'Review speak' bullsh*t

[Firebottle]

OK OK I know reviewers have got a job to do but some of the stuff they write is tosh.

It's not difficult to engineer something with a very flat frequency response, or to achieve very accurate RIAA equalisation. So when I read something like this I think 'oh dear':

The xxxxx's wide open, glass-clear midband integrates smoothly with a strong bass and crisp, extended treble. This makes for a very neutral reading of whatever LP you care to play, with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband, and very low record surface noise.

What? the? F? Well lit 'upper midband', did they fit the front panel LED'd in the wrong place :mental:

Plus I thought record surface noise performance was dependent on the stylus and cartridge.

[ianlenco]

...............and the condition of the LP!

[YNWaN]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.

[Bigman80]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.Is that important??

[JohnG]

I'm all up for running with the pack today.
Can you tell me where to buy one :lol:

[Pharos]

We are in sad times regarding the English language.

Whilst speech is IMO at an all time low, and the written word rarely seems to express beauty in fine poetic usage, the popular written word is mainly related to artefacts, and we know in these cases, there may well be an agenda which undermines ay aesthetic.

I can imagine the writers trying to convince themselves that they are being faithful to the truth, when really they are subconsciously very concerned with earning a living.

[Opti-cal]

As Alan eludes to, gear can be made to measure well (or not). Can gear convey the emotion and feeling of the MUSIC? That should be the question the reviewer answers.

What is written about the gear here can only really be asked about the actual music in the recording. Crisp bass/glass like treble or whatever.
The gear recreates the recording well or it does not.

Where equipment can impart a sound signature is usually related to timing(digital jitter)/alignment of cart (vinyl)/power supply/synergy of components etc, resulting in a better sound overall.

Having said that I don't believe all reviewers are bad or insincere. I've bought a lot of good kit purely based on the enjoyment the reviewer (seemed) to get out of it. Sometimes they do seem genuine. Mainstream reviewers like WHF etc, nah, they DO just pander to their advertisers.

I tend to gravitate towards the more independent (and rather well off reviewers who don't need to advertise anything or prove anything to anyone). 6moons comes to mind. Although they do grant themselves a big slice of poetic licence when it comes to babbling on about the texture of the mid-range etc. But they're often good reads none the less.

[Puffin]

D'you know Paul.....reviewing audio gear is like making love to a beautiful women.....first you weigh up the top end...and then the bottom end, grab hold of your interconnect and feel the girth and sheath texture......carefully insert observing polarity.....lay back, twiddle the control and let the crescendo climax.

[Mr. C]

You go Alan :)

Its not even that, its about Audio politics here in the UK, and with certain magazines it is purely about how much they (company having products reviewed) spend on advertising in said publication and 'x' amount of reviews are allocated against that spend.

Having spend many hours at quite a few reviewers listening rooms, most are a joke at best (the rooms). There are a couple of chaps that really are good, have a decent ear and are a straight as possible as it is to a be a audio jurno's have integrity even if their bosses are total ego manics with and underlying inferiority complex and personality bypass disorder.

There is an infamous case from a few years ago where a well known brand won a European award for a specific product (UK company), when it was review in a UK audio mag, the reviewer was instructed to formulate a review that was not to favorable as the head of that particular publication thought the product was cheap nasty little device and not worthy of that Euro award.

The main issue mags have to sell copy and they need to keep the buying public interested.

Commercial reality I'm afraid, however if you take them in the context of which they are reviewed then most people can understand the reviews point he is trying to get across in their copy.

No career in audio journalism will make you wealthy unless you are a publisher, average review payment (UK publications) is between £250 and £500 per review, now you have to write a lot of reviews to live on, and realistically to really do the product justice you can't bang a review off in 6 hours lol

Alan, keep up the good work!

[anthonyTD]

:)


Having spend many hours at quite a few reviewers listening rooms, most are a joke at best (the rooms). There are a couple of chaps that really are good, have a decent ear and are a straight as possible as it is to a be a audio jurno's have integrity even if their bosses are total ego manics with and underlying inferiority complex and personality bypass disorder.

The main issue mags have to sell copy and they need to keep the buying public interested.

Commercial reality I'm afraid, however if you take them in the context of which they are reviewed then most people can understand the reviews point he is trying to get across in their copy.

No career in audio journalism will make you wealthy unless you are a publisher, average review payment (UK publications) is between £250 and £500 per review, now you have to write a lot of reviews to live on, and realistically to really do the product justice you can't bang a review off in 6 hours lol

[Beobloke]

Disappointed that no-one's mentioned how we're all being bribed by manufacturers for good reviews yet.

Come on chaps - try harder!

;)

[Macca]

.

I tend to gravitate towards the more independent (and rather well off reviewers who don't need to advertise anything or prove anything to anyone). 6moons comes to mind. Although they do grant themselves a big slice of poetic licence when it comes to babbling on about the texture of the mid-range etc. But they're often good reads none the less.

If you want your product reviewed on 6 Moons you have to pay a fee. Okay so maybe that would not stop them giving a bad review....but does not make them completely independent to my mind.

[Firebottle]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.

Indeed, as the actual piece of kit is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about the tosh being written.

'with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband'
What does one combine with a traditional phono circuit to give this? Is this unusual? Utter bollocks if you ask me.

[YNWaN]

Not if it’s a cartridge.

However, I realise what you are really saying is “listen to my rant”, so rant on.

[walpurgis]

Disappointed that no-one's mentioned how we're all being bribed by manufacturers for good reviews yet.

Come on chaps - try harder!

;)

Bit unfair that, you're putting reviewers on the same level as our politicians. :)

[Spectral Morn]

Disappointed that no-one's mentioned how we're all being bribed by manufacturers for good reviews yet.

Come on chaps - try harder!

;)

I have no doubt in certain quarters it happens.

A few years back I had a UK distributor, give me grief because I wrote that his room had sounded awful at a major UK show. It did, it was terrible. He told me I was not 'playing the game' and I should re write what I wrote. I told him simply that I can not write positive things where there had been none. To have done so would have damaged my credibility regarding what I hear. To say awful was good, would have done that. I was not willing to compromise my reputation.

Regarding subjective descriptors the origin of the reviewers language lies with the Absolute Sound and Stereophile who were first to chart this course, and everyone who has followed in their footsteps. Its hard to convey listening experiences without using somesort of lexicon of well understood words, or phrases. Anyone want to have ago, think you can create a new lexicon, feel free to write a review and either publish it here or I will publish it on my site, if you are interested in doing so. I think once you have ago, you might find it a lot harder to do than you think.

[jandl100]

All kit sounds different, imo.

If you are a reviewer then you have to try and communicate the differences to the reader.

Tbh "a well lit and highly revealing upper midband" seems like a decent attempt to communicate a subjective impression.

That's much better, in my view, than just saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it". That doesn't really convey any useful information at all.

But, hey, whatever. :)

[Audio Al]

OK OK I know reviewers have got a job to do but some of the stuff they write is tosh.

It's not difficult to engineer something with a very flat frequency response, or to achieve very accurate RIAA equalisation. So when I read something like this I think 'oh dear':

The xxxxx's wide open, glass-clear midband integrates smoothly with a strong bass and crisp, extended treble. This makes for a very neutral reading of whatever LP you care to play, with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband, and very low record surface noise.

What? the? F? Well lit 'upper midband', did they fit the front panel LED'd in the wrong place :mental:

Plus I thought record surface noise performance was dependent on the stylus and cartridge.

If it's that good I want one :D No mention of blackness though :(

[jandl100]

I did quite a few reviews for Hifi Pig in its early years, and I fondly recall coming up with a phrase which sent 'Daniel Quinn' into paroxysms of rage and derision concerning reviewer bullshit.
Something along the lines of 'dynamic glass ceiling'.
I knew then what I meant and I still do. In fact I think it was rather a neat turn of phrase. :D

[hornucopia]

Can a glass ceiling BE dynamic? (-:
Better than 'veils being lifted' etc.!

But I often wonder where we end up if things are constantly better than before....

[jandl100]

Well, no - in the context of the sentence it meant constrained dynamics, viz. a glass ceiling affecting the dynamics.

I'm fine with veils being lifted, as well. :eyebrows:
Come on, we've all heard that happen. So why not say so? ;)

[Audio Al]

Well, no - in the context of the sentence it meant constrained dynamics, viz. a glass ceiling affecting the dynamics.

I'm fine with veils being lifted, as well. :eyebrows:
Come on, we've all heard that happen. So why not say so? ;)

Would it alter the sound if the glass ceiling was a mirror :eyebrows:

[Audio Al]

Also where do they put the veils to start with , If the sound is much better without them I will remove mine :)

Please advise :ner:

[AJSki2fly]

Well, no - in the context of the sentence it meant constrained dynamics, viz. a glass ceiling affecting the dynamics.

I'm fine with veils being lifted, as well. :eyebrows:
Come on, we've all heard that happen. So why not say so? ;)

OK here is my review of my speakers and how they sound in my system.

"The music washes over you in waves of euphoric glory, the bass content is tight and controlled pumping rhythmically, the mid-range is awash with sweet tones of purity and the clarity leaving you spellbound, the high notes and top end content are as high as I have ever heard them, pushing the boundaries of sonic sensibility. A most musically orgasmic experience to be experienced carefully." :D

[jandl100]

I'd keep the day job if I were you. :lol:

[jandl100]

You forgot to include " I think I am at audio nirvana, but don’t tell anyone"

:ner:

[AD Audio]

Plus I thought record surface noise performance was dependent on the stylus and cartridge.

Also overload capability with particular reference to transients as that's how a phono unit sees pops and clicks

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

[AJSki2fly]

You forgot to include " I think I am at audio nirvana, but don’t tell anyone"

:ner:

I think that is definitely a physical oxymoron for you Jerry considering your revolving hifi elements that make your system, audio nirvana must have come and gone many times by now, you just don't remember.:lol:

[walpurgis]

I wonder if contentious reviews qualify as 'fake news'? :)

[Barry]

I stopped buying the audio mags years ago, as I found the reviews were not critical enough - nearly everything reviewed was wonderful, 'state of the art', etc., with an increasingly florid language being used. Some of the worse were/are the reviews written by Ken Kessler in HFN. Enthusiasm aside, Kessler's use of analogies with other high quality products, such as wristwatches, wine, shoes, fountain pens and leather goods, are largely irrelevant and unhelpful.

Describing in words how an item of audio gear sounds is as difficult as describing how a dish tastes in a restaurant review, or how a wine tastes, so is not an easy task. That is the problem when discussing the subjective aspects of a product. Occasionally a reviewer may use a turn of phrase which will resonate with the reader, but most of the time it is often just a lot of waffle.

But reviewing an item and giving it a bad review doesn't sell many copies.

[Lawrence001]

If you want your product reviewed on 6 Moons you have to pay a fee. Okay so maybe that would not stop them giving a bad review....but does not make them completely independent to my mind.I didn't know that. I'd want paying for them to review anything of mine as it's full of nonsense and I have no idea what they're talking about in 80% of their reviews.

[Pigmy Pony]

Would it alter the sound if the glass ceiling was a mirror :eyebrows:

If a lady in a short skirt was above the glass ceiling, the effect would be similar to a veil being lifted :)

[Lawrence001]

If a lady in a short skirt was above the glass ceiling, the effect would be similar to a veil being lifted :)Something would be lifted but it's not a veil [emoji38]

[scotty38]

"Just gets out of the way" is my particular bête noire

[crimsondonkey]

'Grips the music with real authority...' is one of my faves.

I don't know why anyone would read a review of an audio component except to glean information about ease of use and functionality etc. The very concept that somebody with a different system sat in a different room to mine, with quite likely different tastes in audio presentation, is going to be able to say anything genuinely meaningful and transferable to my set up/ room/ ears is somewhere between deeply flawed and ludicrous.

[JohnG]

Audio Mags have their place, I have a fair collection that stopped about 20 years ago.
Every so often you stumble on the crate that they are stored in.
Have a browse at one or two,reignite the feeling that most of what is written is with a fork tongue,
feel proud that the DIY Supplements are intact, and were the driving force to push one from the mainstream.
The newest mainstream device I have in my system untouched by a upgrade design, I believe is the original ESL 57's or my Dyanvector DV 20X H.

Everything Else is DIY Built/Kit Built or Bespoke Designed and Built.
For me, there has been Great VFM to be had, Great People being met and Friendships Built on the Journey.

Today any valued device in my system, that has got the historical attachment of going out in search for the device to be put under a investigation and the friendships developing as a result,
with a end device being a Bespoke Produced device, will remain above all others competitors, no matter how good it is said to be.
I don't get excited over aesthetics or manipulation from a sales team member, with a egotistical drive to satisfy his peers.
At no time have I felt my method of producing a system, has left me deprived in the last 25 years.

As a comparison review on the said article, Alan could get himself a Home Trial, if it available ?
Audition the device through his well trained ears and report back on the interpretations offered by the reviewer who has caused a niggle for him.
I'm sure there is something Alan can say as a positive about the product, as well as any not so positives.

[Joe]

Well, no - in the context of the sentence it meant constrained dynamics, viz. a glass ceiling affecting the dynamics.

I'm fine with veils being lifted, as well. :eyebrows:
Come on, we've all heard that happen. So why not say so? ;)

'Close your eyes, and the speakers disappear'. Well, yeah. Be weird if they didn't.

[YNWaN]

I still get three magazines, though two of those are only the digital versions, and they are ‘Stereophile’ and ‘HiFi+‘. The print one is my favourite and is the, by mail order only, ‘HiFi Critic’ (it’s also the most expensive - by far). In fact I’ve just received the latest edition of ‘Critic’ and it’s very good :).

As for paid reviews, my first hand experience of reviewers and getting gear reviewed is that they are actually really honest and don’t threaten a poor review unless advertising is paid etc. However, I know of lesser known reviewers who expect to be given the piece of equipment under review (if you know what to look for you sometimes see this gear come up for subsequent sale).

I also knew that 6 Moons require outright payment for reviews and you never read a bad review on their website. Having said that, they do have a reputation for reviewing very outré equipment and for producing reviews that include many complex similes that read like they have been fed back and forth through Google translate a number of times (some reviewers more notorious for this kind of style than others). In fact, if one is looking to be critical of review speak, you need look no further than that written by ‘Marja and Henk’ ;.

[Macca]

6 Moons is subjective reviewing taken to its logical extreme. Pages of closely typed waffle that ultimately tell you nothing at all. They do list the components of the 'reviewers system' though, which is usually chock full of expensive crazy crap in addition to source, amp and speakers. Always a warning sign.

[YNWaN]

The best thing about 6 Moons, and it is a really good thing, is the photography. They seldom rely on stock photos and usually take very good internal photos too.

[Macca]

True.

[Octopoida42]

Coming in a little late to the party and as a newbie to the forum and the hobby, I am curious how to go about parsing reviews. Being an avid cyclist I am familiar with the review speak as the same stuff happens in that industry. The one consistent negative is usually that while product x may be some improvement in characteristic y, it weighs too much relative to the cost and/or it's previous iteration. But, when it comes right down to it, a really expensive part (or a complete high end bike, even upper half) is going to get along just fine, if not very well. The differences are often barely noticeable, if at all, between two equivalent items and no one is putting actually bad products on the market (not talking about defective or QC problems).

Back to the audio, I was recently reading some reviews for the QA 3050i floorstanders and you see pretty much nothing but glowing marks for them and the one criticism I found was that the 3050i did not "hug turns like a high end sports car" like some other speaker the reviewer compared them to. So, first off this sounds like fluffy crap to me. Second, if the speakers were not very agile then why did no other reviewer pick up on it? QA isn't going to put spealers on the market that sound like mud and fall over themselves...

This brings me back to the bicycle industry analogy: bikes A and B are both going to get you up and down that mountain road in pretty much the same way no matter what fluffy language a reviewer uses to describe the "road feel" or "livelyness" of the frame. Differences will be negligible and largely the sum of lots of very minor things spread throughout the whole such that pointing at one component as a defining factor is mostly a waste. In some ways I find this similar to the science that has been done showing that the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between different quality digital audio files (I hope I'm not diving headfirst into a taboo topic round here :popcorn:).

All of that is to say: what kind of translation tips or tricks do you all have for making sense of the Audio Reviewer "mother tongue"?

[Pharos]

Personally I ignore the prats, too much flowery and vague language, and too little down to earth science, although they do try to include little bits of technical stuff to give the impression that they are being objectively 'on track'.

No more mags for me, just seeking out the better online types of people.

[Octopoida42]

No more mags for me, just seeking out the better online types of people.
I was referring to online reviews, which more or less seem to be a replacement or continuation from the magazine era. Do you find online reviews are less full of review speak than mags?

[Pharos]

On bulk no, but occasionally I come across 'solid' people.

[Pigmy Pony]

On the whole I'm quite 'solid', and just slightly gaseous internally :)

[Ninanina]

I've absolutely no idea how describe the 'sound' of my gear...which if you've seen any of my posts where I've tried you know I've failed miserably

I just know that I like what I hear and that's good enough for me.. :D

[Barry]

I've absolutely no idea how describe the 'sound' of my gear...which if you've seen any of my posts where I've tried you know I've failed miserably

I just know that I like what I hear and that's good enough for me.. :D

Which is about the best one can say about any system: it's your system, your ears and your tastes. When you find a system with which you are satisfied and content, that is a very good situation to be in - no longer chasing rainbows and being able to just settle back and enjoy music.

I have long abandoned reading any of the audio magazines, simply because of the hyperbole spouted and lack of critical comment displayed. Having learned that '6 Moons' charge for any review they make, automatically destroys any impartiality they may have claimed to make. I always thought their reviews were a lot of uninformative waffle; coupled with the fact the reviewers use the most obscure items in their systems, make any reviews irrelevant to me.

[Ninanina]

Well Barry I'm more than happy with my set-up at the moment.. I may have found a system/sound I could live with for years...

I find it odd going from a rack full of Naim gear... CD Player, Dac, Amp & Power Supply, with associated cables, down to just cd player and amp... but I quite like the simplicity, and there's a lot less cable ;)

Ok I've also got a tuner but that's not plugged in yet...

[Pharos]

I am always comforted by good engineering, and I think you have that situation also.

There are many who would say that this is irrelevant and perhaps a way of hiding from discomfort, but although discomfort, (in my case), happens, my system seems to be very revealing, and I would rather hear what is going on in the recording, and enjoy the solidarlty of the equipment which 'just gets on with it' without flinching.

[Ninanina]

I am always comforted by good engineering, and I think you have that situation also

How do you mean "good engineering" Dennis?

[Martyn Miles]

[QUOTE=Pharos;1147197]We are in sad times regarding the English language.

Whilst speech is IMO at an all time low, and the written word rarely seems to express beauty in fine poetic usage, the popular written word is mainly related to artefacts, and we know in these cases, there may well be an agenda which undermines ay aesthetic.QUOTE]

I agree.
Correct teaching of English, both written and spoken, is appalling.
I was reading an old review ( 1970s ) in Hi-Fi Sound and Gordon King really had a grasp of the English language.
It made the review really interesting to read, with the correct terms applied where required.

As for spoken English, even on Radio 4 you get awful examples such a ‘drawring’ for ‘drawing.’
My real hate is ‘bin’ for ‘been.’
Surely R4 newsreaders know the difference.
I wonder how they would cope with, ‘ A dead cat has been found in a bin.’
My English Master had you out the front of the class to explain your mistake and then correct it.
Not a pleasant experience, but we ( eventually...) got things correct.

[Gazjam]

For anyone curious:
https://www.stereonet.co.uk/reviews/chord-electronics-huei-mm-mc-phono-preamplifier-review

As the saying goes...
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

Kinda sums it up really? :scratch:

[Eagle123]

I been reading hifi magazine for over 30 years.. namely hifi choice what hifi, hifi plus.

But listening to music played on different brands of hifi equipment is subjective.
One mans music is another mans poison.
When i came to making a decision on buying hifi equipment take for example i was looking at getting stand mount speakers and was interested in the kef r series.
I read reviews of the kef r series and went to the dealer to audition.
Ended up purchasing the kef r700 after listening to the kef r300, 500.
I heard other speakers but kept going back to the kefs, as the kef sounded more wholesome.
Hifi mags are a guide only but in the end trust your ears.





Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[oceanobsession]

i do think record surface noise can be influenced by the turntable isolation wooden floorboards etc , phil.

[Eagle123]

Noise isolation is apparent when one has invested in hifi support.
My current system is supported on atacama evoque se bamboo rack.
Previously had a glass rack from argos.
The difference is night and day having heard little details in music that wasnt apparent with my older set up

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Pharos]

By good engineering I refer to; a good solid mechanical construction, (preferably MoD standards), circuits which achieve a very good technical spec., circuits which are reliable and not susceptible to any external interference, in it broadest sense, and circuits which are also are very capable and with a good margin for hard work without failure.

My guess is that ML does just such, and also my ATC amps, and also Krell seems to be like this.

[VanDerGraaf]

What annoys me about "review speak"is that so many modern reviews just seem to be full of subjective description - fluff, essentially. With every pair of ears having, essentially, a different eq curve, you need measurements juxtaposed with subjective impressions for those impressions to have any substantive weight.

Look back at the magazine reviews of the '70s and they are very involved- often, extensive measurements are provided; they are technically-minded documents for a more "serious" readership.

[Pharos]

Yes, and they are often written by people seriously involved in audio, their statements expressed humbly ad in a way open to refute or criticism.

This is one of the symptoms that dumbing down a society has resulted in. (init?)

[nonuffin]

One of the biggest issues that I face as a reviewer is that there isn't a huge chasm of differences between the bottom end and the high end of components these days because the quality of the bottom end is constantly improving upwards in my opinion, so finding products to be critical of is becoming less common. Those that do fall under the radar are never reviewed but sent back to the manufacturer.

I for one am saddened that there isn't a huge amount of good performing products at affordable prices for those wanting to jump into our hobby and the manufacturers will argue that they need to jack up their prices to chase an ever shrinking market to stay in business. True, but I also blame them for not using the power of marketing to engage their audience and am furious that the trade associations cannot muster the collective strength of their members to take up the baton on their behalf and they will rue the day they haven't.

The second part is formulating into words what I am actually hearing and that is where the english language lets me down badly, because words like "insightful" have been worn out long ago and sadly means very little to so many people. This I think is the main reason why reviewers fly off into these dreamland phrases that they concoct because they too have over-used the best words available to them, which over time have lost their impact.

Finally, the bare stark reality is that manufacturers will tend to go for the publication that gives positive reviews to their products and of course advertising spend plays an important part. A magazine that ignores this fact will soon go out of business.

[Gazjam]

‘Filigree detail”...a bugbear and pet hate... can feck right off!

[Ninanina]

By good engineering I refer to; a good solid mechanical construction, (preferably MoD standards), circuits which achieve a very good technical spec., circuits which are reliable and not susceptible to any external interference, in it broadest sense, and circuits which are also are very capable and with a good margin for hard work without failure.

My guess is that ML does just such, and also my ATC amps, and also Krell seems to be like this.

To be honest I don't know Dennis., however I do think my ML it's really well made and it weighs more than 36kg and, apparently, it's components are military spec... whatever that means :)

[Pigmy Pony]

To be honest I don't know Dennis., however I do think my ML it's really well made and it weighs more than 36kg and, apparently, it's components are military spec... whatever that means :)

It means if you run out of bullets you can hit 'em over the head with it :)

[Ninanina]

It means if you run out of bullets you can hit 'em over the head with it :)

Oh I get it now Steve.... :lol:

I can't lift the ML by myself so don't think I'll be hitting anyone... :doh:

[Pigmy Pony]

Oh I get it now Steve.... :lol:

I can't lift the ML by myself so don't think I'll be hitting anyone... :doh:

You'd be better off wielding my Amptastic Mini-1, which weighs in at a muscular 515 grammes. Not really into hitting people though, hitting ON people is much more fun :D Probably not for them though

[Ninanina]

You'd be better off wielding my Amptastic Mini-1, which weighs in at a muscular 515 grammes. Not really into hitting people though, hitting ON people is much more fun :D Probably not for them though

I could defo manage the Amptastic Steve...

Hitting "ON" peeps sounds much more interesting though... to be honest I don't do it very often as I'm kinda strange who I like :lol:

[Frazeur1]

Nina-Well, you are kind of cute going by your profile pic, but strangely enough, it does kind of look like that Brian character on Family Guy! :)

[Made in 1968]

Gotta admit when i got into serious Hi-Fi all these stupid terms reviwers used for describing sound used to confuse the hell outta me. I Still laugh now when i hear it.. I only understand TIGHT & DEPTH :eyebrows:

[Ninanina]

Nina-Well, you are kind of cute going by your profile pic, but strangely enough, it does kind of look like that Brian character on Family Guy! :)

Absolutely Timothy (can we call you Tim?)...tis indeed Brian from Family Guy... love it.. as well as South Park and Bob's Burgers... I like a good laugh and animation is the way to go I reckon

"Cute" maybe.. some peeps have said that about me.... :eyebrows:

[Ninanina]

I only understand TIGHT & DEPTH :eyebrows:

Gosh :stalks:

[Frazeur1]

Sure, Tim is just fine, better than a lot of folks call me! :lol:

[Ninanina]

Sure, Tim is just fine, better than a lot of folks call me! :lol:

Okay doky.. Tim it is..

So are you also into Family Guy etc ? (Tim)

[Frazeur1]

Sure, and South Park, oh my, that is a real hoot, although I don’t get to see it too often. Bobs Burgers is fun too, and still like the Simpsons on occasion. Still young at heart I suppose, although 58 isn’t ancient...

[Ninanina]

Sure, and South Park, oh my, that is a real hoot, although I don’t get to see it too often. Bobs Burgers is fun too, and still like the Simpsons on occasion. Still young at heart I suppose, although 58 isn’t ancient...

I'm about your age Tim... 57... (though I act & think about 20 !!) glad you see the funny side of FG, SP and BB's and yes I still catch the Simpsons on occasion.. love it...

[Frazeur1]

Oh yeah, life is too stuck up it’s own ass to take things too seriously! So I am pretty much similar, 17 going on uh, let’s see, 22. About right! And 57, that is a perfect age right?

Thing about South Park is I really do not know how they get away with some of the stuff they do, but it is hilarious, love it.

Sorry all for the thread diversion there!

[Ninanina]

Oh yeah, life is too stuck up it’s own ass to take things too seriously! So I am pretty much similar, 17 going on uh, let’s see, 22. About right! And 57, that is a perfect age right?

Thing about South Park is I really do not know how they get away with some of the stuff they do, but it is hilarious, love it.

Sorry all for the thread diversion there!

My thoughts exactly Tim...

I actually love being my age... I've learnt so much over the years so now I'm just 'cool' with things... ok so maybe the body doesn't always like what I'm doing to/with it but that's a small thing... :eyebrows:

I've no idea how South Park "get away" with things, it's a mystery to me.... Token etc, etc... but I love it all the same

Certainly a bit of thread diversion but there you go.....:D

[Frazeur1]

A nice diversion I must say! By the way, glad your ML and Maggie’s are doing it for you, great setup there! ML and Maggie’s were the first “real” setup I heard many years ago in a shop. It was pretty much what sent me down this road of craziness!

[Pharos]

To be honest I don't know Dennis., however I do think my ML it's really well made and it weighs more than 36kg and, apparently, it's components are military spec... whatever that means :)

Yes, military spec really sums it up, I was trained to MoD standards, and as you can imagine the reliability of electronics in bombs and guided weapons is paramount.

For both military and medical use, for reliability only lead and tin solder is allowed

[Ninanina]

A nice diversion I must say! By the way, glad your ML and Maggie’s are doing it for you, great setup there! ML and Maggie’s were the first “real” setup I heard many years ago in a shop. It was pretty much what sent me down this road of craziness!

Oh Tim... thanks I do think the ML and Maggies are "doing it for me" at the moment but was it ML or Maggies that "sent you down this road of craziness" ?

I think the ML & Maggies, with the ML 390 thrown in, sound wise was just what I've been after for some time... and I don't think I'll ever 'upgrade' anything... that's a real change for me to be honest...

[Ninanina]

Yes, military spec really sums it up, I was trained to MoD standards, and as you can imagine the reliability of electronics in bombs and guided weapons is paramount.

For both military and medical use, for reliability only lead and tin solder is allowed

Thanks for that Dennis... to be honest I didn't really know what to expect from the ML but it's turned out to be a fantastic purchase...

Do I think the ML has a 'sound' ... well not really... It just kinda gets on with it somehow... if that makes any sense..

I also think the Maggies love the extra ooomph the ML gives them

[Frazeur1]

Probably Bev, it really was the combination of the Levinson amplifiers and the Maggie’s. They just worked together in the room to recreate a splendid involving show in my opinion. The real treat was listening to the big paneled Tympani, and mono Levinson amplifiers driving them. Spectacular. And really, the Maggie’s have gotten a lot better over time.

I bought the MG-I improved versions and had them for quite sometime, and since I have had a couple more pairs, MMG with subs, and 1.6’s. I really like what they do, I just don’t have quite the room for them, or the amplifier power.

The Maggie’s or Eminent Technology panels would be what I would be looking at if I was to return to panels, but my omnis just work so well, and I love them. The main thing is just enjoying the music no matter what it is being played on!

[Ninanina]

Probably Bev, it really was the combination of the Levinson amplifiers and the Maggie’s. They just worked together in the room to recreate a splendid involving show in my opinion. The real treat was listening to the big paneled Tympani, and mono Levinson amplifiers driving them. Spectacular. And really, the Maggie’s have gotten a lot better over time.

I bought the MG-I improved versions and had them for quite sometime, and since I have had a couple more pairs, MMG with subs, and 1.6’s. I really like what they do, I just don’t have quite the room for them, or the amplifier power.

The Maggie’s or Eminent Technology panels would be what I would be looking at if I was to return to panels, but my omnis just work so well, and I love them. The main thing is just enjoying the music no matter what it is being played on!

Well I certainly love my Maggie .7's with the 383 & 390... It's a sound I can live with for a long time..

I really don't have the room for the .7's but as I live alone I can move them out into the room as I like... when they sound amazing.. and the 383 seems to drive them very well

What "Eminent Technology panels" have you tried Tim?

[Frazeur1]

Bev, I have not owned any of the ET panels, but have listened quite a bit to the LFT8 A and B, as well as the baby panel LFT 16. Over here in the US, the 8 is really an absolute bargain, even new. It uses very similar design concepts as the Maggie’s, yet utilizes magnets on both sides of the membrane. That seems to give a bit more speed and control over the panel. Some do not like the addition of a dynamic cone driver for the bass end, but to my ears is very well blended and doesn’t attempt to over do things at the bass end.

The smaller 16 is good for those that want a similar panel sound in a modest sized speaker. It does very well, but certainly not to the extent of its bigger brother.

Maggie’s are still a great buy though, and an excellent choice. As to your .7’s, they are superb, and do better than the older, larger panel models. It is a very nice speaker, Bev. Good that you can move them out when needed. I have found with careful placement, they don’t necessarily require tons of space, depending on how loudly one plays. Keeping them off the wall behind them is best bet. I am sure you know all of this and have experimented enough to know what works well in your space. I bet your ML amplifier drives them very well. You have a great setup there, well done, even I am envious of it-in a good way, of course! Enjoy!

[Ninanina]

Bev, I have not owned any of the ET panels, but have listened quite a bit to the LFT8 A and B, as well as the baby panel LFT 16. Over here in the US, the 8 is really an absolute bargain, even new. It uses very similar design concepts as the Maggie’s, yet utilizes magnets on both sides of the membrane. That seems to give a bit more speed and control over the panel. Some do not like the addition of a dynamic cone driver for the bass end, but to my ears is very well blended and doesn’t attempt to over do things at the bass end.

The smaller 16 is good for those that want a similar panel sound in a modest sized speaker. It does very well, but certainly not to the extent of its bigger brother.

Maggie’s are still a great buy though, and an excellent choice. As to your .7’s, they are superb, and do better than the older, larger panel models. It is a very nice speaker, Bev. Good that you can move them out when needed. I have found with careful placement, they don’t necessarily require tons of space, depending on how loudly one plays. Keeping them off the wall behind them is best bet. I am sure you know all of this and have experimented enough to know what works well in your space. I bet your ML amplifier drives them very well. You have a great setup there, well done, even I am envious of it-in a good way, of course! Enjoy!

Hi Tim... I've not heard any of the ET's....not even sure they are available here in the UK.....whether a cone driver is ok for bass I've no idea to be honest... but I guess Martin Logan have been doing that for years now successfully....

I also have no idea if my ML is driving the Maggies well but to my ears it would seem so... certainly much better than the Naim gear I used previously.. don't be envious though Tim as, to be honest, it's not cost me anything to 'upgrade' to my current set-up as selling all the Naim gear has more than paid for it

However I still have my original MG's 'hanging' around.. I must get around to selling them... but they did get me 'into' the Maggie sound which I love...

[Frazeur1]

Yes, the older MG’s are no slouch, but your .7’s have the edge, especially in the upper end, and probably to some extent, the bass as well. It is great you have been able to sell the Naim’s(which I also like) and be able to move where you are now. Almost like free upgrade.

I do think the likes of Martin Logan and the ET’s have gotten better at implementing cones with panels. Technology in some respects have certainly helped there, and with DSP, one can adjust a lot of things too.

[Ninanina]

Yes, the older MG’s are no slouch, but your .7’s have the edge, especially in the upper end, and probably to some extent, the bass as well. It is great you have been able to sell the Naim’s(which I also like) and be able to move where you are now. Almost like free upgrade.

I do think the likes of Martin Logan and the ET’s have gotten better at implementing cones with panels. Technology in some respects have certainly helped there, and with DSP, one can adjust a lot of things too.

I'm sure you are right Tim... The older MG's I have were a great start for the Maggie 'sound' but the .7's are just better, to my ears, all round... better bass, better highs etc....

I would never say anything against the Naim gear I owned.... but the Maggies do like a bit more 'grunt' which the ML seems to supply.. otherwise I'd would have been happy to stick with the Naim... I think the later Naim gear should not be judged on Naim of old... the Supernait 2 amp is a star product... but just didn't quite have the oomph required by the .7's which the ML seems so have with ease...

I'm sure the Martin Logan and the ET's have implemented the bass cones well now with panels... but I'm happy to forgo some bass and stick with my Maggies

[Frazeur1]

Agree on the Naim. I lived with the older, then Olive line for a long time. Now have the newer(mine is from about 2010 or so, so still old br today’s tech)Uniti all in one, and I have to say, it is quite impressive for what all it does, and quite well. The Sonics are much more neutral from early Naim. I use i about every day, if not tuning in to some FM on occasion to just streaming music from it to a pair of Guru Juniors in my bedroom, quite pleased. I wouldn’t mind listening to the newest Supernait, but I just don’t need it! So I stay put....for now. The main system really keeps my feet and ears planted I guess!

[Ninanina]

Agree on the Naim. I lived with the older, then Olive line for a long time. Now have the newer(mine is from about 2010 or so, so still old br today’s tech)Uniti all in one, and I have to say, it is quite impressive for what all it does, and quite well. The Sonics are much more neutral from early Naim. I use i about every day, if not tuning in to some FM on occasion to just streaming music from it to a pair of Guru Juniors in my bedroom, quite pleased. I wouldn’t mind listening to the newest Supernait, but I just don’t need it! So I stay put....for now. The main system really keeps my feet and ears planted I guess!

I totally agree Tim Naim gear is impressive.. I went from not liking the Naim 'sound' at all to really liking it. I had the XS2 integrated amp for a while before I purchased the Supernait 2 but I still loved the XS2's sound. However I never really 'got' the Naim 'sound' before the XS2... and I tried to for many years... But once you 'lock onto' the Naim thingy it's quite addictive... and the build quality is second to none... and, luckily for me, the second hand market is very good as well

If I didn't have such demanding speakers I would have happily lived with the SN2... if you ever get a change to hear the SN2 (or now the SN3) you should give it a go or maybe even the XS2 as they do sound lovely...

But for now my ML seems to suit the rather demanding Maggies... and I'm a happy bunny that it's all worked out ok...

[Ninanina]

As a bit of an aside...

When I went to my dealer to listen to Maggies I was convinced that I'd be buying the 1.7i's...... however after swapping between the 1.7's & the .7's I was convinced... as was the dealer, that the .7's just sounded better

It was a complete game changer for me... I'd thought there was no way I wouldn't be buying the 1.7's at about £3K but the .7s just sounded better to me in all respects.. at £2K.... I'd already set aside the £3K so money wasn't a problem but I just didn't 'gel' with the 1.7's like I did with the .7's.... Ok I saved £1K but that wasn't the reason why I walked away with the .7's.... they just sounded better all round to me.... the dealer actually agreed as well... strange but true...

[Frazeur1]

I have heard that very thing before Bev, not sure what it is, but there you go. You bought what to your ears was better and didn’t fall for something else. You have to trust your own ears!

[Ninanina]

I have heard that very thing before Bev, not sure what it is, but there you go. You bought what to your ears was better and didn’t fall for something else. You have to trust your own ears!

Totally agree Tim... the .7's were something 'special'... to me anyway

[Firebottle]

I heard the .7's at a show and was mighty impressed with them. At the time I had some 1.6QR's which I passed on to a relative.
I don't quite follow the need for oodles of power for the Maggie, they appear a benign resistive load from what I've measured, but as always depends on the particular amp driving them.

I am certainly a big fan of panel speakers.

[Pharos]

Thanks for that Dennis... to be honest I didn't really know what to expect from the ML but it's turned out to be a fantastic purchase...

Do I think the ML has a 'sound' ... well not really... It just kinda gets on with it somehow... if that makes any sense..

I also think the Maggies love the extra ooomph the ML gives them

That ties in with solid engineering, like an Otis lift, smooth and functional and with ease in operation, not a blink.