Syntax asks some good questions. The way I see it, Gordon Holt and later Harry Pearson were both very sincere observers of what Harry first called "the high end". I don't believe either of them had a commercial bias, and Gordon Holt got in trouble with a few manufacturers along the way for his outspoken reviews. With HP, one soon learned that he had real biases, but I never thought it had much to do with dollars, more to do with which guys in the industry he liked and with which bits of gear when cobbled together would give him the particular colorations he seemed to be fond of. (Jadis? Get real.) But his contribution was to construct a language that could be used (by him and only a few others since, unfortunately) to convey a sense of how something sounded. Having said that, I must also say that any time in my audio life that I heard something he liked, I found it to be very disappointing. In any case, the modern versions of audio magazines Stereophile and TAS have gone astray from the real intent of their respective founders. The concept of a common language at TAS has been totally lost, for example. I wouldn't argue with any of the critical comments made here by others. I never did make a purchasing decision (consciously) based on the content of a review, and I certainly would not do so now. I find that TAS and S'phile are very handy for reading in the bathroom. Let's also remember that the Brit magazines, fondly referred to above, or some of their more well known reviewers, were caught soliciting pay for praise, more than once.
Yet, I want them all to survive, because I favor print over internet. Internet reviews are far less reliable, far more ridiculous, IMO. Anyone can publish anything on the internet. I see truly idiotic misconceptions promulgated electronically much more often than in print. |
The last decent underground print magazine was The Listener, and now its creator (Art Dudley) writes for S'phile. At least he hasn't changed in his predilections. |
Manitunc, One of the well known reviewers for HFNRR, the Brit magazine, was several years ago "caught" for taking payola (money or something of value as compensation for a favorable review). Aside from that instance, you are correct; there are no known instances of such behavior among the many writers for TAS and S'phile. The worst rumors I have ever heard were to the effect that certain reviewers take equipment for review on long term loan, and then keep it. This was a rumor, gossip really, around especially TAS. But it does not amount to misleading the public.
The problem for me is the poor quality of the reviews. Most of those guys below the top level at each magazine have no idea what they are talking about. They often repeat verbatim advertising jargon that is pure nonsense as if it were a valid explanation of something truly innovative. |
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. |
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 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. |
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. |
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. |
Raul, Unless you have the unique capacity to listen directly to amplifiers and preamplifiers without the need for a speaker, let me only remind you that we listen to speakers, not amplifiers and preamplifiers. The choice of amplifier should be determined by only one thing - the choice of speaker. The better the two elements are matched, the closer the resulting artificially recreated sound will be to reality. There is no way that even a perfect amplifier, if one existed, could make up for all the imperfections in the recording and playback process that come before and after home amplification. Given your own multi-way, subwoofered choice of speakers, it is no wonder to me that you would prefer solid state amplification. I completely understand that. I hope others who have read your posts here will take that into account and not be brainwashed.
Now, the question was about audio reviewers for the mainstream magazines. What do you think of them? |
I think we should go private with this argument, if you wish. It has nothing to do with the topic.
I can't resist one point: speakers in general have evolved to match solid state amplifiers. Does that mean necessarily that we are left with the best possible speakers? No. However, I would not argue for a moment that high power solid state amplifiers are best suited to drive low impedance, low efficiency, multi-driver speakers which are dominant in the high end marketplace. Most of those speakers suck, IMO. (Yes, that's MHO.) |
Bifwynne, Your summation of Ralph's paper is pretty much synonymous with what I last posted. In general (a very important qualifier), don't try to drive a 4-ohm speaker with a tube amplifier, unless it is one humongous beast. Especially don't mate an OTL with a nominal 4-ohm speaker. The reason many/most of us (well, not me) are using multi-driver 4-ohm speakers is because they were made possible by the advent of high power SS amplifiers that use gobs of negative feedback to achieve a very low output impedance, necessary to drive a low impedance speaker, and great looking distortion measurements under laboratory conditions. The 70s phenomenon of the hi-power SS amplifier, abetted by the audio magazine industry, started this ball rolling. (Are any of you old enough to remember HP drooling over the Phase Linear 700 amplifier? 700W per channel, THD in the millionths of a percent, blew up on the odd occasion, sound like shit.) You may notice that more sensible speakers are making a small comeback in the market place, e.g., those made by Coincident, Devore, Spendor, and several others, possibly because there are guys with 10W 300B amps that want to listen to them. But the other point of my post is that Raul made an argument pro SS almost entirely on this issue of impedance matching, and it IS an issue with modern speakers but not the only issue to consider when selecting an amp to drive your beloved speakers. In other areas, SS amplifiers have faults not shared by tube amplifiers, e.g., sensitivity to a reactive load. Many SS designs cannot drive complex loads without becoming unstable, and many are generating much more distortion than a comparable tube amp under such conditions, when you're sitting there trying to listen to music. THD measurements are made driving a power resistor, hardly a surrogate for a modern loudspeaker with several capacitors in the crossover and inductive and capacitative drivers to boot. Also, don't be fooled by enormous "Damping Factor" numbers, another myth made live by the reviewers. Damping factor is the ratio between the input Z of the speaker and the output Z of the amplifier. Typically, the speaker value is assigned to be 8 ohms. All you need is a ratio of around 10. Much above that, excessive DF can have a negative sonic effect on bass reproduction. Yet, very high damping factor quotes, sometimes in the 1000s, are a bragging point for SS amplifiers, again parroted by reviewers.
Having said all that, I would be the first to admit that modern SS amplifiers are probably not so guilty of these sins, and the gap between tube and SS has narrowed. I am very interested in the First Watt amplifiers made by Nelson Pass and in the more expensive Pass Labs amps, though I have yet to get an audition of any. Look for SS amps that use no or very little NFB. Look for amps that have lowest distortion measurements at lowest power output, such that distortion increases linearly with power from less than one Watt upwards. The first Watt is the most important Watt. Look for Class A SS amps. Those will be the best sounding, I think.
I think Raul is very sincere. But I, like some others here, go for "I like it". I like it, because I just came back from listening to live music and what I want to hear in my home is something that sounds like what I just heard from a live musician, with the same dynamic range and clarity. For me this hobby should be mostly a pleasure. I happen to think that when I get a glimpse of Nirvana, the system is doing most things correctly. The better it gets, the more of my LPs sound great. Every time I make a change in my electronics designed to reduce distortion, the system sounds a little better. Isn't that a sign that Raul and I are after the same thing but by different methods? Maybe. |
Peter, you wrote "I think Raul seems to want his system to reproduce what is on the recording with as little distortion as possible. You seem to want your system to sound like a live music. Those seem to be different goals."
Actually not. At least I don't think so. If one wanted a "euphonic" result, everything to sound "good" regardless of the quality of the input signal, then one has to rely on serendipity; the sound might be very good in one case where the imperfections of the equipment complement the imperfections of the source, or very bad, when the two are in conflict. On the other hand, if you can get the best out of the source, then you have both lowest distortion and best chance to capture the best most nearly perfect rendition of reality that the source can provide, every time. That's kind of what I was trying to say when I noted that if I make a change to a circuit that theoretically should reduce distortion, it usually also makes the sound "better", more nearly like live, more of the time. |
Dear Raul,
You wrote, "well that's something that I too learned but that IMHO is not really true. Lewm, the most important watt(s) is/are those that are asked by the speakers and the amplifier can supply with accuracy in real time. Music is not " stady " but with huge dynamic demands over what you and me can imagine."
First, thanks for admitting that your Honest Opinion is only your honest opinion. As if. Second, those "huge dynamic demands" have to be contained in the envelope of the voltage output of the source component. If the source can only put out 2V, like most CD players and phono stages, then the input stage of the amplifier needs to be able to deal with 2V amplitude (at full volume) and never more than that. ALL the music is inside those 2V. What you are talking about is a situation where an amplifier has inadequate power to drive the speaker to the correct musical peaks. That is a problem of power, nothing to do with tubes vs transistors, and I have already said that if you want to use a low-impedance, inefficient, multi-driver speaker you should probably be looking to a solid-state solution. This has nothing to do with one technology being better than another. If the amp is capable, then those distortions on peaks also come about because of poorly designed speakers and drivers that fall apart sonically under stress. If you spend your life listening over and over again to the bombastic Telarc 1812, these issues will indeed plague you; I don't have that problem.
So let's be clear, I disagree. I believe that the best sounding amplifier, tube or SS will be one that has it's lowest distortion at it's lowest power output, such that distortion (we are talking THD) only increases as power demands increase. Of course, this should happen in a linear fashion and with as flat a slope of THD vs power output as possible.
There are several different iterations of First Watt amplifiers. Each has been designed based on a different approach. To say you dislike First Watt is meaningless; which one?
Further, you have not addressed my point about distortion in SS amplifiers when delivering power into a real world speaker with reactive rather than simple resistive characteristics. But lets also be clear that in my private audio decisions, I do not at all rule out SS amplifiers. |
Dertonearm's tonearm is out and about, for about US$14K, if memory serves. (My memory does not always serve, so check it out for yourself.) Raul's is not far off, or so I am told privately. |
Manitunc, I saw that paragraph by Robert Harley, and I thought he hit the nail on the head. His statement pretty much sums it up, and I agree with him. Too bad that some of his own staff don't get it as well as he does.
As someone else also has experienced, TAS seems to continue to send copies to me, even though my subscription expired a few months ago. This is a sad commentary on the state of the business. Because of Harley's little editorial, I thought it would be only fair of me to pay for another year of the magazine. I did not deliberately let my subscription lapse; I only failed to renew it when they kept asking me to renew well in advance of the expiry date. That did and does bug me, until finally my subscription did in fact expire.
And then I read some of the reviews in this current issue. I found more factual errors and hyperbole than you can shake a xerostat at. Just for one example, JV states twice that a certain phono stage can or cannot "drive" a certain cartridge. I cannot believe he does not know that the cartridge drives the phono stage, so why confuse the novice readers? In another review, of Technical Brain amplifiers, he states that the "current" in the US electrical system was responsible for bringing down some earlier model of TB amplifier that was notorious for unreliability. Assuming that said amplifier was set up for 60Hz AC and not 50Hz, I have no idea what he could be talking about. The amplifier is responsible for drawing an amount of current at a certain voltage; the current drawn from the wall is determined by its topology, not the power company. Voltage spikes, maybe, but not current, could bring down a badly designed amplifier. If the amplifier is being killed by the current it draws, that can only mean that some critical part in the amplifier is under-specified for its current tolerance. There were much worse misconceptions promulgated elsewhere. |
