Who is the best reviewer?

[Orb]

Hey there Alan! OK, let's follow this one on out . . .

If you were in the market for a train . . . would you go to the guy that is borrowing a train to drive (and can borrow trains at will), or to the owner/operator who bought the train, services the train, has to make a living with the train, might go out of business if the train is crappy, etc? Who has a more vested interest in discerning the train marketplace? I'm asking the latter guy for advice.

What if the DAC and train cost the same? (Oh . . . that's another thread )

Playing Devils Advocate here, but just like to say my position in somewhere between both points.
Jeff, by this logic this means a reader of a review should purchase only reviewed products that are actually purchased by professional reviewers.
Therefore, it could be argued following the logic of the one who borrows or purchased, that if the reviewer does not purchase all the gear he recommends that review is void.
But, as a case in point I am sure you do not purchase every piece of hardware you have recommended, resulting in those instances of it falling into the borrowed category.
This rule of thumb may need some leeway and flexibility otherwise most of a reviewer's work will never be published, and that would also be applicable to Soundstage.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Nicholas Bedworth]

2+4=4?

Nope. It's a simple fact of commercial life that if a product has $20K in raw parts and assembly cost, it will and has to retail for around $100K, otherwise failure ensues. If the COGS is $20 it will retail for $100. It is marked up to $40 for the distributor, it goes to the dealer for $50 and to the end-user for $100. Each player in the whole chain has to be kept alive and is compensated according to its risk and value-add. Note that the services part of the distribution chain has the best margins.

If the OP here were to actually listen to these $70K DACs, it's quite possible they'd agree that this design represents a stunning achievement sonically, and depending upon one's context, a trophy acquisition, a wonderful reference, an inspiration for designers. For those who are rich enough to purchase them, they are getting exceptional performance in exchange for their money.

We are all aware of, and some of us have listened to, or, unfortunately, owned, high-end audio products that are very expensive, but have a long list of problems and deficiencies; on other occasions, a product has virtues far beyond its price. In my listening rooms there are $70K DACs, $20K DACs, $7K DACs and $2K DACs. They all deliver a lot of value and enjoyment, each in their own way. There are other products at each of these price-points that don't, and that's why they're no longer here.

(This reminds me of my first company, which owned and operated two high performance aircraft. One was state-of-the-art for its time, the other was actually an earlier and much-less expensive version of the same design that eventually evolved into the category-leading model. But, after flying both for hundreds of hours as PIC, and paying the bills, it was impossible to the ignore the fact that older, less-well-equipped and slightly frumpy "experienced" aircraft was by far the better plane for most missions. It was a no-problem, broad-mission, cost-efficient transporation machine. The high-end model really came into its own a small fraction of the time, and was, despite its impressive looks, simply not worth it. It was much better and much worse at the same time. It always seemed to be running low on fuel).

Anyway, given the usual ineluctable efficiencies of the marketplace, the bargains and the turkeys are generally fewer in number. These Trinity DACs actually allow me to completely relax into the music (for well-recorded pieces). If there's the slightest bit of hardness or edginess, usually related to jitter levels, it simply doesn't cut it, and there's no way to ignore the experience: The system is bothering me, and that's that.

The whole point of high-end audio in the home is to enjoy a soothing, enlivening, energizing experience that makes one's mind, body and spirit refreshed. Going to live music, even musical forms that are not to my taste, always does this, and having this effect available in one's home at one's beck and call (after more than a little work and expenditure up front) is definitely a pleasure.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Playing Devils Advocate here, but just like to say my position in somewhere between both points.
Jeff, by this logic this means a reader of a review should purchase only reviewed products that are actually purchased by professional reviewers.
Therefore, it could be argued following the logic of the one who borrows or purchased, that if the reviewer does not purchase all the gear he recommends that review is void.
But, as a case in point I am sure you do not purchase every piece of hardware you have recommended, resulting in those instances of it falling into the borrowed category.
This rule of thumb may need some leeway and flexibility otherwise most of a reviewer's work will never be published, and that would also be applicable to Soundstage.
Cheers
Orb

I don't think I've been clear with my point here: I'm just sayin' the reviewer should own his reference system, so that his reviews have better context. That gives him better perspective with review samples. No, I don't buy everything I review postively, or advocate that!

 

[Alan Sircom]

I don't have a problem with the existence of a $70k DAC, or a $50k preamp or a $200k power amp on anything of that ilk. Nor do I have a problem with the $70 DAC or the $50 preamp or the $200 power amp. What I do have a very great difficulty with is the $70 DAC that ends up costing the end-user $70k.

The nature of the audiophile market means products are not generally built to the sort of numbers that keep prices low, and we have a collective habit of demanding our top-end products be locally made and craftsman built, rather than start out on a conveyor belt in a Chinese factory. Those factors alone make a product more expensive than it need be, and then wrapping it in an expensive box, and putting it through normal distribution lines doesn't help in keeping costs low. These are the price we pay for exclusivity - I'm sure that if a Devialet D-Premier or a dCS Debussy (for example) were sold in a cheap and nondescript plastic box and was knocked out by the thousand in some factory just north of Hong Kong, the resulting products would probably approach the performance of the Devialet or dCS and would undoubtedly cost a lot less, but they would still be expensive devices, because of the architecture of the circuit itself.

That's not the issue. The issue is when someone takes what is basically a $200 device, gift-wraps it in an expensive box, and charges 'enthusiastically' for the resultant product. Not simply use an existing product as a platform for their own development project, on the grounds that if they didn't the cost of licensing to realize the project would be unsustainable, or realistically-priced re-skins to give a company a complete product line (an unfortunate by-product of people insisting on buying player and amp/receiver from the same brand). I mean those who re-skin an existing model, make nebulous and questionable claims about performance enhancements, and charge like a wounded rhino.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

If a Soundstage! Network reviewer gives an ultra-high priced component a rave review, are they required to be prepared to buy the component?

No, again, the point is that the reviewer should own his reference system, not use an all-borrowed system because, over years, that impacts his ability to discern value when judging high-end components.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Playing Devils Advocate here, but just like to say my position in somewhere between both points.
Jeff, by this logic this means a reader of a review should purchase only reviewed products that are actually purchased by professional reviewers.
Therefore, it could be argued following the logic of the one who borrows or purchased, that if the reviewer does not purchase all the gear he recommends that review is void.
But, as a case in point I am sure you do not purchase every piece of hardware you have recommended, resulting in those instances of it falling into the borrowed category.
This rule of thumb may need some leeway and flexibility otherwise most of a reviewer's work will never be published, and that would also be applicable to Soundstage.
Cheers
Orb

Devil's advocate aside, a similar mind-set effectively stymied the UK audio market for much of the 1980s. A cabal of reviewers at the time stopped using their owned products as a reference point and started using them as the reference point, creating something close to a cult of the reviewer. The typical review at the time could be condensed into "This is a review of a turntable. I already own a Linn Sondek. I compared the turntable to my Linn Sondek. It didn't sound like my Linn Sondek. So it isn't as good as my Linn Sondek. Which is why I still own my Linn Sondek. Conclusion: Why aren't you using a Linn Sondek yet?" Any question about the methodology at the time was side-stepped with counter-arguments about ownership and the integrity that bestows upon the reviewer.

Eventually, readers got bored with reading essentially the same review over and over and over again. And it ultimately soured many UK readers against the audio reviewing community, but in the process raised those British 'Flat Earth' brands into local demi-gods, and not always to the benefit of the company.

I suspect my ambivalence over 'own vs. loan' stems from joining the business at the tail end of this time. I guess it all comes down to which stance is the less corruptible, but I suspect the answer is 'neither'.

 

[MylesBAstor]

No, again, the point is that the reviewer should own his reference system, not use an all-borrowed system because, over years, that impacts his ability to discern value when judging high-end components.

So again to play devils advocate Jeff, how can a reviewer, if all they can afford is a mid-fi priced system, be allowed to evaluate a SOTA piece of gear? You and I know quite well that what, half of the reviewers in the industry don't have the kind of jobs that would allow them to buy this equipment (and that included renowned industry people like Bert Whyte)? That should prohibit them from reviewing if they have a good ear? After all, it's incredibly hard to find a reviewer who can hear and write at the same time. And most that can write, don't have the kind of jobs that allow them to buy SOTA audio gear.

And I really don't think that having equipment on long term loan impacts value judgement. Every piece of equipment that comes in is considered on a case by case basis. And isn't it by having this equipment that the reviewer has the basis to make such a judgement of value?

You know there are many other far more important problems with reviewing high-end equipment than this matter.

And for the record, you can go to PFO's website and the magazine requires each reviewer to list what pieces of equipment they own and what are there are on long term loan.

 

[microstrip]

I don't think one needs a $200k speaker. A pair of Revel Salon2s, for instance, would put many super-expensive speakers to shame. (...) .

Jeff,
Well, this is a very challenging sentence. I strongly disagree with the use of this type of ambiguous broad statements. Could you list your "many" and in what aspects you consider the Salon2 is so much better that the others should be ashamed?

 

[Orb]

I don't think I've been clear with my point here: I'm just sayin' the reviewer should own his reference system, so that his reviews have better context. That gives him better perspective with review samples. No, I don't buy everything I review postively, or advocate that!

Ah k I am with you,
so it would be ok then to own a reference system with say $10k-$20k components and still recommend the $70k dac?
Just trying to define where the line is drawn Jeff, but not sure it can.
Thanks

Orb

 

[Orb]

Devil's advocate aside, a similar mind-set effectively stymied the UK audio market for much of the 1980s. A cabal of reviewers at the time stopped using their owned products as a reference point and started using them as the reference point, creating something close to a cult of the reviewer. The typical review at the time could be condensed into "This is a review of a turntable. I already own a Linn Sondek. I compared the turntable to my Linn Sondek. It didn't sound like my Linn Sondek. So it isn't as good as my Linn Sondek. Which is why I still own my Linn Sondek. Conclusion: Why aren't you using a Linn Sondek yet?" Any question about the methodology at the time was side-stepped with counter-arguments about ownership and the integrity that bestows upon the reviewer.

Eventually, readers got bored with reading essentially the same review over and over and over again. And it ultimately soured many UK readers against the audio reviewing community, but in the process raised those British 'Flat Earth' brands into local demi-gods, and not always to the benefit of the company.

I suspect my ambivalence over 'own vs. loan' stems from joining the business at the tail end of this time. I guess it all comes down to which stance is the less corruptible, but I suspect the answer is 'neither'.

Good response Alan and thanks for taking part in discussions again (seemed you went quiet for a long time), also appreciate Jeff-Myles-and co taking part.
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

( ...) so it would be ok then to own a reference system with say $10k-$20k components and still recommend the $70k dac? (...)

I can imagine a non existent situation - a usd 70000 DAC that would make good CDs sound as good as the Tapeproject tapes played through my modified Studer A80.
If I had to opt between it and a pair of Wilson MAXX3 (just to put a name of well know reference speaker ) it would not be an easy choice!

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff, how can a reviewer, if all they can afford is a mid-fi priced system, be allowed to evaluate a SOTA piece of gear?

Do they have to have it given to them permanently to evaluate it?

I lay out my position on this here:

http://www.ultraaudio.com/opinion/20070301.htm

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Jeff,
Well, this is a very challenging sentence. I strongly disagree with the use of this type of ambiguous broad statements. Could you list your "many" and in what aspects you consider the Salon2 is so much better that the others should be ashamed?

Well I've gone and opened up a can of worms now!

There is no shortage of overpriced, underengineered loudspeakers on the market. I'll give you two that we've written about. First, in Munich:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167&catid=70&Itemid=164

Yes, I would take the Salon2 any day over this 88,000E speaker.

And second, CES:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118&catid=58&Itemid=87

Others? Sure . . . see Talon:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...ers-results&catid=55:super-speakers&Itemid=88

This last article also gives you some insight as to who I think is making SOTA speakers (Rockport would be added to that list but was not at CES).

Price is not an indicator of quality, period.

 

[FrantzM]

Well I've gone and opened up a can of worms now!

There is no shortage of overpriced, underengineered loudspeakers on the market. I'll give you two that we've written about. First, in Munich:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167&catid=70&Itemid=164

Yes, I would take the Salon2 any day over this 88,000E speaker.

And second, CES:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118&catid=58&Itemid=87

Others? Sure . . . see Talon:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...ers-results&catid=55:super-speakers&Itemid=88

This last article also gives you some insight as to who I think is making SOTA speakers (Rockport would be added to that list but was not at CES).

Price is not an indicator of quality, period.

I second the Rockport inclusion as among the best speakers around and it is time that a reviewer takes this stand. In case someone missed it, the underlined, bolded and italicized section

Price is not an indicator of quality, period
Thank you Jeff!

 

[Orb]

Well I've gone and opened up a can of worms now!

There is no shortage of overpriced, underengineered loudspeakers on the market. I'll give you two that we've written about. First, in Munich:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167&catid=70&Itemid=164

Yes, I would take the Salon2 any day over this 88,000E speaker.

And second, CES:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118&catid=58&Itemid=87

Others? Sure . . . see Talon:

http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...ers-results&catid=55:super-speakers&Itemid=88

This last article also gives you some insight as to who I think is making SOTA speakers (Rockport would be added to that list but was not at CES).

Price is not an indicator of quality, period.

Indeed,
I am shocked at the price of the Kef Blade.
But the recent discussion was about recommendation of excessive priced audio components and whether it is right to do so.
If the reviewer owns a good reference system (price does not need to be anywhere close to that $70k) then the only caveats I would had thought was not whether the reviewer could purchase that expensive product themselves, but whether they have a good reference system to put it into and also to compare, along with experience to understand whether the design,implementation, and components warrant that price while weighted against sound quality.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Alan Sircom]

Price is not an indicator of quality, but neither is it an inhibitor of quality. There is no reason why a big-ticket item need automatically be catering for a market of well-heeled magpies. That a pair of amps cost more than a Porsche Panamera Turbo S might border on insanity to most people doesn't alter the fact that the DarTZeel NHB-458 monoblocks are the most dynamic solid-state power amplifiers I know of. Sadly, it's just as easy to lose that detail due to sticker shock as it is to be blown away by an expensive product, simply because it's expensive.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Indeed,
I am shocked at the price of the Kef Blade.
But the recent discussion was about recommendation of excessive priced audio components and whether it is right to do so.
If the reviewer owns a good reference system (price does not need to be anywhere close to that $70k) then the only caveats I would had thought was not whether the reviewer could purchase that expensive product themselves, but whether they have a good reference system to put it into and also to compare, along with experience to understand whether the design,implementation, and components warrant that price while weighted against sound quality.

Cheers
Orb

I agree.

 

[Jeff Fritz]

Price is not an indicator of quality, but neither is it an inhibitor of quality. There is no reason why a big-ticket item need automatically be catering for a market of well-heeled magpies. That a pair of amps cost more than a Porsche Panamera Turbo S might border on insanity to most people doesn't alter the fact that the DarTZeel NHB-458 monoblocks are the most dynamic solid-state power amplifiers I know of. Sadly, it's just as easy to lose that detail due to sticker shock as it is to be blown away by an expensive product, simply because it's expensive.

Dude, you're talking to a guy that bought Rockport Arrakis speakers (and no, not for pennies on the dollar, but well over 50% of list), so I don't need no convincing that the expensive stuff can be magical! But there are expensive components that also basically suck.

So, I agree with you as well.

 

[Gregadd]

As for Gregadd, Kach and Albert Porter, normally the criticism would be laughed off but there is a bit of a backstory that the readers here are probably not aware of. Where should we begin? My good friends Gregadd, Kach and Rich Teer harken back to the MartinLogan forum days. Both Gregadd and Kach were banned from those forums when their arguments/discussions/whatever got childish and personal when they could not defend their position on a few topics, so I understand their grumpiness towards me.Jjeff Dorgan

Jeff to be honest I asked that you not be allowed to join this site. I suppose my Good fireinds Steve and AMIR beleive in democracy and the right of others to respond to criticism. A point that Tom of Martin Logan Owners forum does not beleive in. He banned me in the middle of the night with no oppurtunity to respond and then sanitized the thread that was supposedly the basis for my exile. Thus leaving no oppurtunity for others to make thier own decision about who was being childish.

As you recall, All I did was, after you engaged in the shamelss promotion of your magazine, inquire if you would be revieiwing a pair of moscode amps rather just one. Somehow you took offense to that.
I beleive your cary favor with Tom because you are a financial sponsor of his his website. This involves him taking your side no matter how boorish your behavior. That includes your calling Angela a mere "salesgirl."
In the light of full disclosure, I informed Steve that I had been banned from Martin Logan before joining this forum and later when asked revealed it to full memebeship.

I ASK YOU, HAVE YOU BEEN BANNED FROM ANY AUDIO FORUM? If so, which one and under what circumstances?

I could only hope you could be the same gentleman here as you are in your commercial publication.

 

[Steve Williams]

i'm just trying to understand how the last 5-6 posts come even close to being on topic. Could we please stick to the topic of the OP