Home Critic's Corner

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

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Yes, that we do.

Good morning Rick!

We may just have to accept that we disagree on a number of things, but that's ok. The world would be quite boring if we all saw things the same way...


"One method hifi mags employ to "keep up the enthusiasm" is to review almost everything in glowing terms. Another is to emphasize small sonic differences between for ex. a $2,000 preamp and a $7,000 pre as if they were huge - in particular when attempting to either justify or avoid discussing the major price difference."

I've got a couple of issues here: first, "glowing terms" doesn't apply across the board. I read a lot of reviews that end with a series of caveats that would mean I probably wouldn't be too interested in the product. I've learned to interpret reviews based on my knowledge of the reviewer. It isn't that difficult to determine what a reviewer thinks is good and what is great. Now, where are the "bad" reviews?? Well, if I was a reviewer, I wouldn't waste my time on products that didn't interest me in some way. Generally, this means that given the limited time a reviewer has to do his job, there is a "pre-screening" of equipment that occurs. Nothing wrong there: I want to read about really good stuff, not bad stuff (this is where the "enthusiast" part comes in.) Secondly, I can speak from experience about the sonic difference that $5000 represents: I have an Air Tight preamp, one that has been very highly regarded, and I have a Nagra. The price difference was about $5000. The Nagra is significantly better, and worth every penny. If it wasn't, I would have returned it...no use wasting money I could spend on another toy!


"Robert, you rejected: what I said about the music education/training the new students at MSM/Julliard etc. received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about the training budding pros coming to NYC apparently received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about judging what's popular today vs. what was popular 50 years ago. What leads you to believe things have gotten worse? The general public's music education and taste has always sucked."

I didn't reject ANY of your statements, Rick: I simply stated that they were irrelevant to my point. Again, it is that music education in public high schools is simply not there. The vast cuts in expenditures have caused this, and it is why MTV and VH1 have special "fundraisers" to assist in getting music education back in the schools (its really a marketing move to apear hip to the kids). The pro's don't matter: most likely the people who go on to serious music study after high school have had private tutors. They certainly didn't get it from band practice. Let me try another approach: do you acknowledge that there's a problem when more than half the high school seniors polled don't know the capitol of Utah? Or that 30% can't say who fought in the Civil War? Or that nearly half don't know that the First Amendment is part of the Constitution? These people go out into the world with a less-than-satisfactory education. It is highly unlikely that they will be active in local politics (unless they are wacko militia types, for whom education seems to be a problem anyway), as their base knowledge of our history and political system is completely lacking. They may not have become politicians, but they might have had a better chance of being active intelligently if they had been taught something. Music education is similar: without even the slightest bit of music theory taught even as an elective in most public high schools, what is the chance that these students will have even the slightest interest in music? (I'm not talking about iPod background here, or stuff to dance to, or something to upset one's parents: I'm talking about being really interested in music, and I don't care whether it's pop, rap, or classical). And with little interest in music, what would be the point of a high-end rig? Why are home theaters selling much faster than hi-fis? Because there are more people interested in movies than there are interested in music.


"Exactly, so stop rapping as if lack of interest in quality music reproduction (and/or what you or I define as good music) is due to the decline of music ed/appreciation classes in high schools. There never was much music ed/appreciation; to my knowledge what classes may have been offered weren't mandatory; plenty of people (if not most) who took such classes still prefer to buy and listen to crap thru their i-pod or boombox over Mozart or Sonny Rollins."

Well, then you agree with my points, but why can't I disagree with Avocat's position?? "Stop rapping??" I was RESPONDING. That ought to be allowed, don't you think?


'"Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile."

What shifting priorities? The public never had hifi or great music as a priority. The only person I knew when I was a kid who was into hifi was one uncle. As you say, its a niche market.'

What shifting priorities, you say?? Priorities shift all the time. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with buying expensive equipment. How the general public spends its disposable income represents its priorities at the time it spends it. Big screen TVs today, SUVs a couple of years ago. All that matters is that priorities shift. Music has NEVER been a general public priority, which was why I said that the costly equipment reviews didn't have any impact on the public: it just doesn't matter because they don't care. It is also why I said (and you noted this before) that I don't think there is a problem with the high-end. It has NEVER been on the general public's radar.


"IMO the hifi industry (certainly dealers) is generally speaking much more interested in selling mega-buck gear to loaded and gullible stock brokers who don't know an oboe from an English horn than in actually getting the Circuit City boombox public interested in "budget" hifi as an entry point for future greater interest. NON-audiophile niche TV, radio, print mags and e-zines have plenty of ads for HT and expensive flat screen TV's. How many ads for relatively inexpensive Rega/Creek/MF/Jolida/ etc. (or expensive Lamm/Ayre/CJ/VPI/Teres/Dcs etc. for that matter) have you seen in media the general public reads/watches/listens to? How many non-audiophiles do you know that have ever even heard of Sonus Faber/Rowland/EMM Labs/Supratek/Morch etc.?"

I don't think the manufacturers of high-end rig care one way or the other. Lamm would only sell to a "loaded and gullible stock broker" if it had passed muster to survive in the marketplace, and a dealer demo'ed it for him. Lamm does ok because their products are great, not because they're expensive and a broker thinks they're cool. I was in the loft of one of those brokers last week, and he spent quite a bit of time telling me how great his Bose system was, that it was "the best." He certainly isn't going to learn the difference between an oboe and an English horn with Bose. Now, was he gullible to the high-end, or to marketing hype? He could have spent more money and gotten better product if he'd been gullible to Krell, and would learn the difference if he didn't previously, but that just doesn't seem to happen too often.

By the way, Sonus faber sells through Harvey. I know a lot of people who aren't audiophiles who have bought them because when they went to buy a TV, they heard them. Now two of them have bought nice turntables, and they're expanding their listening tremendously. ALso, Teres, Morch and EMM Labs don't advertise to ANYONE, never mind in the mainstream media. However, Martin-Logan IS taking a cue from Bose and is advertising all over the place...it will be interesting to see if it is successful.


"From my vantage point hifi is doing fine, and I'm sure as hell not worried that new products won't be continuously appearing in the marketplace. Nor do I doubt that a tiny segment of society will continue to be interested in hifi/hi-end. But I have no illusions that the general publics'
taste/interest in either sound or music will ever be radically uplifted."

I think we agree. So why should we follow Avocat's lead and change Stereophile to a buyers' guide? I think a lot of audiophiles really enjoy reading about mega-buck equipment they may never own.


"Hey, we may disagree about all this stuff, but I'm glad to hear you're into jazz. Looks like you have a damn nice system too. Happy listening."

Disagreeing is ok. There's no "correct" when we're debating ideas, interpretation and opinion...

Yes, I'm a jazz nut. Doesn't hurt living two blocks from the Village Vanguard!! Thanks for the comments on the system as well: it makes me very happy. The Teres/Schroeder/Allaerts combo into Nagra to Sonus faber is quite a bit of synergy. If only I could figure out how to deal with NYC dust....;)


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Western Glow Tube Service  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]