I bet that sometime in the next few months that a review will be published.
62 responses Add your response
In all of my 65 years of reviewing the finest high end audio equipment on 3 continents, I have never encountered any speakers that can equal the performance of the new Magnepan 3.7. You made a great purchase. I'm sure everyone is envious. Nice going.
Levinson B&W Atkinson, Jr.
P.S. Does that make you feel better? Too bad the speakers themselves are not enough.
Sadly, Stereophile is the epitome of yellow journalism. They have sought to destroy many of the finest minds/companies in audio. Google the carver challenge. The fact that Stereophile has no Magnepan or Martin Logan speakers in their recommended components should tell you that you should not trust their opinions. Their content is not directly tied to ad revenue, rather is it tied to the myths that support the high end business.
OK here is the response at AA:
(My direct post over at AA is here:)
""RE: Over on the goN is a question: Why is there no Stereophile review of Magnepan 3.7?
Posted by John Atkinson (R) on July 25, 2011 at 13:56:16
In Reply to: Over on the goN is a question: Why is there no Stereophile review of Magnepan 3.7? posted by Elizabeth on July 25, 2011 at 13:06:53:
The question has raised some interesting points about TAS and Streophile.
So what say you Stereophile mavens?
(The reply by John Atkinson of Stereophile fame:)
We have asked for review samples but Magnepan's Wendell Diller is
concerned that if i measured the speaker, the measurements would unveil
proprietary information. Not a problem with The Absolute Sound, of course. :-)
Editor, Stereophile ""
So there you have it.
Now the mystery of what is proprietary about the 3.7s... Hmmmmm....
(oh, yeah, I assume it is fine to quote my own post over from there AND the answer to MY question....)
Elizabeth, well now, that seems a little off, don't you think? What is to stop someone else from buying a pair and running the measurements? Not to mention reverse engineering. Somebody is blowing smoke here. Diller has to know this would make Valin & Co look like shills. On the other hand, could measurements expose Valin's concern about bass response? I won't be doing any buying without a thorough audition.
Panels measure like crap and Stereophile loves their measurements (as they should). I am sure Magnepan feels having so many measurements will only hurt sales. If their sales are good why risk it?
Other brands do this too... have you ever seen a pair of Gallos review by Stereophile (please correct me if I am wrong)? They made statements like "Anthony Gallo Takes The Mega-Buck Boys To School" back in 2006 and then... never reviewed them, smells funny to me.
"I Just wanted people to be aware of the politics involve in reviews from Stereophile"
There are no "politics" involved in this matter. See JA's statement at http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5/59144.html
Magnepan wanted a review that was not accompanied by objective measurements. JA measures all speakers submitted for regular reviews and, consequently, Magnepan chose not to respond to his request for the 3.7s.
TAS has never measured anything which was their major attraction back when Julian Hirsch was writing for Stereo Review and measured everything which was easier to write about than the sound anyway. Of course back then TAS had no advertising and reviewed loaner equipment from owners or manufacturers who could justify the risk since they couldn't really afford to advertise and their equipment would have measured the same as other components costing far less. IMHO TAS has far less credibility than it did in those days. Stereophile has some value but all reviews in all the magazines have to be taken w/ a large grain of salt given their dependence on advertising revenue. Magnepan got the review they wanted from TAS in the format that Magnepan finds most comfortable. I don't really have a problem with that. Ultimately the buyer has to make his/her own decision based on, hopefully, more than an (indirectly) paid review.
Reviews should be taken with a few grains of salt . Get to know the reviewers and which ones tell it like it is . When I wanted to upgrade my power cords from the Cardas Gold Ref's , I listened to every one I could get my hands on , Shunyata came out on top by a large margin . When I started the research aspect of my quest I found that seven members of the Stereophile review team owned these cords . It was what they didn't say that told me the most .
Reviews are like drugs. You know that they are no good for you but you read them anyway....
The 3.7 is an interesting speaker. Listening to one the other day I was very pleased with the soundstage, localisation and resolution of the reproduction. I was less impressed by the bass which did not dive very low at all and was quite lean. Careful matching of amplification is needed because if the wrong product is used the treble is too hot.
Reviews are mostly of little value, they always leave cryptic passages that leave them plenty of wiggle room if called out on a review mistake. On top of that unless you use same amp, source, wire, power, room, placement and dare I say bias towards or against a product all reviews are a waste of time. Reviews can entertain and give some valid info but the review only serves to enrich the reviewers system, sure they have to "suffer" through reviews (all the while trying to convince us how hard it is and how bad they have it) but show many any reviewer and I will show you how that "suffering" paid off big time for his personal gain.
So read the reviews, get what you can from them but know they are worthless to most everyone except the company and the reviewers system.
But all this begs the question: Why does Stereophile need (implied) consent from the manufacturer, in the form of loaning the speakers, before reviewing a speaker? Why not just go to a store and buy, or borrow, a pair? Consumer Reports does not wait for car manufacturers to give them a sample; they buy one at a store, like a consumer would.
I don't know, I find many reviews do a pretty dark good job of describing the nature of the piece equipment, for the most part I have found reviewers do pretty good job of describing the basic attributes - given that we all know the importance of associated equipment and the speaker placement within a room. I give them more credit than you do, though as always with a grain of salt, but a good reference point for considering a product. And of course, some reviewers are a lot better and more dependable than others.
"What is better marketing - a good subjective review with a couple of questionable artifacts in measurements, or no review at all?"
No review at all, I have passed on a few auditions because of bad measurements. Measurements are not everything, not by a long shot but if you listen to enough speakers and also analyze their measurements you can correlate the two with what you like and do not like.
"Reviews are mostly of little value...'
Not to mention the entirely FRAUDULENT REVIEW of the XTEME Loudspeakers by DK, later, the LSA10's, (which was NEVER a speaker, never had drivers in it at all until John Tucker and I completed it) a few years back in POSITIVE FEEDBACK--I wrote to them for weeks to gain some insight as to how it could have happened, NO ANSWER.
Also, Stereomojo...I wrote James Darby, owner/editor/reviewer, asking, (even though it was a good review) "Did you bi-wire my LSA1's when you reviewed them?"
Stating that they were never meant to be single wired, but could be for convenience, but only sound as they can when bi-wired. I wrote at least 4 times, NO ANSWER.
Reviewers can be really, really dumb, and all they have to do is hide behind their monitors when called out.
I miss the day when Absolute Sound only had ads in the rear of the magazine...separate from reviews.
Lrsky , Thank you for your enlightening post.I fully agree with Chadlinz that reviews are of little value yet so many members quote chapter and verse from a review they read.
I wonder,do they really hear what the reviewer states being the room and 99% of the associated components used differ from the reviewer's.
I guess its just the POWER OF SUGGESTION.
Pubum57, you wrote you found reviewers "generally do a good job describing the basic attributes of a given product" (paraphrased).
Dont you see how odd that statement is? If it is "basic" then who needs it? Cant anyone with half a brain do "basic" descriptions?
Sure we all cant demo gear near us but by most everything you said reviewers often do little more than most, save for the huge gifts and discounts they do get for "basic" info.
I am confused by your confusion, they, the reviewers, are in a position to listen
to equipment I cannot, and generally have a much larger range of equipment
that they have also listened to by way of comparison. I do not need them to
assess equipment I do listen, but for equipment that I do not have a chance to
listen to. So the "basic attributes" means clear description of what a piece
sounds like, not basic as simple, but a basic characterization that is accurate
though it will vary in its implementation based on associated equipment.
I don't think reviewers hear any better than anyone else, but for the most part
they do have the opportunity to hear equipment and the time and inclination to
write about their experience. Now if I just thought they were whoring
mercenaries paid to write copy for the manufacturer I would probably indeed
discard their views for the garbage they are, but I don't think most reviewers are
that incompetent or intentionally lying and trying to mislead - those that are
can be smelled from a mile away and they don't last too long. For example, I
find when Art Dudley listens to equipment and describes it, it is pretty darn
similar to my experience when I hear that piece of equipment, and we both
seem to like similar sound.
So is cynicism merited due to the conflict of
interests and financial ties to advertisers? Maybe. My view is not so jaundiced as
to discredit their ability to describe the sound of what they hear, and that is at
least useful for be given a sense of equipment to consider. Or I could listen to
folks on Audiogon that own a piece of equipment they are looking to sell in a
few months (or those that have a financial interest in said product, often not
disclosing that fact) and believe their praise for that piece of equipment. I take
both sources of information with a grain of salt, but in both cases it brings
products to my attention that I might want to listen to, then do kitten to, and
then decide for myself if I like it or not, no matter what Fremer said.
I was being sarcastic and comical. I noted about gear not near and all, as with many I just think its in large part fluff and useless overall. Add the "ad" game and reviewers gobbling up the gear they review at insane discounts and its also very suspect.
Funny part is get them ( the big two mags) and poke through them monthly just to feel like I am keeping up with the industry news and offerings. Cheers
We naturally agree w/ the positive reviews of our own components and seek these reviews out for validation of our choices. Ask yourself, how do you react if one of your own components receives an unfavorable comment from an Audiogon members on one of these forum discussions? The early "undergound" TAS was valuable because a) they set a listening standard, i.e. live music; b) they advocated subjective listening not because measured data was valueless, but because the measurements being made were not correlated with the goal, the ability to accurately reproduce music to the human ear; and c) the reviewers were free of advertising bias. Those days are long gone.
I like the photos:) Boy, in the old days an "A" rating from TAS was sure hard to get, funny how few SOTA pieces existed and how many do today, at least according to Stereophile. But hey, the magazines are here to entertain, keep us interested, and keep the industry buzz and vitality moving forward - and those too are worthy goals for a hobby that is fun, in addition to the the music which is the ultimate goal.
Beave, Stereophile has a completely different business model than Consumer Reports. For one thing, CR is a broad-based testing organization with a huge subscription base, and operates as non-profit that takes donations, like NPR. Stereophile is a niche magazine with a small subscription base, and not (intended to be :) ) a non-profit. In CR's annual report they mention subscription revenue of $222M for 2010, and contributions of over $17M. While CR doesn't accept ads and Stereophile does, I'm guessing their ad rates are relatively low because their circulation is small and their advertisers are typically small companies. I'd also guess that CR's revenue per subscriber is probably twice Stereophile's.
In good times I suspect Stereophile could afford some purchases for test, but my guess is that in 2011 not so much. Too bad, because the only reason why I subscribe is JA's testing.