"I agree that there's no conspiracy or collusion taking place, they just report what they hear and we either agree or disagree with their impressions."
How can you be so naive? |
03-29-13: Rrog
"I agree that there's no conspiracy or collusion taking place, they just report what they hear and we either agree or disagree with their impressions."
How can you be so naive? He must believe all politicians are completely ethical too Rrog. LOL! |
The ads in the magazines are limited in information. so are many of the manufacturer's web sites. and how do you find the MSRP or the average resale price of an item? That brings us to reviews- a much more complete breakdown of data about a component, perhaps some helpful photos showing the back where the connections go, and some inside photos of the parts as well. Did the component work without any glitches? as far as how the reviewer's liked the sound, this is obviously very controversial. and even in 2013, $5000 is A LOT OF MONEY for an amplifier, and should put out plenty of power for most speakers, AND sound pretty darn good. heck, $2000 might be more than enough money to shell out for that matter. then there's cosmetics- it's dumb to read that the equipment looks amazing/elegant/sophisticated in person. i just want to know if it's well built certainly the top panel shouldn't rattle when you tap it...
i subscribe to both Stereophile and the AB Sound just to see what's out there.
having gone to some shows and demonstrations i like to see and hear what others that are going to them have to say. i must say i am partial to reviews of expensive gear as long as it's not so far out on the bell curve that common sense tells me to skip over "opinions" about how, in some sense, that stuff really is worth it... sure, like a car that goes 240mph that you drive to work in the city every day. it's big, it's beautiful, and it's...time to move on. |
I had a conversation with an Audiophile who buys ONLY units the Reviewer like and recommend.
Syntax: What do you think?
Audiophile: I don't think.
Syntax: Ok, I don't get it what they like or not ...
Audiophile: You don't get it because you care
Syntax: Right. And?
Audiophile: Man, you have to read BETWEEN the lines.
Syntax: Uh, I thought I buy a review that I can read what is going on?
Audiophile: That's your problem. They can't write what they don't like, they have to do it different.
Syntax: Ok. I will try to read between the lines now Â…
Audiophile: Good Boy.
Syntax: Is it possible that those „reviews“ are influenced from their wives?
Audiophile: Of course
Syntax: Does it matter when she is ugly?
Audiophile: Absolutely!
Syntax: Hm, what can I do?
Audiophile: Buy & Sell. After a while you are very experienced
Syntax: Aha, is there a way to reduce Hardware rolling?
Audiophile: Of course. Tell your wife how much money you alreday spent ....
Understanding And Enjoying Audio Reviews
When they say...
(They mean ...)
In spite of the measurement anomalies, this speaker is clearly
a state-of-the-art product.
( It didn't SOUND broken when we gave it our top rating )
It was definitely borderline Class A.
( It isn't that good, but it's sooo expensive,
and they're letting me keep it --- G-d I feel So cheap! )
Better than amps costing three times as much.
( I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I like the amp )
Light years ahead of the competition
( The competition won't give us a review sample )
Despite it's slight problems at the extremes, the products strong point
was it's rendition of the all-important midrange.
( This thing has no bass and treble that actually hurts! )
We hire only the best writers.
( We'll hire any audiophile who recognizes a pencil two out of three tries )
This is an incomplete but promising design from a talented young designer.
( The product sucks but he has some money left in his advertising budget )
This product had me pulling one record after another from my collection.
( I listened to all five of my records )
The images in the soundstage had that elusive and seductive sense of palatable presence
( I haven't had sex since my wife left me and I'm starting to hallucinate )
This product lacks some of the subtle refinements we've come expect from a designer of this caliber.
( The product stinks but we don't want to piss off this famous manufacturer )
Better than amps costing three times as much
( I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I like the amp )
This preamp is the new reference
( We aint giving it back, and we aint paying' for it either )
|
["We, 'the elderly', don't have to have a point, since you've dismissed our value."}
Assuming my statement could easily have as many different meanings to as many different people reading it I apologize for any offensive tone it may have cultivated. This was not my intention.
I was simply making a quick (clumsy) reference to the predominance of older males who have spent a lifetime of collecting LP's who support a large portion of the analog segment of the audio industry. Dismissed their value, on the contrary, this demographic holds the lion's share of potential spending value in the analog segment.
Even though I'm 64 years old and I just enjoyed longboarding a beautiful glassy four foot swell this morning there's no hiding I'm elderly. Its possible I've offended some because I'm naturally proud of my bountiful age were others are grumpy for letting it get by, life's true dumb asses.
You're not one of those, are you? |
I took 3rd place in Senior Longboarding at the NY State surfing campionships...albeit 10 years ago when I was only 52, and consider myself part of the New Old. I'll be ripping around on my Triumph Bonneville T100 later today, playing guitar for hours, listening to my well tempered hifi, and later hitting an interesting restaurant with my hot attorney girlfriend. Young people can BITE ME. |
Dear French fries, I think you stepped in it when you inferred that lots of dollars should buy lots of power "for most speakers". That reasoning is flawed on many levels. Still, I take your point that $5000 is a lot of money for an amplifier.
Dear Manitunc, Of course we don't expect reviewers to buy everything they review. It is expected that manufacturers will loan the equipment. That's all well and good, and if it takes 6 months or a year to review what was loaned, I think that's reasonable as well. However, rumor and hearsay have it that "some" equipment is never returned or paid for by "some" reviewers. Even that, if it is true, does not really bother me; it is a matter for manufacturers and reviewers to work out. The way in which such practices affect the review process is that it biases toward companies that are willing to "lend" equipment and then look the other way, in hopes that their investment in the loaned equipment will pay off in a favorable review. |
Naive is believing the crap you read on the Internet and taking it as truth without one single verifiable fact being offered as evidence. And be willing to defame others without a thought to the consequences. I guess I can make whatever comments I like about anyone's professional competence. |
Dear friends: Whom is not " biased " for whatever reason(s)?, not only the reviewers, audio dealers, manufacturers/designers but each one of us. Problem is if that reason(s) we are " biased " are " honest " one(s).
Now, think for a moment that audio magazines never existed and do not exist today: where all we been? where the audio industry been? do you think that the high-end niche could exist and grow up?
For the good or bad audio magazynes are a " necessity "/a must to have especially for the new-comers/newbie/rockies and to inform all of us the audio news.
Are any one of you interested in what were disclosed on the CES in Las Vegas or at the Rockyfest or other Audio Shows? could you be interested on audio community meetings and its shedules? could you be interested in what to do and what not to do because the reviews? and I can go on and on about.
The problem for some of us is that many of us already grow up, already learned on almost any audio subject and already know the Audio Trues and the Audio Myths that were and are promoted by magazynes in favor of the industry not in favor of we customers but the rockies do not know nothing and the magazynes makes a " favor " to all of them. Not the best favor but that's it.
If we analize the high end audiophiles that belongs to that market we can fall in count that we all are over 50+ years old. What could be happen when all of us die if there are no more new comers because there are no magazynes to inform about?, it doesw not matters that that information is away of true.
Maybe I'm wrong but IMHO almost all of us " learned " about high end thank's to audio magazynes, in the past our ignorance level on audio subjects was really high compared with today level.
The best we had in those old times were: Stereo Review, High Fidelity or Audio that were full of measurements but with very low " subjective " opinions.
We knew and know about ML, Threshold, Audio Research, Conrad Jhonson, Lamm, Wilson, Thiel and the like thank's to Stereophile/TAS and not because Stereo Review, right?, so we have to give the right merit has those magazynes.
I still read those magazynes and normally I do to be informed of the audio news and to learn what not do: because our each one know-how level we know when any reviewer is wrong ( it does not matters his entusiam for an item ) and trhotugh that " is wrong " we will know or confirm what not to do.
There are some reviews that provocate laugh reviews that are a shame for the reviewers but unfortunatelly they are unaware about.
IMHO I think that some of the " top " reviewers have higher know how level on audio subjects that almost any one of us the problem is that they can't share that unvaluable/high value audio information because they are important part, as any of us, of the Audio High End Establishment ( AHEE. ) and have to protect it and have to protect it even if with the information they share with us in reality are given us a disinformation that unfortunatelly is what is happening today.
That not disclosed information and that disinformation is one of the reasons why the high end does not grow up faster.
IMHO all those magazyne reviewers are corrupted and IMHO are corrupted because on purpose are hidden value information for us customers and not only that are not disclosing information but at the same time they are given us disinformation, to these actions I name it: CORRUPTION, maybe with more damage to the customers than if they receive d " money " .
Why many audiophiles are running their systems with tube electronics? because is the best audio technology? certainly not but because was what the magazynes taught us in the past and we believe it in that way and trhough the time our ears are already equalized to that kind of electronics and it does not matters the damage level to the audio signal can do.
Why many of you own only top LOMC cartridges and no single MM/MI one?, because we learned that LOMC are the way to go and no one told us that exist other alternatives.
Why till some years ago almost all own BD TT instead DD ones? why till a few years ago almost all of us used tonearm with fixed headshell instead removable headshell designs? wy till some years ago alomost no one here used subwoofers in their systems? why.....? why.....? and why......?
We still live in the " error " thak's to those magazynes and through internet forums we were learning slowly to we can liberate for ever on those several " errors/myths/mistakes " with we are living in each one audio system.
The forums as this one ( Agon ) is the only today possibility to learn and grow up faster than the audio industry, is the only way to correct our system mistakes. We can't do it through those magazynes and this fact is a shame for those magazynes/reviewers because in theory those audio magazyne main target is to inform to inform true information teaching to us customers.
Don't blame magazynes and today maybe some of us have to blame our selfs to not learned enough to correct our " mistakes ".
The best new is that all of us can improve if we give an opportunity to learn a new opportunity to learn what not to do through magazynes and what to do through internet forums.
I think that no one can stop that AHEE overall corruption that touched almost all those reviewers.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I agree that readers must take what they read with a grain of salt but it's also important to have realistic expectations. What did you expect from a review? Audio reviews aren't that much different than those for cars, movies or food. I can't tell which car I'd rather drive or guarantee that I will like a movie just by reading about it.
I think most reviewers are people of good faith. Though It certainly helps to get a measure of their likes, and dislikes and I think some are better than others. I still don't know what Art Dudley is talking about some of the times (some equipment plays notes, but others doesn't??) But I think he's honest. Bob Neil does a very good job of describing equipment and he's a dealer. I don't trust a word that comes out of Robert Harley's keyboard. Once I get a beat on reviewer, I can usually get some idea of how relevant their opinions are to me.
Audio has so many variables, cost so much money and is a bit of an obsession with many of us so we can fall prey to looking for easy answers but there aren't any. I enjoy it more when I don't worry too much about reviewers and such. |
Vic, I hope not. I'll be 60 in a month, with teenagers, almost 14 & 16. I wish I was long boarding as I was born/raised at the beach in San Diego. I'm not grumpy about my mortality, but I am a dumb ass occasionally. |
I gave you specific actual knowledge. Did you read it? Do you want more? All manufacturers have this knowledge. Be careful what you wish for. This could open the door to just how much corruption there really is in the stereo industry.
Naive is being duped by someone you think is a professional. |
Mt, ooo another better late than never parent. Coastal Cali native born with the ionized Pacific on shore, grumpy? Nah.
I have some ties in Encinitas. Rode some amazing, otherwise sleepy neighborhood breaks just South of Wind n Sea during a big Northwest a few winters back.
You're a lucky man. |
Manitunc, This isn't "60 Minutes". We're just a bunch of guys shooting the crap. No one but us really gives a hoot what we write here. I have heard the stories of reviewers hanging on to equipment sent for review purposes for my entire 35-year audio life, mostly from guys who had first-hand information, meaning they were not just repeating gossip. Therefore, I credit the stories. However, I would never name names in this forum; I think that's reasonable prudence.
On the other hand, I agree with you in that because I have no such evidence to support the notion of outright collusion between reviewers and manufacturers, I would not make such charges. I do charge many reviewers with bad writing, however, and with simply cutting and pasting into their reviews hyperbole to be found on manufacturer's websites and in their product brochures. This is partly because the great majority of them know very little about electronics. |
Dear friends: Whom is not " biased " for whatever reason(s)?, not only the reviewers, audio dealers, manufacturers/designers but each one of us. Problem is if that reason(s) we are " biased " are " honest " one(s).
Now, think for a moment that audio magazines never existed and do not exist today: where all we been? where the audio industry been? do you think that the high-end niche could exist and grow up?
For the good or bad audio magazynes are a " necessity "/a must to have especially for the new-comers/newbie/rockies and to inform all of us the audio news.
" Wrong/bad with them but worst with out them ".
Are any one of you interested in what were disclosed on the CES in Las Vegas or at the Rocky-mountain or other Audio Shows? could you be interested on audio community meetings and its shedules? could you be interested in what to do and what not to do because the reviews? and I can go on and on about.
The problem for some of us is that many of us already grow up, already learned on almost any audio subject and already know the Audio Trues and the Audio Myths that were and are promoted by magazynes in favor of the industry not in favor of we customers but the rockies do not know nothing and the magazynes makes a " favor " to all of them. Not the best favor but that's it.
If we analize the high end audiophiles that belongs to that market we can fall in count that we all are over 50+ years old. What could be happen when all of us die if there are no more new comers because there are no magazynes to inform about?, it does not matters that that information is away of true.
Maybe I'm wrong but IMHO almost all of us " learned " about high end thank's to audio magazynes, in the past our ignorance level on audio subjects was really high compared with today level.
The best we had in those old times were: Stereo Review, High Fidelity or Audio that were full of measurements but with very low " subjective " opinions and certainly not high end products.
We knew and know about ML, Threshold, Audio Research, Conrad Jhonson, Lamm, Wilson, Thiel and the like thank's to Stereophile/TAS and not because Stereo Review, right?, so we have to give the right merit have those magazynes.
I still read those magazynes and normally I do to be informed of the audio news and to learn what not do: because our each one know-how level we know when any reviewer is wrong ( it does not matters his entusiam for an item ) and through that " is wrong " we will know or confirm what not to do.
There are some reviews that provocate us laugh in their reviews that are a shame for the reviewers but unfortunatelly they are unaware about.
IMHO I think that some of the " top " reviewers have higher know how level on audio subjects that almost any one of us the problem is that they can't share that unvaluable/high value audio information because they are important part, as any of us, of the Audio High End Establishment ( AHEE. ) and have to protect it and have to protect it even if with the information they share with us in reality are given us a disinformation that unfortunatelly is what is happening today.
That not disclosed information and that disinformation is one of the reasons why the high end does not grow up faster.
IMHO all those magazyne reviewers are corrupted and IMHO are corrupted because on purpose are hidden value information for us customers and not only that are not disclosing information but at the same time they are given us disinformation, to these actions I name it: CORRUPTION, maybe with more damage to the customers than if they receive d " money " .
Why many audiophiles are running their systems with tube electronics? because is the best audio technology? certainly not but because was what the magazynes taught us in the past and we believe it in that way and trhough the time our ears are already equalized to that kind of electronics and it does not matters the damage level to the audio signal can do.
Why many of you own only top LOMC cartridges and no single MM/MI one?, because we learned that LOMC are the way to go and no one told us that exist other alternatives.
Why till some years ago almost all own BD TT instead DD ones? why till a few years ago almost all of us used tonearm with fixed headshell instead removable headshell designs? wy till some years ago alomost no one here used subwoofers in their systems? why.....? why.....? and why......?
We still live in the " error " thank's to those magazynes and through internet forums we were learning slowly for we can liberate for ever on those several " errors/myths/mistakes " with we are living in each one audio system.
The forums as this one ( Agon ) is the only today possibility to learn and grow up faster than the audio industry, is the only way to correct our system mistakes. We can't do it through those magazynes and this fact is a shame for those magazynes/reviewers because in theory those audio magazyne main target is to inform to inform true information teaching to us customers.
Don't blame magazynes and today maybe some of us have to blame our selfs to not learned enough to correct our " mistakes ".
The best new is that all of us can improve if we give an opportunity to learn a new opportunity to learn what not to do through magazynes and what to do through internet forums.
I think that no one can stop that AHEE overall corruption that touched almost all those reviewers. It's a way of living.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
All of my gear has been the subject of good or great reviews at some point, so I do feel good about that. I will reiterate the fact of seemingly more balanced reviews from What HiFi and HiFi News...just a different vibe there. |
Frog
Didn't see a single verifiable fact in your post. Just typical innuendo and rumor. Clearly a reasonable basis for defamation. |
Lewm,
I agree, but I'm just tired of people defaming others on the Internet under cover of anonymity with no actual basis other than their own delusion that there is some great conspiracy to screw everyone,whether its reviewers, politicians, lawyers, corporations or what have you. Some just try and see the bad in everything and everyone, except themselves of course. |
Manitunc, You are either the most gullible person in the world or you have some reason to support high end audio reviews. |
Reviewers, politicians, lawyers, corporations or what have you deserve to be defamed if they are corrupt. |
Rrog, Jeezz, lighten up. Most people understand the relationship the audio press has with their advertisers and still find the periodicals entertaining.
What ever liberties you feel the audio press takes with their subjective opinions its far less damaging than the actions some politicians and corporations take that are not even held accountable for. |
Vic, Sorry, but I don't like being called a liar. |
I never take magazine reviews with anything more than a pinch of salt.
On the other hand, it's user reviews of a product which interest me, and it's those I try to take on board when evaluating a potential purchase. |
Rauliruegas, I enjoyed reading your post. You brought up some very good points. |
Rrog,
Who called you a liar. I cant, because you dont state any verifiable facts to which the truth or falsity can be determined. Just recirculate the same rumor and innuendo.
By the way, no one deserves to be defamed, which by its very definition means to be lied about. If they are corrupt, then its not a lie. But you seem willing to defame anyone, without any factual basis. I have seen too many good people harmed by such acts from fools.
Why is so easy to believe bad things about people but not good things. Or even that they are neutral, neither good nor bad. We cant get concensus here on any subject, with all our learned members, why would you expect a reviewer, given their necessary time restraints, to do much better? This isnt the state of the union they are reporting on, or the master plan to save the world. Its just an opinion by a writer on a piece of equipment they had in their system for a period of time. Would you rather they went back to Stereo Review reporting and just regurgitated the spec sheet and say is sounds as it should? There is a reason Stereo Review no longer exists. If I want to read that kind of stuff, I will order brochures.
So any, my point is that I dont appreciate attacks on integrity based on rumor and innuendo and even now, I have not seen a single, verifiable fact against any writer for Stereophile or Absolute Sound when I have asked many times. And again, I dont read half the mag, because I am not interested in digital equipment but I do enjoy the writing of Art and Mikey, even if I dont agree with them. |
|
Dear Raul,
You wrote, "Why many audiophiles are running their systems with tube electronics? because is the best audio technology? certainly not but because was what the magazynes taught us in the past and we believe it in that way and trhough the time our ears are already equalized to that kind of electronics and it does not matters the damage level to the audio signal can do."
I like to think we are friends, but you must stop repeating this BS. Do you actually think that what you wrote is universally true? Do you think that none of us who favor tube equipment have the capacity to make an independent judgement? If you do think that way, then arguing is hopeless. I would argue that the movement toward tube gear over the last 10 or 20 years was motivated by end users who established their preferences by actually listening, after decades of having solid state foisted upon us by the mainstream audio press (just like "perfect sound forever" digital). The audio press followed the audiophiles toward tubes, not vice-versa. They saw where the trend was tending and got in front of it, not the other way around. But they still do push megabuck solid state stuff, as well, some of which may be excellent so far as I know. I try to keep an open mind. Unlike yourself. But can you admit that you may be biased because you sell an expensive solid state phonolinepreamp?
Sorry, this is off-topic, except for the part about the actions of the mainstream audio press. Were it not for independent publications like the late lamented Glass Audio and Sound Practices, tube-based equipment might have a much smaller share of the market. |
Dear Lewm: IMHO you are wrong. I used tube electronics for many years and time to time I try it to know if something really improved down there, unfortunatelly that kind of electronic technology can't grow up due to so many limitations of the technology it self.
This is not the place to discuss/argue about, I respect your opinion but that you like to live " in the error " does not menas is the technology to go because it is not.
For the whole audio needs that thechnology is heavy faulty and you can't do nothing for support it.
Forgeret about SS technology, problem is that as you we have to learn about you need to learn about and not only been there because " I like it ". Lewm, I learned.
I only put one simple example of that faulty technology: we need a very low output impedance in amplifiers to handle any speaker. This is to handle the complex speaker impedance curve and phase because this speaker impedance curve is exactly this a " curve " with deeps and tips all over the frequency range. To handle in near perfect condition and to have an accurate frequency response from that speaker first than all we need low very low amplifier output impedance and in this regards there is no single amplifier with tube electronics that can match that low very low output impedance ( lower than 0.1 ohm better if: 0.05 ohms. ). by " nature " that technmol.ogy at amplifier level has a high output impedance so the SPL at different frequencies goes down and up according not what is in the recording but according to that speaker impedance curve given to the sound a coloration/distortions that don't came in the recording.
When we have a very low output impedance amplifier working with the same speaker we achieve flat response we add nothing to that signal because the speaker impedance curve.
That is only one of several real facts on tube electronics and the really subject that we have to worried about is that all those reviewers that are proponents on that technology never told us what is happening they as you only writed: " I like it ".
That's why I posted about reviewers corruption because they don't report nothing about and the problem is not only at reviewers level but even at manufacturer speaker level when they don't specify in the speaker manual information the impedance/phase curve of each one of their speakers designs. Why no one do it? maybe because no one asked.
Dera Lewm and friends, there are speaker manufacturers that recomended their low and complex impedance speakers to been handle by tube electronics with high output impedances in the amplifiers.
Look that I said: " handle ", one thing is " handle " where any amplifier can handle almost any thing and other one serious one thing is that can works in the right way on that speaker impedance regards.
I don't care what you, other or even me like it what I care is how to achieve how to have in an audio system the nearest quality performance level on what is in the recording adding the less and losting the less.
The relationship between speaker impedance curve and amplifier output impedance is not only a critical subject but one that makes a paromount difference when is right/matched against when is not right/matched as with tube technology.
Sorry to take that technology as an example but this example confirm, IMHO , the kind of corruption I'M talking about on reviewers.
I don't want to open any window here about electronics technologies, this is for other thread. Please, we have to stay on topic.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Unfortunatelly the real speaker frequency range impedance is not a flat line and unfortunatelly too we can't do nothing against the Ohm's Law but more unfortunate is that reviewers knew and know it and never mentioned. Only through the J.Atkinson speaker measurements we can attest about.
SS technology is not perfect too but IMHO makes less harm to the recorded audio signal.
This is how the AHEE works.
R. |
Lewm, wrong: I don't sale nothing. Maybe in the future. Btw, my phonolinepreamo design begun as a necessity to fulfil cartridge needs that certainly tube technology can't do it and that's all.
If in the audio market I can't find what fulfil the audio system needs then I try for whatever " road " to get it even if I have to go on the self design item. That's where appeared not only my phonolinepreamp but a tonearm, a TT mat, a headshell and maybe in the near future a cartridge too.
I don't see how is that you don't took in count my self audio trend when you already knew my way of audio item " behavior ": if does not exist then I try to create it. Maybe is because you are unaware of that my audio " attitude ".
I never been satisfied with that: " I like it ".
R. |
I first learned about Jim Smith by reading one of the ads for his book "Get Better Sound" in either TAS or Stereophile. I'm glad I did. I bought the book and hired Jim to voice my system. I suppose I might have eventually heard about Jim some other way, but it was these magazines that I credit.
This thread started being about reviewers but many of the posts are about the magazines. Are they one and the same? I think not. There's lots of information in the magazines that is not a review of some equipment.
What each of us decides to do with the reviews is up to each of us. I am happy to subscribe to and read the magazines. They are very cheap and sometimes have some useful information in them. I have even narrowed down a short list of equipment to audition based on reviews I've read. And some of the articles are quite entertaining. |
"foisted upon us" Lewm, excellent synonym usage. Certainly one to remember, thanks. |
Raul, So long as you endow yourself with supernatural perception, you will always be right. But please don't comfort yourself with the notion that the mainstream audio press is the evil empire primarily responsible for the continuing high regard of others for tube equipment. |
OK...I just read this entire thread and have concluded the following: "IMHO" is an utterly overused and unnecessary acronym, so please stop using it. The "ah-ha!" factor in recognizing bias among reviwers means you read this stuff too carefully, and I (because I must be wonderful) can appreciate writers who write well even if I don't agreee with them. It is amazing how many self-important audio geeks "toss the babies out with the bathwater" by stomping their feet and declaring NO MORE (fill in magazine name here)...sort of like not liking to watch television because there is "too much crap on it" which only says you're maybe too lazy to sort through it to find the good stuff, or perhaps so hogtied by your opinions you can't move. That's just sad. An example of this is stating that you KNOW tube gear is BAD BAD BAD, ignoring the fact that lots of experienced listeners think (although it's often based on older design ideas) it SOUNDS great, thus obviating its badness and making it your personal issue, IMHO. |
Dear Wol_garcia: ++++ " you KNOW tube gear is BAD BAD BAD, ignoring the fact that lots of experienced listeners think (although it's often based on older design ideas) it SOUNDS great, thus obviating its badness and making it your personal issue.... " ++++
certainly that I'm not ignoring the lover's tube technology but that's not the subject.
Almost all of those tube's lovers ignorewhat they really are listening: they really ignore it, the only thing they know is: " I like it ", unfortunatelly and due to that technology deficiencies all those people are not hearing what is in the recording but " something else ". I know that they don't care on that fact and that what only cares is that: " I like it ".
The difference between all these people ( including Lewm. ) is that I learned what is happening with the recordd signal when this signal pass through tube electronics and what I learned and experienced with is something that I don't like it and is something that's far away from my main audio/music targets that is to be: NEAREST TO THE RECORDING, THAT ON PLAYBACK WHAT I'M LISTENING BE NEAR THE RECORDED SIGNAL WITH THE LESS AND LOWER LOSTED OR ADDED RECORDED SIGNAL INFORMATION.
IMHO, it does not matters that you or any one else say: " I like it ", that electronic technology is way faulty to meet that audio/music target, that technolgy was not " designed " for audio and certainly not for today audio/music needs.
It is obvious that the tube people are with different audio/music targets and could be by ignorance, ignorance not to know in deep what tube electronics makes to the recorded signal. That's all.
When they learnend I'm sure that like me they will reject that technology.
Now, if any one of you have facts that could help to say: " tubes are the right technology to reproduce what is in the recorded signal " then post it.
I say facts not " I like it ".
Dear gentlemans, you can go on sticky with that technology this's up to you.
Wh tubes performs different than other technoogies like SS? why when compared in between you prefer the tube one?: very simple, you are prefering a different way different audio/music signal/sound that has and is charged of heavy " make-up " due to that technology deficiencies and that's all but not because is better but because that simple: I like it ".
IMHO, this " I like it " is one of the main reasons why the high end real high end does not grow up faster. Today in many areas is just stopped.
If any one of us wants to start a thread about I will share with all of us all the facts you ignore about that technology and we can discuss and go in deep down there. Obviously with no that " I like it " that does not carry us nowhere.
Btw, Lewm: " you endow yourself with supernatural perception .... """
again, you are wrong and obviously you read my posts but don't understand them. I have not any supernatural perception ( far away from there ) what I have is an in deep training to be aware the system quality performance and discriminate sound from distortions that you can't do it because you have not that kind of training. Lewm, that has a name: knowledge level because an in purpose long training.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R |
Those of you who dislike reviewers, and therfore, I assume reviews, how do you find out about a product that you can't audition locally. There is literally next to nothing in my system that I could go out and listen to at a bricks and mortar establishment within reasonalbe driving distance, more so because most of my stuff is used and somewhat vintage. So, if something piques my interest, I search on line for information about that item. I end up finding various reviews, both professional and on sites such as this. I then find that the item I am interested in has universal praise, and no negative comments. It suits my needs and wants on paper, and the price is right. So I buy it, and low and behold, I like it, just like the reviewers said I would. Now, do I like it because someone said I should, or do I like it because it is a good product that sounds good and the reviewers recognized that fact.
Now, there may be some of you who are able to listen to every single item ever sold, for an extended period of time, in your own system and home, and only substituting that one item during that period, and come up with your own conclusions without the benefit of any external input. Good for you. I doubt the rest of us have the time, money, opportunity or interest to do the same thing. So, we see something in an ad or report, that looks interesting and the design philosophy seems to make sense and comport with what we think is good design. We then use whatever resources we have, including professional reviews, to narrow our focus, and to eliminate those items not worthy of consideration, and then spend our money. I dont expect the reviewer, professional or otherwise, to put in months of listening and testing on every piece of equipment that comes through his/her door. I expect the reviewer to state the obvious, good or bad, and tell me as entertainingly as possible, how the piece of equipment makes him feel.
Look, there is very little junk out there these days from reputable manufacturers. Most of the differences are ones of flavor, not competence, especially at the levels worth discussing on these sites. If you can listen to everything and make up your own mind, good for you. But I need the assistance of others to narrow my focus. I can always sell the item if my experience does not match theirs. |
|
Dear Raul, I wrote a long response, but then I deleted it because this thread is about reviewers, not about your philosophy or mine. Anyway, you just proved again that rational discussion with you on this topic is impossible.
In any case, I don't want to be seen as close-minded; bring me a great sounding SS amplifier that works well on my rather demanding ESLs, and I will buy it (or try to build it). On topic, I have on occasion over the last 10-20 years been seduced by a review to sample a high end solid state amplifier; that's how I know. On the other hand, transformer-coupled tube amps don't cut it, either, on my particular speakers. |
I know some successful and highly regarded Grammy winning producers, musicians, pastry chefs, sea captains (the Grammys for Pastry Chef and Sea Captain are relatively obscure), and ner-do-wells who like the sound of modern (?) tube amps. Like them a LOT. This may be off topic, but but I'm so damaged from reading the convoluted and florid lengthy responses that the wheels have come off my topic specific response reflex. |
Dear Wolf_garcia: That's the problem: " I like it " and this is not the subject of my posts. Please re-read it, think about it at the targets that I say can't be matched for tube technology.
That something like me does not means is right. IMHO we have to learn about other than that " I like it " that IMHO does not carry anywhere susccessfuly.
I want to enjoy music and I enjoy in whatever medium/source ( even trhough a walkman. ) but on recorded music at home I want to hear what is in the recording adding and loosing the less. This is the target.
I need the technology that can match that target for that we need an accurate, neutral, very very low noise, very very low distortions that permit enjoy fully all the music recorded " emotions " with the right rythmum, natural tonal balance, dynamics, the natural agresiveness music has and power that only the live music has.
Tubes can't do it. You can hear sound trough tube but that's not the subject, the subject is that home system target. Well that's my target, for other persons could be different and nothing wrong with that.
Wolf, we have to learn about. Think on this: why wneh we swtiched to a SS amplifier instead our normal tube one we don't like what we heard?
IMHO when we have better accuracy/neutral/lower noise/lower distortions through that SS amplifier then is more dificult to hide problems all over the system chain all over each one system link that through tubes we were unaware because the tube colorations/inaccuracies are hidden those system problems. In the other side a tube based system makes that the owner ears been equalized to those colorations/distortions and when those colorations/distortions gone we have to confront the REALITY and this is what we don't like it.
As with any audio item we have to re-set the whole system chain and obviously our ears and give the time to understand what is happening now with that SS system change against what we had with tubes.
I have nothing against tubes only because are tubes, what I do is to take the " best " technology that can put be near the targets I have and unfortunately tubes can't do it successfuly. Through many years and experiences first hand ones and trhough other systems I learned about with open mind and with out that " I like it " attitude that is almost useless on the whole subject because we are talking of what is right or wrong.
I can tell you why tubes are not right and why SS is better if not perfect: nothing is perfect.
The subject is easy: Which your home audio system targets? how can you fulfil it with overall success?
The differences between opinion's audiophiles belongs to those questions and its answers.
I'm not better than you or any one else, it's only I have different targets than you. Simple as that.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Wolf: Why some of us don't like digital? because analog is a better technology?
certainly not, IMHO analog is no better technology that what we hear through 24/176.8 digital source.
Problem is that our system set up was set up to fulfil analog needs not digital needs. So when we put inside that system a digital source with out any re-set system then we don't like it.
In the other side as with tubes analog technology has not the higher accuracy we want and digital is a lot more accurate and neutral with a lot lower distortions and noise and the music recorded on digital is full of emotions too and you can feel it if you re-set your system and ears.
Analog signal is heavy and suffer manipulations through the recording and playback that digital does not. That de-emphasis RIAA during recording/cutting LP and the phono stage inverse RIAA eq. makes a lot of damage to the music signal and other degradations subjects on the whole analog signal.
Digital has its own " subjects " but certainly IMHO the digital signal is truer to the recording than any analog source.
Wolf, we are not talking here of that " I like it " that means nothing on the reality nothing on the true nothing on what is in the recording: digital or analog.
Same things happen when we swtich from LOMC cartridges to MM ones because we don't re-set the system to the MM needs but not because the MM alternative is wrong. Or when we switch from BD to DD TT, there are many examples on the same subject. We have to learn, all of us but is up to each one of us do it.
That " I like it " attitude is the cancer on each one of us and the audio industry is full of different kind of cancer, reviewers is one of that.
The good news is that each one of us can cure that cancer, learning about.
IMHO we have to fight against any kind of audio cancer. Or die with.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
+1 Manitunc- You are on a roll, dude (or dudette, as the case may be). Some great posts lately. |
"Look, there is very little junk out there these days from reputable manufacturers. Most of the differences are ones of flavor, not competence, especially at the levels worth discussing on these sites."
Whoops, the secret is out!
High end audio, beware.... |
04-01-13: Manitunc
Those of you who dislike reviewers, and therefore, I assume reviews, how do you find out about a product that you can't audition locally. I wouldn't say that I dislike reviewers or reviews, they just mean nothing to me, whether professional or internet. I search the internet in general (google), and audio forums more specifically. I'll ask specific questions on discussion boards and within threads. Have you used Brand X with Brand Y and Z? Do you prefer a more transparent sound or a more musical sound? Do you like a more immediate presentation or a deeper 3-D soundstage? Obviously knowing something about an individual's experiences and tastes will either add or subtract from the information I receive. Generally though, I know that the folks I am chatting with do not stand to make any financial gain from my decisions, so that alone puts them above professional reviewers. Then, I buy and try. If I like it, I keep it, if I don't I re-sell it and make a mental note of the recommenders musical tastes when compared with mine. If it is something I like, I keep it and begin to put some more weight behind that members input. If I don't like it, I don't simply write off that member, it could be a synergy issue, but I don't give their opinion the same weight next time. This is how I slowly started pulling away from glossy rags. There were fewer and fewer individuals whose opinions I respected by listening to gear that they highly recommended which sounded bad to me. JA was one of the main offenders, I don't even think he can hear. |
It's great that some enthusiasts have the interest and time and resources to investigate very thoroughly certain audio topics/problems and then arrive at what is for them some "answer" or result to their inquiry. Perhaps reviewers should fall into this camp.
Many others just want to relax and enjoy their music without being haunted by the quest for the truth. Perhaps reviewers too often fall into this camp.
As far as "I like it" being an attitude which leads to audio cancer, well that is pretty provocative. I like listening to the BSO on Friday afternoons, and I also like listening to my stereo in the evenings. And the more one sounds like the other, the more I like it. |
I appreciate both sides this discussion. I think Raul is right to a large degree but I am not sure what that degree is. I am not surprised that Wolf likes and, I thinks say he, that his tube equip is fun. Just think guitar amps. I agree with both. Wolf as a musician, recording tech and so on I think he would agree that tube equipment sounds more natural but not more accurate. Again to keep it simple just think guitar amps. Could be any instrument amplified. If he doesn't no big deal. A well mic'd set up I find more of the real life of the dynamism, micro-macro, even across the board sound pressure replayed through a ss units as opposed to tube. Sound is sound pressure and I find it is better done with ss. However one of the many big problems we have is, as a recording it becomes some, to very scaled down in its sound pressure for many reasons, so it is hard to recreate that which is not there. I think tubes give us a more pleasant and natural timbre and tone to the sound pressures we hear but not necessarily more naturally accurate musical instrument tone and timbre to go along with the more even sound pressure across the board. So as a play around guitar player with other friends and their instruments I feel the sense of the life of the music that a musician would be listening for(not all pleasant sounds but the raw thing)to me has been better portrayed by ss-stainless steel I mean ss-solid state. Think Gordon Holt. I do think because of some of the nasties of ss it is just a little harder, but not much, to get a somewhat, not exactly, similar naturally pleasant sound out of ss as that of tubes. A disclaimer-I am a professional toilet bowl cleaner. |
Swamp, thanks. Sometimes a subject just gets to me.
Dude here. Too bad Raul has decided to hijack this thread. Hard to read through. |
Dear Peterayer: +++++ " I like listening to the BSO on Friday afternoons, and I also like listening to my stereo in the evenings. And the more one sounds like the other, the more I like it. " +++++
your statement is very precise and self explain it. That kind of " I like it " is the one we have to look for because it is not only subjective one but way objective when you are comparing your system quality performance against the " true " ( live music. ).
Certainly the " I like it " cancer I was refering was a different one, the just " I like it " with no real foundation against the " true ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Marqmike: One main characteristic that has the live music is its dynamic power. This dynamic power an efortless power gives the music its endless so vivid impact all around a wide frequency range.
We can't recreate that music characteristic in our home audio system, even that some of us are on the quest/hunt of.
I'm convinced that in a home system music belongs to both frequency extremes that put the music frame for the whole music performance.
Dynamic power/power impact, to be near to this music characteristic we not only need amplifier power and speakers that can reproduce it but deep accurate bass management and " endless " other frequency extreme wide-band and SS meets in a lot better way those needs.
We can ask why powered subwoofers use SS electronics instead tube ones or why active speakers use SS technology. We need to reproduce the music impact the music power.
The real thing is astonishing and that's why as many of you I attend every single week to live events, nothing compare it. The live experience is unique, our home system experience is only that a: " home system experience " away from that unique live music experience.
I know digital is way better music source medium but not for that I give up analog, instead I fight and work day by day to improve to lower the analog distortions to be near to the recording and my first step on that direction was to be aware of those analog distortions and were it comes/came and how detect it because if you are not aware of those distortions we can't improve about thinking that all what we heard is music or comes in the recording. We need on porpose training to do that, with out this training we just can't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Is there an acronym for "non humble opinion?" IMNHO? I dispute the "accuracy" issue as I don't think at reasonable non clipping levels any decent tube amp sounds innacurate, nor does a good SS amp...both should sound great. I insist! I like good digital AND analog, which is not hard to do. I think one reason analog is interesting is the fact that it works at all, so I'm with Raul on that...sort of...and note that SS proponents are often more sharply analytical and strident, and tube freaks are warm and natural...you want a dominatrix in a rubber nurses uniform or a cute hippy chick in a hot tub? (rhetorical question only) |
