MQA, The Press, The Industry, Consumers, etc ...

[mansr]

Sorry if I sounded a bit abrasive.

 

Any examples you care to share?

Most anything from Synergistic Research.

[esldude]

Most anything from Synergistic Research.

Ouch. Talk about abrasive.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Rt66indierock]

A little housekeeping

 

There is still no music available so MQA is a theoretical exercise. Since all the MQA press and talk is aimed at audiophiles it is effectively boycotted. MQA may have more resolution than a CD but is this good?

 

Kal thanks for not starting a comment with some version of I don’t understand. Please make it a habit.

 

Chris you can make living with CA because of the failure of audio journalism. Examples I cited earlier are why this is possible. The grey areas are the place audio journalism fails the audio consumer the most.

 

Crenca the problem with audio journalism is the revolving door with the industry not people like Chris who came to audio journalism from outside the industry. I’m going to explain this in post to Stereophile and an upcoming post about RMAF 2016.

[Ralf11]

That is one problem. But the biggest problem is the utter lack of knowledge by most of the press. Double-blind listening is critical but rare.

[Rt66indierock]

That is one problem. But the biggest problem is the utter lack of knowledge by most of the press. Double-blind listening is critical but rare.

 

Sorry double-blind testing is not needed but competent analysis is. And you are correct there is an “utter lack of knowledge” by the vast majority of the audio press but it won’t change. Audiophiles have been trained over the last two generations to make bad decisions about audio equipment.

[Ralf11]

Double-blind listening is critical and there is a vast literature in scientific journals proving it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @Ralf11 - Do you know of any enthusiast publications or publications for anything other than scientific style journals that actually use dbt?

 

I won't debate the use of dbt in this thread because it's off topic. Just want to know if other publications have elected to use dbt.

[mayhem13]

How did you get a room with below 10 db background noise? That would be extraordinarily quiet. Studios struggle to reach that low a noise level. How did you measure it btw?

 

You exhale at louder than 10db......that's a silly spec to even consider. Don't need 35db noise floor to produce 'nuts' over here. lol

[The Computer Audiophile]

It would be rather more difficult than ever to do, but I have wondered in the past, what kind of reviews we would get if the review sample had it maker's name obscured. Either placed in a black box with access only to connections. Or an assistant who makes connections as needed in an equipment cabinet that can be closed and locked. Remote interaction of lots of current audio gear makes that close to impossible in many cases unfortunately.

 

This would insulate reviewers form concerns about which company, of what size makes the gear under review. I would hope reviewers would think of this like giving advice to friends. Okay, nobody likes to kill someone's company with a bad review. On the other hand, if your closest pals were about to buy an item and you having used it know it has issues would you protect the company that makes the gear or tell your buddies, "I think I would steer clear of that, you can do better"?

That's a very cool idea. Probably not possible as you've likely surmised, but still cool.

 

It would be interesting to write as if I am giving advice to a good friend. I'm going to think about using this somehow or weaving it in to the mix. I'm think something like the normal review followed by an Advice Section.

[witchdoctor]

If they ever use MQA on Tidal I will get a capable DAC. No way am I buying one before a ecent amount of content is available.

[The Computer Audiophile]

If they ever use MQA on Tidal I will get a capable DAC. No way am I buying one before a ecent amount of content is available.

Wise decision.

[rw-11]

Hi @Ralf11 - Do you know of any enthusiast publications or publications for anything other than scientific style journals that actually use dbt?

 

I won't debate the use of dbt in this thread because it's off topic. Just want to know if other publications have elected to use dbt.

 

not offhand, but The Audio Cryptic may well have done so

 

 

 

 

 

Critic -- Peter Aczel

 

 

also, many high-end manfs. do this (tho it can hard to get their test procedures out of them, and esp. hard in writing)

[crenca]

This review of a new Lincoln in Car and Driver had me thinking of this thread:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-lincoln-mkz-30t-awd-test-review

 

Here are some rhetorical enhanced but probably true things they have to say about this car:

 

"Back to the parts bin"

 

 

"on the softly sprung MKZ they bounce along as if the car were riding on four basketballs"

 

 

"Worst of all, after cornering, the whole car wags like the tail of a Newfoundland puppy that just discovered freeze-dried chicken jerky"

 

 

"This car, like other Lincolns, can’t justify the brand’s existence. Even when it’s riding on basketballs."

 

These comments reminded me of a poster here who on a thread that I started said that Peachtree's amps sound like "bouncing rubber balls" to him (these were the pre "Peachtree 2.0" offerings). For whatever reason, that little comment really spoke to me about the sound of some of the Class D amps I have heard. Why do we not read more things like this in the reviews in the audiophile press? Well, I think it is for exactly the reason that Chris says upstream - the industry is small and one bad review can kill a product. But all this tells us is that consumers are not getting a full and realistic sense from the reviews we read.

 

Now take this Lincoln. Is it a good car? Well yes, compared to just about any car from the 1990's (to say nothing of the 80's and 70's) it is hands down more reliable and a better place to be. However, compared to the current competition (in it's price range and outside of it) it just does not compare. Still, I would not hesitate to drive or even own this car, and I would put my wife and children in it and not worry. However, if I am spending my money I would want to know if there is something better. This review helps me see exactly this.

 

I am not sure I have ever read a review in the (major) audiophile press that gives me this perspective, and that is why it does not really serve the needs of consumers.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Good post @cernca - This also reminds me that people in the audiophile press have had lawsuits threatened against them for negative reviews. Count me as one of those who've been threatened.

 

In addition, many of us select the products we want to write about and we do some homework before obtaining a component. Perhaps we weed out the products that should be killed through our selection process. I often weed out products from companies that are dishonest or crooked or products that I know are half-baked. Maybe I should re-consider this practice.

[semente]

Wonderful. Thanks for the response. I agree with what you're saying. One thing comes to mind as well. In the audiophile world a bad review can kill a product. In the car world that just doesn't happen. I think many writers in audio would hate to see a product killed because they didn't like it. Our world is so small and I guess we are too close. If a product is killed and that hurts a small manufacturer we may feel bad whereas maybe we shouldn't.

 

If the product is bad, kill it or you'll be doing a disservice to the community.

Some might enjoy the box-swapping dance but many are just trying to achieve the best sound for the money with as little side-stepping as possible.

 

I also find it imperative that products are compared amongst themselves, both against similarly priced gear and against the cost no object.

If this were common practice then many of the most revered products might be nothing more than emperors in their new clothes.

 

I can understand that for one to live off reviewing the money has to come from the industry but then you become hostage of the system...

 

R

[semente]

Good post @cernca - This also reminds me that people in the audiophile press have had lawsuits threatened against them for negative reviews. Count me as one of those who've been threatened.

 

In addition, many of us select the products we want to write about and we do some homework before obtaining a component. Perhaps we weed out the products that should be killed through our selection process. I often weed out products from companies that are dishonest or crooked or products that I know are half-baked. Maybe I should re-consider this practice.

My dad subscribes the publication of a national consumer defense organisation where they publish comparative tests of all manner of things from insurances to breakfast cereals to toothbrushes.

Once they made a review of a dozen loudspeakers, but no description of the sound was made, only a basic frequency response measurement, a listing of specs and an assessment of built quality.

I found it quite refreshing, although not as informative as the lab test page of Sphile (minus the comments) or Soundstage.

I don't think that they've ever been legally challenged by a manufacturer.

 

I would like to read about the sound performance but the assessment would have to be performed in an observational, "selfless" (no taste involved) manner, the review would have to follow adequate methodology, the description should use sensible, meaningful vocabulary and the object of the review should be compared with the competition.

It'll never happen...

 

R

[crenca]

This also reminds me that people in the audiophile press have had lawsuits threatened against them for negative reviews. Count me as one of those who've been threatened.

 

As an owner of a small medical practice, I know a thing or two about litigation and it's real threat to your livihood. I recommend retaining a lawyer who is "not afraid to dance". You get threatened, then have your lawyer (and this will $cost$ you) respond with the usual "we see your BS suit and raise you with this counter BS suit - how much are you willing to spend because were used to it" letter (this cuts most - but not all - such BS off at the pass)...it is the unfortunate state of our "broken legal system" and its adverserial ways.

 

In addition, many of us select the products we want to write about and we do some homework before obtaining a component. Perhaps we weed out the products that should be killed through our selection process. I often weed out products from companies that are dishonest or crooked or products that I know are half-baked. Maybe I should re-consider this practice.

 

I think you do, and that is what I mean by "selection bias". It is an open secret (repeated here on this forum often enough) that consumers should pick products that have multiple positive reviews because those products will at least be "good" even if they have an aspect that you as a consumer eventually reject.

 

However, the consumer should not have to "read between the lines" of a review. Most reviews are so overwhealmingly positive, a consumer has to figure out what the reviewer thought was a "con" through experience, insight, and guess work. With the auto press one does not have to guess as to what the reviewer thinks is really wrong with the product.

 

I think if you did some real product comparisons (say, 5 popular-and-not-so-popular integrads between $2 and $4k) and actually ranked them, boldly stating the significant cons of the bottom 2 products (and even mentioning a real con or two of the winner), well that would certainly set you apart from the crowd. It might be risky ("relations", etc.) - scratch that it would be risky but the rewards might be very real also. You would have to define what a "shootout" or "product comparison" is and is not. For example, you would have to note that the same speakers/room/sources were used with all products and might be a limiting factor for some, but that in no way invalidates the comparison. In the auto world, it is often noted that this super-car is not as good as this other super-car on short, tight tracks - and would have won the competition if it had been conducted on another track more suited to that particular cars strengths. Consumers can understand these sorts of things (yes, a vocal minority will not) and thank you for your honesty...

[Melvin]

I've been reading reviews on TNT-audio.com for years and have always found their reviews surprising because they seem unafraid to say it like it is, warts and all. Over the years they've managed to do interesting shoot-outs as well. I liked John Potis back in the day for similar reasons. Tricky business reviewing is.

[firedog]

Don't disagree with much of what is suggested here as "solutions" for audiophile reviews.

 

However, as a practical matter, pretty much every professional reviewer who's opined on the subject has said it isn't generally possible - in practice - to get 5 DACs or amps in for review at the same time for a shootout. Even getting 2 competing products in for review at the same time is often not possible.

 

And also unlike the world of autos, a test track or even nearby "roads" aren't available for audio reviewers. Reviewing is generally done in the home, which also make such shootouts unlikely to happen, for obvious reasons. At best most reviewers can compare components to those of the same type they have on hand as "reference". Many reviewers do engage in such comparisons, which I've found can be informative and useful.

[esldude]

Don't disagree with much of what is suggested here as "solutions" for audiophile reviews.

 

However, as a practical matter, pretty much every professional reviewer who's opined on the subject has said it isn't generally possible - in practice - to get 5 DACs or amps in for review at the same time for a shootout. Even getting 2 competing products in for review at the same time is often not possible.

 

And also unlike the world of autos, a test track or even nearby "roads" aren't available for audio reviewers. Reviewing is generally done in the home, which also make such shootouts unlikely to happen, for obvious reasons. At best most reviewers can compare components to those of the same type they have on hand as "reference". Many reviewers do engage in such comparisons, which I've found can be informative and useful.

Not at all. Just go buy them.

 

Or offer to let people send in their product for a shootout. If makers of product demure, then simply publicize those without the strength of their convictions as it relates to their gear.

 

You could even detail how the shootout will be done and give a period for those willing to take part. All publicity goes to those taking part without naming anyone else.

 

So any of these 3 approaches are viable.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[firedog]

Not at all. Just go buy them.

 

Or offer to let people send in their product for a shootout. If makers of product demure, then simply publicize those without the strength of their convictions as it relates to their gear.

 

You could even detail how the shootout will be done and give a period for those willing to take part. All publicity goes to those taking part without naming anyone else.

 

So any of these 3 approaches are viable.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Not really.

Approach 1 is just too expensive. It's not like individual reviewers and the audiophile publications are rolling in money. Easy for you too say someone else should spend the money.

 

People send in gear? Also not very practical. Want to wait a year after products come out, till you can find people willing to send in all the ones you want to compare? Guy A sends in new product, are you going to just hold it for months till you can get a hold of Product B, C, D, and E from their buyers? Don't think so.

 

Not to mention that with gear that is "sent in" the inevitable questions will arise about the "provenance" and condition of the gear.

[semente]

Don't disagree with much of what is suggested here as "solutions" for audiophile reviews.

 

However, as a practical matter, pretty much every professional reviewer who's opined on the subject has said it isn't generally possible - in practice - to get 5 DACs or amps in for review at the same time for a shootout. Even getting 2 competing products in for review at the same time is often not possible.

 

And also unlike the world of autos, a test track or even nearby "roads" aren't available for audio reviewers. Reviewing is generally done in the home, which also make such shootouts unlikely to happen, for obvious reasons. At best most reviewers can compare components to those of the same type they have on hand as "reference". Many reviewers do engage in such comparisons, which I've found can be informative and useful.

 

I would go even further and suggest that the only really useful subjective reviews are those of loudspeakers.

 

R

[esldude]

Not really.

Approach 1 is just too expensive. It's not like individual reviewers and the audiophile publications are rolling in money. Easy for you too say someone else should spend the money.

 

People send in gear? Also not very practical. Want to wait a year after products come out, till you can find people willing to send in all the ones you want to compare? Guy A sends in new product, are you going to just hold it for months till you can get a hold of Product B, C, D, and E from their buyers? Don't think so.

 

Not to mention that with gear that is "sent in" the inevitable questions will arise about the "provenance" and condition of the gear.

I was misunderstood so apparently unclear. I didn't mean owners send in product. I meant manufacturers send in product.

 

As for me spending someone's money, what would you call what reviewers do. They encourage me to spend money while reviewing gear they get to test for free. Over time a good many reviewers get detached from cost of gear vs reality this way. Reviewers worry a bad review could kill a company which feels worse than some guy getting slightly less good gear because of a review. Yet if that is magnified by thousands which is really worse?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[esldude]

I would go even further and suggest that the only really useful subjective reviews are those of loudspeakers.

 

R

I agree with the caveat that reviews can give an idea about features and function. Sound quality I agree.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[semente]

I agree with the caveat that reviews can give an idea about features and function. Sound quality I agree.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Yes, that's why I mentioned "subjective".