Ah Randall, I guess you just haven't been with Soundstage Network long enough to discover that what is innovative by your reviewers one day are trashed the next. I would also be happy to post some very interesting conversations here between myself and the reviewer shortly after he heard the demo at DW's house. Needless to say he was impressed then.
Ahhh but I guess I am demonstrating some bias here.
http://www.ultraaudio.com/features/2004_02_01.htm
Granted the review was 6 years ago but I am always interested to see how the glow of a review one year by the reviewer becomes the tarnish of the same reviewers the next year. Seems to me the reviewer at that time indeed had a pair of X-2 Series l's. A similar comment at the same time by the same reviewer regarding Halcro amps also said that this amp was the cat's meow and far ahead of anything else. Interesting how the reviewer dumped his Halcro the following year because it no longer met his expectations. I say this not to denigrate the reviewer but to illustrate the very issue with which I have a problem
Steve, we go way back, so you can use my name even if it’s being critical. I can take it. I’m glad to address your point fully.
First, there is a difference between being a reviewer and a consumer. If I ever hang-up my reviewer hat and settle into a personal audio system for the long term, I’ll buy the best I can and sit back enjoy it for the long haul. At least that’s the goal. As a reviewer, though, I constantly chase better performance -- and yes, that includes loudspeakers. I never know exactly what direction that will take me in -- in a way, the industry decides. There was one period a few years ago that I had in for review 12 pairs of speakers in an 18-month period.
If I take my job seriously -- and believe me I do -- then I have to be intellectually honest. For instance: I am always trying to make myself a better listener; I’m always trying to learn more technically; I’m always trying to expand my audio worldview by listening to products that are diverse. If there is buzz about a product, I try to hear it -- either in my system, or if that’s not possible, I get on a plane and go if I can. This “job” has an ongoing impact, and changes me, necessarily, as a listener, continuously.
You are correct that I wrote glowingly about a number of products some years ago. My words, then, honestly reflected my observations and feelings at that time. Today, I have experienced much, much more -- products and listening experiences -- than I had back then, and I’ve learned more: about the products themselves, and as a listener. Time marches on, products improve, and at the same time I hope I am becoming a more astute, more knowledgeable listener with every month that passes.
How does this relate to your note? The speakers that I think are at the pinnacle today perform better than others I’ve heard in the past. That does not mean that products that were competitive five or ten years back are bad products today. But it does mean that as technologies and companies have improved, the pecking order gets reshuffled. I’m quite sure that five years from now, if I’m still a reviewer, there will be a product that I’ll be discussing glowingly that isn’t even a reality today. Heck, I hope that’s the case.
Ultimately, credibility is all a reviewer really has. And for me that means that I have to call it like I hear it even if that result isn’t popular or someone’s feelings get hurt. I have to hang my hat on what I hear and learn -- based on all I have at my disposal.
So yes, the upshot is that what I think is the best today is what I think is the best today. And yes, that’s different than what I said was the best years ago. I’m not too invested in anything I own, or have written about, to hear something better and say “That’s better.” At the end of the day, my credibility hinges on it.
