View Full Version : Are Hifi Reviews Flawed?
Primalsea
09-12-2009, 19:58
This kind of stems from the previous posts about Bell Curves and the like.
For me many hifi reviews are useless as there is no real basis underpinning them. Its all well and good by saying bass was better on item a than on items b,c,d & e but what is better. Maybe your view on what good bass is isn't the reviewers. Some reviews seem too fluid and over time the reviewer u-turns when the next best thing comes out.
I wonder if you could identify aspects of hifi equipment that a group of people can reliably and consistantly agree on and other aspects which will never see a good correlation due to being a mater of taste.
Very loosely, if you got 15 people to rank 5 phono stages in order of preference on each of :
Soundstage
Suppression of surface noise
Bass clarity
Mid clarity
Treble clarity
Involvement
and some others that I just cant think of right now I suspect that some of these points would nearly always be something that correlates between all people and therefore form a basis that everyone can relate to. The ones that don't correlate would be things that are a matter of taste and therefore something that people have to work out where there tastes lay if they read a review based upon the results.
HiFi Choice tried in the early days to do just this - group tests with a panel of listeners - often up to a dozen.. As long as the results were correctly correlated and reported, the results seemed pretty fair, except for A MacK's first speaker group test, where the speakers were subjected to the high-power abuse testing before the listening tests and at least one pair of test speakers had the tweeter crossovers burned out before listening began (I saw the evidence for myself!!!!!).
More importantly, many of us dealers found the same things about certain products - the grainy awfulness of the Linn Intek for example - and it was only the early to mid eighties when two particular UK manufacturers all but told us what to do and what to sell...
I'd love a return to some of the reviewing of old, where properly qualified engineers do unbiased technical tests and an unbiased panel of listeners do the listening using the best quality master tracks as possible.
I expect HFW come closest to the ideal above, where NK does the technical bit and the editorial staff do the listening, although some "proper" golden ears too would help more IMO.....
Beechwoods
09-12-2009, 20:17
One thing I think HiFi reviews do is band products by price, and only consider 'new products' so something punching well above its weight might get completely overlooked, and an old perennial, perhaps only available as used, will also be ignored.
While t'internet may suffer the 'tyranny of the majority' on occasion it does offer an interesting counterpoint to the mainstream media take.
Just a thought...
hifi_dave
09-12-2009, 20:25
This kind of stems from the previous posts about Bell Curves and the like.
For me many hifi reviews are useless as there is no real basis underpinning them. Its all well and good by saying bass was better on item a than on items b,c,d & e but what is better. Maybe your view on what good bass is isn't the reviewers. Some reviews seem too fluid and over time the reviewer u-turns when the next best thing comes out.
I wonder if you could identify aspects of hifi equipment that a group of people can reliably and consistantly agree on and other aspects which will never see a good correlation due to being a mater of taste.
Very loosely, if you got 15 people to rank 5 phono stages in order of preference on each of :
Soundstage
Suppression of surface noise
Bass clarity
Mid clarity
Treble clarity
Involvement
and some others that I just cant think of right now I suspect that some of these points would nearly always be something that correlates between all people and therefore form a basis that everyone can relate to. The ones that don't correlate would be things that are a matter of taste and therefore something that people have to work out where there tastes lay if they read a review based upon the results.
Problem is, we don't all hear in the same way and you need to take into account system and room interaction, which can completely alter the results.
My main gripe with the hi-fi comics nowadays is that they are almost entirely dependent on advertising and so they are not really able to criticise products without fear of losing revenue. They can't bite the hand that feeds them.
I expect HFW come closest to the ideal above, where NK does the technical bit and the editorial staff do the listening, although some "proper" golden ears too would help more IMO.....
What is "HFW" ? :scratch:
HFW = Hi-fi World magazine. Obviously you don't get this in France :)
Marco.
Beechwoods
09-12-2009, 20:31
HiFi World Magazine (http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/) :)
HFW = Hi-fi World magazine. Obviously you don't get this in France :)
Marco.
No...
The only accurate hifi review in France (the one where Hiraga used to work), La Revue du Son, will print its last issue on January... :(
There will be no more interesting hifi review in France, anymore. :goodbye:
It's a disaster....
hifi_dave
09-12-2009, 20:58
That is bad news. What happened ?
That is bad news. What happened ?
The owner of it (Mondadori France, owner of plenty of magazines) decided it didn't made enough benefits. :confused:
hifi_dave
09-12-2009, 21:05
The owner of it (Mondadori France, owner of plenty of magazines) decided it didn't made enough benefits. :confused:
That is sad.:violin:
Spectral Morn
09-12-2009, 21:32
No...
The only accurate hifi review in France (the one where Hiraga used to work), La Revue du Son, will print its last issue on January... :(
There will be no more interesting hifi review in France, anymore. :goodbye:
It's a disaster....
Very sad indeed....I assume the audio show will also be no more? (I think there is a tie in between the 2) . Maybe the staff could take it on-line...costs are low etc.
Regards D S D L
No, no on-line unfortunately. :( I'm not sure about the show, though.
Well, Hiraga has his own site (http://www.jean-hiraga.com/) but for the other journalists, I don't know how they will do... Time will tell.
Primalsea
09-12-2009, 21:55
I know we all hear things differently but there must be a areas where there will be a general agreement. Sound stage and imaging being two??
I would have thought it a good idea to identify the things that for the most part can be objectively reviewed and the things that will always remain in the eye of the beholder.
In regards the the magazine. Sad truth is the average joe bloggs wants to read the sun and FHM magazine unless, of course you want your almost paranoid suspicions the world is going to the dogs to be confirmed, then you read the Daily Mail.
Your idea is good, Paul.
But I consider that both objectivists and subjectivists would be against : the first because they don't believe in differences, the latter because they don't like following rational ("objective") methods.
Still, that's what we should do. ;)
The Grand Wazoo
09-12-2009, 22:34
The trouble with this is that some people refuse to believe imaging has any relevance & some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.
The Grand Wazoo
09-12-2009, 23:29
........but yes, you could get a range of listeners to score each one of your criteria & then the results could be expressed as a series of curves.
But a bell curve is only really useful when you have a large sample rate. You'd need a lot of reviewers to get a meaningful result, otherwise you'd never know whether you were looking at the full but inaccurate curve or a small but very precisely plotted part of it. (ie whether you have a statistically normal sample)
some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.
They obviously haven't heard the LEDR (Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording (http://www.stereophile.com/features/772/index.html)) test! Or if they have then their speakers/layout/listening position can't be very good.
Peter Galbavy
10-12-2009, 09:39
What's wrong with those reviews that tell you how nice and shiny the news toys are and how much it will impress your mates and dates - ala T3 etc. ? :rofl:
This is a superb question,
One which should be addressed at the start of any review article with pictures andf floor plane, this would give the reader a more genuine and realistic idea of the out come and how it would translate to their own enviroment
If the public could see 'where' and 'how' some of these scribes actually listened to equipment it may make you think in no short order.
Mind you, anyone that has had the privilidge of 'listening' to what hifi's two channel reviewing space may think that trailing note body and decay was discovered out side of Teddington :doh:
hifi_dave
10-12-2009, 10:01
Over the years I have been approached by a few manufacturers and distributors about the possibility of starting a magazine written by manufacturers, designers and distributors.
The idea being that the products could be described, tested, discussed and the deign points explained in great detail. Throw in some good photography and you have an interesting and informative magazine written by experienced professionals. Of course, not all written would be 100% reliable and/or factual but that is the case with the established magazines and at least you would know that this is the case.
Hi Dimitri,
Your idea is good, Paul.
But I consider that both objectivists and subjectivists would be against : the first because they don't believe in differences, the latter because they don't like following rational ("objective") methods.
That's certainly not true in my case, as a subjectivist. Have you read the section about this in 'Our Ethos'? ;)
I would gladly, with wide-open arms, follow (and wholeheartedly embrace) "rational" objective methods when evaluating 'all things audio' *IF* I believed that they provided unquestionable and definitive proof for every effect I can genuinely hear with my ears - and most importantly, that we were currently able to measure everything in audio/hi-fi that needs to be measured. I don't believe that this is the case.
After all, it would make life a heck of a lot easier if a simple readout on a piece of measurement apparatus told us everything we needed to know about how hi-fi equipment (and cables) treat music signals, and how the brain then processes the information...
As long as that remains not to be the case, and that objective methodology/analysis, and scientific 'proof' derived from such, fails to explain phenomena, the effects of which my ears can genuinely hear, then for me, 'rational objective methods' will remain flawed, as they only tell part of the story. That's the only reason why I have a problem following such a methodology, not because I'm some blinkered dyed-in-the-wool subjectivist with his head in the sand.
I trust that this now makes my position on the matter (and also that of AoS, in this instance) crystal clear :)
Marco.
Have you read the section about this in 'Our Ethos'?
I was talking in general, Marco. I guess you're conscious that AoS is an exception, not the rule. ;)
As far as the methodology is concerned, for me, both subjectivist and objectivist methodologies are flawed. That's why I only trust selected people, not methodologies.
In other words, 'trusted ears', either belonging to a real person or a 'virtual' one on a forum ;)
I do the exact same thing myself when I need a second opinion on anything hi-fi related. It's the only true way of genuinely progressing from one's current viewpoint on a particular matter.
I guess you're conscious that AoS is an exception, not the rule.
Indeed - hence why we started the forum!
Marco.
In other words, 'trusted ears', either belonging to a real person or a 'virtual' one on a forum ;)
I do the exact same thing myself when I need a second opinion on anything hi-fi related. It's the only true way of genuinely progressing from one's current viewpoint on a particular matter.
Indeed - hence why we started the forum!
Marco.
Exactly ! Progressing by specific groups it's the best method, I agree ! ;)
Such a methodology is by no means easy or straightforward to implement, though.
If you're not very careful, and continually test and evaluate your findings at different intervals and in different environments, all you end up doing is sharing each other's biases and convincing one another than an outcome is 'correct', when in reality it's not quite as 'correct' as you first thought it was - been there, done that, and learnt from it! ;)
Ultimately though, if carried out properly by 'rational' people with the requisite hearing acuity and experience of judging required evaluation parameters, I believe that this method is far more 'accurate' (in the 'human' sense that really matters) than currently any 'definitive proof' is from a piece of measurement apparatus.
Quite simply, until someone invents a 'magic box' which can measure how we, as humans, enjoy the sound of reproduced music through a hi-fi system, then our ears will continue to provide the best answers.
This is an interesting but rather complicated subject!
Marco.
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 11:03
Is it not true that if an hifi reviewer says something good it's usually not & vise versa? I've found this
:bum:
Andre, I think that we either believe that all hi-fi reviewers are heavily biased (for whatever reason) and thus talk bollocks, or we can relate to certain observations they make in some way. I occasionally occupy the latter position; but more often than not find myself in the former.
For example, since Alan Sircom (new editor of Hi-fi+) has began contributing on forums (he's a member here, for example) I've found myself agreeing with awful lot of what he writes, and he portrays it so eloquently, too.
But, as Dimitri and I have said, the 'trusted ears' of people you know are the most influential, whenever you feel like a second opinion is needed :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 11:20
Andre, I think that we either believe that all hi-fi reviewers are heavily biased (for whatever reason) and thus talk bollocks, or we can relate to certain observations they make in some way. I'm occasionally in the latter position; but more often than not find myself in the former.
For example, since Alan Sircom (new editor of Hi-fi+) has began contributing on forums (he's a member here) I've found myself agreeing with awful lot of what he writes, and he portrays it so eloquently, too.
But, as Dimitri and I have said, the 'trusted ears' of people you know are the most influential, whenever you feel like a second opinion is needed :)
Marco.
Well i've not picked up an hi-fi magazine for years because of the constant misleading nonesence, i think the last was when well know hi-fi mag had been out probably around a year, i found myself getting intrested in certain things, go listern to only be dissapointed, the dealers would say virtually the same as the magazine even as if they actually read the article & reiterated it back to me during demo.i've never bought a rag not bought from a dealer since.
Yep, I know exactly what you mean.
However, if being honest, wouldn't you say that you are (or have been) influenced by, for example, Russ Andrews and the whole RATA/Kimber cable system building methodology?
Evidence from what you write appears to suggest this therefore perhaps you're more influenced by the views of certain people than you think? ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 11:43
Yep, I know exactly what you mean.
However, if being honest, wouldn't you say that you are (or have been) influenced by, for example, Russ Andrews and the whole RATA/Kimber cable system building methodology?
Evidence from what you write appears to suggest this therefore perhaps you're more influenced by the views of certain people than you think? ;)
Marco.
I've always been one to find my own way around, my ears tell me so.Yes i have been a fan of Russ Andrews but more than anything the Kimber side of it.It was a revelation when you take into account the junk that was floating about back then,i still like Kimber but i also accept that other mid band companies such as Chord are just as good. Kimber is good to me, my ears are tuned to the vinyl sound but i don't want the hassle & time spent involved so try to get a simular sound from CD without the cold uncomfortable sound CD can give in bright players, Kimber does the trick so i'm happy to stick with it.Certainly some of it lives upto what it's claimSon the can.
Russ is actually more than an old hi-fi sales man & marketeer, he's talented in the sensible side of sheer electronics.. a lot i've learned about electronics is not from him, but he does/did things a simular way to what i would/have done, yes selling his products have been strategically involved within his litrature but most of it was common sence at the time to me, i can't really comment on what he does now because it mostly unintresting garb imho.One thing Russ wasnt guilty of is the destruction 'FE' companies did to people & the whole british hi-fi industry.
Off topic a bit maybe
I don't let people brain wash me, having company favourites (not influences) is good makes you feel more relaxed around your components.
.My fav products of all time (back in the old days) were
J.A.Michell, Logic Systems/Internatonal, A&R Cambridge, Castle Acoustics, Kimber..
Nice post, Andre. That's the 'mode' we like you in and want to encourage, mate, so keep it up!
I've got some work to do now, but I will comment on some of the interesting points you've raised later :)
Marco.
Spectral Morn
10-12-2009, 12:36
The simple answer to the question is yes.
The problem with any review, be it blind, double blind, panel based, individual based is there are way to many factors to take into account, and give a definitive result...we all want certainty, but it doesn't really exist in audio to the extent we want or hope for.
Leaving aside the oft trotted out reviewer bias, back handers, magazine depends on the advertising etc (some of which may be true..though I suspect much less now, than in the past).
The biggest issues imho, are the differences in listening ability, room acoustics, music used, how well run in was the item or items, how well set up were they, was the system used fully compatible and was the reviewer open minded enough to understand the product.
As far as I am concerned the review is only ever a guide and not gospel truth. If you and the reviewer manage to tick enough boxes of similarity in system, room, music taste...then you stand a better chance of agreeing with his/her/their findings. However you should never buy any product on the basis of a good/excellent review or an apparent agreement among magazine reviews, simply because your set up just may alter the items performance enough to make the review conclusions wrong for your set up.
Always try the items in your own system.
Over the many years of working in the trade and trying multitudes of kit/cables etc in my systems I have found myself agreeing with reviews a lot or only a little, and sometimes not at all....the words "Has he even heard this" has left my lips more than a few times. Audio systems are like jig saws, the pieces have to fit in order to give the full picture, and its no use trying to batter an element into the set up just because you hope it will work.
The important thing to take into account, is that you just never know if its just your set up or a bigger issue, until you have tried the item or items in a lot of very broad contexts. I have written items off in the past, only to find that item sounding stunning in another system...just because its sounds crap in your system does not make it crap always.
Years of trying audio out in various set ups does give you hunches and educated guesses about what will do what where, but it is still possible to get it wrong...as I have occasionally; and as they say, the proof is very much in the tasting of the pudding....you must try it out....to be sure.
One of the biggest problems with the current audio press, is the very heavily edited nature of those reviews...the amount of text that ends up dumped, can and does render reviews useless and quite often not even making sense anymore. My own opinion is that the best period of reviewing was back in the mid 80's to early 90's, but after that it seems to me that things were dumbed down. Big glossy pictures took over and the text was reduced. Was this dumbing down as a result of the change in reading ability or just a trend in magazine publishing, or an attempt to appeal to the masses by publishing audio porn? This at the expense imho, of the enthusiasts.
I think its also a big factor in how you approach the magazines you read. This attitude will affect how much you get out of them. I could go into details, but you all know what baggage you take individually to each title you read. Rather than trying the items out to see if you can agree with reviewer X you right it off, because in your mind reviewer X is a deaf prat. Now who has a closed mind?
I like a balance between technical writing/tests etc (some of which I can follow) and the subjective. What I hate is 2/3rds of description of how it looks and how it works, huge pictures and a 1/3rd or less of how it sounds and in what context it sounded the way it did. I miss the days of the second or even third opinion you got in The Absolute Sound magazine.
This topic is a very complex one and there are factors that sit outside of the reviews themselves that will effect what is published. However someone like Alan Sircom will need to comment on those aspects.
I firmly believe that we have a second rate audio read today compared to the past, though the years that have passed, have in some areas given us more hints as to why certain things measure a particular way and sound the way they do. That is progress, but sadly the text that goes along with those test insights, is lacking in substance and detail to tie the two together.
The audio press is flawed (as all things are), it could be better, but I suspect that financial aspects due to a dwindling readership and the decreasing relevance of quality audio to the masses will kill off the few quality titles that survive.
For myself, in the context of the reviews I write for AOS, its fun finding out how things sound and interact with each other both for the positive and the negative. I am glad most of you enjoy my SOG items, and I like sharing them with you, but they are only guides no more no less. The results and conclusions are valid at the time of writing and in the context of my room, kit, musical taste and hearing. If you agree thats great, if not...well we all can learn how a particular item or items perform in a different context. Its all about learning and the journey....oh yes and having fun.
Regards D S D L
Hifi reviewers are -in general- not commercially biased, but they eventually get biased (like anyone else, I guess) through their personal convictions or friends.
If you follow carefully their reviews, these things appear clearly between the lines. We just need extra attention and absence of blind faith. Yes, "blind faith" is the key word, I suppose. ;)
hifi_dave
10-12-2009, 13:28
Unfortunately, magazine reviews are now part of the advertising. When did you last read a bad review of a product ? and how often have you read a review which is the complete opposite of what the product sounds like ? The mags don't dare upset advertisers with unfavourable reviews as they can no longer exist without the advertsing revenue.
With some of the mags, you can take a look at the products being reviewed and know which reviewer will be writing and (pretty much) what they will say.:rolleyes:
There are all sorts of issues, these have mostly been covered already.
I do want to add my weight to the comment that reviews tend to be rather short nowadays, word limits grossly restrict one's ability to set the context for reviews. I prefer to see reviewer preferences stated in the context of the product being discussed. This takes quite a number of words, reviews in the main mags nowadays should mostly be thought of as entertainment and light reading. They add to your thoughts about products but should only ever been seen as part of the picture.
I've written a few reviews per year for HFN, HFW and enjoythemusic, this is since the early '80s. I've only had one review bounced, this was for a hybrid SS/valve preamp that suffered hum, seemingly due to the 50Hz power TX hum field vs a US 60Hz hum field. I could not avoid commenting on this so no review was published. I wasn't asked to remove the comments but clearly I was not well thought of for having made the unpublishable comments in the first place.
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 13:54
Unfortunately, magazine reviews are now part of the advertising. When did you last read a bad review of a product ? and how often have you read a review which is the complete opposite of what the product sounds like ? The mags don't dare upset advertisers with unfavourable reviews as they can no longer exist without the advertsing revenue.
With some of the mags, you can take a look at the products being reviewed and know which reviewer will be writing and (pretty much) what they will say.:rolleyes:
Do you remember the old Mayware Ads telling the home truth, mayware got banned from a certain magazine for this. Those actions made the penny drop for me.
hifi_dave
10-12-2009, 14:04
Refresh my memory.:scratch:
I agree about the "reading between the lines" comment above. Most of Martin Colloms' reviews had to be read that way - by the things NOT said...
The existence of sites like this one must hopefully help in gear choice as we're not all valve and Tannoy owners (nor are we all Techie owners - hang on a minute, I am [SL-150].
I'll try and give the best help I can from my memories and experience, although I can't remember the details of Andre's Mayware post above, despite selling and setting up more Formula 4's than I care to remember (why do they fetch such silly money today, as there aren't many super high-compliance carts about these days?).
hifi_dave
10-12-2009, 17:40
Not all 'vintage' hi-fi has merit. There was an awful lot of junk around in the 70's, 80's and 90's, just as much as there is now.:trust:
You're quite right Dave, although I ought to add that Gramaphone in their golden era never reviewed a sub-standard product, aborting the review at an early stage and returning the goods. A shame really, but there you are. At least much of their back catalogue of reviews is available online now for reference.
Has anyone got a full set of HiFi Sound mags from the late sixties? HiFi Dave has a few, but not the one I want (turntable group test including the TD124, 401, G99 and TTS 3000)..
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 18:08
I'll try and give the best help I can from my memories and experience, although I can't remember the details of Andre's Mayware post above, despite selling and setting up more Formula 4's than I care to remember (why do they fetch such silly money today, as there aren't many super high-compliance carts about these days?).
Cos the Mayware is the best looking & best made vintage unipivot, infact if i remember it has the lowest mass of any uni arm..I loved mine, the mid band was crystal..I've had quite a few against the rules cartridges work fine with it.
This is my old Mayware i posted on another place yonks ago, i fitted some Sonus parts to it & rewired with Cardas wire & tags, purposly made the leads a bit longer..
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a222/LIVING-SIN/Mayware1.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a222/LIVING-SIN/Mayware2.jpg
Nice one, Andre. Out of interest, which cartridges did you used to use with it? :)
Marco.
Primalsea
10-12-2009, 19:49
Is that a Mayware Formula 1 Tonearm? A while back they where a big hit on the WD forum. Apparently very good and not expensive to pick up 2nd hand.
By the way Neil great post, must have took you a while!
All this begun by me looking into a new Phono Stage. HFW wrote a interesting review on a few amps but reading them didn't help much. The winner was the obvious choice in my view. The thing was that there was no basis to work from, I just didn't know if my experience of the equipment would be the same. You could say the same for any review but if I knew the reviewer (or reviewing group) had a similar outlook to me or it was known that certain aspects the group always agreed upon I would have a much better idea where the review was coming from.
Top this with my experience being completely different to some reviews its not difficult to be come a little dismayed with it all.
Spectral Morn
10-12-2009, 21:44
Is that a Mayware Formula 1 Tonearm? A while back they where a big hit on the WD forum. Apparently very good and not expensive to pick up 2nd hand.
By the way Neil great post, must have took you a while!
All this begun by me looking into a new Phono Stage. HFW wrote a interesting review on a few amps but reading them didn't help much. The winner was the obvious choice in my view. The thing was that there was no basis to work from, I just didn't know if my experience of the equipment would be the same. You could say the same for any review but if I knew the reviewer (or reviewing group) had a similar outlook to me or it was known that certain aspects the group always agreed upon I would have a much better idea where the review was coming from.
Top this with my experience being completely different to some reviews its not difficult to be come a little dismayed with it all.
Hi Paul
Thank you.
I agree with you. It is quite often really hard to understand the context of a review (mainly because the context is missing), I find that more now than I did in the past, mainly I feel because a lot of published reviews don't have a beginning, middle and an end/conclusion.
I know (because I read such comments on the net) that many hate reading long reviews, and yet a long form is the only way the writer can give you the full story and all the ins and outs of the product. Short form writing gives you very little to work with. Bring back the old days I say. You should grab hold of a mid 80's issue of the Absolute sound. Three opinions, not even a photo some times, but you understood the product by the end, and the final conclusion is based on the results found in several systems. This approach spreads the chance of a mis-match/negative bias, and gives a much fuller idea of every aspect of performance set up etc.
My main pet hate is line after line of text, based on what a thing does. You can get that info in a brochure from the manufacture,r or it could be placed in a box at the end of the write up. Word count is always at risk (in the print world) so how the thing sounds to me is the most important part of the review, and in what context/system you can get the best out of it..or not as the case may be.
Regards D S D L
Rare Bird
10-12-2009, 22:51
Nice one, Andre. Out of interest, which cartridges did you used to use with it? :)
Marco.
Sorry marco been hectic at work tonight.
Very small circle of cartridges i used..Technics '205' & '207', Goldring '900IGC', Mayware cartridges all these were perfect for the Mayware & original Mission 774' i used...The odd ones which seemed to work were Denon 'DL110' & 'DL160'..nothing unusual.. I find Midband clarity is something Unipivots such as the mayware do very well.
hifinutt
15-12-2009, 10:36
if i see loads of reviews on a particular product mostly favourable i think there might be something worth listening to. in these days where you have to travel hundreds of miles to listen to something then it can help guide
of course it depends so much on the reviewers room and acoustics and that may not be up to much !
the review of the isolation platforms i have was in hi fi plus and when i got them i found the review was 100 % correct in every way to my ears
jandl100
16-12-2009, 11:31
Magazine reviews? Yep, I've read a lot in my time.
As has been mentioned, you often do have to try and read between the lines, or pick up on a seemingly minor comment that probably deliberately understates a very negative feature. E.g. I've often found that comments like "can be a little soft on some music" often actually means "dull, dull, dull".
Also I find it important to note the music used in the review - tbh, if it doesn't include classical music any review is pretty much useless to me. Different musics require different audio abilities, imho. The screechy horribleness of some kit with classical music goes unnoticed on a heavy thrash rock session or can even be regarded as an advantage!
But given a decent and relevant (to me) review one of the great things is the wide diversity of kit they cover. Even an avid box-swapper like me cannot compete with the access these guys have to potentially interesting kit.
I set up many Formula 4's and as long as the damping wasn't over-done, it was a fresh, lightweight sounding product which worked extremely well with the Sonus Blue, an interesting take on the ADC XLM/ZLM ideal (these worked brilliantly too). I saw that the later arms were more massy, but had no experience of them. The Nima looks to be the current incarnation of this product...
Hi Jerry,
Also I find it important to note the music used in the review - tbh, if it doesn't include classical music any review is pretty much useless to me. Different musics require different audio abilities, imho.
I do agree. However, I'd also add that in my opinion classical music (especially an orchestra in full flow) is a great test for any hi-fi system.
Experience tells me that if a system can handle the challenging nature of classical music well (the demands of reproducing accurately both the harmonic/structural and tonal subtleties of instruments, and thunderous orchestral crescendos), then it will handle virtually any other genre of music with similar aplomb.
A system, however, which majors on 'false excitement factor' (usually due to deliberate voicing as such by equipment manufacturers) may sound superficially 'impressive' with rock music, but its overall limitations are often ruthlessly revealed by the demands reproducing classical music convincingly imposes on systems.
Would you agree with that?
It's kind of what you're saying, I guess, but rather somewhat in reverse! :)
Marco.
A system, however, which majors on 'false excitement factor' (usually due to deliberate voicing as such by equipment manufacturers) may sound superficially 'impressive' with rock music, but its overall limitations are often ruthlessly revealed by the demands reproducing classical music convincingly imposes on systems.
Wasn't that the 'Flat Earth' approach?
Some Linn/Naim systems had the tendency to do that, yes.
Marco.
Steve Toy
16-12-2009, 13:30
Talking to Mr C today the FE/RE thing really is about communication and (not versus) presentation. It isn't really a dichotomy for when you use decent kit that isn't contrived in its delivery they go hand-in-hand. Effect a tweak or a component swap that gives you greater insight into the music and the chances are the presentational aspects will improve also and vice-versa.
Very good RE and FE systems will meet in the middle.
This is a presentation/communication issue, btw and has little to do with measured (objective) versus perceived (subjective.)
jandl100
16-12-2009, 23:14
Hmm ... I have yet to hear a FE system that can do justice to the tonal colours of classical music. IME FE works by deliberately leaning out the midrange/upper bass (and often boosting the treble) to produce a superficially faster and more exciting sound. Just play a good recording of a grand piano on a FE system and all will be horribly revealed - it'll sound like an upright honky-tonk! ;)
jandl100
16-12-2009, 23:17
A system, however, which majors on 'false excitement factor' (usually due to deliberate voicing as such by equipment manufacturers) may sound superficially 'impressive' with rock music, but its overall limitations are often ruthlessly revealed by the demands reproducing classical music convincingly imposes on systems.
Would you agree with that?
It's kind of what you're saying, I guess, but rather somewhat in reverse! :)
Marco.
Yup - I'll go along with that - see my previous post ^^ also. I think FE systems fit that description to a T.
Alan Sircom
17-12-2009, 21:35
A review is nothing more than a finger pointing the way. If you agree or disagree with the reviewer - and do it consistently - you have a frame of reference. Usually that means the reviewer might have a similar room, tastes and equipment to you, or it means the reviewer has a room, tastes and equipment diametrically opposed to you.
The problem is not necessarily that advertisers dictate the shape and nature of reviews any more than they ever have, but there is a heightened sensitivity to negatives these days, far more than ever before. The old fashioned way of dealing with criticism was to look carefully at the review; if the review was fair, take it on the chin and learn from it... if it was unnecessarily damaging, speak to the editor for explanation and possibly a retraction... if it was a complete attack on the company and the product, speak to the publisher and possibly consider legal action. Today, the mildest criticism leads direct to the publisher, and the company withdraws its products (and tries to coerce its associates to do the same). Worse, the company will refuse to reconnect with the magazine until such time as the reviewer who wrote the review is removed. An advertiser merely adds that to the mix and threatens to pull their advertising.
Somewhere down the line, manufacturers - especially the smaller manufacturers - have come to view magazines as their Public Relations officer. This is not helped by a common view held by magazines and manufacturers alike that - because there are currently so many products out there - there's little point in a magazine printing a bad review.
With the downturn in the affairs of the audio industry, the amount of money available to reviews has dropped away. That makes the possibility of multiple listener and lengthy blind test reviews too expensive to run these days. Worse, it also precludes the possibility of lengthy measurement. The long-form review is also largely lost to history, too. As people seem to want to read five 1,000 word reviews instead of one 5,000 review, and the amount paid on each review gets less and less, so the chances of someone 'digging into' a review are remote. Which is why most reviews these days spend a lot of time discussing the functionality and not much about the sound and system matching.
Spectral Morn
17-12-2009, 22:09
A review is nothing more than a finger pointing the way. If you agree or disagree with the reviewer - and do it consistently - you have a frame of reference. Usually that means the reviewer might have a similar room, tastes and equipment to you, or it means the reviewer has a room, tastes and equipment diametrically opposed to you.
The problem is not necessarily that advertisers dictate the shape and nature of reviews any more than they ever have, but there is a heightened sensitivity to negatives these days, far more than ever before. The old fashioned way of dealing with criticism was to look carefully at the review; if the review was fair, take it on the chin and learn from it... if it was unnecessarily damaging, speak to the editor for explanation and possibly a retraction... if it was a complete attack on the company and the product, speak to the publisher and possibly consider legal action. Today, the mildest criticism leads direct to the publisher, and the company withdraws its products (and tries to coerce its associates to do the same). Worse, the company will refuse to reconnect with the magazine until such time as the reviewer who wrote the review is removed. An advertiser merely adds that to the mix and threatens to pull their advertising.
Somewhere down the line, manufacturers - especially the smaller manufacturers - have come to view magazines as their Public Relations officer. This is not helped by a common view held by magazines and manufacturers alike that - because there are currently so many products out there - there's little point in a magazine printing a bad review.
With the downturn in the affairs of the audio industry, the amount of money available to reviews has dropped away. That makes the possibility of multiple listener and lengthy blind test reviews too expensive to run these days. Worse, it also precludes the possibility of lengthy measurement. The long-form review is also largely lost to history, too. As people seem to want to read five 1,000 word reviews instead of one 5,000 review, and the amount paid on each review gets less and less, so the chances of someone 'digging into' a review are remote. Which is why most reviews these days spend a lot of time discussing the functionality and not much about the sound and system matching.
I was afraid this was the answer you would give. I had thought this was the reasons, but dreaded a clarification.
We live in sad days.
The long-form review is really the only kind, imho, which have any broad value; which is why my reviews here on AOS are nearly all long-form. I can of course do this as they are a labour of love and not being paid for (obviously it would be deferent if I was being paid for my work....some day). I have the time and passion to continue, so long as I am lent gear to write about and/or can source it for small cost.
However Alan, the long-form review has been an endangered animal for a very long time as it began to vanish around the mid 90's except for + of course, until now that is. I would ask that you do your best to keep at least some long-form write ups in the magazine as frankly not all of us have short attention spans and are interested in gaining insight and knowledge about the products in for review...short-form is useless for this imho.
Thanks for the contribution to this thread and the forum.
Regards Neil
Thanks for the contribution to this thread and the forum.
Seconded - and also for being remarkably candid - much appreciated, Alan.
The trouble with this is that some people refuse to believe imaging has any relevance & some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.
Those people are generally the ones whose systems don't image. Once you hear image width, depth and height there is no need to 'believe' because the effect is quite real.
However, if being honest, wouldn't you say that you are (or have been) influenced by, for example, Russ Andrews and the whole RATA/Kimber cable system building methodology?
Chicken and egg. Was I influenced before I was convinced? I am influenced now, but that's because I've tried lots of Kimber products and am convinced.
That doesn't mean I like the prices, though :)
hifinutt
26-12-2009, 21:44
interestingly i always read hi fi plus and in one issue they had reviews on 33 hi fi tweaks
i have about half of them in my system !!! and most i agree with , but i just have for the past few days a piece of mains equipment that is very highly reviewed and publicised in hi fi plus , fairly expensive and you know so far i can`t hear an iota of difference so in this case the review was not right for me
Does anyone know if the circulation of audio mags is still dropping? It certainly was plummeting in the nineties..
some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.
They obviously haven't heard the LEDR tests! The 'UP' test is supposed to go 6 foot above the speakers. It goes about 4 foot on ours, which isn't bad.
The Grand Wazoo
27-12-2009, 09:31
There are several things that annoy me about most magazines, but the hifi ones in particular seem to be more guilty than most.
The way so much space is often taken up with lists/old reviews distilled down to 1 or 2 sentences - they must seem like an easy way to fill a few pages, but they're almost irrelavent after you've read them once & they never seem to be updated often enough.
Awards - which usually rehash old reviews, but unlike above, distill them down to 2 or 3 paragraphs. They take up so much of an issue as to leave next to nothing of interest to the regular reader - an annoying waste of money.
Christmas issues - generally filled with best of the year type articles - another excuse not to write anything new.
What's even more annoying about December issues is the 'Ho, Ho, Ho, jingle bells, deep and crisp & even' type prose that fools no-one, as we know bloody well that they wrote it in August or September & they know bloody well that we're reading it in October or November. Why can't the month on the front bear any relation to the month of issue? It seems to be getting further adrift as time goes on.
Style over content - photographs which impress on an artistic level generally don't do the job required of them in a technical magazine. A big photo of part of a volume knob (for example) does not impress me one little bit. Nor does it inform me about the product in question - which is what I want from a hi-fi magazine review. HFN's attempt to wow us with spectacular photos a few years ago was hopefully the last gasp of that approach.
To me, all of the above smacks of lazy journalism - a shame because I used to enjoy the British hi-fi press. All of the above plus many of the things previously mentioned by others makes it harder to justify the ever rising cover prices. Even more so if I'm paying for reviews of AV gear which I have no interest in whatsoever - if I want to read about it, I'll buy an AV magazine.
Rare Bird
27-12-2009, 09:36
Chris..Aye so repetative audio rags these days..Last mag i used to take was 'Hi-Fi Answer'..Seemed to be decent rag with long reviews not that i ever took much notice of em, the products at this time were plentifull & exciting (with obvious exceptions of course).
The Feb 2010 issue of Custom PC mag came out a couple of weeks ago, so it's not just Hi-fi mags that have the issue dates all screwed up.
One thing I like about Custom PC mag is that if a product they are reviewing is crap, they'll say so and tell you not to buy it. When was the last time a Hi-Fi mag did that? Also, unlike Custom PC mag, Hi-Fi mags tend not to have photos of circuit boards or components. Why not? What is there to hide? 50p caps in £1K products maybe? Hi-Fi mags are generally a waste of money IMO. Hi-Fi World being the exception. But even then I take what they say with a pinch of salt.
Spectral Morn
27-12-2009, 10:33
There are several things that annoy me about most magazines, but the hifi ones in particular seem to be more guilty than most.
The way so much space is often taken up with lists/old reviews distilled down to 1 or 2 sentences - they must seem like an easy way to fill a few pages, but they're almost irrelavent after you've read them once & they never seem to be updated often enough.
Awards - which usually rehash old reviews, but unlike above, distill them down to 2 or 3 paragraphs. They take up so much of an issue as to leave next to nothing of interest to the regular reader - an annoying waste of money.
Christmas issues - generally filled with best of the year type articles - another excuse not to write anything new.
What's even more annoying about December issues is the 'Ho, Ho, Ho, jingle bells, deep and crisp & even' type prose that fools no-one, as we know bloody well that they wrote it in August or September & they know bloody well that we're reading it in October or November. Why can't the month on the front bear any relation to the month of issue? It seems to be getting further adrift as time goes on.
Style over content - photographs which impress on an artistic level generally don't do the job required of them in a technical magazine. A big photo of part of a volume knob (for example) does not impress me one little bit. Nor does it inform me about the product in question - which is what I want from a hi-fi magazine review. HFN's attempt to wow us with spectacular photos a few years ago was hopefully the last gasp of that approach.
To me, all of the above smacks of lazy journalism - a shame because I used to enjoy the British hi-fi press. All of the above plus many of the things previously mentioned by others makes it harder to justify the ever rising cover prices. Even more so if I'm paying for reviews of AV gear which I have no interest in whatsoever - if I want to read about it, I'll buy an AV magazine.
They are all pet hates of mine. I don't buy audio annuals anymore. Worst example a few years ago was Hi-Fi News.....no reviews at all just big page filling photos and a few lines of text...it was related to the Eisa awards.... £4 of a joke.
The AV/Home Cinema mags are just as bad imho/e...I don't buy them anymore either.
Regards D S D L
Peter Galbavy
27-12-2009, 11:09
It's all about advertising revenue. All of the points above can be explained once you take advertising revenue to be the PRIMARY driver, and not the notional subjectr of any review magazine. It's also why they are dying. The cover date "problem" is the push to get more money from the advertisers earlier and once you move to a 13-month annual cycle it gets difficult to get back to reality. The problem is that the 13th issue never arrives :D A large proportion of sales of review magazines are traditionally driven by seasonal factors and Christmas purchases are of course a big part of this. Having rehashed reviews, awards and summaries allow you to push the issue to advertisers. Take advertising revenue as the movtive to anything they do, rince and repeat.
Am I being to cynical ? I prefer being known as a realist.
I think you're absolutely right, Peter (and I also fully agree with Chris and Neil), but what use is prioritising advertising revenue if the audience the magazines are aiming their content at isn't buying magazines because they don't like the content? :scratch:
First and foremost, the magazines should fill their pages with what their target audience want to read, thus ensuring good sales, then worry about the rest later!
Doing otherwise is like opening up a new restaurant and spending all your budget on telling people where you are and what you've got (advertising) and forgetting about the most important thing of all - the food itself!! :mental:
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
27-12-2009, 13:50
I think you're absolutely right, Peter (and I also fully agree with Chris and Neil), but what use is prioritising advertising revenue if the audience the magazines are aiming their content at isn't buying magazines because they don't like the content? :scratch:
Exactly - advertising is useless if no-one is reading the adverts! Would you put a billboard up on a road that no-one travels on?
hifinutt
27-12-2009, 16:56
It's all about advertising revenue. All of the points above can be explained once you take advertising revenue to be the PRIMARY driver, and not the notional subjectr of any review magazine. It's also why they are dying. The cover date "problem" is the push to get more money from the advertisers earlier and once you move to a 13-month annual cycle it gets difficult to get back to reality. The problem is that the 13th issue never arrives :D A large proportion of sales of review magazines are traditionally driven by seasonal factors and Christmas purchases are of course a big part of this. Having rehashed reviews, awards and summaries allow you to push the issue to advertisers. Take advertising revenue as the movtive to anything they do, rince and repeat.
Am I being to cynical ? I prefer being known as a realist.
thats why hi fi critic is one of my favourites and has no advertising
I know we all hear things differently
Actually, the bit of controlled listening testing that has been done in this area indicates that we don't hear things all that differently. Sean Olive, director of research at Karman International, has conducted pretty extensive listening tests with a variety of subjects from audiophiles and recording engineers (trained listeners) to people with little interest in hifi. While the trained listeners were a bit more discriminating, in general, preferences cut across audience types.
More research, of course, could always be done, and while we can argue all day about the validity of blind listening tests and the effects of controlled environments, it's hard to imagine how looking your precious new component dead in the eye while comparing it to the old one you haven't just invested in would actually yield more objective results. But YMMV.
Personally, I think a combination of measurement and listening tests driving reviews would revive the credibility of the hifi press. But I'm not holding my breath.
Tim
Welcome back, Tim. I hope you had a nice Christmas :)
Marco.
Welcome back, Tim. I hope you had a nice Christmas :)
Marco.
Very nice, thanks.
Tim
Nice one. We did too. How are the ADM9s performing - I presume you still have them?
Marco.
Hello Tim.
I think you're right - I lapped up the old reviews of the late sixties/early70's where decent technical tests were complemented by listening. That's why I'm thought of as a legacy HiFi zealot on a certain other forum known to the two of us........
For example tuners, a master source was FM modulated and fed into a tuner and the results from the tuner output compared with the source directly. Also, any technical weakness could be judged for its subjective affect.
It costs loads, probably too much, to do highly technical group tests these days and many of the very few "technical" bods in the UK seem to have too many commercial or personal interests with huge ego's to match...
Nice one. We did too. How are the ADM9s performing - I presume you still have them?
Marco.
Look on the forum "that shall not be named" - it's all there in gory detail :lolsign:
I'm not being critical either, but I'm not going to turn the other cheek any more when someone pats me on the head for being a good but totally misguided little boy............. Nothing to do with ADM 9.1's, but there you go ;)
Nice one. We did too. How are the ADM9s performing - I presume you still have them?
Marco.
I do, and I'm enjoying them. I'm still a bit shocked sometimes at the clarity and imaging they produce. The bass is not deep, because I don't have the sub, but what is there is very well-controlled, with no boom or hangover. I'm sure those very characteristics would have them deemed "clinical" by some, but they suit me. Of course there is no rocket science there. What they do is exactly what one should expect of very well-executed active monitors of their size. What makes them exceptional is that so few are well-executed.
Tim
Look on the forum "that shall not be named" - it's all there in gory detail :lolsign:
I'm not being critical either, but I'm not going to turn the other cheek any more when someone pats me on the head for being a good but totally misguided little boy............. Nothing to do with ADM 9.1's, but there you go ;)
I take no issue with your legacy hifi zealotry, Dave. As I've said before, if I had the space, I'd have multiple systems, and one of them would probably end in a pair of old Altec Lansings or Klipsch (maybe even Tanoys ;)). I get the attraction. But given what I have, which is room for one listening space, I'll take a bright light on the warts on the worst recordings, so I can have the best of them fully revealed. YMMV and all that.
Tim
Peter Galbavy
30-12-2009, 09:11
First and foremost, the magazines should fill their pages with what their target audience want to read, thus ensuring good sales, then worry about the rest later!
Most of those on here seem to have run their own businesses so it should make sense that even if you start with the best intentions and a good business model, as soon as you become successful the whispering parasites start on you and tell you that by making a few changes you can double turnover, triple profits and all that crap. Suddenly, as the founder you find you are "retiring" and that the baby you watched grow is turning into a monster.
Most, if not all, publications start as someones good idea but then over time are taken over by one or other of the large publishers and that's it.
Doing otherwise is like opening up a new restaurant and spending all your budget on telling people where you are and what you've got (advertising) and forgetting about the most important thing of all - the food itself!! :mental:
It's not the magazines advertising themselves, like you suggest above. It's selling space on your restaurant menus and wall for adverts. People might still come eat the food, but passing trade (ala McDonalds) is more likely than regular diners.
And that's the point I think. Once the circulation is up, and hence the brand name of your mag is well known then new readers will just buy a copy when they want to buy hifi and so the ads are as important as the editorial. There are now so many consumers that this single purchase model work on an ongoing basis. No loyalty, no subscriptions.
Hi Peter,
I think the observations you make a very valid and likely explain much of the current situation with magazines. However, just to pick up on a few points:
Most of those on here seem to have run their own businesses so it should make sense that even if you start with the best intentions and a good business model, as soon as you become successful the whispering parasites start on you and tell you that by making a few changes you can double turnover, triple profits and all that crap. Suddenly, as the founder you find you are "retiring" and that the baby you watched grow is turning into a monster.
This is very true, but I guess it depends how focussed you are on retaining control of your baby and the values you believe in. I run my own business, so can relate to what you mention, but some things in life are far more important than 'the bottom line', or selling 'one's soul to the devil', as it were.
In the past I've often thought of expanding my business to increase profit, become more well-known or whatever, but doing so would have meant that I wouldn't have been able to offer my customers the attention to detail or personal touch I do now, and so the niche aspect of the products and services I offer would have been diluted.
This is precisely what's happened with some magazines by 'selling out' to commercialism and losing focus on the very goals that they set out to achieve at their inception. Or perhaps through just running out of ideas?
Most, if not all, publications start as someones good idea but then over time are taken over by one or other of the large publishers and that's it.
Indeed, and Hi-Fi+ are a valid case in point. I remember how much of a breath of fresh air the first few editions were; in fact they even included restaurant reviews! They were also chock-full of genuinely useful and insightful articles. Now they are but a pale imitation of their former selves...
It's not the magazines advertising themselves, like you suggest above. It's selling space on your restaurant menus and wall for adverts. People might still come eat the food, but passing trade (ala McDonalds) is more likely than regular diners.
I agree, but not if you do it right and build up an excellent reputation for first-class food and service, where people will travel for miles to frequent your establishment. This is precisely what I would strive for if I opened a restaurant; indeed my wife and I have thought about doing exactly that when we retire.
And that's the point I think. Once the circulation is up, and hence the brand name of your mag is well known then new readers will just buy a copy when they want to buy hifi and so the ads are as important as the editorial. There are now so many consumers that this single purchase model work on an ongoing basis. No loyalty, no subscriptions.
Yep, that's what happens when you (perhaps unintentionally or indirectly) abandon the intended target customer as a result of losing focus on your goals and 'going for gold', and end up in return catering for a much less discerning audience! ;)
It goes back to what's considered as most important - absolute profitability (the 'bottom line') or a genuine, extremely focussed, desire to produce a product (magazine) long-term that's different and of value to a dedicated audience. My view is that the latter, done well, could be both profitable and also of great value to the hard-core enthusiasts populating this and many other specialist audio forums.
Marco.
Rare Bird
30-12-2009, 12:32
I'm sat here puzzled as to why you think an hi-fi rag is for the general publics good! It's a buisness nothing else.
Because not everyone has the knowledge and experience with hi-fi we do, Andre.
If there's a 'market' for forums such as this (and clearly there is, as AoS and other forums like it are a big success), then there's a market for a magazine offering similarly open-minded and unbiased (from a financial incentive point of view) advice and information to like-minded enthusiasts.
*That* is the type of hi-fi magazine I'd like to see on the shelves: one driven solely by the passion of enthusiasts to share knowledge and information for the benefit of everyone with no hidden agendas, commercial or otherwise. A magazine for 'the punters', as it were, which prioritises their needs and interests before anything else.
Marco.
Paper mags are always at least two months out of date though.
I'm not into studio gear, but Sound-On-Sound seems to strike a good balance I think...
It might be a business but magazines like Hi-Fi Critic exist only because of the enthusiam of the staff concerned. It certainly can't be for the huge profits!
More commercially, a magazine like Stereophile still shows the passion of its writers. It's just that advertising as a revenue stream always muddies the waters and the publishers aren't the ones with the passion.
More commercially, a magazine like Stereophile still shows the passion of its writers. It's just that advertising as a revenue stream always muddies the waters and the publishers aren't the ones with the passion.
Exactly Martin. I think Stereophile is a good magazine, but it's too 'high-end' orientated and American-centric for me, and doesn't (I believe) cater much for vintage and classic hi-fi and/or the modification of it, which is something I'd love to see a magazine tackle seriously (even more than HFW currently does); one which reflects what genuine enthusiasts are doing with their systems, not those who simply chuck money at it, or buy the 'latest and greatest' fad to appear as trendy.
Just imagine a magazine full of hints and tips on how to modify the likes of SL-1210s, DACs, vintage T/Ts, speakers and all sorts of stuff, and really good and useful D.I.Y articles on a number of subjects, as well as keeping up to date with the latest in computer audio and current hi-fi designs - the very things people on this forum and others discuss on a daily basis!
Undoubtedly, such a magazine (one that's mainly driven from sales of copies, not advertising revenue) would be a labour of love and would never make a fortune, but I believe that, done well with sufficient devotion to the cause, it would (eventually once established) still make a respectable profit and provide a decent income for those who ran it.
I respect the principles of Hi-fi Critic but for me it's a bit too Linn/Naim/solid-state orientated, which is entirely understandable given the audio proclivities of those in charge.
Marco.
Rare Bird
30-12-2009, 13:48
Because not everyone has the knowledge and experience with hi-fi we do, Andre.
If there's a 'market' for forums such as this (and clearly there is, as AoS and other forums like it are a big success), then there's a market for a magazine offering similarly open-minded and unbiased (from a financial incentive point of view) advice and information to like-minded enthusiasts.
*That* is the type of hi-fi magazine I'd like to see on the shelves: one driven solely by the passion of enthusiasts to share knowledge and information for the benefit of everyone with no hidden agendas, commercial or otherwise. A magazine for 'the punters', as it were, which prioritises their needs and interests before anything else.
Marco.
Well if people think they are gonna get anywhere relying on what mags tell em to do they are very much wrong, you find your own way around in this hobby..;)
The best magazines were the 70's where you got a straight forward honest review of an item, no fancy wire,no & page adverts, was solely for the hi-fi hobbiest.
So are you saying that no-one here on this forum pays attention to the advice offered by our more experienced contributors?
I'd certainly have to strongly disagree with that. Therefore, if there's an audience ready to consider knowledgeable advice given on forums, there is equally an audience who would acknowledge such advice and/or reviews of equipment given in a magazine run by genuine enthusiasts and founded on non-commercial principles.
Marco.
Rare Bird
30-12-2009, 13:54
No not saying that i'm saying don't rely on info from magazine, you'll get no where, you can't get audio nirvana from buying off shelf or mag reviews. Hi-fi needs forums like this as long as it's not full of Naim/Linn donks.
You're missing the point, Andre :doh:
I'm not talking about largely commercially-driven magazines. You need to read what I'm saying properly. Anyway, I'm about to have my lunch now, so I'll come back to the discussion later :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
30-12-2009, 14:03
You're missing the point, Andre :doh:
I'm not talking about solely commercially-driven magazines. You need to read what I'm saying properly. Anyway, I'm about to have my lunch now, so I'll come back to the discussion later :)
Marco.
Sorry something i picked up from others on here :lolsign:
I used to take magazines from a none commercial outlet. 'Sound Practice' was one i used to buy directly from Audionote, that was good. But go on please clarify your point..
Undoubtedly, such a magazine (one that's mainly driven from sales of copies, not advertising revenue) would be a labour of love and would never make a fortune, but I believe that, done well with sufficient devotion to the cause, it would (eventually once established) still make a respectable profit and provide a decent income for those who ran it.
That's the key, isn't it Marco? Would such a magazine really sell enough copies to make critical mass? We're a crazy passionate bunch but are there enough of us?
Well, if we're talking about the viability of a UK-based magazine, first of all add up the total membership of pfm, Wigwam, Zerogain, WD forum, others and here, which totals tens of thousands, and then consider how many other people out with of that (not to mention some of the readership of current hi-fi magazines who may 'defect' to a magazine which better catered for their needs), who could be tempted to buy such a publication, and I think that the potential is there to make it a viable proposition.
Will it happen though? No of course not, so this is just 'pie in the sky', but nevertheless an intriguing subject to discuss :lol:
Right, I'm off now for some munchies!
Marco.
P.S I wonder what Alan Sircom or David Price would make of all this? ;)
Perhaps a bunch of us should contribute an article a month. Difficult to get review stock, though.
Surely the whole point about forums is that they are interactive; if you disagree with something that's posted, or need clarification, you can say so and get an almost instant response. With a magazine, you get what you're given, with the only comeback being a letter to the editor which may or may not be published a month or so later.
And some forums (eg PFM) are very broad churches, with subjectivists and objectivists fighting it out like cats in a sack. Hard to imagine how a magazine could satisfy such varied needs.
Rare Bird
30-12-2009, 18:05
Marco.
P.S I wonder what Alan Sircom or David Price would make of all this? ;)
Who! Got two choices aint they ;)
Alan Sircom
31-12-2009, 12:37
Well, if we're talking about the viability of a UK-based magazine, first of all add up the total membership of pfm, Wigwam, Zerogain, WD forum, others and here, which totals tens of thousands, and then consider how many other people out with of that (not to mention some of the readership of current hi-fi magazines who may 'defect' to a magazine which better catered for their needs), who could be tempted to buy such a publication, and I think that the potential is there to make it a viable proposition.
Will it happen though? No of course not, so this is just 'pie in the sky', but nevertheless an intriguing subject to discuss :lol:
Right, I'm off now for some munchies!
Marco.
P.S I wonder what Alan Sircom or David Price would make of all this? ;)
Unfortunately "if you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. The reality is, the hi-fi magazines today are built on the reader demands of yesterday and today. Anything you don't see in a hi-fi magazine today but did see 20 years ago has gone because readers complained about it to such an extent, the feature went away.
Long before I started reviewing, magazines largely got rid of 'make your own loudspeakers' features because a new generation of audio buyers weren't interested and didn't want to associate themselves with the 'pipe and soldering iron' brigade that went before. When those features went away, it was only a matter of time before the 'what the measurements mean' features went with them, then the measurements themselves. And so on. For good or ill, the days of John Crabbe and Julian Hirsch, of Gilbert Briggs and F. Langford-Smith are long past.
The most consistent complaint received by a hi-fi magazine is that it doesn't review enough of the 'good stuff' (this 'good stuff' reflects the tone of the magazine - a magazine like Hi-Fi+ gets complaints from people if it goes too down-market and mainstream, where I would imagine WHF gets complaints if it goes in the other direction). Anything not directly related to that 'good stuff' (i.e. features, interviews, reader systems, Q&As, how tos, music reviews, technical explanations, etc) is considered 'filler'. Although as editor I have to balance these arguments against trying to appeal to a wider audience, the problem is I have to apportion budget on commissioning features that I know my publishers receive complaints about.
Right now, for most editors, that means computer audio features and reviews. I know these end up with a sea of 'cancel my subscription' complaints from existing readers hitting the publisher inbox, but to not address this key focus for the next decade at this time is to risk commercial suicide. Winning these battles comes at the expense of losing the sort of feature that might win back a disenfranchised audience.
As the readership of the magazine becomes more focused (which happens in a shrinking market), a magazine ends up reflecting that focus. Witness the recent sidelining of music reviews in Stereophile, brought about by a combination of squeezing the budget and a readership that only wants to read review after review after review.
Realistically though, the forum denizens are not a pool of tens of thousands of potential readers you suggest. There are a lot of cross-forum folk (the same names appear across all the forums, just their activity varies depending on which forum takes their particular fancy) and many members are one-hit wonders, posting on the forum to ask a particular question, only to disappear or lurk. A lot are disenfranchised readers who dropped off the magazine radar because they bought their equipment and the magazines no longer appeal to them (this last was always the case, but people read on because forums didn't exist).
If there was a way to revive that readership, someone would have done successfully it by now. I've tried... and failed and I'm not alone in trying. This is a lose-lose scenario for a magazine editor - to try and entice back a disenfranchised forum community, you end up having to instigate such changes to the magazine that you disenfranchise the existing readership, with no guarantee of success in winning back the lost readers. I suspect this is because the subject matter that appeals to forum readers is going to be best served in a forum these days. Trying to entice people to buy a magazine that offers what attracts people to a free forum is to invite the end of that magazine.
Interesting response, Alan, and thanks for that. I promise that I'll get back to you tomorrow when I've sobered up!!
In the meantime, my friend..........
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1108/party100.gif (http://img41.imageshack.us/i/party100.gif/)
Marco.
Having spent my career on the other side of the media/advertiser relationship, I've never bought into the consumer conspiracy theories that say advertisers have influence over editorial content. I've had many clients who have pulled, or threatened to pull, their ad budget from a publication in the wake of a negative story. I've never seen it work for them and they almost always end up back in that pub in a few months. The bottom line is that the advertisers need the media as much as the media needs them. More, on an individual basis. Besides, it's much easier to influence individual reviewers than it is to push around a media that may be much bigger than your own company.
But I'm not sure I buy into the notion that the demise of measurement naturally follows the end of do-it-yourself articles. I barely see the connection, and clearly remember reviews with measurements in publications that never, at least in my reading lifetime, ran build it yourself speaker articles.
Measurements went away for another reason.
Tim
Measurements went away for another reason.
Tim
Too expensive, perhaps? Certainly a whole lot cheaper just to reprint the manufacturers' spec sheet which seems to becoming the preferred option for more mags these days.
Too expensive, perhaps? Certainly a whole lot cheaper just to reprint the manufacturers' spec sheet which seems to becoming the preferred option for more mags these days.
Perhaps. I don't often see magazines even reprinting the manufacturers specs. In fact, it's not unusual for the manufacturers not to publish specs at all, especially in the high end. Science, it seems, has fallen out of fashion in audio. Why? That's where I need to refrain from indulging in conspiracy theories.
Tim
Science, it seems, has fallen out of fashion in audio. Why? That's where I need to refrain from indulging in conspiracy theories
It seems that neither the industry nor the AES have an interest into associating the measurements (yet, to be defined) with a perceived quality.
That's my point of view. ;)
The Grand Wazoo
25-09-2011, 23:30
From The Grave
Double-blind listening tests - just say no. Horrible artificial things which put listeners under stress to hear differences.
I use magazine reviews as a short-list aid, no more. For this, the magazines I respect (Stereophile, HFN) do a good job. After that, there is nothing to beat going to a dealership and listening for real, followed by a home loan. Don't accept anything less. BUT - if you like the kit, buy it from the dealer who demo'd it to you, not more cheaply from the internet.
aquapiranha
26-09-2011, 07:38
Magazines have become little more than 'advertorials' these days, especially as sales fall and costs increase. I would not trust a magazine 'reviewer' as far as I could throw them, there are tales of bribery and favouritism within the industry, and do you really believe you would get an honest review of a product if the manufacturer effectively pays the reviewers wages indirectly via advertising revenue? I don't think so. I remember the famous case of the ex-reviewer and his wife, both in the employ of a certain cable manufacturer now, who as a reviewer needlessly banged on about the [insert cable co. name here] cables he was using as much as the product he was supposed to be testing. Later he left the magazine and went to work for that cable company, what a surprise. Of course, not all reviewers are as bad, but tales of freebies and permanent loan of equipment is a tempting offer in return for a positive review. :rolleyes:
Neil McCauley
26-09-2011, 14:30
Hmm ... I have yet to hear a FE system that can do justice to the tonal colours of classical music. IME FE works by deliberately leaning out the midrange/upper bass (and often boosting the treble) to produce a superficially faster and more exciting sound. Just play a good recording of a grand piano on a FE system and all will be horribly revealed - it'll sound like an upright honky-tonk! ;)
Perfectly correct in my experience. Thank you. Howard
*****************************
Neil McCauley
26-09-2011, 14:39
Too expensive, perhaps? Certainly a whole lot cheaper just to reprint the manufacturers' spec sheet which seems to becoming the preferred option for more mags these days.
Hmm. the 0 > 62 mph performance measurement of my car gives no indication of the comfort of the seating. Similarly vice-versa. The point being that until some serious intellectual horsepower is given to inventing measurement tests that actually translate into something of value, then the quest is futile. Simple as that. As for me, as both a civilian and retailer I really don’t give a stuff. And neither does my main supplier LFD. Request for measurements and specs from measurement groupies are met with polite distain – because that’s the appropriate response. And of course because demand for the product far outstrips demand for stupid irrelevant measurements – which helps.
*****************************************
Problem is, we don't all hear in the same way and you need to take into account system and room interaction, which can completely alter the results.
I couldn't agree more. I decided to get rid of my Mission 773's because they just didn't sound right in my listening room. The top and middle frequencies were ok, but there was no bass to speak of. When the buyer came round to pick them up I was in the middle of moving my listening room around, so I set them up in the kitchen connected to a NAD C340 amp and an old Sony CDP from an early 90's midi system. IC's were cheapo red and white jobbies.
The guy arrived as I was finishing off setting up so I hadn't had a chance to listen to them myself before he arrived. Well, all I can say is that the sound that came out of those 773's was nothing short of astonishing. I could have cried :lolsign:
Neil McCauley
26-09-2011, 15:52
........ BUT - if you like the kit, buy it from the dealer who demo'd it to you, not more cheaply from the internet.
A fine, fine sentiment but utterly unrealistic in my experience.
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=18&blogId=1
It doesn’t really matter what some golden eared journalist, if I don’t write nice bullshit about this product I wont have a job next week thinks does it coz as all us subjectivists know, what he/she hears with his/her kit ain’t going to be nothing like what you hear is it? So it’s pointless unless there is some set of objective parameters right?
Wadaya mean NO! :eek:
You can’t have it both ways ffs. Either we trust out ears and apparently we don’t all hear the same, I mean, if we did that would be objective then wouldn’t it, or we trust to measurement which hopefully wont get altered by financial considerations.
John - all magazines can do is give a guideline so as to create a shortlist. Otherwise you are left with a sea of hundreds of products and no way to filter.
The trick is to latch on to a reviewer whose musical and equipment tastes match your own.
Neil McCauley
26-09-2011, 16:38
John - all magazines can do is give a guideline so as to create a shortlist. Otherwise you are left with a sea of hundreds of products and no way to filter.
The trick is to latch on to a reviewer whose musical and equipment tastes match your own.
Ken Kessler in my case.
Hmm this find one you trust business sounds okay if you say it quick enough ;)
Point is though, as the recent thread about Quad’s Peter Walker illustrates
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13291
the people that design Hi Fi components tend to design to a specification and like it or not that means measurement.
The very silly may choose to believe that once the required measured performance is attained the designer and a few trusted ears fine tune these components by ear but if that were in fact true, what was the point of the measuring bit if your going to say that doesn’t sound right with speaker A but is okay with speaker B but not with cable F but not on Wednesday?
Do you see where I’m coming from? You can fine tune by ear but only to a particular set of criteria after that its pointless because the likelihood of anyone buying that product and having exactly the same ancillary components, listening environment and hearing is non existent.
The next problem is of course if you’re a company, how do you instruct your technicians to build a component to “how it sounded last week at Bills place”?
You just can’t can you. You have to build to some specification.
Then of course there is the cost involved. Just how much time can you afford to spend listening to the various equipment permutations? What do you do, take two or maybe three people into a room and listen to music for a few weeks?
Of course the manufacturers say they’ve spent thousands of pounds and listening hours in developing their product. But, when I worked in the avionics industry and they have huge R&D budgets it went more like;
Get what the opposition are making.
Measure that.
Rip it to bits.
See what can be replaced at less cost with improved specification.
Make a prototype.
Make it look pretty for customer (yep, even the military like eye candy)
Get an order.
Get the product out the door as fast as possible coz you know your competitors are doing exactly the same.
There have been a few exaples here on AoS of a product going from conception to a manufactured reality. Anyone get asked to participate in any listening tests?
So the Hi Fi reviewer gets a unit. If you’re lucky they’ll actually listen to it for a couple of hours. What can they say about a product? The simple fact is the differences between one amplifier and another say in a properly set up review are going to be slight. After a couple of reviews you’re kinda stuffed for descriptive stuff which is why the reviewer writes so much crap. They can’t do much else can they coz describing how something sounds is hard just once let alone issue after issue.
They can’t write bad stuff about a product coz the publication just won’t get offered kit to review afterwards.
Most journalists don’t know shit about electronics/acoustics so the cant write technical stuff.
It seems from some of the reviews I’ve read that some of these journalists don’t even know how to plug the stuff in properly.
Above all what needs to be remembered even by those who believe in the Hi Fi fairy is that those in the Hi Fi media have a vested interest in perpetuating all and any myths regarding Hi Fi that can help keep the market ticking over.
Its fact. It’s the way of the world.
Once you’ve accepted the above then might be the time to try your hand at the win £25K in the pick that amp competition. Don’t tell me I’m wrong, prove it to me.
Hi John,
Hmm this find one you trust business sounds okay if you say it quick enough
Point is though, as the recent thread about Quad’s Peter Walker illustrates
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13291
the people that design Hi Fi components tend to design to a specification and like it or not that means measurement.
The very silly may choose to believe that once the required measured performance is attained the designer and a few trusted ears fine tune these components by ear but if that were in fact true, what was the point of the measuring bit if your going to say that doesn’t sound right with speaker A but is okay with speaker B but not with cable F but not on Wednesday?
Do you see where I’m coming from? You can fine tune by ear but only to a particular set of criteria after that its pointless because the likelihood of anyone buying that product and having exactly the same ancillary components, listening environment and hearing is non existent.
The next problem is of course if you’re a company, how do you instruct your technicians to build a component to “how it sounded last week at Bills place”?
You just can’t can you. You have to build to some specification.
I get where you're coming from, but you're missing the point somewhat, me old son.
I guess that when it comes to mass-produced equipment from huge mainstream manufacturers, particularly at the budget end of the market, there has to be some form of 'objective template', based on set measurement criteria, for the people who build the equipment to follow, in order for said products to be manufactured to a high standard of safety and consistency.
I'm guessing that's the case, but I've never been inside the relevant factories when equipment is being produced to find out. Perhaps someone who has could comment?
However, when it comes to smaller, more specialist manufacturers, it's a different kettle of fish. They most definitely listen to the results they achieve, building equipment based on objective measurement (in order that the equipment concerned meets certain basic electrical parameters), but they voice the final results by ear.
'Building to a specification' (referring to the part of your text I've highlighted in bold) is achieved by small, specialist, companies making bespoke equipment, through fulfilling the standards set by the designer in every instance when a product is made, i.e. once equipment has met its basic electrical parameters, it is then listened to and checked by the designer in a familiar test system, or someone he or she trusts, to ensure that the equipment passes the required standard, before it leaves the premises and is shipped to dealers or direct to end users.
*That* is their version of 'building to a specification'.
Perhaps that's why the best bespoke designed equipment often sounds superior to kit which has been churned out by major manufacturers in huge quantities? That's certainly mostly the case, in my experience!
Of course the customer cannot replicate the system testing conditions, in his or her home, used by a designer manufacturing bespoke equipment, and so the results they achieve in their own systems will always be different. But then that's the case with all equipment, both bespoke and mass-produced.
Also, bespoke equipment will never sound absolutely identical from box to box and achieve the same exacting standards of consistency maintained by large companies making mass-produced products, built to a standardised 'objective template', but such is the nature of the beast.... And their customers wouldn't want it any other way, because they trust the ears and expertise of their favourite audio designer! :)
I'll ask you a question... How do you think Anthony TD designs his superb sounding valve amps - do you think he simply solders a few bits together, measures the results, and as long as everything is 'A-ok' in a measurements and electrical sense, he just packs it up and ships it out?
Of course he doesn't. What happens if, despite what he's built fulfilling every known rule in the 'objectivist's book of measurements', it still sounds pants? Or rather, mediocre compared to how he thinks it should sound, or indeed how good it *could* sound with some minor adjustments?
Does he just shrug his shoulders and say to himself: 'Well, I've built the amp to the 'required specification', and it measures wonderfully, so fuck it, I'll sell it anyway even if I think it sounds pish...!' Of course he doesn't, he'll take it off the bench and tweak the design, making some subtle component changes, measure again, and then LISTEN to the results, until it SOUNDS right to his ears and meets his relevant safety criteria...... Then, and only then, does it get sold to customers.
*That*, my friend, is how the best audio equipment is made, and what Peter Walker should've done all those years ago with his sonically dreadful (in stock form) Quad IIs, but because he worshipped at the altar of measurements (as people like him often did), was too blinkered and arrogant to do so...!
However, perhaps 'adequate', to him, was enough? In my experience, it often is in audio with staunch objectivist types ;)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
26-09-2011, 20:25
Interesting points, all of them, but here's a thought about old Mr Walker:
Given the time span he was operating in, & given the market he was selling into, do you think he would have sold any more amplifiers than the many thousands that he did sell over the 18 years they were on the market, if they had sounded better?
Personally, I don't think he would have (& I don't particularly like the II amp).
In general I accept what you’ve written Marco and I have no doubt that in fact a great deal of Hi Fi component manufacturers do in fact listen to their products :)
However, the designer still has to have an element of repeatability to his/her design and if some amplifier designer is prepared to contribute to this thread stating that each amp he/she builds is built in isolation from the last unit built (ie none of the specifications of a previous build are used) and the final configuration isn’t measured and recorded then I’ll have to take their word for it.
What I believe happens is, they may indeed initially design to a specification and then fine tune by listening but the changes have to be recorded and repeatable (?)and unless the designer has a phenomenal aural memory, they will build to a written and measurable specification finally, even if that final spec was established by listening and recording the changes that gave the required improvement.
Despite your views regarding Peter Walker and Quad amps they have a very high audiophile reputation so building by measurement and specification does at least seem possible even if you personally don’t find the results pleasing ;)
I’m not sure the “best” audio components are bespoke built Marco. I wouldn’t argue that there are some very talented people involved in “bespoke” audio but I suggest the really large companies with their enormous resources tend to rule when it comes to quality audio reproduction. Bespoke is cool, you get something individual and possibly unique. If you’re lucky you get value because the small manufacturer doesn’t have corporate overheads etc. This doesn’t necessarily translate into best sounding available and I doubt very much if it applies at all to equipment using newer technologies.
Reid Malenfant
26-09-2011, 21:11
However, the designer still has to have an element of repeatability to his/her design and if some amplifier designer is prepared to contribute to this thread stating that each amp he/she builds is built in isolation from the last unit built (ie none of the specifications of a previous build are used) and the final configuration isn’t measured and recorded then I’ll have to take their word for it.
If you are going to produce a load of one type of thing then this is how it has to work..
Components are graded, you have different tolerance transistors (gain), capacitors & resistors etc (value +/-% of ideal) etc. As long as the components selected fall inside of the critical categories then there should be very little measurable or audible differences between each unit. 1% resistors kind of help here. Does someone honestly want to say that they can hear a difference between a 10K resistor & a 10K1 resistor in a circuit, come on..
Obviously there will be some on the margins (for what they are worth) that will be slightly better or worse than the unit that was initially listened to & put into production. The differences though should be pretty insignificant or there would be no production lines...
Excuse me, i'm on the lash :cool: As usual :eyebrows:
A good equipment example for this thread are Stan's DAC's. I'm sure Stan would be the first to agree that they are not as good as he could make them if money was no object, but then that would be missing the point entirely. Stan has cleverly found the middle ground and has produced a DAC that sounds great, costs very little, and the icing on the cake is that he is engaged with his customer base in the development of upgrade mods. His DAC's are as good as he can make them for the price and no one could argue that he doesn't know what his products are capable of :cool:
Interesting points, all of them, but here's a thought about old Mr Walker:
Given the time span he was operating in, & given the market he was selling into, do you think he would have sold any more amplifiers than the many thousands that he did sell over the 18 years they were on the market, if they had sounded better?
Personally, I don't think he would have (& I don't particularly like the II amp).
Hi Chris,
The answer is very unlikely, because he successfully built a respected reputation, and through that, succeeded to surround his products in an air of mystique, which people bought into, rather like Tim de Paravicini does now. It's a significant reason why vintage Quad gear fetches the prices it does now on eBay, and such like.
And going back to the old days, when people like the BBC start to use your products, then that again adds further kudos and desirability to the Quad brand name, therefore it goes beyond the equipment itself achieving ultimate audio performance. It's about creating a respected and desirable marque, mainly through an audio designer's perceived 'guru status', which people will buy into.
Don't get me wrong, I think that Peter Walker was a talented audio designer; superb products like the ESL57s, amongst others, are testament to that.
I simply think that, like many others of his mindset, brought up on strict scientific values, he took his eye off of the ball, as it were, from being too influenced by the validity of objective measurements when designing audio equipment, the sonic reproduction of which ultimately must satisfy the scrutiny of the human ear more than it does the readout on an oscilloscope.
Marco.
I wish you hadn’t done that Dave :doh:
Ken Kessler in my case.
For me too, and John Atkinson.
A good equipment example for this thread are Stan's DAC's. I'm sure Stan would be the first to agree that they are not as good as he could make them if money was no object, but then that would be missing the point entirely. Stan has cleverly found the middle ground and has produced a DAC that sounds great, costs very little, and the icing on the cake is that he is engaged with his customer base in the development of upgrade mods. His DAC's are as good as he can make them for the price and no one could argue that he doesn't know what his products are capable of :cool:
Indeed, Dave. I'm glad you mentioned the Beresford DAC, because along with Anthony's amps, it's another case in point, in terms of the sonic advantages of equipment made by small, specialist manufacturers.
How much continual tweaking, measuring and listening do you think Stan carries out to acheive the sonic results his DACs give? Do you think that they would achieve such high sonic standards if he simply built them to a 'required specification' and then left it at that?
No chance!
He continually strives to achieve even greater excellence with his designs, which is what all the best audio designers do, and without doubt, *that* is the recipe for creating the best sounding equipment.
John, I'll get to your last post in a moment :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
26-09-2011, 21:52
I simply think that, like many others of his mindset, brought up on strict scientific values, he took his eye off of the ball, as it were, from being too influenced by the validity of objective measurements, when designing audio equipment, the sonic reproduction of which ultimately must satisfy the scrutiny of the human ear more than it does the readout on an oscilloscope.
But in 1953, who was listening to amplifiers before they bought them?
Not many of Quad's customers, I don't suppose.
Indeed, and that's why there was a lot of crap made then, as well as some truly outstanding stuff, because like you say, listening to equipment from both the perspective of the buyer and designer was, shall we say, 'unfashionable'. It's probably also a significant reason why Quad IIs sound how they do!
However, it's no coincidence, I feel, that those who did as much listening then as they did measuring, ended up both designing and owning the best sounding kit at the time ;)
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
26-09-2011, 22:15
I think a lot of what you are talking about is much more directed at valve amps Marco, after all, you don't hear of people transistor rolling :eyebrows:
They are very much a different entity & each manufacturers product can differ by a much wider margin than any transistor. As i mentioned earlier, as long as you have a good design then components will have a minimal input to the sound quality as most components will be pretty well matched.
With valves you have all sorts of different versions, in comparison transistors are much more homogeneous, gain excepted..
Although what you say is true to a certain extent Mark, the same still applies albeit to a lesser degree with SS equipment. I will admit that it is probably easier to design a consistent mass-market SS product than one with valves, however the basic premise is the same whether your dealing with tubes or SS. Again, the Beresford DAC's are evidence of this... :cool:
Hi Mark,
I agree to an extent, as the behaviour of valve equipment is rather more 'organic', but there's still plenty of margin for fine-tuning the sonic performance of solid-state gear.
Testament to that fact, is the huge array (to my ears) of sonic signatures created by various SS pre and power amps, currently on the market. Try listening to amps from Naim and then to some from, say, Meridian, and you'll see where I'm coming from ;)
Anthony is well placed to comment on this issue, as he designs both valve and SS gear, as indeed for that matter, is Nick (lurcher). Therefore, as experienced audio designers, I shall ask them to offer their thoughts on the discussion :)
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
26-09-2011, 22:37
Although what you say is true to a certain extent Mark
Dave, if you can build stuff that is within 5% tolerence then it should all sound the same ;) I think say 50% tolerance might well make a diffrence, that'd be maybe 6Db, but 1%, having a laugh :lol:
It's down to the design & not the components at the end of the day.. Get it right & you'll be able to reproduce a good component without too much "trimming", or bu**er all...
You only need to introduce lots of adjustment if you can't get similar components that will bring the design into the spec you need or want ;)
Reid Malenfant
26-09-2011, 22:42
Testament to that fact, is the huge array (to my ears) of sonic signatures created by various SS pre and power amps, currently on the market. Try listening to amps from Naim and then to some from, say, Meridian, and you'll see where I'm coming from ;)
Yes! Bias the bloody lot of them into class A though & you might not hear so much of a difference. I'd still prefer the low feedback version though, let it do it's thing with less restrictions :eyebrows:
I know we are going round in circles, been here before & all that :)
But you must take into account all the new readers to the site :eyebrows: So it all gets repeated once again & i'm only too happy..
Yes! Bias the bloody lot of them into class A though & you might not hear so much of a difference. I'd still prefer the low feedback version though, let it do it's thing with less restrictions...
Me too, and I agree. However, one can only judge the results of equipment that is being sold in the current marketplace, hence why I quoted examples of two SS amps, from different manufacturers, which to my ears sound poles apart..... Incidentally, one of which I know from experience will have been born from extensive subjective assessment ;)
I know we are going round in circles, been here before & all that :)
But you must take into account all the new readers to the site :eyebrows: So it all gets repeated once again & i'm only too happy..
Ditto!
Marco.
Indeed, Dave. I'm glad you mentioned the Beresford DAC, because along with Anthony's amps, it's another case in point, in terms of the sonic advantages of equipment made by small, specialist manufacturers.
I’m going to have to disagree regarding the Beresford Dacs I’ve heard.
I haven’t noticed any sonic advantages over the mass produced Dacs in the same price range and if this is what people are going to cite as an example of “bespoke” product superiority then as far as I’m concerned its case not proven; not even close imo.
It would have been far better to have kept this general and not mentioned specific products, particularly products that feature heavily on this forum.
Fair enough, John, you're entitled to your opinion. May I ask what specification of Beresford DAC it was that you heard, and what is was you compared it to, particularly in terms of price?
One must remember what the Beresford sells for..... For me, it pisses all over any 'big name' DAC up to £700 or so, although I also very much like the new Rega DAC.
I don't use a Beresford, but I've heard some examples, and rate them, albeit not as highly as my own heavily modified Sony DAS-R1, but that occupies a different price point entirely!
I'm off now to reply to your earlier post :)
Marco.
I listened to the 7510 I believe it was titled, the first offering from Beresford when I first moved from vinyl to file.
I can’t remember the prices at the time but I also listened to the MF V-Dac, The HRT 11 basic, the Valab NOS Dac basic model and a kit Dac which I cant recal the details off atm.
I liked the sound of the Valab NOS Dac best overall using SPDIF but they weren’t particularly well made and there were then concerns about their reliability (small manufacturer struggling with quality issues)
However, I wanted to use USB believing that in time USB asynchronous data transfer would become the preferred connection method for the better Dacs to come.
The HRT gave the best USB performance even then (pre HRT 11)
I have now heard the Beresford Caiman in its standard form against the HRT 11+ and using USB the HRT is by far the better sounding Dac.
Its not that there is anything wrong with either of the Beresford models I’ve heard but imo their build quality leaves a lot to be desired and their sound is about what one would expect at their price point.
The Gatorized Caiman is a different kettle of fish entirely John (which is what I own), and having listened to most of the Caiman's competitors both below and slightly above its price point, the Caiman + Gator mod was easily the right choice for me. I guess it comes down to personal preference and the MK1 eardrum in the end ;)
We are getting slightly off topic however, my reason for bringing up the Caiman was to support the premise, not to 'Big Up' the product, although I'm perfectly willing to do that in the right thread :lol:
Hi John,
However, the designer still has to have an element of repeatability to his/her design and if some amplifier designer is prepared to contribute to this thread stating that each amp he/she builds is built in isolation from the last unit built (ie none of the specifications of a previous build are used) and the final configuration isn’t measured and recorded then I’ll have to take their word for it.
No, that's not what I'm saying happens at all. Of course the final configuration is used as the benchmark for all future designs. What I'm saying is that the best audio designers don't just settle for what measures well - that simply isn't good enough if equipment doesn't also sound superb.
Some will say that the two automatically go hand in hand, but that's not always the case, in my experience. I can think of plenty of kit that is claimed to measure superbly, yet sounds sonically inaccurate and 'lifeless', to my ears, based on how I know how real voices and instruments *should* sound. Basically, it fails at faithfully reproducing the source musical information.
Therefore, in order to determine whether equipment both measures well and sounds superb, BOTH objective and subjective assessment is mandatory during the design process. And as the latter is a variable process, no fixed 'objective design template' can exist in the world of the audio designer who continually strives for excellence.
Indeed, such a rigid and inflexible entity would be an anathema to someone who values the significant benefits of lateral thinking!
Despite your views regarding Peter Walker and Quad amps they have a very high audiophile reputation so building by measurement and specification does at least seem possible even if you personally don’t find the results pleasing ;)
Basically, I don't think that they make music sound real, as their sonic signature is way too 'rose-tinted' and coloured for that. And to be honest, they give valve amps a bad name, because their 'pipe & slippers' sonic presentation panders to the popular misconception many people have of how valve amps sound, when the reality is properly designed ones sound nothing like that! :doh:
I've already explained why I think vintage Quad amps have the following that they do :rolleyes:
I’m not sure the “best” audio components are bespoke built Marco. I wouldn’t argue that there are some very talented people involved in “bespoke” audio but I suggest the really large companies with their enormous resources tend to rule when it comes to quality audio reproduction. Bespoke is cool, you get something individual and possibly unique. If you’re lucky you get value because the small manufacturer doesn’t have corporate overheads etc. This doesn’t necessarily translate into best sounding available and I doubt very much if it applies at all to equipment using newer technologies.
Well of course there is no universally 'correct' way to build something, and so like mass-produced equipment, bespoke gear isn't always the best.
However, I believe that when bespoke equipment is designed successfully by someone who really knows what they are doing, usually a small, specialist manufacturer, the results are more often than not sonically superior to what is achieved by 'big name' manufacturers when mass-producing their equipment.
Let's examine my system as an example....
Going by what you say, huge companies like National Panasonic and Sony should have the technical wherewithal to ensure that their finished products perform to a very high standard, not achievable by a 'bespoke equipment bodger' - and they do perform to a very high standard.
But that didn't stop people like Mike New and Paul Hynes from transforming and improving the performance of my SL-1210 with their superb products, or Mark Bartlett, of Audiocom International, similarly transforming the performance of my Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, with his judicious mods, did it? ;)
The point I'm making is that with bespoke products one can either design from scratch on that basis, or judiciously modify equipment which is already good and turn it into something really special that sonically punches way above its 'status', and which offers performance that isn't available on the mainstream marketplace at its particular price point.
Those are the significant advantages of bespoke building and/or judiciously modifying already good equipment.
And don't get me started on new technologies used in equipment somehow automatically guaranteeing superior sonic performance, as I'm afraid, to date that notion hasn't been conclusively proven to my ears... In terms of DAC chips, as far as I'm concerned, properly implemented good old TDA-1541s take some beating!
Marco.
I was going to write a dissertation but I then realised that I couldn't be bothered. The best HiFi equipment is designed by those who demonstrate both exceptional technical ability and a great passion for and understanding of, music. Such designers are more likely provide the customer with equipment that will consistently excel at reproducing music to a high standard. In the main, although not exclusively, these designers tend to own, or are employed by, smaller manufacturers... :thumbsup:
Yes! Bias the bloody lot of them into class A though & you might not hear so much of a difference. I'd still prefer the low feedback version though, let it do it's thing with less restrictions :eyebrows:
That's probably the biggest factor, together with component choice. The fact is, few amps are class A because of the inefficiency and heat output, in fact even some that claim to be class A cannot be throughout their power band because they don't have enough heatsink!
As soon as you get into class B or AB you start to get the variations: how well is crossover distortion handled, how much feedback is applied locally and overall. Naim's topology (used to be quasi-complementary push pull) won't be the same as Meridian's. After that, capacitor choices make a difference. You can see how the design market for ss designs has taken many different paths, and that's before we look at sliding bias, class D, class T etc.
The best HiFi equipment is designed by those who demonstrate both exceptional technical ability and a great passion for and understanding of, music. Such designers are more likely provide the customer with equipment that will consistently excel at reproducing music to a high standard. In the main, although not exclusively, these designers tend to own, or are employed by, smaller manufacturers...
+1
Nail > head, dude! :clap: :clap:
And their passion and *genuine* understanding of music is what gives them the ability to design, and in the final analysis, voice equipment by ear, which excels at accurately reproducing the complexities of recorded music, in a way which is not attainable by those worshipping solely at the altar of measurements.
Marco.
Hi Mark,
I agree to an extent, as the behaviour of valve equipment is rather more 'organic', but there's still plenty of margin for fine-tuning the sonic performance of solid-state gear.
Testament to that fact, is the huge array (to my ears) of sonic signatures created by various SS pre and power amps, currently on the market. Try listening to amps from Naim and then to some from, say, Meridian, and you'll see where I'm coming from ;)
Anthony is well placed to comment on this issue, as he designs both valve and SS gear, as indeed for that matter, is Nick (lurcher), so as experienced audio designers, I shall ask them to offer their thoughts on the discussion :)
Marco.
My own take is that the difference between Naim and Meridian is easily measurable and in fact the "different" distortion performance of CB and current Naim is there for anyone interested to see (not in terms of quantity, but where the harmonics lie).
One range of once hideously expensive amps (but now almost affordable) I'd love to hear again is the late 90's Krell FPB series, which were so unlike their harsh early 90's forebears and had effortless power and control, even into fairly sensitive speakers and at low volume levels. One range that was worth reviewing IMO..
P.S. The current trend for very low damping factor (less control over the speakers) and porty-bass, low impedance speakers isn't really compatible IMO either, although amps with extremely high damping can sound too lean and "bright" on some well damped (in the bass) speakers. All part of the hobby-fun aspect of music reproduction at home :)
My own take is that the difference between Naim and Meridian is easily measurable and in fact the "different" distortion performance of CB and current Naim is there for anyone interested to see (not in terms of quantity, but where the harmonics lie).
I completely agree, but that's a different thing from designing amps from the ground up believing that once they measure well, it's a case of 'job done'. The fact is, measurements only tell part of the story. For the other part, one has to listen.
One range of once hideously expensive amps (but now almost affordable) I'd love to hear again is the late 90's Krell FPB series, which were so unlike their harsh early 90's forebears and had effortless power and control, even into fairly sensitive speakers and at low volume levels. One range that was worth reviewing IMO..
Again, I completely agree. Have you also heard vintage Krell amps from the 1970s?
They're almost valve-like in their sonic presentation (!) - and by that I mean valves done well. It's a totally different ball-game to the stark sounding and soulless crap that Krell make today, designed to give a stiffy to dimwits who judge amps mainly by how my watts they produce!! :rolleyes:
One wonders again, if when the vintage Krell amps were designed, that there was as much listening done by designers as measuring.........
It's the same with CB Naim, in terms of how 'valve-like' it sounds compared to the amps that Naim produce now.
Can you detect a trend here? ;)
Marco.
CB Naims NEVER sounded valve like :lol: - Oh hang on a minute, you had 135's didn't you and these, and the little nait, clipped a lot more gently than the CB160, 250 and the horrid 110 and early 140 - I had countless samples through my hands, some for a couple of months at a time powered 24/7, so I think I can speak reliably here :eek:
Please also bear in mind that the UK greats from the 50's - Arthur Radford and Peter Walker ONLY listened for faults apparently - i.e. through the amp, not to it , not to fine-tune their designs with fancy caps or somesuch. Didn't do them any harm, did it :) I suppose this "instinct" for a good all round design is something special though, as many others have tried and failed.
Actually, I'd love Anthony to chip in here if he's able, as he works with modern-conceived valve designs, seems to confirm my non-engineer comments to an extent.
Re early krells? Oh yes indeedy, I've heard most Krells from the KSA50 and 100 (including a lovely pair of KMA100's I should have bought at the price offered over twenty years ago - another error :(). Jimmy had three KSA50's driving his early active 'briks, and rather wonderful they sounded too :) I also favoured the KSA80, which was the last of that era to be classed as a good all-rounder. Krell went huge and harsh for a while before the variable-bias ones brought the sonics back to earth - IMO of course. The 300 integrated was a bit bright, but lightning quick in a cleaned-up CB Naim sense and I rather admired the 400 integrated, finding it rather better than a typical "Olive" Naim pre-power-supply at around £3K, or a 112/180 which I think cost much the same from memory. Didn't stop us selling Naims though, as the Krell was a bottom model integrated, and distrusted accordingly ;)
P.S. Totally off-topic and I unreservedly apologise, but my posts do seem to come over as mini-lectures, possibly with a very rigid and fixed point of view. In reality, I do try to be as open minded as possible, but the way I have with personal experiences influencing my outlook may tend to make me come across as patronising and/or blinkered - I'm thinking of the whole vinyl/CD/master recording thing which I keep going back to at times and which I've no intention of doing here-now... My experiences with Krell are mine, in the dealerships I've worked in and in client's/friends homes too, so hopefully are fair and honest, with little personal bias..
Actually, the P.S. above may link back to the OP, in that when reading certain influential reviewer's prose, you get to know their style of writing. Martin Colloms obviously knew/knows how important he was and possibly still is as reviewer and consultant for so many products, but if he didn't like a product much, you always got to know "in between the lines." As for Ken Kessler, he reminds me of the late LJK Setright, a reviewer of cars so skilled at saying little over several pages.. KK plays to his appreciative audience and seems to love the Ab Sounds portfolio ;) I wonder why Levinson's gear (or Path Premier in general?) was rarely reviewed in HFN???????
Enough from me. Apologies all once again :dummy:
Dave, there really is no need for you to apologize for the manner of your posts, you draw on your vast experience and expertise to illustrate your points of view. I'm sure I speak for us all when I say that your posts are meaningful and incisive. I for one respect your insightful musings. :respect:
hifi_dave
27-09-2011, 16:41
I wonder why Levinson's gear (or Path Premier in general?) was rarely reviewed in HFN???????
I know why Mark Levinson (Madrigal) products weren't reviewed in Hi-Fi News despite them being tested in every other quality magazine on the Planet..:rolleyes:
Neil McCauley
27-09-2011, 17:14
I know why Mark Levinson (Madrigal) products weren't reviewed in Hi-Fi News despite them being tested in every other quality magazine on the Planet..:rolleyes:
Oh good. That helps.
Best not to air the probable reason why on a public forum though Howard :)
To Dave (Synsei), thanks for the support. It's just that when one (me) types something, it can come out as a definite FACT, i.e. factual as I see or saw it at the time. It's just that when I was told I couldn't show Marco anything (in regards to setting up a dem to show what I meant in the post concerned) it started to possibly escalate again and I've been soul-searching for a way in which to better explain what I mean. Trouble is, I can't and the bad-penny syndrome currently means I can't sit back and take a break either, so just plough on through until I have other things to do with my time, like earn some money for instance.....
Anyway, my favourite reviews were from the long defunct "HiFi Sound" magazine from the late 60's to mid 70's or so, before it became absorbed into another mag (I forget which one). There were articles written with great affection and humour for the subject at hand, plenty of technical stuff but never forgetting what a bit of audio kit was actually for. Back in those days, I remember many a transistor amp being full of crossover distortion, one of the nastiest of all the "THD" style distortions I felt and the other distortion artifacts that are taken fully for granted nowadays were only just being discovered by these mags.
Best not to air the probable reason why on a public forum though Howard :)
Did Mark Levinson pull Ken Kessler's beard?
:lolsign: Joe :clapclapclap:
Another vote for your insights here, Dave. Don't stop posting!
anthonyTD
27-09-2011, 18:16
hi All,
First of all concerning Peter walker and his design talent, well he was in my opinion a very talented designer, unfortunetly [IMHO] he will be remembered for certain products that were shall we say,,,NOT his highest Achievent.
The Quad 2 for example, if you examine the circuit you will see that it is quite an acheivment for its time, however, not [again IMHO] for the right reasons, ie; sonics, what peter managed to acheive was a fully push-pull circuit using only 2 pentodes [EF86] and two Tetrodes KT66] now, when you examine the circuit in more depth you will see one of its biggest failings by todays standard, power output capability. The KT66 in say, a GEC push-pull circuit is easily capable of producing 25 watt, in the Quad 2 you get 14/15 watt, [dependant on how good the output transformer was that day] One of the reasons for that is down to the unique driver circuit used, [the circuit is available to look at else where for anyone who wants to study it] it needed to produce a large amount of voltage gain hence pentodes, however, they also needed a large amount of voltage to drive those to get full output swing from the output stage,There are are also other issues with this circuit design that concern me, however, they have been documemted else where and lifes too short to go over it here, ultimately this design has serious compromises by today,s standards, ie; restricted bandwidth due to the demands made of the limited components in the circuit, and also its requirements from any other preamp except its own, also its power output limitations, even after peter's rather [again] unique way of using a winding in the output transformer partialy to recycle some of the energy that would normaly be lost in a more conventional bias circuit of the day.
As you can probably tell i am not the Quad 2's biggest fan, However, i admire the design for what it did acheive, and of course there are many satisfied users world wide who rate them highly, However, when you listen to another design of the day in comparison, the Stereo 20 for instance, you will wonder how come this little amp can still sound reletivily modern by todays standards, compared to the more shall we say, pipe and slippers sound of the Quad 2, To Answer that you will have to look and compare their circuit designs and thus compare the compromises of both.
Now, my own view on some of what has been written here, well, its true that mainstream manufacturers have to adere to certain criteria, when designing and producing a product, and there are of course ways of aquiring certain repeatable sonic signatures, however, you will find even in these circumstances one or two out of say every 100 units will have a sonic signature that is markedly better than the other 98. [ I know this very well from dealing with high profile guitarists who have two seemingly identical amplifiers, however, one is their number 1 amp, the other is barely used and is kept only as a back up] now, you can say that thats great for those lucky 2 out of every 100, but what about those other 98 ???
That is where bespoke comes into its own, yes, this route costs the consumer more in the short term, but this helps the designer in two main ways, 1] having more money to play with means more can be spent on bespoke layouts of circuitry and components caseworks etc. 2] because bespoke items demand a higher price tag, the designer has more time to spend on the design itself and the final testing and voicing of the units to make absolutely sure the customer gets what he wants,or has heard from a similar unit elsewhere.
Anthony,TD...
How long would the KT66 last in the GEC circuit? I can't argue with your viewpoint (and even PW said that he did the best he could at the time with the stuff then available), but three of the GEC KT66's in my Quad II's are from 1962 - I don't know how old the fourth one is.. and everything's been stable it seems since the fourth valve was replaced in recent years.
anthonyTD
27-09-2011, 19:45
How long would the KT66 last in the GEC circuit? I can't argue with your viewpoint (and even PW said that he did the best he could at the time with the stuff then available), but three of the GEC KT66's in my Quad II's are from 1962 - I don't know how old the fourth one is.. and everything's been stable it seems since the fourth valve was replaced in recent years.
Hi Dave,
I would think that there wouldnt be much in it between the two circuits as far as valve longevity, My point was, [IMHO] the main reason behind the Quad 2 circuit was to produce an amplifier using the least amount of parts count, that could produce an acceptable sonic performance that would satisfy a large audience at the time of manufacture.
Good quality parts back then were expensive including the valves themselves, so it is quite clear to me why an amplifier producing the kind of performance the Quad 2 was capable off [at the time] soon became widely acceptable as a winning design.
Anthony,TD...
Even in the 70's, the likes of 1% resistors which we take for granted now were very expensive I seem to remember. Anyway, my Quads, which would have been junked after one went bad and took a '57 with it, now have close tolerance parts, decent caps where it counts and a little regulated valve power supply - for good or bad - and the Quad magic is enhanced if anything. I just love them for what they are and the way they have with good vocal recordings and I know full well that they're totally outclassed these days...
By the way, next time I get to hear a Stereo 20 I'll think of you, 'cos the sample I heard (before one EL84? gave out) sure was funky :lol:
Stereo 20s are simply fabulous, and I'm a SS guy!
Reid Malenfant
27-09-2011, 21:58
and I'm a SS guy!
5379
:eyebrows: You might like to employ a lightning conductor Martin ;)
Don't worry, i'm off to hit the sack soon :)
I stumbled upon this wonderful editorial from Issue 69 of Canadian magazine Ultra High Fidelity (UHF) from 2004 whilst 'Gurgling' for reviews of an Avon Audiomat (don't ask :lol:).
The coincidence was far too delicious to pass up and is also relevant to the subject matter of the thread, so I thought I'd share it here for your delectation :whistle:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af316/Sgtgrash/UHF-1.jpg
(C) Copyright 2011 Broadcast Canada
Excellent, Dave, and sums things up nicely. The kind of equipment that we like listening to is still bountiful and improving every year.
my view is slightly different, in that there always has been good, and not so good in both amps and speakers, and times have changed but good kit is good kit.
i have quite a collection of vintage hi fi, 20+amps some working and others not, about the same in speakers,decks, lots of drivers, and nearly every audio valve.
my first valve amp was out of a german radiogram, it sounded ok.. but it got the full treatment over a few months,
changing the volume control and shorting out the tone controls, took away the vintage 'cloudy grey' sound,
changing the coupling caps then transformed the clarity,
then lastly i replaced all the carbon resistors for modern quality components,
that gave the modern sound... clean and detailed
i never went back to solid state amps after that amp.
vintage warmth.. not for me.. thats about old components
pete walker knew his stuff, but he had a product.. esl57's and quad 11's they work very well together, and made a very nice sound
i have peter walkers earlier speakers and have owned a good pair of 57's and quad 11's,
and i must say i really liked them both, but prefered the earlier speakers (which where nearly double the price).
as stated, shop bought hifi is made for a profit.
with all the amps i own,some really good ones, i still use diy amps,
but to be fair, the bits used to make them, cost much more than many bought amps.
the trouble with hi fi is there is no right, what may seem an fantastic sound for one person is ok for another. the only way is extending listening to lots of kit, the differences then are apparent.. sometimes.. for some folks
steve
anthonyTD
28-09-2011, 19:36
my view is slightly different, in that there always has been good, and not so good in both amps and speakers, and times have changed but good kit is good kit.
i have quite a collection of vintage hi fi, 20+amps some working and others not, about the same in speakers,decks, lots of drivers, and nearly every audio valve.
my first valve amp was out of a german radiogram, it sounded ok.. but it got the full treatment over a few months,
changing the volume control and shorting out the tone controls, took away the vintage 'cloudy grey' sound,
changing the coupling caps then transformed the clarity,
then lastly i replaced all the carbon resistors for modern quality components,
that gave the modern sound... clean and detailed
i never went back to solid state amps after that amp.
vintage warmth.. not for me.. thats about old components
pete walker knew his stuff, but he had a product.. esl57's and quad 11's they work very well together, and made a very nice sound
i have peter walkers earlier speakers and have owned a good pair of 57's and quad 11's,
and i must say i really liked them both, but prefered the earlier speakers (which where nearly double the price).
as stated, shop bought hifi is made for a profit.
with all the amps i own,some really good ones, i still use diy amps,
but to be fair, the bits used to make them, cost much more than many bought amps.
the trouble with hi fi is there is no right, what may seem an fantastic sound for one person is ok for another. the only way is extending listening to lots of kit, the differences then are apparent.. sometimes.. for some folks
steve
Hi Steve,
Good post!
And i also agree with your findings on the Quad 2 and 57 Electrostatic combination.
Anthony,TD...
On the........ What? Lemon blouse wearers weekly? :lol:
Marco.
anthonyTD
28-09-2011, 19:43
On the........ What? Lemon blouse wearers weekly? :lol:
Marco.
Sorry high heel hilda,:eek: i dont know what happend there, a ghost in the machine perhaps:scratch:
A...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.