heard it but I have heard other more costly Krells). But then I would not review a Krell unless I liked what I heard at a show in a home or a dealer or somewhere.

Third - I suppose I took a shot at them and perhaps I should have thought about it because I have an R beside my name but I am a person/audiophile first. And frankly I felt Krell deserved a helluva lot better.

If you're going to review something negatively that can have serious effects on their business and could cost people jobs due to a lack of sales then you owe it to them to be bloody well thorough when you do it.

That does not mean you should placate the manufacturer because the consumer is owed the truth - certainly - but I think they deserve a really in depth detailed reasoning for why it wasn't liked. I would never deliberately review something I didn't like - and I don't like very much which is a reason I have so few reviews because unlike many I don't review "everything" to make a name for myself nor am I going to rip something to make a name for myself so I can seem more "objective."

I just find it irritating that a negative review is always latched onto to seem more "objective" as if a negative review is some holy grail to the truth.

This is the review industry - people review gear. People disagree with takes on things. I'm from the Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel school who I loved watching for all the years I was old enough to remember. They'd argue all the time about each others' ratings.

I see no problem with a debate about products - I disagree with probably half the reviews out there - in Stereophile, TAS, 6moons and dagogo and they with me no doubt. I also don't see why that can't be said on a forum. It sure would make forums a lot more FUN! Heck Gene and Roger would argue about movies they both liked because one didn't like it enough. It was a hoot. And a very successful hoot I might add.

In this thread I was called a hack reviewing another hack. Doesn't bother me.

I don't think reviewers, review publications, political parties, religion, should go unscathed from debate because they're encased in publications or corporations. Also, I don't think because you have an R or an M or a D beside your name you have to have a gag order placed over your mouth to call it like you see it.

Granted I am not American but isn't there something about Free Speech - If I write that I think the Audio Note OTO is a terrific EL 84 amplifier and someone from TAS tells me he thinks it's poo that's fine with me - we discuss it get into one of those 57 response spiral debates that ends in "you're deaf" - "no you are" and it's settled.

That's why the magazines are so successful - they have so many different "tastes" reviewing the gear. One guy may buy Stereophile for Art Dudley because they like tubes and SETs and value and High efficiency, other read Art to see what zany bad measuring thing he's going to like next, others read so they can rant about some political comment he makes - and that's just one guy. Then you have Fremer and the more watts is better sound camp and diametrically opposed love for vinyl. Then others read for the measurements. JA doesn't need to enter discussions about e-zines that are mere blips on his map - in fact doing so may just increase competitor readership - so why bother?

And to be clear I even get your valid criticism of me entering this discussion and my "shot" about their preferences. And I totally understand why you think the classy thing for me to have done would have been to not post. Can't please all the people all of the time.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 20, 2012 at 04:40:09
tmsorosk
 When it's all said an done, I can say I don't find the S-275 overly involving, ( a friend owns one ).
Only heard it in one system, but I wouldn't call it musical, at least not compared to the better solid state and tube gear out there. It certainly has a long way to go compared to the old Krell gear too.

 

They seem to have no reliable reviewing methodology, so why care what they say? (nt), posted on June 20, 2012 at 14:37:10
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 11970
Location: Fredericton NB, Canada
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

 

They listen - and express their opinion about what they heard. Seems pretty reliable to me. , posted on June 20, 2012 at 14:58:59
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 5491
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 As long as you understand that, since audio is purely subjective, you can take their findings only as starting point in exploring the piece of gear.

Seems no less reliable, than your posts about Paradigm or PSB speakers, or God-awful Quad amplifiers - except that they (he, actually - Jerry S.) have a lot of experience with quality gear, and you don't.

What are you struggling with, exactly?

 

Like I said, not a reliable methodology., posted on June 20, 2012 at 16:29:23
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 11970
Location: Fredericton NB, Canada
Joined: June 20, 2000
 I wouldn't take 10Audio's reviews as a starting point, that is, for figuring what equipment to seek out and audition, except for speakers. But then, since most people with normal hearing tend to like the same speakers under blind conditions, I give purely subjective reviews some what for choosing what speakers to seek out for auditioning, especially if more than one reviewer likes them. This does not prevent me from auditioning something else I come across, of course.

"God-awful Quad amplifiers"

Your acquaintance with Quad amps is . . . what, esactly? On what basis do you offer your evaluation of them, if anything?

Actually, I don't often say much about my amplifier except that it is very quiet and does its job driving my speakers.

"What are you struggling with, exactly?"

Do you think I am struggling with something? Whatever prompted that question?




-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

 

Many different answers, use what you can., posted on June 20, 2012 at 16:33:18
tmsorosk
 Didn't seem like he was struggling to me, just asking a valid question.

 

RE: Many different answers, use what you can., posted on June 20, 2012 at 19:48:07
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 11970
Location: Fredericton NB, Canada
Joined: June 20, 2000
 Thank you for your kind remarks.

However, carcass93 has a thing for me. He seems to find my opinions highly objectionable. Hence, he snipes at me and my equipment. This has gone on for a long time. I don't pay it much mind.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

 

I don't think it was a valid question, considering the posting history of the person who asked it., posted on June 21, 2012 at 08:00:53
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 5491
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 In the sense that he's asking it for about 100th time, with different people each time trying to explain to Pat D. - unsuccessfully, apparently - the purpose and validity of subjective reviewing.

I did my best - and again in vain, it seems.

 

You have committed a classical logical fallacy., posted on June 21, 2012 at 08:37:16
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 11970
Location: Fredericton NB, Canada
Joined: June 20, 2000
 The validity of a question is not determined by who asks it anymore than the validity of a proposition is determined by who asserts it.

What it means is that you can't answer my question, or are afraid to answer it.

You maintain that auditions are only good for those who take part in them, but then you wonder why someone would suggest that there is no reason to pay much attention to subjective reviewers opinions about sound quality where there is no evidence they can actually detect the things they think they can hear. You seem to want to have it both ways.

Of course, this condition is met with speakers, but still, without a good methodology, the evaluations are likely to be severely biased. However, some reviewers tend to like the same speakers that I do, and my three favorite current speaker reviewers, John Atkinson, Doug Schneider, and Andrew Marshall present good sets of measurement results.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

 

Nope, I did not., posted on June 21, 2012 at 08:50:37
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 5491
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 But it would be pointless trying to explain it to you.

 

10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 21, 2012 at 10:16:21
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 Essentially, 10 Audio (Jerry Siegal) is incompetent and unethical.

He panned a preamp of ours, not because it was noisy (he owned it for 7 years) but because I called him out when he reviewed one of our kit-built amps that he had bought used. He reviewed it as if it was the latest version of our fully-optioned amps factory-assembled. The amp he reviewed was a rat's nest of construction inside and was not representative of our gear to say the least. I'm not making this stuff up, when he got called out it was on this website.

When confronted with this, he changed the review of our preamp from one that was very good to bad, and trumped up some noise complaints and the like, none of which were true.

Bottom line is, 10 Audio should not be taken seriously by anyone. This is a person that suffers from what I have come to call 'AGS' - Audiophile Guru Syndrome- if it did not issue from his mouth, it is not the Gospel. Anyone who gets to the point that they cannot admit when they have made a mistake is someone who is at risk of AGS. Credibility thus suffers!

The 'bad review' point I am making is that there are politics that can influence whether the review is good or bad, which is something that should never happen. Thing is, you never know what is going on- did he get a bad sample, is he allowing his mood to influence the outcome, is he doing things that are outright unethical as he did with us? Anytime you see a bad review you have to ask these questions regardless of the source.

If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all. That is how the best players do it.

 

RE: They seem to have no reliable reviewing methodology, so why care what they say? (nt), posted on June 21, 2012 at 12:02:31
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 10549
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Here's my expansion on your brief comment, FWIW.

The article is incompetent, as can be seen by reading the document, without any further research. The review talks about subjective "bass" performance of an amplifier. It lists several speakers, but fails to describe how this lack of perceived bass might vary as a function of the speaker. This makes the review completely useless to a potential purchaser.

Any competent audiophile, whether subjectivist or objectivist, understands that bass performance depends on interaction between a speaker and an amplifier.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Look at it from a different perpective., posted on June 21, 2012 at 13:05:38
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 5491
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Most likely scenario:

Reviewer is familiar with all the speakers he tested the amp with, having listened to them at length with different amplifiers. With all of those, he perceived a lack of bass, or ill-defined bass, or whatever - using Krell amp under review. Therefore, he reports the problem with bass as a function of the amplifier.

Your comment would be applicable to low-powered SET, whose bass performance would vary greatly as function of the speakers, because of its limitations, including potentially high output impedance. However, it doesn't hold water when applied to something like this Krell in question.

 

RE: Look at it from a different perpective., posted on June 21, 2012 at 13:45:39
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 10549
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 I think it unlikely that the Krell is taking away bass. It's at least as likely that the reviewer is incompetent and associates "good" bass with uneven bass when his speakers are being driven by an amplifier with poor damping. Alternatively, perhaps he moved things around in his room and this changed the acoustics. He doesn't say. A careful, competent reviewer would tell the readers what he did to control against these possibilities.

When people hear things I do not dismiss what they heard, as it's their ears and their mind. However, when it comes to reaching conclusions I do question many subjectivist reports, as many of these people are clueless about the technology involved. Some lack a basic knowledge of logic and scientific method. There are others who are simply dishonest.



Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

And you remind me..., posted on June 22, 2012 at 10:54:50
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 >You remind me of my five-year old special needs nephew who constantly and irritatingly craves attention.>

...of his older sister who is always putting him down and trying to rain on his parade because of her lack of attention.

 

RE: And you remind me..., posted on June 22, 2012 at 13:21:07
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 Sounds like someone's Depends need changing. I completely understand, the over the hill generation of know-it-alls has to watch out out for the next generation of know-it-alls.

 

That would be..., posted on June 22, 2012 at 16:07:14
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 >...the next generation of know-it-alls.>

...you, of course.

You sound like a petulant child.

 

RE: That would be..., posted on June 22, 2012 at 21:02:14
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 "you, of course"

Coming from the guy with more than 25,000 AA posts.

Seriously, what's your rational for condoning and coming to the aid of an industry inmate who took a cheap shot at another industry inmate. Unprovoked, no less.

 

Unprovoked?, posted on June 22, 2012 at 21:09:22
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...look above and you'll see additional posts confirming his criticism from Ralph, a manufacturer and PatD.

I don't know if he's right or wrong, but the original reviewer was not very thorough in his approach, leading to serious questions about his results.

And then there are other ethical issues...

Unless you've done some reviewing, you have no idea what you're talking about.

But it's the internet, and....uh...elbows are like opinions - everybody has one.

Why are you so opinionated here - do own that piece of equipment or maybe know him?

 

RE: Unprovoked?, posted on June 22, 2012 at 22:12:19
Eric B
Audiophile

Posts: 298
Joined: October 11, 2001
 I don't know the reviewer, never heard the Krell piece in question, and have never owned a Krell component. The thread was essentially baiting people to make comments/criticisms about the reviews and reviewers. And of course someone who doesn't even know the reviewer or heard the Krell piece took the bait. IMHO, a person trying to elevate himself by tearing down another person. Completely unnecessary and unprofessional. Especially, from someone supposedly in the industry.

Whether you agree with me or not, there should have been some kind of courtesy here. All of the other industry inmates managed to refrain themselves from taking shots. Ralph's post came way after the fact and had no bearing with RGA's cheap shot post. Being a former reviewer, I'm a little surprised that you condone this type of behavior. Hey, what do I know? I'm just a lowly audiophile who has no idea of what I'm talking about :)

 

Why is your..., posted on June 23, 2012 at 09:44:33
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...criticism of him different than his criticism of the review?

Pot and kettle...

He only criticized the review - you took off on him personally.

Where's your courtesy?

At least he has the experience to know what he's talking about.

 

"If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all. ", posted on June 24, 2012 at 06:14:01
volunteer
Audiophile

Posts: 3735
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: January 7, 2012
 I was with you until you made this statement. I want honest reviews whether positive or negative. A manufacturer of bad components shouldn't be shielded by a buried review.


-Wendell

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 24, 2012 at 07:34:44
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 2860
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >10 Audio (Jerry Siegal)...

Perhaps I am being dense, but other than a cryptic reference to "today's
host" being "JerryS," I don't find any other reference on the 10 Audio
site to the identity of the reviewer(s). None of the reviews I looked at
are signed, which, to me, is an error. Who says something is perhaps as
important as what is being said.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: "If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all. ", posted on June 24, 2012 at 08:08:47
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 5271
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 "A manufacturer of bad components shouldn't be shielded by a buried review."

I concur.

I really like the way Stereophile handles that sort of thing. They provide an ample opportunity to sort it out to the benefit of both the manufacturer and the reader.

Rick

 

RE: Look at it from a different perpective., posted on June 24, 2012 at 08:27:13
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 5271
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 "However, when it comes to reaching conclusions I do question many subjectivist reports, as many of these people are clueless about the technology involved. Some lack a basic knowledge of logic and scientific method."

Oh, well put!

Especially their conclusions of the underlying causes which are almost always pure flummery.

Regards, Rick

 

Agree with exception to the omission of authoring being an error., posted on June 24, 2012 at 08:46:55
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 Highly unusual perhaps but why an error? Someone could legitimately have something to hide. :^)

The OP initially said, "From a recent review on 10 Audio by I believe Jerry Siegel...".

Any subsequent presumptions in lieu of further corroboration were in error. IMO.

 

RE: Agree with exception to the omission of authoring being an error., posted on June 24, 2012 at 11:38:57
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 2860
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Highly unusual perhaps but why an error? Someone could legitimately have
>something to hide. :^)

I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
comments.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Agree with exception to the omission of authoring being an error., posted on June 24, 2012 at 11:47:23
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 "I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
comments."

Who is someone else?

 

First of all..., posted on June 24, 2012 at 14:03:14
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...today there are very few truly bad sounding components.

And second, no reviewer wants to waste his time doing a thorough review with all of the listening it takes, to a component he doesn't like.

And third, with no second reviewer comment system, a bad review could have a devastating effect on a company - what if it's wrong?

 

"what if it's wrong?", posted on June 24, 2012 at 14:11:02
volunteer
Audiophile

Posts: 3735
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: January 7, 2012
 It's an opinion. It should be taken as just that. If I respect the reviewer it has weight, for me. If I don't, it doesn't.




-Wendell

 

RE: Agree with exception to the omission of authoring being an error., posted on June 24, 2012 at 14:59:21
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 2860
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >>I assume you are being humorous, but I feel that if you are to publicly
>>comment on someone else's work, you need to affix your name to your
>>comments.
>
>Who is someone else?

Sorry for the clumsy wording. I was referring to reviewers who don't put
their names to their criticisms.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Agree with exception to the omission of authoring being an error., posted on June 24, 2012 at 15:52:44
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 "Sorry for the clumsy wording. I was referring to reviewers who don't put
their names to their criticisms."

IMHO, a name is a prerequisite to a credible review. However it seems apparent I'm among the few feeling it's (review???) unworthy of discussion. Seriously, what am I missing, here? If, names are not an issue with designers/manufactures, what does that say about them?

 

Names..., posted on June 24, 2012 at 17:08:44
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 Yes I was wondering why there was no name - I just assumed it was a single reviewer who reviewed everything on the website. With no name - the buck stops with the editor. (I suppose everything stops with the editor since they have the decision to print it ot not).

Manufacturers don't need a name - the name of the product is the "name" they are standing behind.

 

RE: Names..., posted on June 24, 2012 at 18:55:26
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 "Manufacturers don't need a name - the name of the product is the "name" they are standing behind."

So, they stand nothing to gain with questionable review standards?

 

RE: First of all..., posted on June 24, 2012 at 20:18:39
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 1616
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 I don't think people realize how even a seemingly trivial comment in a review can affect a company. I know of a review long ago of a company now out of business that produced well regarded products that was almost put out of busines in a review that actually was good by a comment(incorrect by the way) in an early paragraph. It was simply that the AC cord seemed a little thin(it was the same gauge as most other manufacturer's). Sales died for 6 months.

Reviewers need to be careful what they write both as to accuracy and as to foolish connotation that can be attached to a review. Readers, coming from way less exposure to audio products, can be scared off a product way too easily with potentially bad or even catastrophic results.

 

RE: yes, posted on June 25, 2012 at 07:10:08
Cpk
Manufacturer

Posts: 1288
Location: Allentown PA
Joined: May 13, 2005
Contributor
  Since: October 5, 2009
 all reviews are done by Jerry

 

Yes- we want honest reviews..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 07:45:50
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 - Those that are untainted by politics we are unaware of, personal issues of the reviewer (doesn't personally like someone at the manufacturer for example), misuse of the product, tampering, etc.

I had a Stereophile reviewer (Steven Stone) pan one of our preamps after he swapped junkbox tubes into the preamp. The tubes were so bad that they would not even read on a tube tester. The resulting bad press gave us 0 sales for 2 quarters. It was the direct result of tampering with the unit, but no-where in his comments did he say that he was basing the review on the performance of the unit with junk tubes. Do you think that was 'honest'?

The problem is that a bad review can occur for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the how the product performs. I have now giving two examples in this thread.

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 25, 2012 at 07:48:26
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 In this case and for the last decade or so, all the content on that site comes from the JerryS you mentioned.

 

RE: Yes- we want honest reviews..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 08:10:11
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 5271
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
Contributor
  Since: January 16, 2010
 Do you happen to remember when that was Ralph? I'd like to read it and might have the issue if the mice haven't "repurposed" it into bedding.

Thanks, Rick

 

Ralph, this statement is my only area of disagreement., posted on June 25, 2012 at 08:19:22
volunteer
Audiophile

Posts: 3735
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: January 7, 2012
 "If it is genuinely bad, there simply should be no review at all." I support everything else you've posted.




-Wendell

 

RE: Yes- we want honest reviews..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 08:54:56
Linn
Reviewer

Posts: 17
Location: Calgary
Joined: July 15, 2003
 I am a little confused here. If it was never mentioned in the review, how do you get to know that much about the junk tubes?

Thanks in advance if you take the time to answer my question.

 

RE: Yes- we want honest reviews..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 09:07:01
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 If you are referring to the Stereophile article, it was in 1993, the Recommended Components issue.

 

RE: Yes- we want honest reviews..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 09:14:15
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 We dealt with the preamp after the review and found the tubes in it. When I could not get a reading on our tube tester, I first suspected the tester itself, but a stock tube from our inventory tested fine. During the review he had sent it back to us with a problem that also was the result of a junk tube he had installed.

Some months later, Dick Olsher had a review of an amplifier wherein he did tube rolling. After objections from readers, to Stereophile's credit, it became official policy to not allow 'tube rolling' as part of the review, that is to say the reviewer had to stick to the stock tubes.

 

Yes, we may have to disagree on that, posted on June 25, 2012 at 09:29:19
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 I used to think that bad reviews did serve editorial policy to warn readers of bad products. But after my own experiences that I have outlined here, neither of which mentioned the actual problem (JerryS not liking that we called him out, Steven Stone not mentioning his tampering with the unit) I realized that bad reviews are often unethical, despite the desire on the part of the readership to see them.

It all depends on if the review is bad for the reasons given, or if there are facts that directly relate to that review that get no mention.

Now if a manufacturer is unable to get any traction in the press because no-one will talk about his horrible product then the public is being served by those magazines even if the public doesn't know it. This, IMO is the ethical approach.

I appreciate that we all have our opinions, but I have yet to hear of an example that tells me I am wrong in this. It could be though that I have just seen a spat of bad luck, but in matters such as these one would hope that luck has nothing to do with it.

 

Considering that all 10 Audio reviews are done by Jerry S, what are his "questionable review standards" ? nt, posted on June 25, 2012 at 09:33:11
Rick W
Audiophile

Posts: 8089
Location: NJ
Joined: October 3, 2001
 nt

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:47:32
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Well personally I don't think it takes much guts to take a knock at one of the "big names" of high-end audio that appears to have been reduced to "also-ran" status.

That said I have followed this fellow's site, some might say blog I suppose, for some years and can comfortably say that anyone following for even months would realize it's a one man show.

Moreover he clearly has at lot of experience and I find him to be honest ... two critical aspects which make him worth reading.


"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:50:28
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 I think that you should work on designing a pre-amp that deserve to be placed in the company of your excellent amplifiers ... and on that more work, less talk, would be my advice for you.


"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 25, 2012 at 10:52:46
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Since I'm feeling generous today I'll just go with you being dense.


"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

It depends. Is 'considering' a fact or the same as 'if'. -nt, posted on June 25, 2012 at 11:58:28
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 nt

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:33:07
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 We did that. Years ago. FWIW not only have both of our preamps been recognized by awards in TAS and elsewhere, but the MP-1 is one of our best-selling products, and in several years outsold all of our amps put together.

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:41:20
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 There no accounting for taste I guess.


"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

Maybe you should check the site out before opining about his review standards. nt , posted on June 25, 2012 at 12:52:27
Rick W
Audiophile

Posts: 8089
Location: NJ
Joined: October 3, 2001
 nt

 

"I realized that bad reviews are often unethical,", posted on June 25, 2012 at 13:11:38
volunteer
Audiophile

Posts: 3735
Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: January 7, 2012
 How is that different for some positive reviews? We know that there have been instances in reviews where the reviewer had an ownership position in the product under review, "long-term loans" that were never expected to be returned and of at least one reviewer selling review product he didn't own.

I sympathize with your position. I don't agree bad reviews should be buried.


-Wendell

 

Maybe, thanks. -nt, posted on June 25, 2012 at 13:11:52
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 nt

 

RE: "I realized that bad reviews are often unethical,", posted on June 25, 2012 at 14:36:49
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 I think where we might be not quite on the same page is that if a product is bad, it gets sent back before there is ever a review. So there isn't one that 'got buried'.

It may well be that I have a skewed perspective on account of my 'bad luck' in the past- trusting that people would have greater moral capacity than they did. But I can think of a number of other instances that happened to other manufacturers- Gryphon for example got a bad review that shut down their US distribution on account of they would not give one of their amps to a reviewer for free. I happened to be in their room at CES when he was threatening them that he might do that.

 

same experience, posted on June 25, 2012 at 17:35:46
Grant
Manufacturer

Posts: 237
Joined: March 31, 2000
 Hi Ralph,

We had the same experience with Jerry. He called in 2005 and asked for a specific product to "review". I declined his request and politely stated we were no longer seeking review exposure for that product. "I will get your product and write an article anyway, without your input or consent"-- were his exact words. I knew from his words and tone that he was using a threat as leverage to change my mind. I began to apologize again, but he hung up the phone without another word.

Some months later, a DIY project appeared on his web-site. The product of ours he'd gotten a hold of looked to be 2-3 years old. He represented it as current, claimed it didn't match the listed spec on our web (which it wouldn't since it was 2-3 years old). He then proceeded to DIY a Home Depot power strip with some caps for $120 and claimed it was better. That " DIY article" was his follow-through for declining to loan him a current product to "review".

I was surprised he went so far out of his way for retribution, but given that he did, I'm not surprised he's done that to others.

Grant
Shunyata Research

 

Not sure I follow you here..., posted on June 25, 2012 at 20:49:37
jamesgarvin
Audiophile

Posts: 4688
Location: southern ohio
Joined: July 9, 2004
 Your original post stated reviews of "genuinely" bad components should be buried. By "genuinely" I assumed you meant components that were bad without the reviewer making them bad. I get your point about a reviewer making the component bad and then reviewing the modified component. Common sense tells me, and I would hope a reviewer, that this is, well, silly.

On the other hand, if the component really is bad without the help of the reviewer, and despite the reviewer's best efforts, then the review should be printed. Frankly, as a manufacturer, I would think you'd want the charlatans exposed.

 

Genuinely bad, posted on June 25, 2012 at 23:26:21
Inmate51
Audiophile

Posts: 3890
Joined: July 6, 2005
 I'm not sure where to put this in the stream of thought which is this thread, so, I'm putting it here, at what seems to be the end of the thread, whether it is, or not.

I completely disagree that a "genuinely bad" component shouldn't be reviewed. How else would a prospectiver buyer know that it's not a component worth buying? If manufacturers are building bad products, isn't it valuable for the buyer to know that? Heck, look at the millions and millions of dollars that the U.S. government and NBC spent a couple of years ago to convince us that we shouldn't buy Toyota cars. Wasn't that useful to the consumer?

If a reviewer thinks it's bad, evaluate it anyway. BUT, they should go to the manufacturer with all of their concerns and observations, and give them every opportunity to respond, BEFORE finalizing the review or printing anything.

This is not only common courtesy, but it also ensures that the review sample doesn't have an unusual problem or isn't set up properly, and gives the reviewer more insight, and the consumer a more accurate picture of the product.

Once all of the bases have been covered, if it still sucks, say so - if the reviewer has the balls to do so. Isn't that part of the job, and a service to the consumer?

 

Who cares what he thinks??, posted on June 26, 2012 at 09:06:29
Robert Hamel
Audiophile

Posts: 1901
Location: New York
Joined: October 24, 2002
 Anyone can put up a web page and proclaim themselves a reviewer. The only credibility he has is what we give him.

 

Yes, it seems that manufacturers need to be wary of him nt, posted on June 26, 2012 at 09:58:41
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 -

 

The problem here is that you have no good way to know, posted on June 26, 2012 at 10:03:04
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 if the organization is on the level with their 'bad review'. Perhaps it simply is that after a few hard knocks, I am less trusting...

 

My advice to you would be to learn some manners, posted on June 26, 2012 at 11:19:02
Pinkus
Audiophile

Posts: 525
Joined: August 13, 2000
 .

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 26, 2012 at 11:28:31
Linn
Reviewer

Posts: 17
Location: Calgary
Joined: July 15, 2003
 The review itseld leaves me with more questions than answers.

For example, how do you determine the amp's performance in mid-bass and below when the low frequencies are covered by active subwoofers? The adjustments (crossover points, phase, volume, etc.) to the subwoofers can dramatically change the sound of the system.

 

He purchased the review sample !!, posted on June 26, 2012 at 14:43:37
Shep
Audiophile

Posts: 136
Location: Southeast U.S.
Joined: March 13, 2001
 Re: “no-where in his comments did he say that he was basing the review on the performance of the unit with junk tubes. Do you think he was ‘honest’?”

Exerpts from the December 1993 Stereophile review of Atma-Sphere MP-1 by Steven Stone (Vol. 16 No. 12).

PHONO SECTION
“It’s ironic that a product designed by a totally over-the-top analog fanatic should have problems in the phono section. Two of the three gain stages in the MP-1 are for the phono section, but I’m afraid that owners of low-output moving-coil cartridges may find the phono section’s S/N inadequate for their favorite cartridge. I tried as many different makes of 12AT7 as I could lay my hands on to try to squeeze every bit of signal I could out of the MP-1. I finally settled on RAM TubeWorks Super Select low-noise tubes ($60 each retail!) for the primary phono positions. Still, using my EMT/van den Hul cartridge (0.75mV output), the noise of electrons rushing through the tubes was as loud as many recordings’ surface noise.”

SUMMARY
“Any attempt on my part to reduce my enthusiasm for the MP-1 in print or in the real world has been futile. I’m quite entranced by this preamplifier.”

And the last paragraph of the review…

“I’ve always felt that the highest praise a reviewer can bestow upon a product are the three little words, “I’m buying it.” The Atma-Sphere MP-1 has tripped that special little switch deep inside my head. What more can I say? Yes, I’m buying it.”
(End excerpts)

I’m not sure how the reviewers “highest praise” works out to be a “pan” of the MP-1 but imagine what sales would have been if he hated it.

 

RE: Yes, my memory is playing tricks..., posted on June 26, 2012 at 15:15:29
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 He has a followup in the Recommended Components issue of the following year.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 26, 2012 at 19:35:15
Inmate51
Audiophile

Posts: 3890
Joined: July 6, 2005
 This, and the other thread "What Would Reviewers Own", are partly why I haven't read hi-fi audio mags in ages. Who needs 'em? I think that most folks read them just for fun and fantasy, not because they actually intend to buy a particular product, and I think the publishers know that.

I do read pro audio mags regularly, just to keep up on what's new and what I might want to incorporate into my recording or production system. But reviews of speakers and amps bore the snot out of me. If I want to know what something sounds like, I go listen to it. I don't need someone to tell me how they think it sounds.

As a commentary on JA's post about a professional conductor not being a good candidate as a reviewer, I'll say that a reviewer that isn't an accomplished musician with an intimate knowledge of the sounds of instruments isn't a candidate to be a good reviewer.

Edit: JA, thanks for your excellent contributions to this forum. It would be wonderful if other folks in your biz would have the where-with-all to posit their thoughts. Yes, I know RGA (whomever that is) and some other niche unknowns post occasionally, but you're the only one who regularly steps up to the plate.

 

Good reviewers..., posted on June 26, 2012 at 21:04:37
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...don't need to be accomplished musicians, but they need to be very familiar with the sound of live, unamplified music, attending concerts regularly.

And they need to have excellent critical listening skills, which can be learned.

Plus they need to have insight and the ability to describe the things they hear in a way the reader can relate to, understand and enjoy.

Two of the greatest reviewers ever - JGH and HP were not musicians.

Today with the disappearance of B & M stores, audio review magazines have taken on a new importance in exposing readers to new equipment they may want to seek out and buy.

Even though I haven't bought any new components in years and have no interest in buying, I enjoy reading the two print magazines because they are entertaining and a part of my hobby.

I also enjoy reading Auto Week, even though I have no plans to buy a Porsche.

 

RE: Good reviewers..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 04:18:27
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 "Today with the disappearance of B & M stores, audio review magazines have taken on a new importance in exposing readers to new equipment they may want to seek out and buy."

Can you expand upon this? I don't see the correlation. How do you grade the magazines' new assumed role so far?

 

RE: 10 Audio is an excellent example of why reveiwers should not write bad reviews., posted on June 27, 2012 at 07:02:17
JerryS
Reviewer

Posts: 1795
Joined: February 24, 2001
 Dear sad Raplh,
You are still trotting the same tired lies from 10 years ago. I had your preamp for about 1 year, in which time you had it twice to TRY to fix it. The rest of your story is similarly inaccurate.

So sad.

Readers: Please read the review below and make up your own minds.

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 27, 2012 at 07:14:24
RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 8116
Joined: August 8, 2001
 RGA = Richard G Austen

Anyway, I agree with most points. I think people put WAY WAY too much stock into what reviewers have to say.

Let's take movie reviewers - What is a good criteria to be a film critic - maybe a literature degree - maybe a deep interest in film studies. Certainly a love of movies.

I considered becoming a film reviewer - and got some tips from professional movie critics on outlines to effectively engage the reader. Far easier IMO than writing stereo equipment reviews.

People often ask why the critic hates a movie the average population loves. And the answer boils down tot he sheer number of films they see. If the average person sees 10 movies in a year and say one romantic comedy they may go easier on it because it's the only one they saw. The film critic has seen maybe 40 romantic comedies that year and perhaps rate on a sliding scale. So they rip it to shreds if it doesn't do anything truly inspiring. Which in turn means they also like the odd ball foreign film no one else quite gets because again sheer number of films they likely latch onto anything that is remotely original.

I understand why posters want audio reviewers who are recording engineers, or pro musicians, or people who live at the symphony. But honestly - none of that means a damn thing. Those are simply things that make people feel the reviewer has more weight or credentials.

Here's why it doesn't mean anything.

Lets take speakers.
1) You will have professional monitoring speakers - say ATC, PMC, Genelec, B&W, Yamaha as examples of speakers used in recording studios world wide. You will find audiophiles, musicians, recording engineers, reviewers who attend live events (or not) regularly and of course the manufacturers themselves who will swear up and down by these speakers. They will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.

2) You will have a very similar group of people who will say swear up and down about Electrostatic and Planar Magnetic loudspeakers and will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.

3) You will have a very similar group of people who will swear up and down about High Efficiency (often horns) loudspeakers and will tell you this is the only thing that reproduces the live event or recordings properly.

And there are many other camps (Active versus passive, omni-directionals, line arrays, single drivers, Open baffle, large diameter versus single point in space, various hybrid designs, sub-satellites) and we've not even started on analog versus digital or SETs and Tube amps. I was just in a debate about EL34 versus KT88 so people have specific takes just on the output tubes of PP amplifiers.

I don't think it is wise to "go by the reviews" and other reviewers have dogged me for saying that but when you take 1-3 into consideration there is NO CONSENSUS AT ALL on audio equipment. No consensus in the audiophile world or in the review world.

Magazines are generally smart - they have reviewers in camps 1-3 on staff - those reviewers typically get what they "prefer" and thus everything gets a good review.

People, I think, use reviews for affirmation of their own purchases and seek out reviews that support their preferences.

The problem with reviews is that virtually every product on the "audiophile" market will have a rave review by someone. When I started out I put a lot of trust in the reviews and wound up with pretty mediocre sounding gear. It was when a review publication raved about a speaker that was best in class that I went out and auditioned the speaker. I was excited as it was in my price range and looked nice. I was roundly unimpressed - it was mechanical and overly polite.

Add to this the fact that when I wrote into the magazine asking advice on a loudspeaker they write it off as being suspect because it was undamped and liked to be placed in corners. They judged it without ever auditioning it. The fact that it utterly trounced the speaker they recommended in every conceivable way (the speaker and company no longer exist and the speaker I wrote in about is now so popular they can't keep up with the demand even after opening a dedicated plant). Just saying. And even that magazine finally heard them at a show and raved about them.

I digress. You hit the nail on the head with reading for fun and fantasy. I think reviewers can be helpful for buying decisions - reviewers - NOT magazines. You find a reviewer who you consistently seem to agree with and you consistently hear stuff the same way. I put more stock in them and if they rave about something then I will try and make the time to hear it, After all if I agree with him/her on the last 5 then chances are I will on the next one.

The overall magazine doesn't work because if I typically agree with the reviewer who likes SET amps and HE speakers and TUUUUBES and single driver speakers - then what is the point of reading what the reviewer who thinks all that is obsolete junk and instead owns and claims that ONLY 1000 watt SS power amps and 6 way 8 foot speakers are the way ahead? And vice-versa.

I did and still do two things with reviews.

1) find a reviewer who hears it the same as me
2) consensus.

Consensus is taking different reviewers at different magazines and if enough of them rave about something and illustrate they largely hear it the same way then they're probably onto something and at the very least it's worth auditioning.

 

Good Post (nt), posted on June 27, 2012 at 07:27:05
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 8146
Joined: September 24, 1999
 .

 

RE: same experience, posted on June 27, 2012 at 07:40:06
JerryS
Reviewer

Posts: 1795
Joined: February 24, 2001
 Hi Grant,
If that was my response, please let me offer a belated sincere apology for both the wording and my rudeness with you.

The project included two Hydra 4s with some internal differences. Here is the entire paragraph with the comparison in my "DIY Hydra" project that you misinterpreted to prefer the DIY version:

"And the results? After using the two power conditioners with different components – both tube and solid state – and at different times of day and night, I reached the conclusion that the "DIY Hydra" was a sonic twin to the production Shunyata Hydra 4, taking into account the additional purity provided by eliminating the varistor in my "DIY Hydra". I found that similar performance to a $700 manufactured product could be obtained for an expense of roughly $100 and some time and effort. The downside is that the "DIY Hydra" has a resale value of effectively zero. The well-reviewed - and deservedly so - Shunyata Hydra 4 will retain its value far better."

I surely do like your CX power cables! I hope the fact that I like and use some of your excellent products doesn't keep potential buyers away.

Regards,
JerryS

 

RE: Critics being critical: 10 Audio pans the Krell S-275, posted on June 27, 2012 at 08:18:07
Inmate51
Audiophile

Posts: 3890
Joined: July 6, 2005
 Very thoughtful post.

btw, planars suck, and high efficiency is the only thing that reproduces the recordings properly. ;)

 

Reviewers..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 08:48:01
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 >People often ask why the critic hates a movie the average population loves.>

Those people don't understand the role of a film or concert reviewer.

Their job is not to mirror public opinion, but to look for artistic merit and advancement of the art.

Fans may love a Journey concert and think it's the best they've ever seen, while the reveiwer may pan it because it's the same old stuff over again.

An audio reviewer, however, has little in common with them, for the most part, unless he's reveiwing equipment that truly advances the art of music reproduction.

Otherwise he is merely describing his observational listening experience in comparing the sound of the equipment to the sound of live music.

 

The magazines..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 08:50:08
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...have always been in the role of exposing audiophiles to new equipment they may consider for purchase.

Ask an audio store owner how many times a customer has brought in Stereophile's Recommended Components List when shopping for new equipment.

 

Posts of yours elsewhere on Audioasylum.co belie this., posted on June 27, 2012 at 08:57:42
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 Now I hope you are not denying what you got called out on. I am still in contact with the guy you sold that kit-built M-60 to.

I am also in contact with the owner of the said MP-3. When he got if from you, the phono section was so quiet that even on horns, he could not hear the noise floor from the AUX. As you recall this preamp was equipped with SUTs. That guy lives here in Minnesota. So he brought the preamp to our place- IOW this is not hearsay.

In plain and simple language you are lying, and you are a liar. Below is a link that you posted. This link suggests you liked the preamp at the time. If one simply does a search on this website looking for your posts from 2000-01-01 and on, one finds a wealth of information that shows that at one time your opinions were quite different from what you express on your website, and why.

Jerry, your credibility would soar if you simply admitted to making a huge journalistic error here.

 

Too Funny!!! nt, posted on June 27, 2012 at 09:23:47
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .


"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

It has now been pointed out to him that the "Stereophile reviewer (Steven Stone)" who panned his preamp, posted on June 27, 2012 at 09:42:09
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 14348
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 in fact *purchased* it.

His reply ... "Yes, my memory is playing tricks... He has a followup in the Recommended Components issue of the following year."

Memory playing tricks? ... now there's an understatement, first it's a dishonest reviewer who panned the product after using junk tubes, then it's my memory is playing tricks on me!

For such an egregious faux pas he isn't particularly hard on himself, now is he?




"Can you support that with measurements?"
"Yes, I sit 3m from my speakers and definately hear that there is more bass." - anonymous

 

yawn, posted on June 27, 2012 at 09:48:44
JerryS
Reviewer

Posts: 1795
Joined: February 24, 2001
 We did this dance over a decade ago and even though some folks would probably love to witness another juicy slugfest, your opinion, frankly, is not worth my time to respond to. Curiously, I was banned from the old thread when my facts contradicted your fascinating narrative.

I have nothing to gain or lose if anyone places any value in my reviews or if they do not. The best suggestion I can give to confused or interested readers is from Deep Throat: "Follow the money."

--------------

NOTE: Any further lack of response to your claims and personal attacks should not be interpreted by anyone to mean that I think you are correct in any way, have any valid points to raise, nor would prevail if the full and accurate disclosure of the facts surrounding those old reviews were known.

Responses are futile and an example of Kobayashi Maru: the no-win scenario. (I edited this "NOTE" to permit, but not require, further responses.)

 

RE: Good reviewers..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:09:30
Inmate51
Audiophile

Posts: 3890
Joined: July 6, 2005
 "Good reviewers don't need to be accomplished musicians, but they need to be very familiar with the sound of live, unamplified music, attending concerts regularly."

I suppose that could be true. Since you mentioned him, I'll have to try to find some old Julian Hirsch reviews and see what I think, given the intervening years and the hopefully decent level of experience I've gained during them. :)

But as an accomplished musician, I can say that there are nuances in the sound of various instruments that most people don't detect, and that only someone who is rehearsing or performing on a daily basis will hear almost immediately. Take 10 violin players playing ten different violins, and you'll have at least 2 or 3 that have a sound which sticks out from the others, either in a good or bad way, and more subtle differences among the others. So, that's one aspect of critical listening that requires an intimate familiarity with the sound of instruments, and which, in my view, can only be learned by being a musician, simply because of the time spent listening to them. (Speaking of violins, a microphone comparison recording that I did way back in the day included a violin sample. Man, did I pick the wrong violinist - he was a very fine player, but his violin wasn't representative of the sound of the instrument. It was one of those 2 or 3 mentioned above. I'm still kicking myself. I digress.)

On a related point, as a trumpet player, I've never heard a loudspeaker that sounds like a trumpet - any trumpet. So when reviewers talk about the "realism", or other such adjectives often assigned to audio components, it's almost laughable (no offense intended). Give me a dozen high-end speaker models, mate them up with a dozen high-end amps, and put on the best quality trumpet recording you've got. Then listen to a real trumpet in that same room. There's no comparison.

This is by no means a thorough reply or explanation, it's just some observations and comments to consider.

:)

 

No doubt..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:16:38
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...the more familiar a reviewer is with a musical instrument and live music, the better they can compare the reproduced sound to that of live music.

But let's say you are the first violinist in an orchestra. The sound of the violin you hear playing will be very different than that captured by the distant microphone and reproduced on the recording.

Just saying...

Of the three criteria I mentioned for a good reviewer, familiarity with live music is only the first one.

 

He never mentioned Julian Hirsch, posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:25:52
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 8146
Joined: September 24, 1999
 JGH= J. Gordon Holt

Jack

 

Julian Hirsch..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:30:48
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 28916
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...wouldn't make my top 50 reviewers list.

 

sweet. Here's another link, posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:49:05
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 2188
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
 -

 

Mine either, posted on June 27, 2012 at 10:57:53
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 8146
Joined: September 24, 1999
 And I probably couldn't name 50 reviewers.
Jack

 

RE: The magazines..., posted on June 27, 2012 at 12:29:18
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 3318
Joined: August 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: July 18, 2011
 You've got me there. I don't know how others 'today' shop.

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ]

Page processed in 0.096 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]