Does The Absolute Sound Do Bad Reviews?

[Mr. Lin]

Understood. The one thing I will never understand is the (not trying to start something) vintage monster receiver attraction

As I understand it, people are really into specific vintage things because they're components/models that were unattainable and unaffordable when they were younger, and the items were new. So now they can fulfill the dream.

In 20 years people will be making fun of me for gushing over my vintage Naim CDX2 CD player, which I currently cannot afford. Can you imagine what an outcast I'll be, still listening to CDs?

 

[JohnVF]

Understood. The one thing I will never understand is the (not trying to start something) vintage monster receiver attraction, but having said that, if that's what someone likes, who am I to look down my nose at them? Opinions are like a*#@oles, everyone's got one, but not everyone should hear mine!

I get the monster receiver attraction in that I collected them, and owned a lot of the sought after ones (and still do). They really had a coolness about them but where it fell apart for me was sound quality. I had read here (i'm too young to remember them much from my youth) that they rivaled pretty much anything, and it turned out for me that they didn't even come close after I was introduced to the likes of some of the gear reviewed in TAS and Stereophile. But I made that call before reading the magazines...I began to like the magazines after realizing that there was an outlet that more agreed with what I was hearing at audio stores. So they don't have to prove their pedigree to me. I was relieved to find out that my personal opinion on audio was at least shared by somebody else. I don't agree with everything they write, but I will take their opinion with a smaller grain of salt than I will the opinion of a stranger on the internet. What I like about AK is that we all aren't strangers, though...a number of people here have shown the same thing...the same shared idea of what sounds good. But a greater number haven't. That's fine...the world is big enough for all opinions, but I've always been of the mind that the more opinions you expose yourself too, the better the outcome. Too many people in this world seem to only want to hear about things that they already agree with.

 

[Duckzilla]

As I understand it, people are really into specific vintage things because they're components/models that were unattainable and unaffordable when they were younger, and the items were new. So now they can fulfill the dream.

In 20 years people will be making fun of me for gushing over my vintage Naim CDX2 CD player, which I currently cannot afford. Can you imagine what an outcast I'll be, still listening to CDs?

I agree - absolutely.

Maybe...but why sweat it? As long as you're content.

 

[Duckzilla]

I get the monster receiver attraction in that I collected them, and owned a lot of the sought after ones (and still do). They really had a coolness about them but where it fell apart for me was sound quality. I had read here (i'm too young to remember them much from my youth) that they rivaled pretty much anything, and it turned out for me that they didn't even come close after I was introduced to the likes of some of the gear reviewed in TAS and Stereophile. But I made that call before reading the magazines...I began to like the magazines after realizing that there was an outlet that more agreed with what I was hearing at audio stores. So they don't have to prove their pedigree to me. I was relieved to find out that my personal opinion on audio was at least shared by somebody else. I don't agree with everything they write, but I will take their opinion with a smaller grain of salt than I will the opinion of a stranger on the internet. What I like about AK is that we all aren't strangers, though...a number of people here have shown the same thing...the same shared idea of what sounds good. But a greater number haven't. That's fine...the world is big enough for all opinions, but I've always been of the mind that the more opinions you expose yourself too, the better the outcome. Too many people in this world seem to only want to hear about things that they already agree with.

I share your findings with the monster recievers; they look cool, 'nuff said. Everything you said is valid, and I wish to add one other comment; I think it would be foolish to ever make an audio purchase (investment?) without listening for yourself first. Oh, and I just hit 300 posts...woo-hoo!

 

[gvalent]

Well, that does kind of sum it up. Most of the disagreements we have on this site come down to that..the subjective vs the objective. And beyond a certain threshold of specs I do not need nor do I want reviews to be entirely objective. For one, I do not experience total correlation between gear that specs well and gear that sounds good. I just don't, not even in the gear that I own. Also, I really could give a rats butt about what a group of strangers in a foreign room call out as being 'good' to their blind ears.

You seem to have missed my point.

In my post I was using the term objectivity in the journalistic sense not in the philosophic sense that you describe above.

Objectivity - is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. wikiP

 

[Dr Tinear]

... In my post I was using the term objectivity in the journalist sense not in the philosophic sense that you describe above.

Objectivity - is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. wikiP

That, in a nutshell, explains why TAS, Stereophile, and other print and electronic publications of similar type shouldn't be regarded as journalism. Their readers would be well advised to view them as entertainment only and to take everything they read there with a grain of salt.

 

[Negotiableterms]

Objectivity - is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities. wikiP

That, in a nutshell, explains why TAS, Stereophile, and other print and electronic publications of similar type shouldn't be regarded as journalism. Their readers would be well advised to view them as entertainment only and to take everything they read there with a grain of salt.

As a practical matter, you can only gather information on what gear to buy from four sources: your ears, your friends, the magazines, and the internet.

Your ears are limited by time, experience, and access. In my case, very limited. Your friends' ears have those same limitations, and the added ones of their objectivity and perceptiveness. The magazines are not limited by experience or access, and because they have to stick their opinions out for public review monthly, their ability to remain wrong (or biased) is inherently limited. On the internet, anyone who can manage to fire up a blog can pontificate as if they had actual experience.

Ever wonder why so many people talk about the AK community, and love AK Fest? One reason is because the community aspect of AK causes people to "publish" on a regular basis and be subject to criticism. Once you make friends on AK, and meet people at the Fest, and wander round the show comparing likes and dislikes, you get to experience a wide range of gear and the range of reactions to the sound. Eventually, you get a good sense of which opinions are helpful to you, and you learn from those... almost like a professional reviewer!

Are the magazines influenced by advertising? Sure. But, as above, that influence is sharply limited by other advertisers, each of whom wants a favorable review, and by public reaction. They can only be wrong for a short time before losing readers, and when you lose readers, you lose ad revenue. The point that all their advertisers are in audio actually cuts the other way. If they lean too heavily in favor of one mfr, others will cut their advertising. In a more general publication, that effect isn't as profound. You can conclude they're not "journalists" and refuse to read them if you want, but that leaves you with sources of information that are either very limited or completely unreliable. I like the magazines, and I think we need more of them.

 

[JohnVF]

That, in a nutshell, explains why TAS, Stereophile, and other print and electronic publications of similar type shouldn't be regarded as journalism. Their readers would be well advised to view them as entertainment only and to take everything they read there with a grain of salt.

Simply put, I don't see it. I DO NOT see the abject bias that is being referred to in this thread and by and large my listening experience has agreed with their findings. As I said earlier, the gear they review is vetted prior to appearing in their magazine. They review gear they have already decided to be worthy of reviewing through word of mouth or their own listening experience. They review budget gear and extremely expensive gear, and sometimes even vintage gear.

There is no accountability on the internet and believe me, there is some seriously mediocre if not downright bad gear referred to as 'awesome' on this site that suggests to me that bias from lack of exposure to different gear or from being mentally entrenched in the time period of one's youth is MUCH stronger than bias from exposure advertising money. You take what you can get and anybody would be wise to listen to as many voices as possible and to realize that bias takes many many forms, and not all of it is financially motivated.

 

[Dr Tinear]

Simply put, I don't see it. I DO NOT see the abject bias that is being referred to in this thread and by and large my listening experience has agreed with their findings. As I said earlier, the gear they review is vetted prior to appearing in their magazine. They review gear they have already decided to be worthy of reviewing through word of mouth or their own listening experience. They review budget gear and extremely expensive gear, and sometimes even vintage gear.

Once you've drunk the high-end Kool-Aid, it does become more difficult to see the bias.

There is no accountability on the internet and believe me, there is some seriously mediocre if not downright bad gear referred to as 'awesome' on this site that suggests to me that bias from lack of exposure to different gear or from being mentally entrenched in the time period of one's youth is MUCH stronger than bias from exposure advertising money.

I'm not sure that the bias you refer to is stronger than the bias generated by exposure advertising money, but I will concede that it exists and can be quite strong. I agree 100% with your point that some dreadful gear has been lauded as "awesome" on this site, most often by people whose experience is limited by their youth.

That said, I must also state that the high-end print magazines have raved about some equipment that I dutifully auditioned and found to be mediocre or worse. Very few of these products were budget-priced.

You take what you can get and anybody would be wise to listen to as many voices as possible and to realize that bias takes many many forms, and not all of it is financially motivated.

Excellent advice.

 

[JohnVF]

Once you've drunk the high-end Kool-Aid, it does become more difficult to see the bias.

I drank it through my ears with first hand experience and afterwords dumped 30+ vintage receivers, about 10+ highly regarded vintage amps, and an equal number of preamps and have never, ever, enjoyed my system more and have not once swapped out a component since drinking the Kool-Aid, which more than anything-considering the gear crap-a-go-round I was on- tells me that I've made the best decision I've ever made in audio by ditching the over-hyped, mediocre sounding, outdated schlock that passes for 'better than anything you can buy today'. If you disagree fine but my ears are what I base my calls on, not some magazine that I tend to agree with, or the advice of internet experts who seem to believe that the idea that audio engineers have improved upon the science of sound reproduction over 50 years is nothing but marketing hype. That is ludicrous.

most often by people whose experience is limited by their youth.

Or who's minds are closed to new experiences by the halcyon glow of nostalgia that surrounds the years when they were young. I'm not referring to you but in general, this idea around here that seems to be shared mostly by those who grew up in a certain era.

I appreciate that you tried new stuff and didn't like what you heard, but do you think that there have been no advancements in audio since the '70s? And assuming there have been, that they should not be priced almost the same as they were back then (with inflation), even though the market has shrunk by a large margin and with it, so have gone the economies of scale that would have helped offset the price of developing these advancements? I'm not talking about $50k preamps, I'm talking about the more affordable stuff that is just as often reviewed in these rags.

 

[Dr Tinear]

... I appreciate that you tried new stuff and didn't like what you heard, but do you think that there have been no advancements in audio since the '70s? And assuming there have been, that they should not be priced almost the same as they were back then (with inflation), even though the market has shrunk by a large margin and with it, so have gone the economies of scale that would have helped offset the price of developing these advancements? I'm not talking about $50k preamps, I'm talking about the more affordable stuff that is just as often reviewed in these rags.

John, I think we're more closely in agreement than most people would infer from reading our posts in this thread. My first "eureka" moment took place in the late 1980s, when a Dynaco Stereo 70 absolutely blew away my Kenwood integrated amp. That put me on an upgrade path that swept most of the vintage electronic gear out of my big system, to be replaced by new gear from Audio by Van Alstine. I have not found a vintage piece yet that plays music as well as the AVA gear, though the best of it (specifically, a Heathkit AA-1640 power amp and AR-1500 receiver) came closer than I expected given its age.

Speakers are another area where new almost always trumps vintage, thanks to improvements in the tools that speaker developers use. I have a hard time understanding the love that many vintage speakers get here on AK; some of the favored brands sounded unacceptably colored when I first heard them and still sound that way today.

My skepticism toward the audio magazines started when I heard high levels of coloration in some of the gear that they favored, including single-ended triode power amps and speakers. It grew when I read reviews in Stereophile where the measurement sidebar and the subjective opinions were in stark disagreement and when I read opinions about CD players (other than the hideous-sounding machines from the first generation or two) that didn't square with my own experiences with the medium. Perhaps my experience as a musician left me with a different set of sonic priorities than these reviewers had; I have a very low tolerance for speed instability in analog gear or timbre errors anywhere in the sound reproduction chain, but I'm much more forgiving of soundstaging flaws as long as the speakers don't distort the apparent size of voices or instruments. In any case, I find that the magazine reviews provide me with relatively little information, so I don't spend much time perusing them any more. I'm happy with my system and reluctant to step back onto that expensive upgrade treadmill.

 

[Bigerik]

Wasn't TAS the magazine that restarted the whole ST-70 craze? Didn't they publish an article a good 20 years back about audio bargains and specifically list the ST-70 as the one to find? I thought they said they could be picked up for about $50 back then....

 

[JonL]

What ever happened to "The $ensible Sound?" I liked that mag way back when.

 

[gvalent]

What ever happened to "The $ensible Sound?" I liked that mag way back when.

It's still around. Looks like a lot under construction here.

http://www.sensiblesound.com/index.htm

 

[TerryO]

What ever happened to "The $ensible Sound?" I liked that mag way back when.

I liked it too. I subscribed to it for a number of years, along with Audio and The Audio Amateur.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[TerryO]

Wasn't TAS the magazine that restarted the whole ST-70 craze? Didn't they publish an article a good 20 years back about audio bargains and specifically list the ST-70 as the one to find? I thought they said they could be picked up for about $50 back then....

The "Craze" was well underway over thirty years ago, with Frank Van Alstine, Audio Research, the Audio Amateur and many others offering Mods and upgrades. I don't believe the ST-70 "Craze" ever really died down enough to need a restart. BTW: TAS has never been ahead of the game, IMHO.

Best Regards,
TerryO

 

[JohnVF]

John, I think we're more closely in agreement than most people would infer from reading our posts in this thread.

It may be that they've gotten better over the years (maybe not?)...I've only been reading the magazines for about 3 years and there seems to a least be some correlation between the measurements and the reviews now. If that wasn't the case before I can see how we'd be ending up with totally different takes on their viewpoint. If there's a big anomaly now they seem to address it in some way, to explain it away with their subjective appreciation for the sound or to agree that there's a problem in that area. Maybe they were called out on it. Again, I wouldn't say we're in total disagreement either and our relative exposure, to good stuff but at different times, probably explains a lot of it. I'm still in my honeymoon period with the high end...but I also find great enjoyment out of a great deal of things they don't like, like my cobbled together bedroom system using a brand new receiver as a preamp into a vintage Sony amp driving '80s Diatone speakers..certainly not high end but beating to my ears much of what they review in the same price bracket. I don't like everything they review either..but I appreciate that they're there because some of their reviews really have opened up my audio world beyond what I had here. Speed stability was actually a major reason why I bought my turntable, and it was called out in the review in TAS. Well, that wasn't even a review..it was just a short blurb about it by Harry Pearson (sp?) that described it's design and his listening impression. A proper review of it has never been done and I've always wondered why, even though they often listed it as their editor's choice for best turntable.

 

[Mr. Lin]

Maybe...but why sweat it? As long as you're content.

Well, I meant that in a tongue-in-cheek way really. Many of us around here have had the discussion about how we're going to become a niche within audio hi-fi if we refuse to let go of physical mediums, and the Cd is one I cling to.

Simply put, I don't see it. I DO NOT see the abject bias that is being referred to in this thread and by and large my listening experience has agreed with their findings.

Same here, I think in the end the claims that they're over-hyping new components or lying to please advertisers are just baseless, period. Negotiableterms made that excellent point: they would only get away with nonsense like that for so long before the public got wise to it.

You take what you can get and anybody would be wise to listen to as many voices as possible and to realize that bias takes many many forms, and not all of it is financially motivated.

Thinking about this last night, the above is basically the conclusion I came to. It's not as if the hi-fi magazines like TAS are gospel, like we hang on their every word and suggestion as the final word, the final analysis. But we're in a time (luckily for us!) wherein one can avail oneself of a multitude of sources, opinions though they may be. TAS is great for keeping you apprised of what's out there, where the industry is headed, and some things that might be worth looking into based on what they claim it sounds like.

 

[gvalent]

I think in the end the claims that they're over-hyping new components or lying to please advertisers are just baseless, period. Negotiableterms made that excellent point: they would only get away with nonsense like that for so long before the public got wise to it.

From the looks of posts on this thread, as well as articles written by serious audiophiles and people directly involved in the industry, many are in fact wise to this.

 

[Mr. Lin]

From the looks of posts on this thread, as well as articles written by serious audiophiles and people directly involved in the industry, many are in fact wise to this.

Where's the proof? Give some examples of things they've over-hyped that are in fact garbage. Can you really? Because that's what I'm talking about, people claim they're "wise" to what's really going on with the hi-fi magazines, but like John said, I don't see any examples of it, at all. You get made when people insinuate that you're into conspiracy theories, but this is exactly why that sort of accusation is made.

Who are "serious audiophiles?" And the people who write for these magazines ARE people involved in the industry.