Who is the best reviewer?

[Kal Rubinson]

If he listens blind, I don't think it matters. Measure before, measure after. Listen blind. No it won't be statistical, but it will remove the obvious opportunity for expectation bias.

P

A tough arrangement given the difficulties in setting up a blind listening situation. Most of us simply cannot arrange it. So, at the very least, listening BEFORE you know the measurements prevents being influenced by them.

 

[Gregadd]

It's that guy who measures everything first, then listens blind to see if, with bias disengaged, he hears what the measurements imply, and then writes up his subjective impressions of the audible reality right before his ears. What was his name again?

P

Is it Peter Axcel of the Audio Critic?
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/plog/

 

[MylesBAstor]

Is it Peter Axcel of the Audio Critic?
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/plog/

Only if he has an interest in the company like Fourier. Now there's an icon of unbiased reviewing.

 

[es347]

Julian Hirsch!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Julian Hirsch!

C'mon let's not state the obvious

 

[mep]

I thought about this last night and my answer may or may not suprise people. I am going to give the nod for the best reviewer to David Wilson. Some of you may remember when DAW used to write reviews for TAS back in their golden days. I always thought DAW was a great reviewer, possessed with a great set of ears and the ability to convey to you what he was hearing. Anyone remember the cartridge reviews by DAW where he would draws pictures, charts, and diagrams to explain what he was hearing? I also thought he had high ethical standards. Something that reviewers like Steven Stone who was thrown off of TAS once for blatant violation of ethics struggled with. I didn't like Stone before they threw him out the door and I haven't liked him sense.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I thought about this last night and my answer may or may not suprise people. I am going to give the nod for the best reviewer to David Wilson. Some of you may remember when DAW used to write reviews for TAS back in their golden days. I always thought DAW was a great reviewer, possessed with a great set of ears and the ability to convey to you what he was hearing. Anyone remember the cartridge reviews by DAW where he would draws pictures, charts, and diagrams to explain what he was hearing? I also thought he had high ethical standards. Something that reviewers like Steven Stone who was thrown off of TAS once for blatant violation of ethics struggled with. I didn't like Stone before they threw him out the door and I haven't liked him sense.

Mark:

I don't think your suggestion strange at all. I totally agree with everything you said about Dave. He was meticulous. The other thing was Dave would use his own tape recordings to assess the gear being reviewed. Remember the ARC vs. Rowland preamp shootout back in the early '20s I think of TAS? Dave's conclusion was that the ARC sounded better but the Rowland sounded closer to the actual tape. He also was very technically knowledgable.

 

[mep]

Myles-I do remember that DAW had a super cool R2R with John Curl modified electronics. Before DAW became a speaker manufacturer, he was recording music and making LPs. I believe that was where the WATTs were born during Dave's recording days so he had high quality monitors to listen to his recordings on location.

 

[Albertporter]

I admit to reading for entertainment, Sam Tellig does that for me, and when Art Dudley ran Listener magazine he did a great job of it too.

Dorkgay is boring and does not know what he is blathering most of the time. He should be banished from any list of real writing artists.

Good to read someone else is willing to say how bad Dorgay is.

 

[mep]

Who does dorkgay or dorgay write for? I don't think I have ever heard of him.

 

[mep]

As for Art Dudley, sometimes I like his writing, sometimes I don't. He loves the sound of trafos for moving coils and I don't share that love. He also seems to love anything that is really old which I don't mean to infer there is anything wrong with that. There seems to be some traction now with people believing that old Garrard tables (think 301 and 401) that are built into 500 lb plinths are the balls. Ditto with old Thorens TD-124 tables. You need to use 12" arms with SPU heads mounted on them according to Art. What I find even more interesting is that people are going back to the future with DD tables that many discarded years ago such as the Technics SP-10 (gotta be the MKII baby) table. I think Art is getting ready to tell us next that 78 RPM records are the bomb. And if you buy a Garrard 301, make sure you get the one with the grease fitting for the motor because that is the holy grail of 301s.

 

[es347]

Art Dudley is a skilled writer and injects an appropriate level of levity. He also can't help but inject his political leanings as well. Not cool.

 

[Albertporter]

As for Art Dudley, sometimes I like his writing, sometimes I don't. He loves the sound of trafos for moving coils and I don't share that love. He also seems to love anything that is really old which I don't mean to infer there is anything wrong with that. There seems to be some traction now with people believing that old Garrard tables (think 301 and 401) that are built into 500 lb plinths are the balls. Ditto with old Thorens TD-124 tables. You need to use 12" arms with SPU heads mounted on them according to Art. What I find even more interesting is that people are going back to the future with DD tables that many discarded years ago such as the Technics SP-10 (gotta be the MKII baby) table. I think Art is getting ready to tell us next that 78 RPM records are the bomb. And if you buy a Garrard 301, make sure you get the one with the grease fitting for the motor because that is the holy grail of 301s.

mep,

Jeff Dorgay owns Tone audio which is a PDF based download from the internet.

As for Art Dudley, I have no opinion of his ability either way but will defend his position if he supports older turntable drive system technology.

The reason for my statement?

Turntables went through a revolution when the AR belt drive was introduced for $59.00 or $69.00 back in the mid 1960s. I ran a high end store and sold a lot of them. Just like music lovers today, many people could not afford the Thorens and were searching for an affordable high performance alternative. The AR was silent and reasonably speed accurate and even though the tonearm was mostly plastic, it worked pretty well, especially with the most popular MM cartridges of that day.

The popularity of the AR caused other manufacturers to adopt belt drive, which has many cost and performance advantages. What's amazing is to listen to them all and discover the drive system is one of several important factors that influence sound. I think it's a significant factor and has much to do with speed. I won't enter into all the subjective analysis of why and how each drive sounds except to each drive design (system) has it's own dynamic + speed accuracy sound.

 

[mep]

Albert, thanks for the info. I have never heard an old Garrard 301, 401, or Thorens TD-124 so I have no opinion of them and it would be silly if I did. I would like to hear one properly set up and see/hear what the fuss is about. I had the original AR table and I also had the newer version of the AR table with an MMT arm. I always thought belt tables sounded much more dynamic and therefore more life like than DD tables I compared them to. But now some people are going down the DD path again and I really don't know about that road either. I have an old VPI TNT which has had the bearing worked over by a machinist so it is better than new. I own the SDS controller and check my speed regurarly so I don't think speed stability is an issue for me. I am happy with what I have.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles-I do remember that DAW had a super cool R2R with John Curl modified electronics. Before DAW became a speaker manufacturer, he was recording music and making LPs. I believe that was where the WATTs were born during Dave's recording days so he had high quality monitors to listen to his recordings on location.

Yes and Dave later sold that tape deck to Chad Kassem.

John Curl is IMHO one of the most underated designers in audio-not by engineers but by audiophiles. He had quite a hand in the building of the Ampex R2Rs (and also the Wall of Sound for the Grateful Dead!).

 

[MylesBAstor]

Who does dorkgay or dorgay write for? I don't think I have ever heard of him.

I'm not sure if Jeff wrote for Soundstage at one time or not. He has his own online mag published every month called Tone Audio.

I do want to give Jeff some credit. He has, hands down, the best looking and laid out online audio magazine. What he does now with his layout was impossible but ten years ago with the internet. I know, I wanted to do it back then. And he does try and cover a wide range of equipment in Tone Audio.

Jeff usually hangs out at Steve Hoffman's or the ML owners forums.

 

[mep]

Yes and Dave later sold that tape deck to Chad Kassem.

John Curl is IMHO one of the most underated designers in audio-not by engineers but by audiophiles. He had quite a hand in the building of the Ampex R2Rs (and also the Wall of Sound for the Grateful Dead!).

I always thought that John Curl was a brilliant engineer and any company that uses his services is lucky. His thumbprints are all over the high end. Didn't he design much of Mark Levinson's early gear like the JC-2 phono preamp?

 

[MylesBAstor]

I always thought that John Curl was a brilliant engineer and any company that uses his services is lucky. His thumbprints are all over the high end. Didn't he design much of Mark Levinson's early gear like the JC-2 phono preamp?

Yep and never saw a cent for his work

 

[mep]

Do you mean that ML gave JC the high hard one?

 

[FrantzM]

Mark:

I don't think your suggestion strange at all. I totally agree with everything you said about Dave. He was meticulous. The other thing was Dave would use his own tape recordings to assess the gear being reviewed. Remember the ARC vs. Rowland preamp shootout back in the early '20s I think of TAS? Dave's conclusion was that the ARC sounded better but the Rowland sounded closer to the actual tape. He also was very technically knowledgable.

Hi

I also remember DAW from the early, glorious days of TAS, I also liked PHD ..

now I have a problem with this conclusion...

that the ARC sounded better but the Rowland sounded closer to the actual tape.

... Would that mean closer to the recording? If that was the case how could the ARC sound "better" ? That he preferred the ARC. Fine but if the other is closer to what he remembers from the performance, wouldn't that mean that the component acquitted itself of its duties better? that is to reproduce as well as it could ? ...

I must say I liked the Rowland Coherence One, that was one hell of a preamp ...

By the way right now enjoying through Headphones Dvorak Cello Concerto, Bruch Kol Nidei with Antal Dorati and the LSO, next Hanson Symphonies on Mercury still ...