Reviewers pointing out sonic flaws in audio equipment

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

This is a thread that hopes to draw upon everyone's perusal of audio magazines and websites. It has been my impression that the vast majority of audio reviewers, or what passes as such in this day and age, are full of effusive praise for whatever they appear to be reviewing at the time.

Of course this cannot be the case: all gear has flaws. Let us try to locate and quote these rare, praiseworthy instances when a brave reviewer actually points them out.

I'd prefer that preference be given to established, well-known gurus of the trade, and to news stand magazines rather than obscure blogs that no one knows about. It will be a challenge, given the dearth of relevant material, but I trust some gems will be dug up.

audioguy · Jun 7, 2011

If I had to pick one word, it would be "advertising".

The response I have seen to this question from the reviewers is that they only review gear that has somehow been deemed to be great prior to the review so the chance of having a crappy product is slim.

Some folks who post here who do on-line reviews have been less kind on occasion but they are the exception.

I started reading TAS and Stereophile in the mid 70's and the chance of seeing a somewhat negative review was not uncommon BUT, they did not then accept advertising.

And Michael Fremer seems not to be afraid of making less than positive comments

Phelonious Ponk · Jun 7, 2011

The ultimate in audiophile editorial courage was when Stereophile published the article, in the wake of a series of blind listening tests, entitled "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" concluding that they, more or less, do. Of course they spent the next couple of decades denying the results of their own tests, but it took a lot of testicular fortitude to put it out there at all. Do they all sound the same? Not exactly. But it's a lot closer to the truth than the hobby and its press are ever likely to admit.

Tim

FrantzM · Jun 7, 2011

REG of TAS did write an interesting piece about the Ongaku... We share the same opinion about this amp but I am not a reviewer

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

I have some questions exactly on topic. The HFN review under discussion awards an 89% score. Here are my questions:

Does anyone know what a score of 100% means?
Does anyone know if a score higher than 89% (say, 91% or 93%) has ever been awarded to an amplifier?
If so, can anyone tell (by reading the relevant reviews) what are the precise reasons a 93% amp is better than an 89% amp?

microstrip · Jun 7, 2011

fishnchips said:
(...) Of course this cannot be the case: all gear has flaws. Let us try to locate and quote these rare, praiseworthy instances when a brave reviewer actually points them out. (...)

Since you say they are very rare, should not you consider the hypothesis you are wrong and the other people are correct?

Perhaps the model of reviewing you are looking for is not exactly what most people are looking. I would not care for a review with too many subjective negative views. The measurements and similar data can be objective, but I expect a reviewer to say mainly what are the best characteristics of the product - most of the time the negative subjective aspects are due to bad system synergy, and should be considered only as valuable, but personal opinions.

When you say "all gear has flaws" what flaws are you specifically addressing?

microstrip · Jun 7, 2011

FrantzM said:
REG of TAS did write an interesting piece about the Ongaku... We share the same opinion about this amp but I am not a reviewer

You have chosen an excellent example. I quote REG: " In any case, I personally could never develop the sensation of its being not there. This contrasts with MK's [author of the review on which this review is a comment ]feeling that it was the ultimate in not-thereness. I am at a loss to explain this difference, other than to guess that we are sensitized to the presence of different sonic signatures. In particular, many years of triode tubes have left me aware indeed of their signatures, while admiring their virtues, and perhaps I am correspondingly, comparatively less touchy about certain aspects of solid-state designs."

Do you thing that REG should write a stand alone full review of the Ongaku?

Some european magazines have a main reviewer, and some brief comments, sometimes in a structure of "pro" and "against" comments from two other reviewers. I like it but I can accept not all publications can afford such costs.

KeithR · Jun 7, 2011

FrantzM said:
REG of TAS did write an interesting piece about the Ongaku... We share the same opinion about this amp but I am not a reviewer

Which part of REG's analysis do you agree with Frantz?

the one part I disagree with strongly is that you are limiting speaker choice----he has it backwards. tranducers should be chosen first, then amplification. people who go SET are doing it for a reason in general.

it is hideously expensive---but nowadays, is it really considered that? sad, but true. i heard enough 50k SS monos this weekend to know i could care less about them.

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

All kinds of flaws. Surely, no gear is perfect! And by all means, let's keep this civil. This means no pictures of REG's listening room. There may be children reading.

FrantzM · Jun 7, 2011

Well back then it was expensive and insanely so (then .. my of my how have times changed !!

).. It has a definite and strong character that it imparted to all reproduction and in real listening tests .. Soft and inacurate presentation of frequency extremes reardless of speakers.
I would agree with you that in today's context the Ongaku would be a mid priced amp ..

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

microstrip said:
Since you say they are very rare, should not you consider the hypothesis you are wrong and the other people are correct?

What other people? Mr. Sircom writes in another thread that audio equipment is not nearly "good enough", yet the "reviews" in the magazine he runs never mention flaws. I download the "Guides" he publishes online along with the so-called "TAS". I don't recall any review mentioning flaws. If I missed something, please point it out, I'll be most grateful.

MylesBAstor · Jun 7, 2011

fishnchips said:
This is a thread that hopes to draw upon everyone's perusal of audio magazines and websites. It has been my impression that the vast majority of audio reviewers, or what passes as such in this day and age, are full of effusive praise for whatever they appear to be reviewing at the time.

Of course this cannot be the case: all gear has flaws. Let us try to locate and quote these rare, praiseworthy instances when a brave reviewer actually points them out.

I'd prefer that preference be given to established, well-known gurus of the trade, and to news stand magazines rather than obscure blogs that no one knows about. It will be a challenge, given the dearth of relevant material, but I trust some gems will be dug up.

Well I've done it over the year and it really gave me jollies to trash that gear--not. A few that I didn't like: Air Tight PC1 cartridge, Richard Gray PC, Unison amps, Koestsu Rosewood Siggie cartridge., etc. OTOH, I've also given some nice reviews to some really inexpensive gear that I feel hit the mark such as a $300 phono stage whose name escapes me and a $600 modded CD player that sounded acceptable at the dawn of the digital era.

I can also give you a few LPs that I didn't give great reviews to such as the 45 rpm reissue of The Power of the Orchestra ...and a few more to come.

And you know for all your wisdom, you don't know what a good review is. What you think is a rave is often not seen that way by a manufacturer.

microstrip · Jun 7, 2011

fishnchips said:
What other people? Mr. Sircom writes in another thread that audio equipment is not nearly "good enough", yet the "reviews" in the magazine he runs never mention flaws. I download the "Guides" he publishes online along with the so-called "TAS". I don't recall any review mentioning flaws. If I missed something, please point it out, I'll be most grateful.

The other people are just the many reviewers who do not find flaws worth referring... Could you address specifically what you want them to address? I would love to read a few reviews written by you or any that you approve.

BTW, I think you are changing the sense of the words of A. Sircom - I think he his not addressing specific flaws of equipment in his comment. Saying the whole sound reproduction process process can be improved does not mean it is flawed.

Whatmore · Jun 7, 2011

Is it perhaps possible that equipment at the level that gets reviewed has no real flaws? Perhaps it can be badly matched in a reviewer's system or not to a reviewer's subjective tastes or even overpriced but that is different to saying it is flawed.

More likely I'm being naive

Edit: as an aside, I note based on what I read on this forum, that people seem to place far more emphasis on magazine reviews in the States than in Australia. Interesting because you guys probably have access to far more gear than what we do (I guess maybe there's so much choice, it's easier to narrow it down via reviews before going out and listening?)

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

MylesBAstor said:
Well I've done it over the year and it really gave me jollies to trash that gear--not. A few that I didn't like: Air Tight PC1 cartridge, Richard Gray PC, Unison amps, Koestsu Rosewood Siggie cartridge., etc. OTOH, I've also given some nice reviews to some really inexpensive gear that I feel hit the mark such as a $300 phono stage whose name escapes me and a $600 modded CD player that sounded acceptable at the dawn of the digital era.

I never asked anyone what they liked. Every person may like whatever they want, and I have my likes and dislikes just like the next guy. A reviewer is not about his likes. It is far more sophisticated. In this case it is of little consequence to me as, with all due respect, I never knew you existed. I had heard of Positive Feedback and may have browsed it two or three times in the past few years, but found nothing to interest me there. Therefore my initial call for reviewers' negative quotes did not include you in my radar, sorry.

MylesBAstor said:
you don't know what a good review is. What you think is a rave is often not seen that way by a manufacturer.

Why should I care? A review is there to help and educate the consumer. A reviewer's duty is to the consumer alone.

MylesBAstor · Jun 7, 2011

fishnchips said:
I never asked anyone what they liked. Every person may like whatever they want, and I have my likes and dislikes just like the next guy. A reviewer is not about his likes. It is far more sophisticated. In this case it is of little consequence to me as, with all due respect, I never knew you existed. I had heard of Positive Feedback and may have browsed it two or three times in the past few years, but found nothing to interest me there. Therefore my initial call for reviewers' negative quotes did not include you in my radar, sorry.

Well FYI, I've covered high-end audio for 20+ years for mags such as TAS/Sound Like..../AudioAdventure/Play among other magazines over the years; in addition, I've also started two high-end audio magazines (The Audiophile Voice and Ultimate Audio) over here.

So basically, you've made a sweeping generalization about high-end audio reviewers without knowing your facts first.

Why should I care? A review is there to help and educate the consumer. A reviewer's duty is to the consumer alone.

Because you take a totally parochial view of every topic.

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

If you mean that you actually are a big shot, sorry but I have missed you completely. If this is your definition of parochial, then I am staunchly so. Would you care about my definition of hustler?

MylesBAstor · Jun 7, 2011

fishnchips said:
If you mean that you actually are a big shot, sorry but I have missed you completely. If this is your definition of parochial, then I am staunchly so. Would you care about my definition of hustler?

You still haven't addressed any of my questions and are now resorting to name calling and insulting?

fishnchips · Jun 7, 2011

I was not referring to you!

How on earth could I, when I didn't even know you existed. Not sure what questions you mean, but will re-review the thread tomorrow.

amirm · Jun 7, 2011

Guys, please think through whether anything constructive is being said here. Pure arguments are of little value. Please don't go after each other. Other members don't learn anything from that.

Reviewers pointing out sonic flaws in audio equipment

Banned

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Banned

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads