[Steven R. Rochlin]

Hi Everyone,

Just polished off the CES / THE Show reports and posted new issues of
both the Review Magazine and Superior Audio online. The Review Magazine
features the McIntosh MS300 music server & C220 preamplifier, Stax
SRS-4040II system with SRM-006tII vacuum tube output driver plus revisits of
the Axiom Audio Millennia M3Ti loudspeaker, Manley Labs' Steelhead
phonostage/preamplifier, and Marchand Electronics' XM-44 active crossover.

Superior Audio presents three mega-dollar reference loudspeakers; Triangle's
Magellan Concerto sw2, older Magellans, and Focal.JMlab's Grande Utopia Be,
all of which are reviewed by Alvin Gold. With a grand total well in excess
of $130,000, we let you decide which is truly the ultimate loudspeaker!

Enjoy the Music,

Steven R. Rochlin
http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com

Where you can find:
Superior Audio, The Absolute Sound,
Review Magazine, The $ensible Sound,
The Audiophile Voice... and MUCH more!

[[email protected]]

Steven R. Rochlin wrote:

Superior Audio presents three mega-dollar reference loudspeakers;
Triangle's Magellan Concerto sw2, older Magellans, and Focal.JMlab's
Grande Utopia Be, all of which are reviewed by Alvin Gold. With a grand
total well in excess of $130,000, we let you decide which is truly the
ultimate loudspeaker!

From the review of one of the speakers:

_______________________________________
"Musically, the prognosis is almost mostly favorable."

"The tweeter is palpably smoother and sweeter than before, and there is
little sign of the edginess that would creep into the picture at times."

"With the new model there is less of a sense of artifice; musical structures
flow more readily, and the whole effect is one of greater transparency, and
where the music allows, repose."

"There is plenty of published evidence, anecdotal and more scientifically
based (it underpins for example much of what Mirage has done over the
years), that the quality of room reflections has a key effect on the
auditioning process,"
____________________________________________

This is not a review. It is some guy who has not taken the time to tell us
the engineering behind the speaker, and, I suspect, does not have the time,
equipment, and knowledge to discuss engineering. It is a restaurant
review. Obviously he has exquisite taste, but languishes in solipsism.
With the exception of the last quote, which is simply stating what everyone
already knows, the entire thing is pretty useless.

Somewhere in the spirit world, Richard Heyser is laughing at the foolishness
of hi-fi nuts.

mp

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 8:21�am, "
wrote:
Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
Superior Audio presents three mega-dollar reference loudspeakers;
Triangle's Magellan Concerto sw2, older Magellans, and Focal.JMlab's
Grande Utopia Be, all of which are reviewed by Alvin Gold. With a grand
total well in excess of $130,000, we let you decide which is truly the
ultimate loudspeaker!

From the review of one of the speakers:

_______________________________________
"Musically, the prognosis is almost mostly favorable."

"The tweeter is palpably smoother and sweeter than before, and there is
little sign of the edginess that would creep into the picture at times."

"With the new model there is less of a sense of artifice; musical structures
flow more readily, and the whole effect is one of greater transparency, and
where the music allows, repose."

"There is plenty of published evidence, anecdotal and more scientifically
based (it underpins for example much of what Mirage has done over the
years), that the quality of room reflections has a key effect on the
auditioning process,"
____________________________________________

This is not a review.

Sure it is.

*It is some guy who has not taken the time to tell us
the engineering behind the speaker,

I guess we will just take your word for it since you only gave us a
couple small clips of the review.

and, I suspect, does not have the time,
equipment, and knowledge to discuss engineering.

That may be true. But does that matter to you? It does not matter to
me. Knowing something about the engineering behind a loudspeaker will
not make it sound any different will it?

*It is a restaurant
review.

Well, at least you are now acknowledging the fact that it is a review.
It is not a restaurant review but, like most restuarant reviews, it is
a review of the subjective experience. *you* may not like that sort of
review but many others do.

*Obviously he has exquisite taste, but languishes in solipsism.
With the exception of the last quote, which is simply stating what everyone
already knows, the entire thing is pretty useless.

Useless to you and pehaps other like-minded folks. Other audiophiles
may actually find it quite useful. Others may also find any sort of
discussion on the engineering just as useless as you find this review
to be.


Somewhere in the spirit world, Richard Heyser is laughing at the foolishness
of hi-fi nuts.

You believe in ghosts? ;-)
There is no shortage of disrespect from either side of the objectivist/
subjectivist camps.

Scott

[[email protected]]

wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:21�am, "
wrote:

I guess we will just take your word for it since you only gave us a
couple small clips of the review.

It is there for anyone to read. When "reviewing a review" you've got to
take just a few representative samples. You know that.

That may be true. But does that matter to you? It does not matter to
me. Knowing something about the engineering behind a loudspeaker will
not make it sound any different will it?

A good review should, IMO, discuss the "why" and not just the what. That
presumes, of course, that the reviewer is capable of understanding the why.
If he cannot, or if he does and decides that it is not important, then I'm
less inclined to take whatever he writes seriously.

You believe in ghosts? ;-)
There is no shortage of disrespect from either side of the objectivist/
subjectivist camps.

"The only spirits I want haunting me, come from a bottle."

--V. Stanshall.

mp

[[email protected]]

On Feb 3, 12:22�pm, "
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:21?am, "
wrote:
I guess we will just take your word for it since you only gave us a
couple small clips of the review.

It is there for anyone to read.

Really? I didn'ytsee any link.

*When "reviewing a review" you've got to
take just a few representative samples.

Is that so? I'd like to know where this limit is spelled out in the
copywright laws.

*You know that.

Please don't speak for me or what you think I know.


That may be true. But does that matter to you? It does not matter to
me. Knowing something about the engineering behind a loudspeaker will
not make it sound any different will it?

A good review should, IMO, discuss the "why" and not just the what.

An opinion you get to have despite the inherent limitations such
demands place on reviewers. It is not an opinion I share. I would no
more ask an audio reviewer to be an engineer than I would ask a
restaurant critic to be a chemist. It does not make one a better
observer.

That
presumes, of course, that the reviewer is capable of understanding the why.
If he cannot, or if he does and decides that it is not important, then I'm
less inclined to take whatever he writes seriously.

Then what reviewer do you take seriously? Then explain why are they
not designing instead of reviewing?


You believe in ghosts? * ;-)
There is no shortage of disrespect from either side of the objectivist/
subjectivist camps.

"The only spirits I want haunting me, come from a bottle." *

OK. I'm kind of a sobriety freak myself but that is me.

Scott

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:22???pm, "
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:21?am, "
wrote:
I guess we will just take your word for it since you only gave us a
couple small clips of the review.

It is there for anyone to read.

Really? I didn'ytsee any link.

Yes, really. It was in Mr. Rochlin's post.: a link to his
Enjoy The Music portal, which features a link to his CES report.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Feb 4, 9:51�am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:22???pm, "
wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:21?am, "
wrote:
I guess we will just take your word for it since you only gave us a
couple small clips of the review.

It is there for anyone to read.
Really? I didn'ytsee any link.

Yes, really. It was in Mr. Rochlin's post.: *a link to his *
Enjoy The Music portal, which features a link to his CES report.

I don't see any posts by any Mr. Rochlin in this thread. Is my
newsreader deleting whole posts?

Scott.

[ Moderator's note: I did approve the original post by Mr. Rochlin. It
shows on my news server and also on another server I have access to.
It currently does not show on Google. Another good reason to use a
real news server I guess. -- deb ]

[[email protected]]

wrote:

*When "reviewing a review" you've got to
take just a few representative samples.

Is that so? I'd like to know where this limit is spelled out in the
copywright laws.

No need to get legalistic here. What I did had nothing to do with
copyright. It's just the limits of practicality. The few items I actually
lifted were simply representative of the whole; thus were they used to make
my point. It is the typical way of reviews.

Please don't speak for me or what you think I know.

Sorry, I figured you would know how reviews of books and articles are
usually done. I apologize for presuming too much, and will not do it
again.

An opinion you get to have despite the inherent limitations such
demands place on reviewers. It is not an opinion I share. I would no
more ask an audio reviewer to be an engineer than I would ask a
restaurant critic to be a chemist.

Yet, I would expect that even a restaurant reviewer ought to know how food
is supposed to be prepared and cooked, and not just how it is supposed to
taste. At least the good ones do. So in this, perhaps I was being unfair
to the restaurant reviewer in my comparison. At best, from a technical
standpoint, all the reviewer did was cite from the manufacturers fact
sheet, and then say something lame about room reflections.

As far as audio goes, the best reviewers are the ones who know their subject
inside and out. They can see through the BS, and maybe even enlighten the
reader on how to spot BS when they encounter it, if the reader is both
prepared and willing to learn.

To be honest, I'm feel that I am arguing the obvious, but perhaps I can
offer another example: it is why Car and Driver hires automotive engineers
as reviewers. A lot of guys like to drive fast. Not many guys that like
to drive fast take the time to get a mechanical engineering degree from
MIT. For the magazine reader, and the consumer of information, it is
better that Csaba Csere took the time, don't you think?

mp

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 3:09�pm, "
wrote:
wrote:
?When "reviewing a review" you've got to
take just a few representative samples.

Is that so? I'd like to know where this limit is spelled out in the
copywright laws.

No need to get legalistic here.

Then perhaps you shouldn't bring it up.

*What I did had nothing to do with
copyright. *It's just the limits of practicality. *The few items I actually
lifted were simply representative of the whole; thus were they used to make
my point. *It is the typical way of reviews.

Fine but then why all the posturing about what "has" to be done and
what I know?

�

Please don't speak for me or what you think I know.

Sorry, I figured you would know how reviews of books and articles are
usually done.

I do and I also know a thing or two about what is included in fair
usage laws and what constitutes a copywright infringement.

*I apologize for presuming too much, and will not do it
again.

In this case it seems you presumed I knew too little.


An opinion you get to have despite the inherent limitations such
demands place on reviewers. It is not an opinion I share. I would no
more ask an audio reviewer to be an engineer than I would ask a
restaurant critic to be a chemist.

Yet, I would expect that even a restaurant reviewer ought to know how food
is supposed to be prepared and cooked, and not just how it is supposed to
taste. *At least the good ones do.

Of course but that knowledge really does make the critic a better
observer. Is there any evidence that engineers are better observers
when it comes to audio?

*So in this, perhaps I was being unfair
to the restaurant reviewer in my comparison. *At best, from a technical
standpoint, all the reviewer did was cite from the manufacturers fact
sheet, and then say something lame about room reflections.

That may be but does it make his observations any less reliable? Would
the reviewer be able to do a better job of listening and reporting his
observations if he were an engineer? Would measuring the equipment and
reporting those measurements make the equipment sound different to
him?


As far as audio goes, the best reviewers are the ones who know their subject
inside and out.

Examples?

? *They can see through the BS, and maybe even enlighten the
reader on how to spot BS when they encounter it, if the reader is both
prepared and willing to learn. *

I think there tends to be a lot of assumptions both ways on what is
and is not B.S. Gosh, when I took advise from Juliam Hirsch, the kind
I suspect you would advocate as good audio journalism, I was very much
let down by the results.


To be honest, I'm feel that I am arguing the obvious, but perhaps I can
offer another example: it is why Car and Driver hires automotive engineers
as reviewers. *A lot of guys like to drive fast. *Not many guys that like
to drive fast take the time to get a mechanical engineering degree from
MIT. *For the magazine reader, and the consumer of information, it is
better that Csaba Csere took the time, don't you think?

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. There is more to
automobile performance than how I feel about it. Yeah, I want
engineers checking the claims of the maufacturers on how a car handles
and brakes etc. One's life could be at stake and it is far more
objective than sound quality or flavor.

Scott

[[email protected]]

wrote:

On Feb 5, 3:09�pm, "
wrote:

As far as audio goes, the best reviewers are the ones who know their
subject inside and out.

Examples?

I think when it comes to speakers one can cite, as a good starting point,
the work of the late Richard Heyser. Of course, one must understand Dr.
Heyser's reviews within the journalistic context of his era. At that time,
due to certain constraints, his opinions were less prominant than the facts
he wrote about. That was not his fault, and it is a criticism that is
unfair to lay at his door. But, by careful reading, one could understand,
nevertheless. In any case, things are not so restrictive, today.
Unfortunately, there is no good magazine like Audio, today. So, any
speaker reviewer coming from his methodological starting point is someone
I'd take seriously.

mp

[Steven R. Rochlin]

Hi Steven, Theporkygeorge and mpresley,

Yes, this thread began with my post concerning the February edition of
Enjoy the Music.com's Superior Audio and Review Magazine. As for the use of
quotes, small bits are fine though of course posting a complete review or
majority of the text would be better served with simply providing a link
within one's post imo.

As for the remainder, will allow everyone to have their opinion. After all,
cars and how they 'feel' when being driver (since someone brought up cars)
is an opinion. Sure you can dyno the car, and perhaps get fairly consistent
launches to determine a 0-60mph time, skidpad, and other bits. Subjective
reviews are simply that, just as some drivers prefer the Porsche versus the
Corvette or visa versa (especially since they tweaked the Z06's suspension
to be less twitchy, but that is another topic for another day).

As for technology and how it is employed, we are one of the very few web
only sites with reviewers who have been professionally involved for over a
decade. Of course new technology and implementation can be hard to follow
and without having access to some very expensive laboratory gear that not
only includes the usual RTA and meters, but also chemical analysis and other
bits. mpresley is concerned about the technology and hope he takes the time
to visit the manufacturer's website and, if needed, e-mail them for more
details. Alas, not all manufacturers want to provide all technical details
down to the last bit, as they may want to keep their engineering technics
provide so others can not copy their designs.

Thanks for chiming in Steven, Theporkygeorge and mpresley. i welcome reading
your comments.

Enjoy the Music,

Steven R. Rochlin
http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com

Where you can find:
Superior Audio, The Absolute Sound,
Review Magazine, The $ensible Sound,
The Audiophile Voice... and MUCH more!