The reviewer's reviewing system.

[amirm]

With all due respect, Martin Logans typically measure poorly but have been recognized, once set up properly with the right gear, to be superb from a cost / performance perspective.

If you believe ML's sound bad (based on measurements), I would suggest you search out an ML based system that is properly optimized.

In controlled listening tests they have shown to be poor sounding just the same.

 

[microstrip]

That's not the issue. Are there any poor-measuring great sounding speakers? (after you've lived with them for a while).
(...)

SoundLab's. I have been living with them for some decades. Proac and Sonusfaber speakers - several of my friends (music lovers, non audiophiles) own them. The Krell LAT1000. Several B&W's ... The Quad ESL63.

 

[Purite Audio]

Problem is Keith that there have been too many great measuring poor sounding equipment.

david

I have never heard any.
Keith.

 

[ddk]

I have never heard any.
Keith.

There is no problem there....

david

 

[Groucho]

SoundLab's. I have been living with them for some decades. Proac and Sonusfaber speakers - several of my friends (music lovers, non audiophiles) own them. The Krell LAT1000. Several B&W's ... The Quad ESL63.

You are right. I cannot say that they are guaranteed to sound "bad" to everyone. Different people have different expectations, and will use speakers in different ways to listen to different types of music. I think I may be at the outside of the envelope in what I am expecting from my speakers, and I would be hoping that professional reviewers were similar. But maybe they're not. I will always need the reviewer to give measurements (and also details of the design) before it will be worth auditioning something, I think.

 

[DaveyF]

I have never heard any.
Keith.

Keith, if you have a chance, go and listen to some of the Halcro gear. It measures unbelievably----you tell us what it sounds like..

 

[Groucho]

Keith, if you have a chance, go and listen to some of the Halcro gear. It measures unbelievably----you tell us what it sounds like..

Well I've never heard any, but the Stereophile reviewer says

It is the best audio component I've heard, and as far beyond its competition

http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ck-power-amplifier-page-2#FzMZIXc1k6lqbmcH.99

Are you saying you disagree? It's what the thread's about, I suppose.

 

[dallasjustice]

What benefit? Causing naive users to exclude some of the best sounding loudspeakers in favor of some predictability of acceptable performance?

The measurements I've seen demonstrate common challenges which face all loudspeaker manufacturers. We can see how well some manufacturers deal with those challenges and how effective various designs are at addressing those challenges. It is the only place where the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Two horse ridin'/mealymouthed reviews are the new normal. There's no other place to go, unless one puts much stock in what others say in forums.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I can't believe we are having the debate about poor measuring gear sounding good and vice versa. Surely this is done to death and a path that leads nowhere but frustration between the measurebators and subjectivists.

Reference turntables measure horribly on many domains compared to even the cheapest DVD player from a super market but the vast majority of audiophiles prefer their turntable based on sound quality (not just that they own an lp collection yadda yadda).

Many audiophiles prefer the pleasant distortions of horribly measuring SET amps (I am not saying that all SET amps measure horribly into super high efficient loads yadda yadda). Even a sub $50 dollar ss amp will measure better than a SET in many domains.

Why don't we all buy active studio monitors with a shed load of DRC cos it will measure better - because not everyone likes that sound.

Let's just embrace different tastes and opinions and enjoy the festive season.

 

[Purite Audio]

I can't believe we are having the debate about poor measuring gear sounding good and vice versa. Surely this is done to death and a path that leads nowhere but frustration between the measurebators and subjectivists.

Reference turntables measure horribly on many domains compared to even the cheapest DVD player from a super market but the vast majority of audiophiles prefer their turntable based on sound quality (not just that they own an lp collection yadda yadda).

Many audiophiles prefer the pleasant distortions of horribly measuring SET amps (I am not saying that all SET amps measure horribly into super high efficient loads yadda yadda). Even a sub $50 dollar ss amp will measure better than a SET in many domains.

Why don't we all buy active studio monitors with a shed load of DRC cos it will measure better - because not everyone likes that sound.

Let's just embrace different tastes and opinions and enjoy the festive season.

One can't really compare apples and oranges, by all means compare the measurements from two turntables, it is perfectly fine to like a bit of distortion, I would advise everyone to at least hear a pair of really good measuring loudspeakers and of course to spend some effort on the acoustics of your room, so whichever speakers you decide on you hear them at their absolute best.
Keith.

 

[Argonaut]

In controlled listening tests they have shown to be poor sounding just the same.

YAWN!!!

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/loudspeakers/65-reviews/252-martin-logan-clx.html?start=2

http://http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/loudspeakers/65-reviews/252-martin-logan-clx.html?start=2

 

[Audiophile Bill]

One can't really compare apples and oranges, by all means compare the measurements from two turntables, it is perfectly fine to like a bit of distortion, I would advise everyone to at least hear a pair of really good measuring loudspeakers and of course to spend some effort on the acoustics of your room, so whichever speakers you decide on you hear them at their absolute best.
Keith.

I don't think we are comparing apples and oranges. All these things have one purpose irrespective of the method employed to get there - that is pleasure.

 

[thedudeabides]

In controlled listening tests they have shown to be poor sounding just the same.

Excuse me. Sure. Whatever you say. It must be true.

Based on that statement, there was something very wrong with the controlled tests.

As an example, why do you think the ML Montis has received repeated rave reviews and cited as a trully spectacular speaker system for the money?

And why don't you ask Myles why he had the ML Summits as his reference speaker for years?

And why don't you ask Mr. Ron Resnik regarding his opinion of Martin Logans versus the other current SOTA speakers he's recently auditioned?

And why does Jonathan Valin have the CLX as one of his reference speakers?

And why did the recent TAS review of the Monolith read as it did.

What a silly, naive thing to say Mr. Moderator.

Oh I know, they're all wrong.

 

[DaveyF]

Well I've never heard any, but the Stereophile reviewer says



http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ck-power-amplifier-page-2#FzMZIXc1k6lqbmcH.99

Are you saying you disagree? It's what the thread's about, I suppose.

Do I disagree...absolutely! To my ears the Halcro's are some of most unappealing amps that I have ever heard.Now, I have to admit that coming more from the tube camp than the ss camp, this could be perceived as preferring distortion of a particular kind. But, when I listen to gear...any gear, whether it be ss or tube, I am interested in one thing...what sounds like the reproduction of the 'real' to me. If that happens to be ss...or Class D ss, or tubes or SET, or battery power ss or ?? then I'm good. But the Halcros' simply did not sound like music to me at all....and yet they really measured impressively.

 

[Joe Whip]

I have heard the Monoliths twice, once at a showing with the ML rep at Overture the second time at the recent NY audio show. I didn't care for them either time. Did some things really well and others not so much. Now back to some Julie London!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Do I disagree...absolutely! To my ears the Halcro's are some of most unappealing amps that I have ever heard.Now, I have to admit that coming more from the tube camp than the ss camp, this could be perceived as preferring distortion of a particular kind. But, when I listen to gear...any gear, whether it be ss or tube, I am interested in one thing...what sounds like the reproduction of the 'real' to me. If that happens to be ss...or Class D ss, or tubes or SET, or battery power ss or ?? then I'm good. But the Halcros' simply did not sound like music to me at all....and yet they really measured impressively.

+1.

the Halcro DM88 mono amps (which I had for a few days in my system) were pretty much universally derided for their etched and threadbare sound. nails on a chalk board.

at that time I'd just got rid of much better sounding Mark Levinson #33's, and had the Atmasphere Ma2 Mk2's and Tenor 75 watt OTL's....both of which made music, not just sound.

the Halcro's did measure well.....for whatever that might mean. to me that was beside the point. it's fine to have an amp measure well; but it's down the list of things that matter to me.

 

[Purite Audio]

Excuse me. Sure. Whatever you say. It must be true.

Based on that statement, there was something very wrong with the controlled tests.

As an example, why do you think the ML Montis has received repeated rave reviews and cited as a trully spectacular speaker system for the money?

And why don't you ask Myles why he had the ML Summits as his reference speaker for years?

And why don't you ask Mr. Ron Resnik regarding his opinion of Martin Logans versus the other current SOTA speakers he's recently auditioned?

And why does Jonathan Valin have the CLX as one of his reference speakers?

And why did the recent TAS review of the Monolith read as it did.

What a silly, naive thing to say Mr. Moderator.

Oh I know, they're all wrong.

Generally products receive really good reviews if the manufacturer/distributor pays for enough advertising, personally I wouldn't trust any reviewer as far as I could throw them, although in MF's case that might be a fair distance.
Keith.

 

[ack]

When I heard the Halcro DM-58 I thought the designer must have been deaf [edit: I am being polite to those who favorably reviewed Halcro]. I then saw the line quickly removed from Goodwin's roster. Davey, I just read this thread and have a few simple questions: would everyone really expect reviewers to have top-notch systems; and how seriously should one take reviews. I know I take them as just opinion.

 

[Joe Whip]

If the magazine subscriptions weren't so cheap, I wouldn't read any of them.

 

[Lee]

Many reviews happen in hotel rooms. I couldn't think of a worse listening environment. The reviewers who claim to hear differences between components, other than speakers, after listening at a show only demonstrate their foolishness.

Didn't Harman test some reviewers and determine they have among the worst listening skills? The makes sense to me. Most reviewers don't invest in room setup and acoustics. Instead their focus is on boxes. The boxes are free and are constantly change.

John Atkinson has one of the better reviewer rooms. His room has a huge resonanant peak at 35hz and very short RT60. At least he posts plots. I think Doug Schneider posted good room measurements. I don't think one can know everything about how a room colors the reviewer's system, but it's very helpful to know this stuff.

Show reports happen in hotel rooms. Most reviews are in the home listening room of the reviewer.