|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.82.8.22
In Reply to: Art Dudley's March 2007 Column: What's That About? Long posted by nighteyes0 on February 18, 2007 at 06:47:35:
I don't want to start a fight, but I think you are wrong.I think that it is fair to say that from time to time, every writer finds something that really tickles his fancy. I can't deny that I was mightily impressed by the darTZeel amp, the Esoteric X-01, and the Grace m902.
But it is not fair to say that all coverage gushes.
JA measured certain cables MF loved, and found them peculiar if not wanting. The Zanden CD player's QC problems were run up the flagpole with a lantern on them--nothing was swept under the rug.
I loved the ESP Concert Grands, but, if you had read my coverage, you would see that I gave extra attention to the room set-up and bass-loading-design issues. I knew that the CGs' bass performance was going to be controversial, so JA valiantly drove for hours in holiday traffic to measure them in my room. We both worked hard on that, and if there are two words that either of us wrote that aren't fair and balanced, we'd love to hear what you think they are.
Indeed, JA received a 4,000+ word Jeremiad LTE from a member of ESP's Amen Corner, taking me to task for, well, just about everything. As in I totally did not get the speaker and I was unsuited to review it.
Look up my coverage of the J-M Reynaud Arpeggiones. A respectable speaker. Best of the best, regardless of price or practicality? No. So they are not Class A. The next best thing? No. So they are not class B. That leaves Class C. Ouch. I am sure that hurt the importer. I am sorry. But if something is not clearly the best of the best, and not clearly the next best thing, calling it Class C while pointing out what might make it attractive to some people is the only thing that is fair to the readers.
I know that calling somebody's baby less than perfect and adorable does not endear one to the proud parents.
But I strive never to let thoughts of the impact on the manufacturer impinge upon my responsibilities to the readers whose trust I have earned over the past 20+ years.
Cordially,
Follow Ups:
Re classes in Stereophile. I don't know the price of the speakers you are talking about. But to me (and only to me, I guess) it makes (more) sense that if a component costs more than at least one component (of same type) in a higher class, there is no reason to list in as recommended at all. Why, I ask only myself, would someone (would I) buy a Class B component that is more expensive than a Class A component? If the Class rankings mean anything, they mean that (to me). Reasons I can think of include discounts on price not reflected in list price, local availability, decor, and that's about it. Thanks.
An NHRA drag race is won by the car with the lowest elapsed time. That is a one-dimensional decision matrix.Whether this loudspeaker is preferable to that loudspeaker must involve at least six factors and perhaps a dozen. Most of those factors are subjective--at least in the sense that even though one can measure efficiency, bass extension etc. objectively, where each factor fits in tradeoffs is a subjective personal decision. E.g., the person who pays about $2000 for LS3/5As or clones has made the subjective decision to pass over speakers costing less that go deeper in the bass.
So, as far as I am concerned, that a Class B component costs more than a Class A component does not mean that someone might not prefer the component that ended up in Class B for whatever reason.
And NB, JA has never claimed that all writers have heard and vote on all components eligible for RCL. It is possible I take the cake for covering the greatest number of "off the beaten path" components, and because of that, I often ask JA to follow up on something I think is really really good, or which I think is on the cusp of two categories. I think that the fine print does a good job of letting people know, for example, if a component has only received column coverage and only from one person, versus a full review and more than one other voice.
But the piece only ST or I have heard might be just the ticket for you, while something that has had a full review and in addition WP, MF, and AD have weighed in on, might strike you as a nothingburger.
From that perspective, I agree with JA's inclusive policy.
Cheerio,
> > An NHRA drag race is won by the car with the lowest elapsed time < <Sorry John but that's not correct. A drag race is won by the car that gets to the finish line first. It's quite possible for a slower car to beat a faster car if the slower car leaves the starting line quicker than the faster car and the slower car arrives at the finish line first. The subtlety here is that the timers don't start when the cars are given the green "go" light, the timer in a lane starts when the car in that lane breaks an infrared beam shining across the start. The interval between the green light flashing and when the car moves enough to break the starting beam is called the "reaction time." For example, if car A breaks the start beam .14 seconds after the green light and runs a 6.80 elapsed time while car B sits on the starting line for a tenth of a second longer (.24 seconds reaction time) before moving but runs a 6.72 ET, slower car A wins the race by .02 seconds. Slower cars beating faster cars by virtue of a quicker "leave" is so common in drag racing that the situation has a name. It's called a "holeshot."
Now you can explain how "brackets" work. I nver got those.Second thought, don't bother.
And the same holds true for the recommended components list! (Thanks for the clear explanation of drag racing. It's been a long time since I've thought about it).
I doubt if the majority of readers look at the recommended components list with all these caveats and disclaimers...but I suppose we should,,, and this makes the list much less useful than it used to be or might be. So be it. But in reality, in the reality of people purchasing equipment, not reviewers reviewing it or editors musing on the philosophy of the whole thing, a high rating and a low price almost guarantee a best seller. "Waffle" is the word that comes to mind for me in these kinds of discussions.
I certainly don't believe that Stereophile reviewers gush over all the components it reviews. I hope you read that I give the mag high praise calling it informative, interesting and fair. That would hardly suggest that the reviews are disengenuous. To be fair, however, when was the last time the magazine truly panned a component. I understand that in reading the reviews one must read between the lines to what isn't said to determine whether the component is not favorably reviewed. Incidentally, the post was about Art's column, not your reviews.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: