Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile / Do Your Homework posted by Isaak J. Garvey on January 11, 2017 at 10:59:08
I've never read a bad word about any EAR product in any publication ever.
And anyway, it seems the player was faulty. That said, any manufacturer who doesn't fully check a piece of equipment for submitting for review deserves what ever they get!
> it seems the player was faulty.
We received another sample in time to include a follow-up review in our
March issue. Yes, that first sample was faulty - it had apparently been
sent to other reviewers before Art Dudley. While I understand the economic
incentive for a distributor to limit the number of samples he has sent out
on loan for review, as Stereophile is the only publication that measures
the sample, it would make sense to send us a fresh out-of-the-box sample.
This is not unique to EAR, please note. We have reviews of 2 speakers
about to be published where it appeared that other reviewers had already had
the samples in their possession before they were sent to Stereophile. The
distributors are rolling the dice.
That being said, what could another reviewer, even a sloppy one, do the unit that would raise the output voltage by 2V, which if I am not mistaken raised flags for Dan Meinwald.
I agree. For Sphile, a magazine that does measurements, an out of the box unit is the way to go. Penny wise, Pound foolish.
> what could another reviewer, even a sloppy one, do the unit that would
> raise the output voltage by 2V, which if I am not mistaken raised flags
> for Dan Meinwald.
It does seem unlikely that a previous reviewer had damaged the player in
such a manner that it would raise the output voltage. But an alternative
hypothesis is that there were wrong-value resistors in the circuit and
neither EAR nor Dan Meinwald have effective QA.
I know it's been a while, but have you or anyone from Stereophile ever made further comments re: Art Dudley's laudatory review of the Air Tight ATM-1s (Nov. 14), the measurements of which indicated it was, to coin a term, "broken."
Having started several businesses myself, I can only respect his having published his own magazine. I personally never found Mr. Dudley's writing nor sonic impressions especially compelling. His writing seems to me to have a hard-to-define yet real tone of condescension or a presumption of superior something-or-other.
Was there ever any final word on this? I searched the forums here but most references were to ATM 3 or ATM 2's.
not so much about EAR, but about the reviewer who listened to the unit before Dudley. Assuming that the part was defective prior to it being sent to the previous reviewer (I think a safe assumption since EAR would not likely insert a bad part, and then send it to Dudley), and assuming that the prior reviewer's use did not cause the problem (which, according to your prior post would be unlikely), I'd be interested to learn the name of the reviewer who listened to the unit before Dudley so I could read his or her listening impressions. Though I am not holding my breath.
That could potentially be a major case of being caught with your pants down. I'd also be interested to know whether EAR contacted that prior reviewer and politely advised him or her that perhaps it would be best to, um, delete the review.
Here you go. This is a good bet. Though no way to know for sure without
the serial #.
An unequivocal rave. 5 stars to boot.
Well, to be fair, it is hard to assume there is sub par Q&A from one sample, but there is no doubt it should never have left the factory out of spec.
Also, Tim P's designs are excellent and I have seen his gear in countless recording and mastering studios and I know a boat load of super star musicians who have had him build custom gear.
But of course this does not excuse a defective, expensive disc player and DAC from being sent for evaluation.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: