Popular Post mansr Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: I want to read comparisons of listening tests of comparably priced equipment - some will be "negative" unless they cannot rank them at all They could always rank them by number of veils lifted. Ishmael Slapowitz, Ralf11, crenca and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 That sounds far more like a Consumer Reports publication than an enthusiast driven audio review. You could define and start something like that if you wanted to. It would be interesting, and possibly useful. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
Popular Post John_Atkinson Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, mansr said: People in the press have stated that they generally don't publish bad reviews so as not to embarrass the manufacturers. Who has said this? When we have published negative reviews at Stereophile, the most pushback we get is from readers either because they actually don't want to read about products that fail to make the grade or because they own the product in question. So like all audio review magazines and webzines, we seek out products for review that have a good chance of performing well. Nevertheless, once we have received the review samples, the review proceeds and is not aborted even it it turns out that it has problems. Scroll down the page at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/index.html . In that respect, Stereophile does differ from some other magazines. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile daverich4, spin33, Paul R and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 6 hours ago, mansr said: Not nefarious, but also not in the interest of the consumer. I seem to remember a chap going by the name of Sam Tellig. When reviewing a Shure cartridge, he had more than a few unflattering things to say. “Bullshit cartridge with a BullShit price” or something like that. It raised eyebrows by being published in print at the time. 😱🤪 Negative reviews are not uncommon. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: People in the press have stated that they generally don't publish bad reviews so as not to embarrass the manufacturers. An alternative explanation would be "there's no money in bad reviews". ☺️ mQa is dead! Link to comment
Popular Post Ralf11 Posted July 8, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 8, 2019 Negative reviews are not unknown, but are very uncommon. lucretius, crenca, mansr and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
botrytis Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul R said: That sounds far more like a Consumer Reports publication than an enthusiast driven audio review. You could define and start something like that if you wanted to. It would be interesting, and possibly useful. Sorry no. Example Cook's Illustrated is a non-advertising magazine and they do testing. Problem is, most tests in audio magazines are done by people who own that particular brand of component and WOULD NEVER say it is junk, even if it is. I mean even car magazines call a lemon just that. I think audio magazine have lived out their usefulness since they are more like mouth pieces for the audio manufacturers, kind of like the NRA. crenca 1 Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul R said: I seem to remember a chap going by the name of Sam Tellig. When reviewing a Shure cartridge, he had more than a few unflattering things to say. “Bullshit cartridge with a BullShit price” or something like that. It raised eyebrows by being published in print at the time. 😱🤪 And yet Sam had his own Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge. A quote from Sam: "It's no secret I still use the long-discontinued Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge—I think it ranks with the very best." See https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-compact-domestic-monitor-1-loudspeaker-sam-tellig-december-1998 You must be referring to a different and much more expensive Shure cartidge. ☺️ mQa is dead! Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 25 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: Negative reviews are not unknown, but are very uncommon. Uncommon, and I bet overwhelmingly from products provided by non advertisers. 😚 Link to comment
Ishmael Slapowitz Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: People in the press have stated that they generally don't publish bad reviews so as not to embarrass the manufacturers. I am not convinced of this.... Link to comment
rando Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: Negative reviews are not unknown, but are very uncommon. Openly negative reviews are an attention getting tactic a smart editor never allows to be anticipated or commonplace. Saccharine, on the other hand, is today's alternative that can be liberally sprinkled on to make almost every nothing palatable without masking the underlying bitterness associated with Mmm, overly processed reconstituted MQA brand is so much better than the real thing. I can consume all I want and never feel... 8 minutes ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said: I am not convinced of this.... As if a chance to be attendant for the largesse on offer during invite only industry events would be impacted by any sane person reporting on them. Or refuse to lay waste to the expense account at the slightest humiliation suffered on one of these junkets. Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 2 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: we seek out products for review that have a good chance of performing well. Any chance you could share with us the criteria Stereophile uses for determining which "products have a good chance of performing well"? Thanks. Also, why is it that expensive products are more likely to get reviewed than less expensive/reasonably affordable products? Is there no value in reviewing products in lower price categories? mQa is dead! Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Paul R said: do you want to read a lot of negative reviews about equipment? Waste of time no? Yes and no. I don't need a 4 page review on a dog. Nonetheless, I'd like a summary of why a product does not meet the grade. mQa is dead! Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, lucretius said: And yet Sam had his own Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge. A quote from Sam: "It's no secret I still use the long-discontinued Shure Ultra 500 moving-magnet cartridge—I think it ranks with the very best." See https://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-compact-domestic-monitor-1-loudspeaker-sam-tellig-december-1998 You must be referring to a different and much more expensive Shure cartidge. ☺️ I could easily be mis-remembering, but I think the incident I am referring to was pre-internet, around 1985 or 1986 maybe. lucretius 1 Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 19 minutes ago, Paul R said: I could easily be mis-remembering, but I think the incident I am referring to was pre-internet, around 1985 or 1986 maybe. Ouch! usenet was 1980, bitnet 1981, smtp (email) 1982, ftp 1985 ... I'm feeling really old lucretius 1 Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 by "internet" he means html - the internet dates back a looong way - I finally threw away my old punch card decks, BTW... Link to comment
botrytis Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 Sad, there are no negative reviews in audio magazines, then maybe so much junk wouldn't be pedaled to the public. I mean I remember reading a British car magazine a while ago and one article was, 'Her name is Rio and she is crap'. That made Kia go back a redo the car to be better. Right now the Audio reviewers are in bed with the manufacturers, so there are no real reviews, just the same old junk. Current: Daphile on an AMD A10-9500 with 16 GB RAM DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC Pre-amp - Rotel RC-1590 Amplification - Benchmark AHB2 amplifier Speakers - Revel M126Be with 2 REL 7/ti subwoofers Cables - Tara Labs RSC Reference and Blue Jean Cable Balanced Interconnects Link to comment
lucretius Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, botrytis said: Her name is Rio and she is crap Shouldn't that be "Her name was Rio and she wasn't all that"? ☺️ mQa is dead! Link to comment
Paul R Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 5 hours ago, jabbr said: Ouch! usenet was 1980, bitnet 1981, smtp (email) 1982, ftp 1985 ... I'm feeling really old Well, I actually meant the web, but I was on Usenet, Bitnet, and Arpanet. I get what you are saying. Heck, I remember having use bang paths for email. Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC. Robert A. Heinlein Link to comment
firedog Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 9 hours ago, John_Atkinson said: Who has said this? When we have published negative reviews at Stereophile, the most pushback we get is from readers either because they actually don't want to read about products that fail to make the grade or because they own the product in question. So like all audio review magazines and webzines, we seek out products for review that have a good chance of performing well. Nevertheless, once we have received the review samples, the review proceeds and is not aborted even it it turns out that it has problems. Scroll down the page at https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/index.html . In that respect, Stereophile does differ from some other magazines. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile I can't remember specifics, but I've seen several sites/publications that have said that if a review is going to be truly negative, they send the component back and don't publish. They claim readers aren't interested in negative reviews. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
firedog Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 6 hours ago, lucretius said: Any chance you could share with us the criteria Stereophile uses for determining which "products have a good chance of performing well"? Thanks. Also, why is it that expensive products are more likely to get reviewed than less expensive/reasonably affordable products? Is there no value in reviewing products in lower price categories? My impression is that Stereophile reviews a fair amount of reasonably priced products. You see them listed in their yearly recommended components. Those products have all been reviewed in the magazine. In loudspeakers, for instance, they even have a category for "LF restricted" speakers, which generally translates to reasonably priced. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
John Dyson Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Paul R said: Well, I actually meant the web, but I was on Usenet, Bitnet, and Arpanet. I get what you are saying. Heck, I remember having use bang paths for email. I had a root account on ihnp4 :-). (explanation -- ihnp4 was one of the more common servers on the bang path -- routing was mostly not automatic -- but some servers had a little more inteligence.) ihnp4 was very common bang path constituent for UUCP networks also. Nowadays, everyone can route to anyone. John Link to comment
Popular Post Nikhil Posted July 9, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted July 9, 2019 Just downgraded my Tidal subscription from Tidal HiFi to Tidal Premium. Don't see the point of paying the basturds for "HiFi" when all they do is send junk down the pipe. . 4est, MikeyFresh, lucretius and 2 others 2 1 2 Custom Win10 Server | Mutec MC-3+ USB | Lampizator Amber | Job INT | ATC SCM20PSL + JL Audio E-Sub e110 Link to comment
firedog Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 52 minutes ago, Nikhil said: Don't see the point of paying the basturds for "HiFi" when all they do is send junk down the pipe. Are you finding a lot of albums are only available as MQA? Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
mansr Posted July 9, 2019 Share Posted July 9, 2019 8 hours ago, jabbr said: Ouch! usenet was 1980, bitnet 1981, smtp (email) 1982, ftp 1985 ... I'm feeling really old Email in some form existed as early as 1973: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc561 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now