Sjofen The Clue speakers

Yep, the stacked Clue's were the biggest surprise in NY. Very very much the bargain @ $2K for two pair.

Thanks for the link and the time you spent on that thread Rebbi. I heard a stacked pair of (the clue) at NY HE show a couple of years ago and found them remarkably good sounding even when driven w SS (Hegel) electronics. They were playing some american roots music, and also some Fleetwood Mac. Thin sounding w tilted up treble they were not. I thought they were the best, moderate cost rock speakers I had heard in quite some time.

What disturbs me most about this whole affair is the reviewer's flat out refusal to allow the manufacturer to assist w set-up. And JA's continued rationalization of same, even after being repeatedly called out on it. There is no credible explanation that I can think of for this deviation from what is obviously common practice. I wish I had $100 for each speaker review I've read that started out with a description of how the manufacturer/designer/distributor arrived with favored speaker cables in tow, and spent X hours tweaking the location, toe-in, height, baffle to back and side wall distance, etc., etc. I'd never have to even listen to a "pretender" like (the clue). This is especially unfathomable when the reviewer had previously heard and was impressed by the speaker on several occasions. Unless he felt he'd previously been deaf.

I've always been one to give the mags and their reviewers the benefit of the doubt about the linkage between advertising $ and reviews, but this has set me on my ear a bit. Now, sure you can say it's dissonance reduction since I heard them once and liked them, but again, if S'phile has frequently had manufacturers assist w speaker set-up, why not this time? And not just (as their reviewers like to say) an error of omission, but one of commission. The manufacturer offered and the reviewer flat out refused to allow it. Perhaps a bit embarrassed that he needed help?

Maybe (probably) I was naive to think that there weren't some cozy inside relationships between the media, reviewers and manufacturers, but this has really set me back more than a bit. I'm not saying the there was an explicit quid pro qou and of course we'll never know, but when one of the big boys delivers a product that does not work as intended (no one is going to suggest, I hope, that the designer wanted the speaker to sound thin) they always seem to get a do-over. The products they review aren't purchased off the shelf like Consumer Report does. When a product is sent for review w/o a complete and total going through/tweaking/rebuilding, it says a lot about the QA/QC of the builder. S'phile always lets you know when that happens, but then they base their detailed comments on the repaired/replaced/retweaked unit. So what gives? Color me skeptical and more than a bit disillusioned.

Onhwy61- Your posts here are not always mainstream but you seem like a reasonable, rational guy. Therefore, I was stunned to read

If a product is that demanding in setup and/or system matching, then maybe the manufacturer should be a little proactive in ensuring its optimal use.

Isn't that exactly what the manufacturer did when he offered to come set them up? And didn't the reviewer flat out refuse his offer. I love Richard V's speakers and I even got a minute of his time (and bit of his famed prickliness) when I had a technical question. But can you imagine him publicly offering to spend as much phone and email time as was necessary, with any consumer, to get his speakers sounding their best. I'm w Soix and Rebbi- I think this stinks. We often get all over an anonymous poster here for sending out negative comments on our little corner of the internet w/o spending some time and effort letting the seller/dealer/designer/distributor try to make things right. Here we have the biggest media outlet in the high end game crapping all over a little guy, refusing him the opportunity to set things right, while bending over (notice I didn't say backward) to let the big guys set things right. Using their personal favorite cables and ics. How's that for a niche product that requires unusual set-up? Only sounds right with these $10K wiring loom, which, by the way, I'll have to leave here on "loan, wink wink" while you complete the review. And the next. and the next. As my mother used to say "that stinks on ice".

All the hand-wringing about how hard it is to be successful in this industry, and then someone comes out w what many people thought was a ground-breaking product, and they crap all over it. Shame on you, JA!

There are two issues at play here, the actual "sound" of the speaker and the review process. I am perfectly willing to give full credence to onhwy61's opinion about the process regardless of whether or not he's heard the speaker, but I disagree that pulling the product while the review was in process is being pro-active. In my mind, that's being reactive. I agree w Soix who said

when results seem so far off to what was previously experienced by the reviewer and the manufacturer offers both the reviewer and customers personal support to get it right, the reviewer should have at least made a phone call to make sure he was providing an accurate representation of what the product is capable of.

But in my opinion, the fault extends higher up the chain of command than just the reviewer. The editor(s) should have caught this one, and sent the draft review back to the reviewer with instructions to, at the very least, go through the phone/email consultation process. Given that most speakers that are reviewed are set up by a representative of the manufacturer, that's the LEAST S'phile should have done.

Onhwy 61 says

In each of the above cases the manufacturer's assistance made sure that their products would perform optimally. This type of assistance is standard in the audiophile review community

Precisely my point. Why, in the case of (the clue) was the manufacturer not allowed to provide same?
He goes on to make a very good point:

If I buy the loudspeaker does the president or designer show up at my house and make sure the loudspeaker is properly setup? Should audio reviews include a "results may vary" disclaimer?

Well in the case of {the clue} they will talk you through it. I would suggest that in the case of a unit that is particularly sensitive to set-up, the review should point that out. In the case of (the clue) it would have been most informative if the reviewer had made use of that offer and told us all how that worked out. But IMO, the real concern here is that there should be a level playing field. So far, S'phile has offered no credible explanation why they did not allow their common set-up practice for (the clue). Until they do, their credibility has taken a major hit, IMO.