|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.133
In Reply to: Re: Speaker measurements vs Subjective Reviews... posted by mauimusicman on February 21, 2007 at 03:00:26:
...having been in that position, I can tell you there is absolutely no pressure - implied, unsaid, wink-wink or otherwise - for a reviewer to be less than completely honest because of advertising dollars.That is simply not an issue that ever crosses a reviewer's mind.
Every reviewer would love to be the one who is the first to slam the new product from a big manufacturer because it doesn't sound very good.
Reviewers view themselves as independent contractors (look how many have changed magazines) who have their own credibility to protect foremost.
Follow Ups:
But you were a reviewer in a totally different age in a publication that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. Ancient history just doesn't hack it. (Time, perhaps, to change the letter after your name?)These days almost all speaker reviews (and most are on webzines) become exercises in creative writing to say in 5000 words or more nothing really beyond "I like this speaker. It makes this or that recording sound great." Quite a departure from the Holt/Pearson school of component reviewing. It is good, therefore, to have some measurements as a guidepost. It forces JA to respond to terrible measurements with the usual "That aspect didn't bother my listening too much." or something like that. Look at the review of the Wilson Maxx 2 that measures so poorly, for example. Without measurements the TAS review hardly gives any information or insight, of any kind, at all.
As for the reviewer who was "the first to slam the new product from a big manufacturer because it doesn't sound very good," just who was that? I didn't catch the name, though I have heard some very bad speakers.
> But you were a reviewer in a totally different age in a publication that, for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. Ancient history just doesn't hack it.>My last article was printed about 6 years ago. I'm not sure that was a different era.
If you have actual evidence that the magazines are putting pressure on the reviewers to skew their writing in a positive manner in this era, please present it. Otherwise, it's just your paranoid fantasies getting the beter of you.
> (Time, perhaps, to change the letter after your name?)>
When I registered on AA a few years ago, I did it as just another audiophile. They recognized my name and required me to have the (R) after my name. Not my choice.
> These days almost all speaker reviews (and most are on webzines) become exercises in creative writing to say in 5000 words or more nothing really beyond "I like this speaker.>
Sorry, I don't read the webzines. I consider the print reviewers to be 'paid, professional journalists' and I expect them to hold to a pretty high standard. And the first tenet of a good review is to entertaian the reader.
Anyone can write a review on the web.
> Look at the review of the Wilson Maxx 2 that measures so poorly, for example. Without measurements the TAS review hardly gives any information or insight, of any kind, at all.>
I'm not sure the Stereophile review correlates very well with the measurements, so what difference would measurements of the speaker make in TAS?
Have you heard these speakers? A neighbor had the original MAXXs driven by top of the line Krell equipment and they sounded pretty amazing.
> ...though I have heard some very bad speakers.>
--My last article was printed about 6 years ago. I'm not sure that was a different era.I have a 1998 TAS at hand and I don't see you on the masthead. Were you writing for someone else? I think it WAS a different era for how reviews were written. Given HOW they are written now, no one will get a bad review. Read on.
--If you have actual evidence that the magazines are putting pressure on the reviewers to skew their writing in a positive manner in this era, please present it. Otherwise, it's just your paranoid fantasies getting the better of you.
Not all actual evidence is direct evidence. I think there's lots and lots of circumstantial, or indirect, evidence. That is, for those who can think for themselves.
--Sorry, I don't read the webzines. I consider the print reviewers to be 'paid, professional journalists' and I expect them to hold to a pretty high standard. And the first tenet of a good review is to entertain the reader. Anyone can write a review on the web.
Actually there's coming to be scant difference between the two in how they do their reviews. As I wrote it's all a bunch of "I like it."s. Just listen to how it makes this record sound like this or that. There's no longer any reference at all.
--I'm not sure the Stereophile review [of the MAXX 2] correlates very well with the measurements, so what difference would measurements of the speaker make in TAS?
Well, in the measurements section JA has to admit that there are things that he hears, to which the measurements pointed him, that he doesn't like. But in his customary manner he says these things don't get in the way of his enjoyment of these $46,000 speakers. Fremer has no caveats. As for Harley in TAS, his is just an "I just like it" review with a long list of disks that just make them shine. How nice. Not very different at all from the Soundstage webzine review, just longer and a better read. The point is, you can ALWAYS find a recording that will make virtually ANY speaker sound nice. That's exactly what they do!
--Did you read good reviews of those 'bad' speakers?
...I say assumptions.> I have a 1998 TAS at hand and I don't see you on the masthead. Were you writing for someone else?>
I'll check the particular issue if you give me the number, but I was listed in the masthead from 1985 through 2001, about a year after I resigned.
> I think it WAS a different era for how reviews were written. Given HOW they are written now, no one will get a bad review. Read on.>No one gets totally bad reviews for a number of different reasons - no one wants to spend time working with bad equipment and most equipment is much better today than it was 20 years ago. Every review you read today is critical of at least some, if not many, aspects of the component's performance.
Why would you want to read a review of bad equipment?
> Not all actual evidence is direct evidence. I think there's lots and lots of circumstantial, or indirect, evidence. That is, for those who can think for themselves.>
Right...thinking based on your predispositions and assumptions, too.
> > --Did you read good reviews of those 'bad' speakers?> >
> Yes.>
Well, which ones?
DeVore Fidelity Silverback Reference
...and don't recall the review - since you didn't provide a reference or a link.But since you posted a speaker name - I guess you win.
It's not real hard to find.Currently classified as Stereophile Class "A".
QED.
...Fremer's review.
I'm afraid I will disappoint you as I never thought these speakers were worthy of a very extended listen from me, much less a review. I could not stand listen to them for a very long time, though I was looking for new speakers at the time.As Fremer wrote, "the Silverback's silk dome won't please everyone—sometimes I felt it sounded a bit forward or 'hashy.'" That's how I felt they sounded all the time I heard them. And they were being driven with Sim Audio electronics with which I was very familiar and which could not have been responsible for what I was hearing.
To JA's credit he expresses "disappointment" with the speakers' measured performance.
Nevertheless Fremer concludes, "the DeVore Fidelity Silverback Reference is one of the most enjoyable and highest-performing speakers I've reviewed." Though he also throws in some caveats, he does toss out a lot of quotes like this that the manufacturer will no doubt use in his ads--in Stereophile.
Remember where this all originates within this thread. It is a search for indirect evidence that there is something other than speaker quality that results in great reviews.
Fremer's last quote and Stereophile's award of a Catagory "A" rating for a speaker that I couldn't abide is very strong evidence for me, at least, that something is amiss here.
> As Fremer wrote, "the Silverback's silk dome won't please everyone—sometimes I felt it sounded a bit forward or 'hashy.'" That's how I felt they sounded all the time I heard them.>At least Fremer listed a caveat for the performance area you didn't like. Many people can respectfully disagree on the treble performance of a loudspeaker.
> And they were being driven with Sim Audio electronics with which I was very familiar and which could not have been responsible for what I was hearing.>
Bad assumption. If the amp wasn't a good match with those speakers, it could sound bad no matter how it sounded with other speakers.
> To JA's credit he expresses "disappointment" with the speakers' measured performance.>
It's not unusual for a component with poor measured performance to sound good. As I said before, look at the popularity of SET amps. There isn't always a very close correlation between the two.
But even if the speakers sounded as you described - it's not unusual for two reviewers with different systems, rooms and personal listening biases to disagree on the merits of a component.
Remember back when TAS used to have comments on reviews by other reviewers - a necessary feature for thorough reviewing, IMO - there were sometimes big disagreements. I recall one back and forth comment becoming quite heated and beginning, "You ignorant slut", after the Saturday Night Live debate routine.
For you to conclude from your disagreement with Fremer that "something is amiss" is quite a stretch.
I know Fremer from his days at TAS, and while I find him very arrogant and find myself in disagreement with him at times, he has a lot of integrity and an excellent reputation to protect.
IIRC, Devore isn't even an advertiser.
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Well, we better finish this before we're pushed off the page.It's very hard to argue with an unrepentant industry shill.
--At least Fremer listed a caveat for the performance area you didn't like. Many people can respectfully disagree on the treble performance of a loudspeaker.
You asked me to find a speaker that I thought sounded like crap that had gotten a good review, caveat or not. I did that. Now you're busy arguing that perhaps it is a great speaker and/or perhaps it wasn't a great review. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer.
--Bad assumption. If the [Sim] amp wasn't a good match with those speakers, it could sound bad no matter how it sounded with other speakers.
JA discussing the impedance curves noted this was an easy speaker to drive. A Sim should do it. In fact, one of the places I saw these speakers was at a show where, evidently, the speaker manufacturer thought this was an advantageous combination, for he used Sim amps.
--It's not unusual for a component with poor measured performance to sound good. As I said before, look at the popularity of SET amps. There isn't always a very close correlation between the two.
Yes, yes I know about tube amp measurements and harmonic distortion. But, JA takes great measurements of speakers, and IMHO if there is a measurement problem that problem can be heard. Anyway, we're talking about SPEAKERS here.
--I know Fremer from his days at TAS, and while I find him very arrogant and find myself in disagreement with him at times, he has a lot of integrity and an excellent reputation to protect.
Well, arrogant is an understatement. By the way he has addressed himself to persons on this board, to issues raised about his reviewing, and in public to others like Arthur Salvatore he doesn't engender a great deal of personal respect and presumed integrity around here. He is generally writing reviews no different in kind from those at the webzines, and as I have written, quite different from those of the Pearson era. And apparently you don't get to review $45M speakers--with the opportunity to buy them at about 1/2 price--if you're known for panning speakers.
In any event when a speaker sounds as terrible as this one (and confirmed in this opinion by others on this board) and is reviewed to be "one of the most enjoyable and highest-performing speakers I've reviewed," and measures so poorly and then is given a Class A rating, yes, I do think something is amiss.
--IIRC, Devore isn't even an advertiser. You're barking up the wrong tree.
DeVore takes space at Stereophile-Primedia shows. That's advertising. Woof, woof!
Cheers,
Mel
"It's very hard to argue with an unrepentant industry shill."
I'll generally agree with that one, but I find it's more like trying to teach a pig to sing, it's waste of time and it annoys the pig.
d.b.
...it's difficult to have a discussion with someone with a closed, narrow mind.Regarding speaker measurements and performance - take a look at AHC's review of the Krell LAT-1000 speaker in the February TAS.
He mentions that these speaker do not measure flat, but that because of that, rather than in spite of it, they sound much more like live music to him than many other speakers with flatter measurements.
Measurement, even of loudspeakers, do not always correlate well with their performance.
Yep. Only person telling it like it is about Wilson's is Richard Hardesty. Never read a bad review on them. Seen lots of bad measurements though.
(nt)
Have you reason to doubt him? In fact, he states that they sound a lot like they measure.
...I would never write about a product I didn't have in my own listening environment to evaluate.He didn't.
I suspect he auditioned them at a dealer, predisposed - by either the measurements or his need for a sensational article to sell to subscribers - to not like them.
As we know, measurements don't always correlate to what we hear.
In this case, who is to say? Harley in TAS, Fremer who bought a pair, or Hardesty?
. . . never to sell, I'll be impressed with that!
The reviews I have read over the last 30 years, begining with Stereo Review, Audio, The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc never quite seem to say in words what is so painfully obvious looking at the measurments. When the waterfall plots, impulse graphs and phase charts show pathetic time/phase performance, or drivers wired out of absolute polarity, and the impedence curves show wild swings, how then does the reviewer write such glowing purple prowse about that speaker that measures so poorly yet cost so much? Perhaps reviewers cannot hear phase shifts. Perhaps they don't know the speaker with wild impedence curves will be hard to drive and sound different on various amplifiers. Kinda like Fox News. Fair and balanced? Audio mags should adopt the following slogan, stolen partly from Fox: We report, you decipher the graphs" Your telling me that if you wrote "This $100K speaker has so much phase shift that it cannot accuratly reproduce a musical waveform" those full page ads would not be yanked in a New York minute?
> The reviews I have read over the last 30 years...never quite seem to say in words what is so painfully obvious looking at the measurments.>First of all, reviewers are NOT failing to criticize components that measure poorly because they're concerned about the magazine's advertising revenue as you stated initially.
Then either the component sounds great, but measures poorly.
There are many examples of this - not the least being SET amps.
Or the reviewer is not as skilled a critical listener as those who actually DO hear the problems - and then correlate them to poor measurements.
Usually the reviewer has not seen any measurements when he listens and writes a review.
Are you listening to the component first - before looking at measurements which make its shortcomings "painfully obvious"?
If you have enough listening time in, and know what to listen for, you can easily hear crossover induced phase distortions, for example. I believe many reviewers (and audiophiles) mistakingly blame cables or electronics for certian things they hear when in reality it's phase distortion in the crossover many times. I have been able to hear the crossover in every high order speaker I have listened to in the last 3 years. People plop down hard earned cash based upon glowing reviews. I wonder how many reviewers know how to distinguish phase distortion from an edgy amplifer or strident, forward sounding cables?
Most reviewers are there to write entertaining reviews, and not much else. Entertaining reviews help sell magazines which helps to get advertising revenue. It's just another facet of the dumbing down process which is rather prevalent in audio, and the first part of the dumbing down process was to disparage , and discontinue measurements. You're just seeing the end result of years of stupidity.
d.b.
Well, that was an honest answer. Thanks.
Where you really expecting an honest answer from Mr. Kuller?
I suspect not.
d.b.
...a failed equipment designer calling audiophiles stupid is kind of funny.Or sad and pathetic.
Lord knows you don't have much else to grab on to. BTW: If you go over to Audio Circle you will find I'm still getting great reviews a year after I stopped manufacturing. You are pathetic Mike.
d.b.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: