This might blackball me a bit, but . . .
http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...ews-have-in-common&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27
http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...ews-have-in-common&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27
Talking Points: What Politics and High-End Audio Reviews Have in Common
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
Interesting thread.
So, first of all, I liked your editorial on Soundstage.
Regarding what a reviewer should do, my opinion is it should be related to the category of the product in review. As you pointed out, there's some pieces of gear that, because of their price, shouldn't lack of anything: they should just target the throne of reference product. Then, it's clear that there's always some subjective impression in a review, so even the best reviewer (in terms of musical culture and experience) could have some biases. Some of them clearly declare such these biases: my favorite Italian one, Marco Benedetti from Audio Review, is very into vinyl, high torque turntables, very-low output cartridges, tubed amplification and electrostatic speakers. Every Italian audiophile knows that if he says that the midrange of a dynamic speaker reminds him the Quad's one, it's his best compliment. Is this a message between the lines? Not really, if he declares which is his bias and personal reference.
That's the point: a reviewer should declare his reference points. Then, I wouldn't be surprised whether a reviewer crowns a speaker set as world's best, and an year after a new one comes. I mean, new products, new references... in the end, not even RH has listened to everything... What instead annoys me, and induced me not to renew my subscription to TAS, is that in every issue there was a new world's best: not only, the previous reference is not beaten by the new one, they're all world's best. I mean, is it possible that, for RH, the Berkeley Alpha, the Meridian 808.3, the Spectral SDR4000Pro, the dCS Puccini + U-Clock (and maybe now something more) and all of them the world's best?? Ironically, They're world's best for different reasons: best soundstage, best bass, best mids, SACD capability, 24/176 capability, best redbook playback... C'mon, it sounds like they're all missing something! And we all could add something about JV: Balabo, Audio Research, Soulution, Technical Brain... which is the best amplification in his opinion???
Guys, I don't want a reviewer that tells me the divine truth... but I'd like he told me his real opinion: is this product complete? is it suitable for a long term spot in a gold standard system? can it be broadly appreciated independently on the listener's biases? And then, I cannot hide the "excitement" in reading that something is a true epiphany...
These were my 2 cents...
So, first of all, I liked your editorial on Soundstage.
Regarding what a reviewer should do, my opinion is it should be related to the category of the product in review. As you pointed out, there's some pieces of gear that, because of their price, shouldn't lack of anything: they should just target the throne of reference product. Then, it's clear that there's always some subjective impression in a review, so even the best reviewer (in terms of musical culture and experience) could have some biases. Some of them clearly declare such these biases: my favorite Italian one, Marco Benedetti from Audio Review, is very into vinyl, high torque turntables, very-low output cartridges, tubed amplification and electrostatic speakers. Every Italian audiophile knows that if he says that the midrange of a dynamic speaker reminds him the Quad's one, it's his best compliment. Is this a message between the lines? Not really, if he declares which is his bias and personal reference.
That's the point: a reviewer should declare his reference points. Then, I wouldn't be surprised whether a reviewer crowns a speaker set as world's best, and an year after a new one comes. I mean, new products, new references... in the end, not even RH has listened to everything... What instead annoys me, and induced me not to renew my subscription to TAS, is that in every issue there was a new world's best: not only, the previous reference is not beaten by the new one, they're all world's best. I mean, is it possible that, for RH, the Berkeley Alpha, the Meridian 808.3, the Spectral SDR4000Pro, the dCS Puccini + U-Clock (and maybe now something more) and all of them the world's best?? Ironically, They're world's best for different reasons: best soundstage, best bass, best mids, SACD capability, 24/176 capability, best redbook playback... C'mon, it sounds like they're all missing something! And we all could add something about JV: Balabo, Audio Research, Soulution, Technical Brain... which is the best amplification in his opinion???
Guys, I don't want a reviewer that tells me the divine truth... but I'd like he told me his real opinion: is this product complete? is it suitable for a long term spot in a gold standard system? can it be broadly appreciated independently on the listener's biases? And then, I cannot hide the "excitement" in reading that something is a true epiphany...
These were my 2 cents...
One of the problems that reviewers don't seem to realize is that when you give a product under review all "five stars" or all "tens"...or whatever you happen to use as your top score; then you have left yourself nowhere to go when a better product arrives
I remember several years ago, there was an Olympic event...I think it was in ice skating, wherein the judges gave the early contestant all '"10's". The problem was that a later contestant came out and was clearly superior to the now basically declared 'winner'. What happened....well the judges had nowhere to go, so they did like so many do..they downgraded the later performer to Silver ( a cop-out). A travesty that the world could see and unfortunately a damage to the poor contestant.
I think HP said in one of his earlier reviews, if you go out and start to gush hyperbole and give a 'Best' award to any product you are going to have egg on your face in short order.
That would be my thinking as well.
Better to have a 'higher standard' and NOT play games with the public, IMHO.
I remember several years ago, there was an Olympic event...I think it was in ice skating, wherein the judges gave the early contestant all '"10's". The problem was that a later contestant came out and was clearly superior to the now basically declared 'winner'. What happened....well the judges had nowhere to go, so they did like so many do..they downgraded the later performer to Silver ( a cop-out). A travesty that the world could see and unfortunately a damage to the poor contestant.
I think HP said in one of his earlier reviews, if you go out and start to gush hyperbole and give a 'Best' award to any product you are going to have egg on your face in short order.
That would be my thinking as well.
Better to have a 'higher standard' and NOT play games with the public, IMHO.
Although most people expect to know the podium place from reviews I think that Jeff says most of it in his sentence "was easily the better speaker to my ears".
I know I am driving against the mainstream, but IMHO, high-end products are too specific to be ranked as dogs at an exposition, but I recognize it is what most people expect from reviews - to know X is better than Y seems to be more important than to have a detailed description of how it sounds. And they forget the specificity of the words "to my ears", that means a lot more than the the organ that detects sound - it means in my system, my room, my past experiences with the item and according to my preferences.
Comparison with specific aspects of other items are very useful to illustrate the review and are a must, but again IMHO, the fight for the better in a system that has intrinsically very large error bars is of little value.
I know I am driving against the mainstream, but IMHO, high-end products are too specific to be ranked as dogs at an exposition, but I recognize it is what most people expect from reviews - to know X is better than Y seems to be more important than to have a detailed description of how it sounds. And they forget the specificity of the words "to my ears", that means a lot more than the the organ that detects sound - it means in my system, my room, my past experiences with the item and according to my preferences.
Comparison with specific aspects of other items are very useful to illustrate the review and are a must, but again IMHO, the fight for the better in a system that has intrinsically very large error bars is of little value.
And this is true...
IMHO, the most valuable reviews are the most technical ones: I want to know which are the conceptual peculiarities of a project and why these features would represent an advantage (or not). I want to know how much technology is in a product and where, at a certain price tag, engineering stops leaving the spot to "magic" (said in a critical way). I want to know if the product is versatile or if it has limits in interface.
I don't care about the description of the liquidity of the mids or the deepness of the bass: change the reviewer (and its room and system) and everything will change.
But I'd like to know whether a product is classifiable as good or excellent, whether there's a breakthrough, or if it raises concerns with regards to the construction or general performance. To this end, having defined references is useful.
True.
True.
This is an interesting point. I wonder how many people agree with you. In high-end audio, and this is particularly true with loudspeakers, the engineering level varies greatly. I know what I think is across-the-board designed and executed well, and I generally find that these products are what produce the best sound. I also see products that lack credible engineering and that are excuted poorly that receive raves from some audiophiles and reviewers, but are clearly underwhelming in the areas you discuss. Why? My conclusion is that some audiophiles (and that includes some reviewers) just don't know how to assess engineering, don't care about it, or just completely trust that one "magic" moment. And all else goes out the window.
I hear you about RH---he used to compare a lot, but stopped in the past year or two. I had to wring it out of him on the TAS forum which speaker he preferred---Magico V3, Revel Salon, or Wilson Sasha. He had written 3 articles in a year on those competitors.
but i applaud your work Jeff---as reviews need comparisons. We can't be scared to offend manufacturers---if they are offended, then build a better product.
but i applaud your work Jeff---as reviews need comparisons. We can't be scared to offend manufacturers---if they are offended, then build a better product.
You are raising a very interesting point - how should engineering be accessed in loudspeakers? Although many of them are full of science in the technological solutions they incorporate we can never be sure that these features are really the cause of the sound properties.
Personally I also put some weight in the past development history of a company - if some technical solutions have an history of success I feel more comfortable with them. May be it is not fair to new comers in the scene, but I am a little afraid of the long time lasting of "the magic moment".
BTW, please do not think that my initial comment was made to under-valuate subjective reviews : on the contrary I valuate them highly when properly done.
Last edited:
Thought provoking, as well as it should be.
Good article, even if some may feel to disagree on the perspective.
Cheers
Orb
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |