AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

"normanstrong" wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a
POV without
actually listening to the product.

I don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

This review and editor response looks mostly to me like an invented tempest to
sustain interest and an effort to keep the amp-myth going and convince readers
that the magazine is needed to keep readers abreast of things that ordinary,
mortal citizenry has no access.

Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk? To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful? That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion? Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?

It would seem like that's unlikely; so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be? I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.
Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.

I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way....if a reviewer can't hear a
broke-as-designed product when he hears one perhaps he should be ready for
people to discount his advice (if not his poetry.)

If this is an instance where readers are supposed to be made "aware" of product
flaws through measurements along with the glowing description of apparently
excerable "sound" it seems charade-like to me. And certainly adds no
credibility to the editorial content.

It is as though the publication is laughing at its readers or engaged in a huge
self-delusion. The latter is quite unlikely. I think its brilliant marketing;
look at the length of this thread,.... but other than entertaining reading it
adds nothing to the quest of getting good sound.

It's kind of like reading an article in Automobile and finding a tester who
loved the incredible acceleration and cornering ability of a car that had 0-60
in 10 seconds and could pull 0.75g on the skidpad.

The review and "As We See It" seems to suggest that the magazine policy for
product selection is sometime left to reviewers, at least in this case. I don't
recall this being made public prior, although it may have.

For what its worth, (you do want to know this don't you? ) the only publication
that has ever allowed me to select products I review has been The $ensible
Sound (although this has been rare...and has been limited to products that I
have already acquired). The latter is noted in copy.

In every other case the editors have selected products (on rare occasion...and
I mean rare, they have included products I suggeted were of interest) which
were then delivered to me on assignment for testing.

I am sometimes asked by people if I would do a review on a given product and I
always tactfully suggest they contact the editorial staff.

It looks, from reading the aforementioned magazine, that reviewers speak with
manufacturers and either are solicited or solicit products for review on their
own. (p5,73 July Issue.)

There's not necessarily anything wrong with this. But, I cannot recall ever
seeing this policy disclosed in print and I cannot help but see the potential
conflict of interest.