About Us

I was poking around the official Steely Dan site and was amused to find this exchange in their
fan email archives. (What ever happened to old Siegfried D-B anyway?)

http://www.steelydan.com/steelymail.01.html

Subj: Future Steely Dan recordings
Date: 95-11-27 13:37:06 EST
From: SDuraybito
To: STEELY DAN

In Issue 99 of The Absolute Sound magazine, I surveyed Steely Dan's superbly-recorded LPs from
the 1970s. In each case, the LPs outperform the CD re-issues in terms of sonic quality with a
sense of "you-are-there" that CDs can't match.

On behalf of audio enthusiasts and Steely Dan lovers around the world, I urge you to record
subsequent Steely Dan works all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks) and to
issue coincident LP versions of all releases.

Thanks for your time,

Siegfried P. Duray-Bito

Dear Siegfried:
Yeah, and maybe we should write the lyrics with a quill pen on parchment?

Thanks for your lavish praise and your no-doubt scholarly appraisal of our recorded ouvre.
Think we'll pass on the "all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks)" deal. MCA is
interested in rereleasing some of our catalog on vinyl, and this may indeed happen soon. I'll
hang on to my CD's - just the thought of that flimsy little phono stylus twitching along in
that scratchy plastic groove makes my fillings hurt.

By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks, purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying yourself a life.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

On 1 Jul 2004 00:54:32 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
yourself a life.

It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.

Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies such as
politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck tires --
readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper purchases
(or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can learn
enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr. Atkinson lets
it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to the
knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.

In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping. There
are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr. Atkinson's
comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was raving
about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as "broken."
Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the expenditure of
readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to recommend it
-- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a review of
the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness and
light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before clipping
and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment reviews
have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for advertisements.

Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that the
intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with the
Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the ones
that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from those
claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).

I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit more. On
the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its US
counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of balance in
the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward the
readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and Stereophile
a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers routinely
display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from Valhal
-- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to numerous
reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like Musical
Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled reviewing
Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.

Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.

goFab.com wrote:
On 1 Jul 2004 00:54:32 GMT, in article , Steven
Sullivan stated:

actually, Becker and/or Fagan stated this; I simply quoted it.

By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
yourself a life.

It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.

Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
and the like.

Better that, than endorsements of ridiculous audio tweaks/equipment, e.g.
Dudley's recent qualified rave for the magical 'Audio Collimator'.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

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.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other". I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time. To be very generous
and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?

JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.

I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
assertively declared the amp broken as designed.

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it. If he said he
has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.

When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement. And I could have paralleled a few
of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.

I have been unhappy with Stereophile, and that pretty much
does it for me I think. Lunacy for sure.

Dennis

"goFab.com" wrote in message
It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.

Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with
each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems
reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an
absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a
result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting
seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap
operas
and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies
such as
politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck
tires --
readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper
purchases
(or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can
learn
enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr.
Atkinson lets
it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to
the
knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.

In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally
unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from
Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of
heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's
technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated
at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.
There
are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr.
Atkinson's
comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was
raving
about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as
"broken."
Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the
expenditure of
readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to
recommend it
-- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a
review of
the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness
and
light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before
clipping
and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment
reviews
have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for
advertisements.

Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that
the
intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with
the
Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the
ones
that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from
those
claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).

I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit
more. On
the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its
US
counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of
balance in
the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward
the
readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and
Stereophile
a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers
routinely
display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from
Valhal
-- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to
numerous
reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like
Musical
Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled
reviewing
Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.

Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.

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 believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

To be very generous
and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?

JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.

I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
assertively declared the amp broken as designed.

I doubt it. He didn't review the product.

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it.

He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job. His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If he said he
has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.

People see what they want to see.

When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement.

IYO.

And I could have paralleled a few
of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.

Hey, if you can design and build a power amplifier that can reproduce all the
characteristics of the WAVAC I suggest you consider doing so and marketing it
on that premise. It worked for Carver. You might be filling a niche.

I have been unhappy with Stereophile, and that pretty much
does it for me I think. Lunacy for sure.

Dennis

"goFab.com" wrote in message
It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.

Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with
each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems
reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an
absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a
result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting
seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap
operas
and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies
such as
politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck
tires --
readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper
purchases
(or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can
learn
enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr.
Atkinson lets
it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to
the
knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.

In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally
unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from
Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of
heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's
technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated
at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.
There
are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr.
Atkinson's
comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was
raving
about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as
"broken."
Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the
expenditure of
readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to
recommend it
-- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a
review of
the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness
and
light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before
clipping
and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment
reviews
have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for
advertisements.

Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that
the
intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with
the
Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the
ones
that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from
those
claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).

I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit
more. On
the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its
US
counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of
balance in
the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward
the
readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and
Stereophile
a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers
routinely
display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from
Valhal
-- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to
numerous
reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like
Musical
Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled
reviewing
Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.

Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

goFab.com wrote:
In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.

Stereophile July 2004

http://www.stereophile.com/contents704/

Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier
Michael Fremer

As We See It
Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair Wavac amplifier
in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of fidelity and value
for money.

I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
on the website.

There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
test like this are usually described as "broken."

That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance. And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement.

Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01,
S888Wheel stated:

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it.

He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.

I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's "job"
is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral, lucid
account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.

Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to go
in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
defend" what his writers say is simply wrong. He's responsible for what they
say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's content
as much as the writer of that content does.

His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can all
the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns reviewing
equipment and giving their "opinions." When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere existence
of a particular product).

And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
for the money.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
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.

Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
to clipping amps to know I don't like them.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?

Or approaching from another angle, considering the
measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
its normal performance from a broken product?

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 believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad. There's no accounting for taste.

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

snip the rest...

Buster Mudd wrote:
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message ...
Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement.

Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

1979 amps, OK. Tell us when happened in following years when those buyers
wanted to drive the new breeds of 2 to 4 ohm resistive speakers that came
along and were to their liking. Wait, I know... they refurbished their old
outdated and antiquated speakers.

Sounds like a broken Mac to me.

I have owned some of those. Pleasant to listen to of course.
But 8-10% indicates a problem, probably a tube of course.

Mac's had lower measured distortion than many tube amps.
And would run clinics to bring them up to the spec if they
weren't. And the spec was way lower than 8-10% unless
you were overdriving them.

Dennis

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement.

Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote in message
...
Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier (Michael Fremer)
As We See It ( Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair
Wavac amplifier in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of
fidelity and value for money.)

I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
on the website.

Both will be accessible in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.

There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
test like this are usually described as "broken."

That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?

It was the Antique Sound Lab Explorer review, also available in
Stereophile's on-line archives.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Gl2Hc.41762$%_6.17984@attbi_s01

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article
JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01,
S888Wheel stated:

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it.

He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.

I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's
"job"
is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral,
lucid
account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.

I am wrong on one count. It isn't his job to defend WAVAC and that wasn't what
i meant. It is his job to defend his review. He is the one who used the amps.

Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to
go
in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
defend" what his writers say is simply wrong.

Not in this case. MF did not do anything in his review that went against
editorial policy that I know of. When all is said and done it is MF's opinions
that are being disputed and it is up to him to defend them.

He's responsible for what they
say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's
content
as much as the writer of that content does.

He is not responsible for their opinions on sound quality.

His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system
sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can
all
the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns
reviewing
equipment and giving their "opinions."

That would be up to JA. He chose the writers. The writers offer one person's
opinion in every review they write. This did not begin with the WAVAC review.
It is often stated in Stereophile that a review is just one person's opinion
and that it should not be taken as gospel. Stereophile recomends that readers
audition products themselves before making a purchase.

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
to the amps in question.

And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
for the money.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 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.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists. Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating. All amps clip at a
certain point. Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?

snip the rest...

From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Ql2Hc.40993$a24.516@attbi_s03

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
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.

Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
to clipping amps to know I don't like them.

I didn't realize you could tell what the WAVACs sound like without listening to
them. I am skeptical that you can.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?

No I haven't. But I see no need to mischaracterize a product to be critical of
it. It wasn't broken. It worked.

Or approaching from another angle, considering the
measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
its normal performance from a broken product?

I already explained that to you. If it doesn't work at all it is broken. That
would make for an easily detectable difference. If a product is not working as
it is supposed to work it is broken. Again it would be easy to tell the
difference.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51,
S888Wheel stated:

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
to the amps in question.

And what biases would those be? You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
audio amplifier? :-) FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press) and I
don't have any particular axe to grind. I'm a Stereophile subscriber; that's
the extent of my stake in the quality of the magazine.

You keep talking about "listening to the amps in question" -- if everyone could
personally listen to every product, there would be little need for a magazine
that reviews them. A review, IMHO, is supposed to impart information, and it
would be good if there was some articulable basis on which to rely on the
information imparted.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

I would report that I personally liked them but I would also prominently add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at all." And I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review. I'm not saying the
review had to be negative, but I'd probably hold off on going to the lengths
that MF did -- apotheosis, eureka, and all that stuff -- for something that
didn't sport such obvious defects on the bench.

And if I really believed that it "sounded more like live music" despite the
obvious existence of high levels of distortion and other anomalies in the
measurements, I would start asking myself serious questions about whether this
repeated mantra of today's audio reviewers really does have any objective
meaning at all. If I were an audio reviewer, I'd think I'd have a strong
interest in firmly establishing the informational value of what I was writing,
so personally there would be some serious self-examination going on. Maybe
there is, but if it is, you don't see it discussed in the audio press (outside
of the letters column occasionally).

"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

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:31:32 GMT, in article 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03,
chung stated:

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

When I originally used the term "broken" in my post, it was not my choice of
words but a particularly quotable quote of Mr. Atkinson in a technical sidebar
to a review from several issues ago (I believe the review was by Dudley of some
flea powered amps). I was going by memory, so sorry if I mischaracterized those
words.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Buster Mudd wrote:

Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".
In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.

Okay let us try this again.

Real event that happened. Picked up an old Fisher integrated amp.
Tubes all light up. Hooked up to some small speakers, it sounds
soft, but pretty good. Hooked up to larger speakers it still sounds
pretty good, but weak. Checking with an O-scope, becomes
obvious one tube in the output pair is doing next to nothing. And
that anything over about 3 watts is very distorted. However this
was supposed to be an 18 wpc amp.

Do I assume marketing hubris, and say it sounds awfully good
for such a thing? Or do I consider it broken and fix it? I mean
it worked, does that mean it wasn't broken? Of course not,
it was broken and once fixed put out something near its rated
power.

If a tremendously expensive amp of huge mass hogs up a good deal
of power, claims to be 150 wpc and then tests more like 2 wpc,
do I say hey it works or not? Me, no I say broken as designed.

Have I heard the Wavac? No. Do I know what it sounds like
without listening to it? No. Have I heard other weak amps clipping?
Yes. Do they sound different from each other or the same? Usually
different. Do I benefit from listening to an amp that acts like an
amp grossly overdriven past 2 watts? No, I do not. Much better
to simply get an amp that doesn't need over-driving to use.

If it somehow sounded 'good' this way what would I do if a reviewer.
I would explain that it must be due to the output behaviour, and suggest
a similary distorting pre-amp, connected to a low distortion truly
150 wpc amp would get you the same effect for far less money with
lots more power.

Anybody caring to try this approach, I have a suggestion. The
Antique Sound Labs MG-DT Head headphone amp. One half of a
12AX7 per channel, one 6BQ5 per channel in SET connection.
Option of transformer coupling or OTL. Volume control
right up front. This decent little unit puts out something
like 1 or 2 watts itself. Plug in a source, get some Radio Shack
adaptors to connect RCA's to the headphone outupt jack. Feed
your amp. Voila', you have smooth, warm, fairly seductive
SET sound from whatever SS amp you are using. All for far
less than $500 even if you get some NOS tubes to replace the
stock tubes. Pretty nice headphone amp too.

Dennis

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 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.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions? If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?

"Simply"? It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.

You mean as in lying?

All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.

Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?

I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

"goFab.com" wrote in message
news:VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article
HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51,
S888Wheel stated:

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you
are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never
listened
to the amps in question.

And what biases would those be? You think I'm a shill for a competing
$350K
audio amplifier? :-) FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
and I
don't have any particular axe to grind. I'm a Stereophile subscriber;
that's
the extent of my stake in the quality of the magazine.

You keep talking about "listening to the amps in question" -- if everyone
could
personally listen to every product, there would be little need for a
magazine
that reviews them. A review, IMHO, is supposed to impart information, and
it
would be good if there was some articulable basis on which to rely on the
information imparted.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You
know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard
sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

I would report that I personally liked them but I would also prominently
add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at all." And
I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review. I'm not saying
the
review had to be negative, but I'd probably hold off on going to the
lengths
that MF did -- apotheosis, eureka, and all that stuff -- for something
that
didn't sport such obvious defects on the bench.

And if I really believed that it "sounded more like live music" despite
the
obvious existence of high levels of distortion and other anomalies in the
measurements, I would start asking myself serious questions about whether
this
repeated mantra of today's audio reviewers really does have any objective
meaning at all. If I were an audio reviewer, I'd think I'd have a strong
interest in firmly establishing the informational value of what I was
writing,
so personally there would be some serious self-examination going on.
Maybe
there is, but if it is, you don't see it discussed in the audio press
(outside
of the letters column occasionally).

John can (and probably should) speak for himself on this. But AFAIK
Stereophile has reviewers testing/listening to the equipment and writing
their review completely separate from (and usually ahead of) John's testing
of the equipment. As RAHE participants, you should appreciate that this is
done in part to *prevent* inadvertent listening bias...so the reviewer knows
nothing about how the piece under review "measures" before giving their
opinion. So, MF's enthusiasm may have been justified by his subjective
listening...or he may have been influenced by the price. It's hard to tell.
But testing first, then reviewing would definitely have damped his
enthusiasm but also corrupted the reviewing process.
If you are going to measure first, you could only justify it by throwing out
without review anything that measured bad. And we don't as yet seem to
have enough correlation to do that.

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/8/2004 8:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: VaoHc.50782$Oq2.19921@attbi_s52

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:47:35 GMT, in article HUeHc.12796$WX.4645@attbi_s51,
S888Wheel stated:

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you
are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never
listened
to the amps in question.

And what biases would those be?

The one you have already expressed about the measurments of this amp.

You think I'm a shill for a competing $350K
audio amplifier? :-)

This might be another one. The price.

FYI, I'm not in the business (audio or audio press)
and I
don't have any particular axe to grind.

You may not be in the audio press( I never said or implied you were) But I am
skeptical about the axe.

I'm a Stereophile subscriber; that's
the extent of my stake in the quality of the magazine.

You keep talking about "listening to the amps in question" -- if everyone
could
personally listen to every product, there would be little need for a magazine
that reviews them.

I disagree on two counts. One of the benefits of audiophile magazines is to
alert audiophiles to the existance of products the magazine sees as a potential
interest. The second count is the notion that such magazines are "needed."

A review, IMHO, is supposed to impart information, and it
would be good if there was some articulable basis on which to rely on the
information imparted.

If one is relying on a review and skipping any audition before making a
purchase I would say they are creating their own problems should they be
dissatisfied. If you rely on the *opinions* of others, you get what they like.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You
know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard
sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

I would report that I personally liked them but I would also prominently add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at all."

And this is unlike what Stereophile did in what way?

And I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review.

You would? You mean you would let your biases regarding the measurements affect
your honest impression of the sound you experienced? I would not like that at
all. I would want the most honest review of the sonic impressions.
Interestingly MF was not aware of how the amp measured before writing his
review. maybe it was for the best. Maybe the measurements would have tempered
his review which would have been less true to his impressions. IMO Stereophile
may have out done what you would have done yourself.

I'm not saying the
review had to be negative, but I'd probably hold off on going to the lengths
that MF did -- apotheosis, eureka, and all that stuff -- for something that
didn't sport such obvious defects on the bench.

IMO that would have been a mistake based on a prejudice due to the measured
performance. I think maybe Stereophile should be given their due for not
corrupting the honest impressions of the reviewer while giving a good
accounting of the measured performance of this unit.

And if I really believed that it "sounded more like live music" despite the
obvious existence of high levels of distortion and other anomalies in the
measurements, I would start asking myself serious questions about whether
this
repeated mantra of today's audio reviewers really does have any objective
meaning at all.

I do believe MF actually made such insinuations in his review.

If I were an audio reviewer, I'd think I'd have a strong
interest in firmly establishing the informational value of what I was
writing,
so personally there would be some serious self-examination going on.

Maybe there was. MF knows for sure. I'm not sure that it belongs in a review of
a piece of equipment. I'm not sure it doesn't either. I know most of HP's
reviews had a lot of this going on. I tended to find his ramblings on the
matters of self-examination rather dull.

Maybe
there is, but if it is, you don't see it discussed in the audio press
(outside
of the letters column occasionally).

As for Stereophile's method of letting the reviewer use and write about
the equipment without knowing any measurements, I say bravo. The
philosophy is how something sounds in use is important. So doing it
this way only makes sense. I also say they show some integrity beyond
many other publications by also doing some basic measurements. And
publishing both.

However, I begin to think the subjective review process is broken
(yes, I know many have said so for so long) when an amp this bad
in terms of power output ability can get a pretty darn good review.
The reviewer had to be prejudiced by the price, it is the focus of the
first few paragraphes. And also by the idea these things are 150 watts.
Then the huge size and weight do nothing to make you ever believe it
really is only 2 watts or so of clean power.

I also believe many people prefer an amp that goes from neglible
distortion to a couple percent over the last 15-20 dB of output ability,
if that distortion is rising linearly with output and is of low harmonic
content. But this Wavac would be far beyond even that. It had to be
used pretty grossly overdriven for fair parts of the review process
considering it power output capabilities. Again if such was detectable
and preferred, I feel building a line level box to do this connected
in front of a clean power amp is much more cost effective. That such
gross behaviour wasn't perceived for what it was calls in to question
this type review process.

Dennis

"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.

"goFab.com" wrote in message ...

In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.

An amplifier that only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping is a 2 W/ch
amplifier, not a 150 W/ch amplifier. The problem is not with the
amplifier, but with the manufacturer's specs. If these 4 Watts sound
good to your ears, and you are willing to pay $87500 per Watt, then I
say it's a good deal. Also, from the manufacturer's website, this rig
draws 800 Watts, so its thermodynamic efficiency is somewhere around
half a percent.

In the sound reinforcement business, we are beginning to see
respectable power amps costing less than 50 cents per Watt.

Buster Mudd wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Buster Mudd wrote:

Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".

Yes, I will note that too, but the brand effect of Macintosh, to those
who care, maps well enough to 'spiffy'.

In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.

Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening
sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they
were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive
feelings about tube amps?

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

From: chung
Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 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.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\

Obviously someone did in this particular case. Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to. Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more informative
than speculation and presumption.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Read the next line I wrote.

Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?

"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.

How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.

You mean as in lying?

No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make
that acusation.

All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.

We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been subjected
to fracture a broken leg : disrupted by change

Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?

I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

You didn't answer the question. Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about 90
db in efficiency right? an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?

(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: chung

....snip to content.... 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.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

This attitude is typical of another high-end platitude "You are unqualified to
comment on a product that you've never listened to." This is simply another
merchandising technique to forestall critical comment. It assumes that there
are special evaluative qualities which only high-end promoters (including
buyers) possess. And only insiders can have access.

I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

However, in those days ALL of his equipment was custom or modified in some way
to "protect himself from audiophiles." His explanation: If he was touting the
sound of a given piece of equipment there would always be an audiophile who
would say "I've heard that piece and it sounds like crap." To which my friend
could reply "You haven't heard this one .... it's been modified."

To the uninitiated in high-end audio where "everything"can make a difference
modification can be as simple as putting a paperweight on an amplifier or
scratching your initials on the back plate.

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/9/2004 9:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: PRzHc.50521$IQ4.19828@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 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.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.

How am I making presumptions?

You said you don't think the amp in question is worth listening to without
listening to it. I find that a bit presumptuous.

I find that you are the one who is extremely presumptious. I *know* that
I do not want to listen to a 2W amp. How could you possible assume that
I would find such an amp worth listening to?

If the measurements show that the amp
clips at a low output voltage, then the amp will distort at low output
voltages. Are you saying that I may like the clipped sound?\

Obviously someone did in this particular case.

But not me.

Maybe you would too if you
didn't know ahead of time what you were listening to.

There, you are being presumptious.

Maybe you wouldn't. A lot
of maybes. I found an actual audition of a WAVAC amp to far more informative
than speculation and presumption.

Go ahead and listen for yourself, but please don't argue with me that I
may like a 2W amp.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other".

It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much
more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists.

And your point being?

Read the next line I wrote.

Which was totally irrelevant to my statement that there is no accounting
for taste. Meaning you can't argue about someone else's taste. Meaning
there are many people with taste that you would consider poor.

Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?

"Simply"?

Yes, I said simply.

It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.

How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.

Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?

I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time.

Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken
means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating.

You mean as in lying?

No I didn't mean that. It may very well be a lie. I am in no position to make
that acusation.

Well, if it's not lying, then it's gross incompetence. Or gross
negligence. Or cheating. Which is it? A typo?

All amps clip at a
certain point.

You buy an amp that is rated at 150W. You find out that it clips at less
than 1/10 of that. It sounds (pun inteneded) broken to me.

We seem to have very different understanding of the word broken.This is my
understanding...1 : violently separated into parts : SHATTERED
2 : damaged or altered by breaking: as a : having undergone or been subjected
to fracture a broken leg : disrupted by change

It's really simple. An amp spec'ed at 150W that clips at 2W is broken
IMO. You can argue semantics all you want.

Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the
signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to
it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?

I am glad that now you are realizing the enormity of the problem....

You didn't answer the question.

The point is that now you are starting to realize the enormity of the
problem by trying to find out what clipping at 2W means. Now it's your
turn to do some research.

Lets put it another way. An amp that is rated
at 150 watts can produce about 111 db from a speaker that is rated at about 90
db in efficiency right?

111.8 dB SPL at 1 meter.

an amp that clips at 2 watts can do what?

93 dB SPL at 1 meter, or was that a rhetorical question?

You think an amp that clips at 93 dB SPL at 1m is good enough to handle
the dynamics of the kind of music you listen to? Well, it certainly
saves you a lot of money...unless you want this amp by WAVAC.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the
WAVACs. You
know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you
heard
sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

I would report that I personally liked them but I would also
prominently add,
"Warning Warning Will Robinson: these amps did not test well at
all."

And this is unlike what Stereophile did in what way?

And I
would certainly temper the statements made in my review.

You would? You mean you would let your biases regarding the
measurements affect
your honest impression of the sound you experienced? I would not
like that at
all. I would want the most honest review of the sonic impressions.
Interestingly MF was not aware of how the amp measured before
writing his
review. maybe it was for the best. Maybe the measurements would have
tempered
his review which would have been less true to his impressions. IMO
Stereophile
may have out done what you would have done yourself.

"Let" your biases affect your honest impressions? You can't prevent
it. That's why they're called biases. You have no control over them.
If I were the reviewer, just seeing the amplifiers, knowing what they
cost and that they are SETs, would make any review I might write
worthless. Clearly, Mr. Fremer's review WAS worthless.

Norm Strong

Dennis Moore wrote:
As for Stereophile's method of letting the reviewer use and write about
the equipment without knowing any measurements, I say bravo. The
philosophy is how something sounds in use is important. So doing it
this way only makes sense. I also say they show some integrity beyond
many other publications by also doing some basic measurements. And
publishing both.

Yes, I agree with this.

However, I begin to think the subjective review process is broken
(yes, I know many have said so for so long) when an amp this bad
in terms of power output ability can get a pretty darn good review.
The reviewer had to be prejudiced by the price, it is the focus of the
first few paragraphes. And also by the idea these things are 150 watts.
Then the huge size and weight do nothing to make you ever believe it
really is only 2 watts or so of clean power.

It is obvious that the subjective review process is broken because the
reviewers don't use bias controls, straight wire bypass tests, etc.
Publishing open ended listening subjective reviews is fine, they just
should be tempered by at least some modest attempt at objectivity. The
credibility of the magazine would be greater if they did this, but it
would be bad for business, which is exactly why it isn't done.

On 7/11/04 1:38 AM, in article 9n4Ic.66712$Oq2.50867@attbi_s52, "chung"
wrote:

It is obvious that someone who can rave about the wonderful
sound of an amp that clips at 2W has, uh, unconventional, taste.

How do you know? You have never heard the amp in question.

Do you understand the meaning of "unconventional"? How many people you
know will rave about the sound of a 2W amp that is spec'ed at 150W?

Yes, but if it clips at 2W - then it should be rated at 2W, yes?

On 7/11/04 1:37 AM, in article mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote:

I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
fancy isolation stand. If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
difference.

It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
felt in a greater desire to listen to music.

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.....

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:39:11 GMT, B&D wrote:

On 7/11/04 1:37 AM, in article mm4Ic.66433$XM6.20336@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote:

I have a friend, who was at one time as high-end as you could get (custom West
electrostatic loudspeakers and electronics plus a turntable system with a
custom $6k lead isolation stand) but was crushed when a $300 cd player "blew
away" his tt in sound quality.

Amazingly, the table, tonearm and cartridge make more difference than a
fancy isolation stand.

That's not at all amazing - more like stating the bleedin' obvious...

If he had a bad turntable, or a mediocre one, with a
average tonearm and so-so cartridge, CD and Vinyl won't make much
difference.

Why would you immediately assume that the owner of the above system
would possess a 'mediocre' vinyl replay system? That seems a
particularly unreasonable assumption. And you know what they say about
assumptions..............................

It is only with the really high end turntable with the very best records
that make a difference - and then, only with time will the differences be
felt in a greater desire to listen to music.

Excuse me? Even with a Rockport Sirius III, vinyl will still be vinyl.
That's the *real* difference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Imaging, soundstage, 3D	Ban	High End Audio	4	February 17th 04 06:18 AM
the emperor's clothes	Ben Hoadley	High End Audio	33	January 16th 04 05:48 PM
Sound, Music, Balance	Robert Trosper	High End Audio	1	November 21st 03 04:09 AM
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound	Uptown Audio	High End Audio	0	September 10th 03 04:36 PM
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers	Robert Lang	High End Audio	5	July 4th 03 08:39 PM

Menu

About Us