Review: Meitner MTR-101 Amplifier

Sorry to say it, but if these amps are as good as you seem to think, then they should certainly be deserving of a better 'review' job than this, which tells us practically nothing - don't you think?. Why not try again - this time paying some attention to the A'gon review guidelines, because this really doesn't qualify as one.

My philosophy is, if you're going to ask of someones's time by prompting them to click on your thread, then at least do them the courtesy of taking the time yourself to make your thread a worthwhile effort. A'gon has no guidelines suggesting anyone should treat a review as an boost ego, AV_specialist, but that's what seems to be most of your motivation here. I realize Audiogon 'reviews' are free, but that doesn't mean we want to spend time clicking and reading an 'article' no one would be interested in buying. Sorry to sound so pissy, but after being shortchanged by enough of these lazy attemts at reviews (seemingly written only to enter the contest, or else why bother?), I begin to lose patience at a certain point. I've already put more sweat into my responses than is on display at the top. Both Tupperz and AV_specialist are probably more than capable of writing an interesting and informative review of this relatively uncommon product, but we're still waiting for it. Is it any wonder this thread never really garnered any response? Audiogon's forum is only as good a place to spend time as we try to make it.

AV_specialist: I don't know you from Adam (at least not that I'm aware of), but acknowledge that you can do and say what you like - I'm open-minded and thick-skinned. But it does seem strange that as of right now, you have a grand total of all of TWO threads in which you have contributed to this forum, and BOTH of them basically amount to attempts at rebuttals directed squarely at ME. Now, what in the heck might up with that?! Well, whatever floats your boat - no matter. When you have spent even a fraction as much time (whatever your time is worth to you) as I have in contributing to this forum, then please feel free to come back and jump on me for presuming to comment on another member for giving me only a tease for my own time. Until then, please do us all a favor and try to come up with some stuff that's a little more relevant and interesting (not to mention diversified), OK? How's that for encouragement to contribute?

AV_specialist, thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoint, and also for making clear the reason why you happened to come into the two threads and comment in response to me. I hope you continue to contribute to more forum discussions. (But I did not criticize you for not writing a "better review" - you have not written a review to criticize, just posted in response to one. Maybe you are not familiar with what constitutes a 'formal' review in the review section as opposed to other kinds of posts.)

About your points above:

I stand by my criticism of Tupperz' "review". You obviously disagree, but I find it almost useless to consider a "review" that is nearly written in the form of a haiku. I frankly have a hard time believing that anyone, including yourself, could actually get as much out of such a review as a more in-depth one, yet there are ways in which I respect your position. I basically agree that it can be at least as frustrating, if not more so, to try and digest any relevent info from a review that makes you wade through too many flowery but vague adjectives and specific musical passage references. But I am puzzled by your acknowledgement on the one hand of the lack of any absolute reference standard to which we can attribute the performance of a review subject, when it must be merely one part of a chain which includes the whole recording and record-making process as well as an entire reproduction system, and yet on the other hand defend a "review" style that provides little-to-no context in which to judge a writer's impressions of that subject. There are good reasons why Audiogon has suggested review parameters (although they may have shot themselves in the foot somewhat in this regard when they kicked off the review section with the contest).

Although I ultimately disagree about your apparent conclusions having to do with subjective evaluation's worth in assessing the sonic veracity of any component, I do agree with the philosophy which in effect states that audiophile writing oftentimes becomes a case of the tail wagging the dog, in which the terms of the descriptive language we have developed for communicating sonic performance attributes can sometimes seemingly lead our perceptions rather than follow from them. I also agree that many of these terms leave a good deal to be desired when it comes to describing any easily or universally recognized sonic property a system may display. The ironic thing (for me) about that - as it pertains to your comments - is that I believe the whole "PRAT" paradigm is among the worst, if not indeed *the* worst, of the offenders. (I am going to refrain, however, from going into here why I feel this is so.)

P.S. - If you want to read my review, click on "Reviews" next to my username (it's the review of the tonearm damper; the preamp test thread was placed there by mistake, presumably due to a glitch in the A'gon 'puter system - it is most definitely not a review).