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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by REM
Tim
It seems that neither the industry nor the AES have an interest into associating the measurements (yet, to be defined) with a perceived quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tfarney
That's my point of view. ;)
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.
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:
Perfectly correct in my experience. Thank you. HowardQuote:
Originally Posted by jandl100
*****************************
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by REM
*****************************************
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hifi_dave
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:
A fine, fine sentiment but utterly unrealistic in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT