Critic's Corner

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

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Think you need to reread the review

Posted by E-Stat on April 1, 2008 at 06:41:37:
...and HP listened to the Wilson Benesch ACT Ones, and wrote a generally positive second opinion, including that had he not heard them he could not have put his finger on what the $86,000/pr Burmesters did not do as well...

The only reference to the Burmester was noting that placing them, like the W-Bs, too close to the back wall overly emphasized the upper bass region. He found that both speakers sounded more neutral when placed a third of the way out into the room. He commented that he experimented at length with placement in order to get the best response and settled for his usual "rule of thirds" rule. I think this commentary was in response to your stated preference to place them but a foot out from the wall.

...and that they were (IIRC) the only cone speakers he could think of that approached Magneplanar levels of coherence...

Here again, I'm not at all sure how you would conclude that based upon the text. Indeed he began the review by noting the superb performance benchmark offered by the baby Maggies when supplemented with the Carver subwoofer. The key word "only" was never used. The reference to Maggies was a point of reference. Specifically, he said:

"Put these two qualities together - exceedingly low distortion and Maggie-like overall coherency..."

HP let the other writer RECYCLE a years-old review that had run in "Fi."

You have proof this has ever occurred?

Look it up for yourself; somewhere around Issu #116, IIRC.

I did. Your comments are found in pages 47-51 and HP's are found in pages 97-99 in issue 119. So, you went bonkers over them and HP didn't. What's the beef?

rw