Audio Reviews

[Paul R]

My only criticism of stereophile's review process in how they interpret the measures. I've seen this personally multiple times where there's a 6db resonant spike in the main part of the frequency response and the reviewer will go on to say something like ' a relatively smooth frequency response'. Relative to what? Mount Everest? Lol.

 

It seems that sometimes, the measurements do not bear out the reviewer's opinion. Yet, that seems to be the exception, not the rule. Remember, the reviewers usually do their thing *before* the measurements are done. They do an awfully good job of finding by ear what measurements usually bear out though.

[Edt: I see from Kal Rubison's post that reviewers *never* see the measurements first. That makes it even more impressive. -Paul ]

 

Their backs were certainly up against the wall with that little Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf speaker though. User reviews across the world rave about the value of those little boxes....

 

.....other than above, Stereophile BY FAR does the best job in the business for reviews.[/Quote]

 

Well, in general, I got the sense they were very pleased that the little Pioneers tested out so well and that they were able to give them review space. I think I remember Jones being interviewed as part of that, and also being happy to say his little cost conscious creations were indeed, a marvel.

 

I also agree they do the best job in the print world, and by a large margin. Some of the guys at other pubs are in the same league as the Stereophile guys, but not a lot of them.

 

-Paul

[Speedskater]

At Stereophile magazine, with the exceptions of Kal and JA, I doubt that any of the other reviewers even care what the measurements are.

 

Does anyone else remember more than a decade ago when Stereophile would often have long, good technical articles?

[Kal Rubinson]

[Edt: I see from Kal Rubison's post that reviewers *never* see the measurements first. That makes it even more impressive. -Paul ][/i]

Of course, sometimes I do my own measurements. Shush!

[astrotoy]

Would someone subscribe to a publication that took no advertising, paid its staff to review and test the equipment, and bought at retail, anonymously, all the equipment it tested? That is what Consumer Reports does. Even all the cars it tests. However, according to wiki it has 7.3M subscribers and an annual testing budget of $21M. If you added up the retail cost of the all the products that Stereophile or Absolute Sound reviewed in a year, then added the cost of the equivalent full time staff to test and review all the equipment and probably double that total to cover the other costs, you would get some idea of the total revenue needed to provide a completely objective publication. In addition, CR buys a range of products for each type of item, and then tests them all and publishes the results (so you know the good, bad, and ugly). So the range of products covered by the publications would have to even be larger that it is now.

 

Stereophile and Absolute Sound started with a Consumer Reports model of no advertising and the reviews reflected that. They also couldn't stay alive with that model. Remember the publication frequency in the old days - it was whenever Gordon or Harry could get an issue out. The circulation of Stereophile, the biggest of the mags is about 70,000 annually according to wiki. That is 1% of the size of CR. Assuming a testing budget of 10% the size of CR ($2M a year which I think would be low if you bought everything at retail and paid your staff reasonably) then the annual subscription price would be 10 times the $35 that CR charges, or $350/year assuming that all 70,000 subscribers stayed. If 2/3 dropped out, then the price goes to $1000/ year.

 

BTW, the most expensive cars that CR tests are in the low six figures and they don't do a lot of them. No really high end stuff (Ferraris, Maybachs, Aston-Martins, Bentleys). That would blow a $21M testing budget out of the water very quickly. One thing I know is that CR, after testing its cars, resells them on the used market, which lowers the testing budget accordingly. So $21M may include that factor. Something similar would have to be done in an audio publication.

 

Larry

[The Computer Audiophile]

Would someone subscribe to a publication that took no advertising, paid its staff to review and test the equipment, and bought at retail, anonymously, all the equipment it tested? That is what Consumer Reports does. Even all the cars it tests. However, according to wiki it has 7.3M subscribers and an annual testing budget of $21M. If you added up the retail cost of the all the products that Stereophile or Absolute Sound reviewed in a year, then added the cost of the equivalent full time staff to test and review all the equipment and probably double that total to cover the other costs, you would get some idea of the total revenue needed to provide a completely objective publication. In addition, CR buys a range of products for each type of item, and then tests them all and publishes the results (so you know the good, bad, and ugly). So the range of products covered by the publications would have to even be larger that it is now.

 

Stereophile and Absolute Sound started with a Consumer Reports model of no advertising and the reviews reflected that. They also couldn't stay alive with that model. Remember the publication frequency in the old days - it was whenever Gordon or Harry could get an issue out. The circulation of Stereophile, the biggest of the mags is about 70,000 annually according to wiki. That is 1% of the size of CR. Assuming a testing budget of 10% the size of CR ($2M a year which I think would be low if you bought everything at retail and paid your staff reasonably) then the annual subscription price would be 10 times the $35 that CR charges, or $350/year assuming that all 70,000 subscribers stayed. If 2/3 dropped out, then the price goes to $1000/ year.

 

BTW, the most expensive cars that CR tests are in the low six figures and they don't do a lot of them. No really high end stuff (Ferraris, Maybachs, Aston-Martins, Bentleys). That would blow a $21M testing budget out of the water very quickly. One thing I know is that CR, after testing its cars, resells them on the used market, which lowers the testing budget accordingly. So $21M may include that factor. Something similar would have to be done in an audio publication.

 

Larry

Thanks for the post Larry.

 

I think all of us publishers would love to go the Consumer Reports route if we could. As an online only publisher I've studied many models and concluded years ago it's extremely hard to put up a paywall and succeed. Going the CR route would unfortunately require a paywall.

[realhifi]

 

 

 

A better question would be how and to what degree Stereophile, TAS, CA, and related publication are serving to replace brick and morter dealers as the primary source of reference and advice for most audiophiles?

 

 

Paul

 

Those mags have been around since the very begining of the high end. In almost all reviews that those (at least the paper ones) magazines print, they are always quick to say "but listen with your own ears" or "worth auditioning" or something else along those lines. So I have always felt they are a great resource and guide for what to at least consider in the huge selection that is out there now and more of partner to brick and mortar stores than a replacement.

[Musicophile]

Would someone subscribe to a publication that took no advertising, paid its staff to review and test the equipment, and bought at retail, anonymously, all the equipment it tested? That is what Consumer Reports does. Even all the cars it tests. However, according to wiki it has 7.3M subscribers and an annual testing budget of $21M. If you added up the retail cost of the all the products that Stereophile or Absolute Sound reviewed in a year, then added the cost of the equivalent full time staff to test and review all the equipment and probably double that total to cover the other costs, you would get some idea of the total revenue needed to provide a completely objective publication. In addition, CR buys a range of products for each type of item, and then tests them all and publishes the results (so you know the good, bad, and ugly). So the range of products covered by the publications would have to even be larger that it is now.

 

Stereophile and Absolute Sound started with a Consumer Reports model of no advertising and the reviews reflected that. They also couldn't stay alive with that model. Remember the publication frequency in the old days - it was whenever Gordon or Harry could get an issue out. The circulation of Stereophile, the biggest of the mags is about 70,000 annually according to wiki. That is 1% of the size of CR. Assuming a testing budget of 10% the size of CR ($2M a year which I think would be low if you bought everything at retail and paid your staff reasonably) then the annual subscription price would be 10 times the $35 that CR charges, or $350/year assuming that all 70,000 subscribers stayed. If 2/3 dropped out, then the price goes to $1000/ year.

 

BTW, the most expensive cars that CR tests are in the low six figures and they don't do a lot of them. No really high end stuff (Ferraris, Maybachs, Aston-Martins, Bentleys). That would blow a $21M testing budget out of the water very quickly. One thing I know is that CR, after testing its cars, resells them on the used market, which lowers the testing budget accordingly. So $21M may include that factor. Something similar would have to be done in an audio publication.

 

Larry

Now I'd be interested if somebody suggest double blind testing for cars. The results may be interesting...

[Cycleman]

Thanks for the post Larry.

 

I think all of us publishers would love to go the Consumer Reports route if we could. As an online only publisher I've studied many models and concluded years ago it's extremely hard to put up a paywall and succeed. Going the CR route would unfortunately require a paywall.

 

I worked as a magazine editor for many years, 10 of those years on a computer magazine (remember the paper ones?).

 

And one of the things I loved about the job is that the classic separation of church and state -- editorial and ad sales -- was followed strictly and all the time.

So, as an editor, I was never told what products to cover, or what not to write about, et cetera.

 

In a good publication -- and let's put Stereophile there, for the moment, and CA certainly -- the content will not be swayed by the advertising.

This is not uncommon, even for product focused publications.

 

So, while the CR route with a paywall sounds better, it may not offer better results.

Especially if, as with CR, the staff as a whole appears to be generalists, since they cover all types of goods.

Expertise draws advertisers, too, at least to an extent.

 

Dave, who does sometimes find the opposite to be the case where the editorial staff decides to look at some product and therefore that company decides to advertise and yet companies whose products are never or rarely reviewed also advertise

[Jud]

Their backs were certainly up against the wall with that little Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf speaker though. User reviews across the world rave about the value of those little boxes....

 

 

Got 'em for $99 on sale at Best Buy - they're my desktop speakers.

 

I remember Absolute Sound in its early years with no ads. Anyone who wants to read critical equipment reviews should have seen the magazine in the mid-70s. *Nothing* was good enough for Harry Pearson, with the possible exception of the Linn Sondek. Simon Cowell would come off as Pollyanna next to Harry back then.

 

I haven't read the magazines to try to get an idea of equipment quality for years. All the reading between the lines to try to get a hint of anything other than positives got tiring. For a while I looked at them to see what was new, but (1) many of the items reviewed are in short supply, exotic, expensive(!), etc., and (2) for the things I'm interested in now, such as DACs, I tend to get a lot of information right here at CA. I do like manufacturer interviews, some of the music reviews, and an occasional article. It was an article (by Mike Fremer?) on using Apple's Airport Express as a digital source that got me into computer audio and Computer Audiophile in the first place.

[Jud]

I worked as a magazine editor for many years, 10 of those years on a computer magazine (remember the paper ones?).

 

In a good publication -- and let's put Stereophile there, for the moment, and CA certainly -- the content will not be swayed by the advertising.

This is not uncommon, even for product focused publications.

 

Dave, who does sometimes find the opposite to be the case where the editorial staff decides to look at some product and therefore that company decides to advertise and yet companies whose products are never or rarely reviewed also advertise

 

Dave, I wish I could agree with you, and I'm not accusing anyone of conscious dishonesty, but remembering Absolute Sound before advertising, the entire focus was different. Harry reviewed everything from the standpoint of how, and how far, it fell short of the absolute (unamplified live music), and *everything* came up sorely wanting against that perfect standard. It was damned acerbic and often very, very entertaining. Now magazines try to cull what they'll like from the possibilities, and they can say it's so as not to waste everyone's time, but I think this may be an after the fact subconscious justification of the necessity not to offend a lot of manufacturers. After all, a bad review can be quite valuable in telling people what not to buy and why.

 

So while I agree that the content of individual reviews is not consciously swayed by advertising, it really dictates the way the review section of a magazine is structured - getting in for review equipment most likely to be liked, and focusing on what the equipment does well, rather than on how it falls short of the impossible standard of perfection.

[esldude]

Dave, I wish I could agree with you, and I'm not accusing anyone of conscious dishonesty, but remembering Absolute Sound before advertising, the entire focus was different. Harry reviewed everything from the standpoint of how, and how far, it fell short of the absolute (unamplified live music), and *everything* came up sorely wanting against that perfect standard. It was damned acerbic and often very, very entertaining. Now magazines try to cull what they'll like from the possibilities, and they can say it's so as not to waste everyone's time, but I think this may be an after the fact subconscious justification of the necessity not to offend a lot of manufacturers. After all, a bad review can be quite valuable in telling people what not to buy and why.

 

So while I agree that the content of individual reviews is not consciously swayed by advertising, it really dictates the way the review section of a magazine is structured - getting in for review equipment most likely to be liked, and focusing on what the equipment does well, rather than on how it falls short of the impossible standard of perfection.

 

 

Firstly, Stereophile is very valuable for their measurements section (if only they measured cables too). You can tell it is unbiased. Often something getting a good review has some suspect measurements and those are published. Also from time to time a maker will complain the unit had to be malfunctioning and supply a second unit. They always post results from both.

 

But Jud brings up an important difference about the early TAS. Very different approach. One much more entertaining, and one I think would be more useful than ever with today's equipment. Yet I think Ad revenue has publishers reluctant to take that approach plus all the pubs now are mostly sort of big business and don't want any possibly liability.

 

Harry Pearson, love or hate him, had a standard by which to judge. One might find fault with his standard, but he had one that provided philosophical grounding to his approach. The live sound of un-amplified music. He might praise something as good, but he darn sure pointed out where it fell short, and it all fell short (which is most definitely honest). I also believe he and the other TAS writers in those days well conveyed the general sound character of a component by highlighting its shortcomings and comparing them to strengths most concisely. Those reviews were usually only a couple of dense pages in a half-magazine sized format. But were able to give you an inkling of how it would sound when you heard it.

 

Now we probably need a bit more time about features and the user interface with modern equipment that does many more things. I also think we need measurements. But a less flowery story-like descriptive format instead based upon summation of what something doesn't do well, how it fails in contrast to its strengths would be far more useful. It would be much less fluff as well.

 

Now partly I think things are so much better you have to really split hairs to pick a difference. Which means much equipment has few outright flaws. But why do all this flowery description which when boiled down really tells one almost nothing when you could simply say, it did its job, other than.........fill in the blanks. The odd thing is with genuine differences smaller than ever more is made of those and the price for improved quality has rocketed up until it takes obscene amounts of money to garner much improvement.

 

At one time by my subjective estimation quality in high end audio followed a 4th power function. To double the perceived quality required 16 times the money. That has seemed to escalate by a lot the last decade. Perhaps because plenty of moderately expensive gear leaves so little undone. I know it is against audiophile nature to say, "enough is enough", but that may be rock running into the hard place of "more is not possible".

[Blake]

Harry Pearson, love or hate him, had a standard by which to judge. One might find fault with his standard, but he had one that provided philosophical grounding to his approach. The live sound of un-amplified music. He might praise something as good, but he darn sure pointed out where it fell short, and it all fell short (which is most definitely honest).

 

This may have applied to his old TAS work, but this sure as hell is not the case now. HP is one of the worst offenders these days. His new site "The High Fidelity Report" should be named "It Absolutely Blows". Easily one of the worst audio fluff sites around. It sucks.

 

Sorry if this seems harsh, but the HP of old never pulled any punches so he deserves a dose of his "old" medicine. The HP from the early TAS days would have ripped the new HP and his website a new one.

 

Gear Review | The High Fidelity Report

[Harpy]

For general audio I tend to look for equipment the has stood the test of time and is still around 20, 30, 40 years later. A vintage Dac is something I don't want, so I have to rely on reviews for digital as it evolves so fast.

[esldude]

This may have applied to his old TAS work, but this sure as hell is not the case now. HP is one of the worst offenders these days. His new site "The High Fidelity Report" should be named "It Absolutely Blows". Easily one of the worst audio fluff sites around. It sucks.

 

Sorry if this seems harsh, but the HP of old never pulled any punches so he deserves a dose of his "old" medicine. The HP from the early TAS days would have ripped the new HP and his website a new one.

 

Gear Review | The High Fidelity Report

 

Yes, I thought it was clear, in reference to Jud's comment I was referring to the old early TAS.

[davidbeinct]

Firstly, Stereophile is very valuable for their measurements section (if only they measured cables too). You can tell it is unbiased. Often something getting a good review has some suspect measurements and those are published. Also from time to time a maker will complain the unit had to be malfunctioning and supply a second unit. They always post results from both.

 

But Jud brings up an important difference about the early TAS. Very different approach. One much more entertaining, and one I think would be more useful than ever with today's equipment. Yet I think Ad revenue has publishers reluctant to take that approach plus all the pubs now are mostly sort of big business and don't want any possibly liability.

 

Harry Pearson, love or hate him, had a standard by which to judge. One might find fault with his standard, but he had one that provided philosophical grounding to his approach. The live sound of un-amplified music. He might praise something as good, but he darn sure pointed out where it fell short, and it all fell short (which is most definitely honest). I also believe he and the other TAS writers in those days well conveyed the general sound character of a component by highlighting its shortcomings and comparing them to strengths most concisely. Those reviews were usually only a couple of dense pages in a half-magazine sized format. But were able to give you an inkling of how it would sound when you heard it.

 

Now we probably need a bit more time about features and the user interface with modern equipment that does many more things. I also think we need measurements. But a less flowery story-like descriptive format instead based upon summation of what something doesn't do well, how it fails in contrast to its strengths would be far more useful. It would be much less fluff as well.

 

Now partly I think things are so much better you have to really split hairs to pick a difference. Which means much equipment has few outright flaws. But why do all this flowery description which when boiled down really tells one almost nothing when you could simply say, it did its job, other than.........fill in the blanks. The odd thing is with genuine differences smaller than ever more is made of those and the price for improved quality has rocketed up until it takes obscene amounts of money to garner much improvement.

 

At one time by my subjective estimation quality in high end audio followed a 4th power function. To double the perceived quality required 16 times the money. That has seemed to escalate by a lot the last decade. Perhaps because plenty of moderately expensive gear leaves so little undone. I know it is against audiophile nature to say, "enough is enough", but that may be rock running into the hard place of "more is not possible".

 

I mostly agree with your assessment of modern gear's quality, with one important (to me, the most important) exception; speakers. I have been doing a lot of listening to a lot of speakers that are getting glowing reviews, and I find them all lacking. I think the home theater boom is something that hurts audiophiles as speaker manufacturers are putting out products that are emphasizing highs and lows at the expense of the most important area for music, the midrange.

[Cycleman]

I mostly agree with your assessment of modern gear's quality, with one important (to me, the most important) exception; speakers. I have been doing a lot of listening to a lot of speakers that are getting glowing reviews, and I find them all lacking. I think the home theater boom is something that hurts audiophiles as speaker manufacturers are putting out products that are emphasizing highs and lows at the expense of the most important area for music, the midrange.

 

And for me, this is one area that reviews in the magazines are particularly helpful -- alerting me to speaker manufacturers outside of the mainstream, orienting me to possibilities before we head out to the real-world stores to audition speakers (which we'll be doing over the next month or so).

 

For example, then, among the speakers on my short list are ones from DeVore Fidelity, Vienna Acoustics and Spendor.

I'm sorry kids -- unless one reads the magazines and spends time on forums like this, most people would never have heard of those three brands.

 

In fact, basic orientation to what's available is, for me, a valuable service -- and I've been helped, in my real-world audio system choices, by Stereophile and TAS.

As long as one reads the reviews with a combination of grains of salt, and sometimes between the lines, the reviews can help.

 

Help, not give absolute answers.

 

Dave, who says there are a lot of ways today to make good decisions when buying audio toys and isn't a good decision kinda what it's all about when looking to make changes and upgrades to one's music system

[mayhem13]

Speakers are that item that easily imparts the most on the performance and rightfully so, the choice here should be the most critical decision. You're not going to know if you can coexist with a speaker from a casual audition. You need to see if the system becomes fatiguing after a period of time and how that system will interact with your room. There's far too many variables and anyone tells you there's a formula or golden triangle........run as fast as you can.

[Cycleman]

Speakers are that item that easily imparts the most on the performance and rightfully so, the choice here should be the most critical decision. You're not going to know if you can coexist with a speaker from a casual audition. You need to see if the system becomes fatiguing after a period of time and how that system will interact with your room.

 

To the extent that statement is true -- and there's much truth in it -- that argues for things I've discussed in other threads: the advantages of buying audio toys online from retailers who give you at least 30 days to listen at home and return the item if it doesn't satisfy.

 

However, two problems there when it comes to speakers:

 

• Many of the good/excellent speaker manufacturers don't, or barely, allow online sales.
  
• And most brick-and-mortar retailers don't allow you to take speakers home and then, if they don't work in your room, return them.
  

Yes, some here have talked about having great relationships with such real-world retailers, and they then allow those good customers to return items.

However, since I live about 50 miles from NYC, can't get into the city often, and even when I audition floor-standing speakers there in the near future, will likely not develop such close relationships, I'll have to get by with the data I can gather -- the in-store audition.

 

Dave, who did the other day order small desktop-like speakers directly from a manufacturer who allows 30-days in-home audition and full return and I wouldn't have known about that without a posting from another member here and that's of huge value

[Harpy]

I run Dahlquist DQ-10's with the DQ-LP1 Coss-over and 2 DW-1s subs in stereo from the late 70's. The designer, Jon Dahlquist, never submitted them to Stereophile because he feared a bad review. I've read snippets from old issues where they listened to them at a Stereo Store and a reviewer thought they were worthy of a class A (whatever that means). I also read in a much later issue they were a good speaker , but due to their age the caps would need replaced and the current rebuild kit ruined the sound. Evidently, they preferred, the Mexican Mylar Caps of the original (which they never formally reviewed). I put in modern Sonicaps mainly because they will do custom values and some of the values aren't made anymore and didn't find they destroyed the sound, quit the opposite. Some of the speakers had to be coned by the factory (Regnar) which was expensive and about a 6 month wait (demand is so high).

I did try some $200.00 bookshelf they recommended that sounded close to their $10,000 whatever and found they sounded like $200.00 speakers.

[realhifi]

I run Dahlquist DQ-10's with the DQ-LP1 Coss-over and 2 DW-1s subs in stereo from the late 70's.

 

Great speakers. I remember back when the (now defunct) local hifi shop carried those and I brought in a modified two chassis Stereo 70 tube amplifier with a seperate solid state power supply. We hooked that up to those speakers and all of us just stood there slack jawed at what came out of them. GIGANTIC sound field, superb dynamics, lifelike midrange and fantastic imaging within that sound field. The mods were many back then and not all changed them for the better.

[esldude]

I mostly agree with your assessment of modern gear's quality, with one important (to me, the most important) exception; speakers. I have been doing a lot of listening to a lot of speakers that are getting glowing reviews, and I find them all lacking. I think the home theater boom is something that hurts audiophiles as speaker manufacturers are putting out products that are emphasizing highs and lows at the expense of the most important area for music, the midrange.

 

I agree.

[Harpy]

I brought in a modified two chassis Stereo 70 tube amplifier with a seperate solid state power supply.

 

Yea, I have a pair of pretty much stock Mk IV's and the sound is the best I've heard on these speakers. The amps were running really hot and decided to dump a bunch watts into the speakers instead. Some nice things happened, but the Mk IV magic was gone. Pick your poison I suppose.