AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 7/10/2004 2:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VBOHc.26874$WX.13205@attbi_s51

"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.

This looks like a view that is highly slanted through the eyes of a reviewer
for a competing magazine. Are you suggesting the WAVAC also sounds like every
other amp when you refer to the "amp-myth?"

Otherwise why waste print on this deplorable pile of junk?

Where is the scientific objectivity in name calling?

To show that the
magazines measurements are incredibly wasteful?

Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that the unit should not
have been measured for the review?

That the reviewer cannot hear
frequency response errors or distortion?

The reviewer listened to music through the amps and described what he heard. He
did consider the possibility that his response to this amp was possibly due to
it's inaccuracies.

Or even worse infer that distorting
the input signal makes the sound more "live" at the speaker?

And what if it does? If that is MF's honest impression would you suggest he not
report it? Would you suggest he or JA shelve the review becuase the
subjective impressions are IYO at odds with the measurements?

It would seem like that's unlikely;

How on earth do you know? You never listened to this unit with the same
equipment as did MF. Where is the objectivity in that?

so what other reason that would be useful
to readers would there be?

Well, gee, if we accept your assertion that MF is not reporting what he really
experienced then the review is indeed not of any use to the readers. When you
prove that MF is not accurately reporting his impressions then you get to ask
this question.

I think a thoughtful person would describe it as a
"mine is bigger than yours" (we test the most expensive products) exercise.

I think a thoughtful person might not make the same assumptions about the
review being not so true to what the reviewer actually experienced.

Along with inference that measurements do not correlate with sound quality so
you cannot get the best sound without "our" advice.

If you drop your assumption about the "accuracy" of MF's reporting on his
subjective impressions you will see that Stereophile did a fine job of
reporting the apparent conflict between the measured performance and subjective
performance of the unit in question.

I think its a great marketing tool. But does it shine any light on improved
sound quality? Only in a perverse way...

But you do write for a competing magazine.

..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.)

Perhaps one should consider discounting the complaints of someone who works for
the competition. Of course we must remember you have not listened to the unit
in question and yet you are willing to attack a competing reviewer's
credibility. Personally I think the reviewer who draws conclusions without the
audition is the reviewer whose crediibility needs to be looked at.

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.

This from the person who has not actually listened to the unit in question.

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.

And let's not forget your position as someone who works for the competition.

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.

No it is not. But perhaps the analogy does tell us something about your
proccess of evaluating equipment.

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.

So? How do you think you know how it happened with the WAVAC? Hint, it was
reported in Stereophile in the actual reivew.

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.

I don't see the conflict in interest. OTOH reviewing and consulting.....