Do Equipment Reviews Help You?

[JamesF]

I agree with your comments on what hi fi, although you could call it what tv sometimes!! However I think they play a very important role in the UK, Its a great source of information to those who are new to REAL Hi Fi, and provides such people with a stepping stone into the hobby, if you can call it that, and as such I think they are also benificial to the industry. Loved your post on the cables, Mr james. had a chuckle as I changed expletive deleted in my head to a four letter word with ing or er on the end haha.

 

[Ashley James]

WHF does have enthusiasts for hi fi lurking in there somewhere, but clueless non technical ones IMO. Technical understanding is fundamental to objective assessment IMO.

 

HFC I think is in a quandary. The problem they have and it's common to all small groups, is their audience is very small and intransigent, so that if they want to increase their readership, they inevitably piss off those they have if they change direction. Their forum isn't maximising their online potential either because it only has 200 uniques a day, which probably amounts to 50 people. Everyone knows it's moderated by a retailer with strong views.

 

This is why I suggested that the advertising revenue might be their only reason for continuing because they certainly don't reflect market trends.

 

Paper publishers are having trouble working out how to earn money from online publishing, which I think they'd be happier without and they are starting out with a high cost base.

 

Interesting times. Go for it Chris!!!!

 

Ash

 

 

 

[GazD]

So much is dependant on factors that cannot be controled (same for all) in reviews, such as room condition and musical tastes.

 

Descriptions of the sound I usually just scan.

What I like to read are the bits on product features etc.

 

[Al]

Who's this retailer with strong views?

 

And is it really such a bad thing if someone has a home demo and decides the product isnt right for them? I would have thought it stood to reason that allowing home demos will mean losing the odd sale...?

 

[Al]

This is the thing. Descriptions of sound - in music reviews or hifi reviews, are hugely flawed. one might aswell say "these speakers sound like MA BR2s", or "they sound like metallica" and have done with it. However, surely we need to know more than just the tech specs...

 

[GazD]

Al,

 

question is, what more is there to know?

Sound is so subjective so we agree this is a tough one.

Aesthetics?

Product features?

Tech specs?

.........?

 

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

The problem is the vocabulary is not well-known and abstract. Wine tasters talking about 'a fruity nose' or foodies talking about 'mouth feel' have the same problem, but we've had wine for thousands of years and food for a lot longer than that. So the terminology for hi-fi is specialist, built upon electronics and pro audio, then mixed with New Journalism ideas from the 1970s.

 

What would help (perhaps) would be technical explanations supporting the fluffy terms and then a musical example to support the technical explanation. Like "this speaker has a 12dB lift around 80Hz and that gives an artificial lift to the bass like the boosted-sounding drums on Metallica's Enter Sandman'. Simply saying 'the speaker has a bloomy bass' instead is ultimately useless.

 

And the point is, if I can do it, why can't the reviewers?

 

[Ashley James]

The ear does not have a flat amplitude response as a hi fi does (or should), instead its sensitivity increases with frequency until it peaks at 3 kHz and then it slowly rolls off. This is why harshness is so fatiguing. It actually extends right across the frequency range, but is most obvious to us at around 3 kHz where are ears are most sensitive. If you say "sizzle" and listen for the highest bits, that's about 3 kHz.

 

Unfortunately for years now engineers have not known what hi fi would sound like without this harshness (brightness), so have presumed it to be what a flat amplitude sounds like and decided more bass is needed. Because our ears don't work well at low frequencies, we're not good at judging the quality of bass, so it's taken a long time to realise that much of what was thought to be bass is actually cone overshoot and overhang, the box/port roaring like a Fog Horn, the amp not controlling the cone because it's clipping, or because of the resistive element in crossovers and so on. All these things occur at about 80 Hz or right on the lower bit of a voice.

 

Therefore you can have two systems measuring flat, one sounding as though it has more bass and treble than the other and unravelling why can be very difficult for a generation of reviewers bred believing that "science doesn't know everything" and they can "believe the evidence of their own ears". There are plenty of scientific experiments that show just how reliable the ear isn't.

 

Therefore a modestly expressed opinion of how a reviewer perceives the sound of a piece of hi fi is perfectly acceptable in my view. He should know he can be wrong and we know he can be wrong and can easily find another opinion somewhere else if we're not happy. What I can't accept is these characters speaking as though they are experts. They aren't because they have no more experience of using their ears than the rest of us, in fact a non hi fi listener is often more reliable because he compares what he hears with real life rather than a succession of less than perfect interpretations of it.

 

We as manufacturers have learnt not to put too much trust our judgement, instead we ask a selection of different people to listen and comment, being very careful not to plant preconceptions.

 

I've noticed that groups of people who could easily be ridiculed tend to dismiss humour as juvenile flippancy or whatever when the reality is that they are ultra sensitive because they are being a tad silly. Having a sense of humour is a sign of intelligence and much needed in hi fi.

 

I like reviews, I can often interpret useful information from what is said and although I can't "see through the irony in a Tracey Chapman record to the hope beyond", I would enjoy the occasional intentional joke!

 

Ash

 

[Purite Audio]

Always get a home demonstration, if the dealer doesn't agree, go somewhere else!

 

[haiku1]

I`ve read Hifi Mags for almost 22 years and although I consider myself an intelligent person, I don`t know why I didn`t realise the manipulation of a review earlier. Somewhere in the back of my mind I must have though that a reviewer has some kind of "wisdom" that he`s sharing in recommending a product!

Here in Germany it`s more or less always the same old companies that get the "5 stars" or "6 ears" or "100 points", and the arguments also are always the same: "Well, of course product X is the best, because we all know they`ve always made the best products..." Examples are Burmester, Mark Levinson, Wadia, Nagra and everything that`s got tubes in it. But thanks to Ash of AVI, I`ve learned a lot in the last months, made up my mind about a lot of prejudices I`ve had concerning good sound quality (otherwise I wouldn`t be here) and am happier than ever before. All that WITHOUT Reviews!

To Chris: I`m talking about the Reviews in Hifi Mags. Your Reviews are great!!!

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

On the other hand...

 

Hi-fi magazines do provide a modicum of consistency. The problem with the internet is it's hard to sort the signal from the noise. Especially with its inherent anonymity. Ashley aside (who at least states from the outset what he does for a living), it's impossible for someone to say for sure that praise for a product in a forum isn't coming from the product's PR people or that an attack on something isn't FUD spread by a rival.

 

The magazines aren't (or at least shouldn't be) subject to the same open manipulation. They are deeply flawed in wholly different ways, which we've pretty much hashed out here.

 

What I tend to do when choosing a product (any product) is work syntopically. I do my initial shortlisting, then read up as much as possible from all possible sources (in print and on line) about the product and its alternatives. Collating all of that gives me some idea of what I'm up against. Then it's down to hands-on comparisons. That's how I initially went looking for a Gibson Les Paul and walked away with a PRS SC245.

 

[haiku1]

Gag

Sure, I know that people like Ash also want to sell and why shouldn`t they, it`s their business...

But I`m fed up with Hifi Mags, dealers and companies trying to tell me they`ve just build this great HD Player (for example) with mindblowing electronics in it costing 5k €, when a week later everyone knows they import the motherboard paying only 200€ for it!! If they`d say "You know, most of the costs are for the casing, electronics are cheap today", everything would be fine. But this Hifi business is a big fraud most of the time, IMHO.

What I like about Ash is that he`s really the first person I`ve met in 22 years which is being honest and is stating facts. I`ve gone from kit costing 20k€ to the kit below costing 2600€ and the sound has made a Quantum Leap. That`s what I call progress and it`s high time people get to know the real quality of Computeraudio.

This site is 1000 times better than any Mag, IMO!

 

 

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Is not that the hi-fi mags want you to buy an expensive server or HDD player. It's that they want you to forget computer audio exists and buy an expensive CD player instead. That they are now getting into computer audio and bigging up the silly money stuff is down to their almost total - and in my mind unforgivable - lack of ignorance on the subject (that's the non-cynical version - the cynical edition says 'hi-fi mags will never get advertising from Apple, so they praise Naim's £4,500 HDX and similar because they stand a chance of getting some cash from Naim').

 

Weirdly enough, the only one that seems to have the minerals to say something about this writes for the most noddy high-end hi-fi mag of the lot in the UK - HiFi+:

 

http://www.hifiplus.com/news.html#news5

 

This guy actually suggests an EAC/Foobar 2000-equipped PC could be a better proposition than a Naim, which strikes me as dangerously sensible.

 

Edit/Forgot to add this: I have no problems whatsoever with Ashley's comments. Quite the reverse: like I said, he keeps his credentials out in the open and yes his honesty is refreshing. My problem is the anonymity of the internet in general; I make buying decisions based on a lot of research, and that helps filter out the mildly-disguised PR men and fanboys... but some don't do that and might end up with something on the basis of a recommendation by someone who actually works for the company (but pretends not to).

 

[tfarney]

I'm not reading reviews much right now, because I've tested some options, made some purchases, and find that I'm happy with my system. Reading reviews would just feed my GAS (gear acquisition syndrome). When I am reading reviews, though, what I want to know about is the design philosophy and objectives, the build quality, and how successful the product is at achieving the objectives. Background on the company and designers can be helpful. What's not helpful is poetic language that should be used, perhaps, to describe the music being played, but is irrelevant to electronic equipment. Unless, of course, the poetry is relevant to the company philosophy and design goals, ie: "Airhead Audio said that when they designed the Mozart Audiophile Fuse that their objective was to infuse (pun intended) your music with musicality, create euphoria through euphonics, and make Britney Spears sound like Dianna Krall." That kind of poetry would, of course, speak volumes.

 

And it will come as no surprise to anyone who has read my posts that I think reviews of key components in major audiophile publications should include blind listening tests. I'd understand if they didn't spend the money to take it all the way to statistically significant numbers, but failing to bring a few staffers into a room to verify what is actually being heard is simply irresponsible. One man's opinion is just that.

 

YMMV, MHO, etc.

 

Tim

 

[haiku1]

there from AS, Gag! We need more of these fellows, that`s for sure. ;-)

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

Mr Halfront you've made an excellent point. I don't think they have enough of an understanding to know a kit of parts from the www.mini-itx.com site when they see it. A scientist friend of ours was banned from the WHF Forum for pointing out how poorly one of the Mods understood the technology!

 

There is a great deal of discussion about DACs at the moment, their prices vary enormously and most hi fi ones are far more expensive than more versatile pro audio equivalents. There are a handful of DAC chip manufacturers and all are anxious that companies like us should buy theirs, so they give out evaluation boards to show how good they are and to help people design their own. They are always built to the highest standard using the best parts, as you'd expect. Therefore all we have to do was listen to some and pick a favourite. In truth, it's virtually impossible to tell them apart, which is as you'd expect considering how well they measure.

 

Some years ago we did one of these evaluations, picked a favourite and designed and built a CD player around it. We made sure that we'd equalled or bettered the Evaluation board and that the sound of our player was indistinguishable from it. Then we sent it for a group test knowing that ours was as good as it could be. The reviewer's words rankle to this day: They AVI CD player is different from the others in this group in that it is sweet sounding, somewhat "laid back" and highly detailed, however it lacks hard edged attack and excitement, so only warrants four stars!

 

I was seething and pointed out that there was a reference against which CD players could be compared and that they should have it if they were going to be any use to their readers. The winners names I won't surprise you with.

 

In those days a good review guaranteed a huge increase in sales and an indifferent one killed the product as it did with our CD player. Sales had been good, but they stopped.

 

Things are different now and I'm told that under £500 products still take off like a rocket if they feature in awards or get five stars, but over that and it doesn't make much difference. People we've spoken to say that they no longer have to rely on one review, instead they can search the net for many different opinions, which is a really good thing in my book.

 

With sincere apologies to Americans who visit this site and in whose country it is located for discussing British problem. I fancy they are ahead of us over there.

 

Ash

 

[haiku1]

came with the first title I`ve played on my then newly purchased kit. It was "First Jam" from Sweet Smoke`s Live Concert, regarded as lowfi in High End circles (because only 256kbps AAC file). Well, my jaw dropped to the floor and I thought "I`ve never heard something like this before, amazing...!!!!" Well, since then I`ve listened to lossless files, too, so...

And I can remember the times I`ve listened to DMM,MFSL, 180gr and 200gr Vinyls on my LP12 or the First Impression SACD`s and DVD A`s, but for me nothing comes even close to the sound of a proper digital file from a HD.

Nowadays, when I see all the CD Players and Record Players at Hifi Shows I can just shake my head and say "What a rip off"....

I hope more and more people will take note of CA.

How many CA members do you have already, Chris??

 

[tfarney]

"With sincere apologies to Americans who visit this site and in whose country it is located for discussing British problem. I fancy they are ahead of us over there."

 

Not at all. The American audiophile market is full of audiophile DACs, built with the same small set of mass-produced chips that are all but indistiguishable from one another, that cost many multiples of the pro DACs that made the music that is being played through them. And the American audiophile community if full of enthusiasts who swear by the dramatic superiority of their expensive, exclusive audiophile DACs when compared to the same chips, performing admirably in well-designed circuits, integrated into sources and even receivers that sell sometimes for a fraction of the cost of the audiophile DACs alone.

 

Foolishness is international. The need to hear what you've paid for, regardless of the facts, is powerful.

 

Tim

 

[TheRocker]

I have been reading some back issues of 'The Audio Critic' (from a link in one of mpmct's posts I think), and his reviews cut out much of the esoteric flowery language prevalent in many magazines, and his impressions are backed up by technical measurements.

 

His creed appears to be that science is the be-all and end-all of music reproduction, i.e. if it can't be measured it can't be heard and that the electronics along the chain sound very similar unless seriously poorly designed, and the main contributor to higher/lower quality sound is the speakers, and the source material.

 

Whether folks here agree with that attitude or not, his reviews do mention build quality issues, circuit design issues and internal component quality with reasonable objectivity, and as such are quite useful reading for product quality comparisons.

 

Mind you, I am not suggesting that CA start reviewing in this manner, I find your reviews very informative and useful too Chris, and I keep an open mind regarding whether or not certain things influence sound quality!

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

There's a whole host of hi-fi nonsense in the mags and on sale. Most of it will die off (probably along with the mags). But there's also a whole lot of people who are extremely resistant to change. Not just magazines, not just manufacturers or retailers... real people.

 

As long as you have a generation of hi-fi buyers who think even CD is scarily new-fangled and prefer to listen to their music inherently-flawed vinyl through harmonically-distorted valves (fine for guitars, lousy for audio) because it has some nostalgic aaaah factor, then there will be an industry to feed them. Some of these people will never even go near a computer, let alone use a computer as a music source. Of course, with each successive year, a few more drop off the perch and don't get replaced. But that just makes the surviving ones more militant and left-field.

 

And I guess if these are the ones that shout the loudest, they are the ones the mags listen to. Ultimately though, that's just signing your own death warrant. A cold winter could knock out a quarter of their readers.

 

[Ashley James]

We and by that I mean Martin because he's the electronics engineer, are pretty sure that you can not only measure everything you can hear, but also a lot more. After all, the best test equipment can get you down to the noise in copper!

We also feel that the sonic differences between amplifiers would be small, even inaudible, if they were all properly done and, more important still, had sufficient headroom. The Brits have persisted with very low powered amplifiers and loudspeaker manufacturers have responded with some pretty poor crossover design (very low impedances make life even harder for underpowered amps) with the result that there are massive differences between certain brands while the most powerful of the Cambridge Audio Integrateds sounds correct and astonishingly better!

 

I think that Linn/Naim started the measurements mean nothing saga and it's stuck despite the fact that it's no longer true.

 

I haven't read the hi fi Critic but shall do now.

 

Ashley

 

[machinehead]

I guess I have not been exposed to measurements that can account for everything we hear. Otherwise, I would think audio equipment could be ranked based on measurements. I would be interested in measurements that could account for details like sound width and depth, pace, timing and surely other nuances of sounds that I am less aware of than very well trained ears.

 

Jeff

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

A lot of the benefits highlighted by reviewers and enthusiasts are actually expressions of poor amplifier performance. Things like 'timing' for example - it's a function of small, clearly measurable amounts of odd-order harmonic distortion. Or 'pace', which comes from removing the zobel network from the output stage, making the amp sound 'fast' at the expense of bass and speaker cable compatibility (that whole 'two speaker cables must be the same length' thing comes from this - w/o the zobel network in place, that begins to make a big difference).

 

Soundstage depth and width are often a function of chucking huge amounts of second harmonic distortion into the mix.

 

Here's the thing. If you take the same source and the same speakers and play the same piece of music through, say, a Bryston, Cambridge Audio and Quad pre/power combination, they will all sound functionally identical. If you swapped out the pre/power and put a big Yamaha integrated amp in there, you'd get pretty much the same result. Now play the same thing through a Naim amp for example and it will sound very different. Swap this for a Creek and it will sound different again. Change for a valve amp and the sound changes once more. If the point of a hi-fi amplifier is to remain faithful to the original signal, surely consistency in sound is a something to aim for.

 

This is possibly one other aspect of reviews in magazines that we've all overlooked. To make for more exciting editorial (and therefore sell more magazines), they've lost sight of the fidelity part and focus on the differences. Amplifiers that perform well in all aspects are attacked for being 'boring' while the ones that deviate from performing well are praised for their deviation.

 

Some might like these inconsistencies in amplifiers, especially when they fit their musical tastes - part of the reason why lots of valve amp companies play 1950s jazz is that the even-order harmonics the amp adds euphony to the shrill sound of trumpets and saxophones. But they should be aware that they are listening to inconsistencies, not fidelity.

 

 

 

 

 

[chilest]

Chris:

I find a review of new equipment items in "isolation" not much help, whether it is posted on computer audiophile or published in the Absolute Sound or HiFi+. That said, I find reviews extremely helpful when a given item is compared to similar items that are within a similar price range. As an example, I will be purchasing a DAC within the next month or so. My price range is ~$2K. Although for some time now, I have been leaning toward the Benchmark USB DAC-I, I am actually waiting to read a few reviews, such as your forthcoming review of the new Bryston DAC. If the Bryston is compared to a few DAC within a similar price range, such as the Benchmark, this will be very helpful and play a key role in my decision.

 

Tom

 

 

 

 

[machinehead]

Interesting stuff Gag. You obviously have done more testing than me.

 

All of the points I made were from a recent seminar I attended at RMAF.

 

They used 3 identical systems CD, Pre, Amp and speakers, all very high end reference quality stuff. They proceeded to "tune" each system, changing speaker placement, adding increasing levels of vibration isolation, changing cables, cleaning CD's etc.

 

The timing, pace, soundstage, and other nuances I have yet to develop names for, I could clearly hear changes after each stage. I would assume that these are not caused by any order of circuit harmonics?

 

My point is, I believe, but do not have any proof that, our hearing and possibly other senses are more developed and can hear sounds or nuances of sounds that have yet been accounted for by spectrographs, o-scopes, and any algorithm that I can think of.

 

I have not A/B tested the 3 systems you named, but, I have yet to hear any 2 systems sound even closely similar.

 

Another seminar I attended discussed digital circuit design. After much discussion one panelist, plainly stated in an attempt to clear things up, stated that if you would give each of us (4 engineers from different DAC manufacturers) the same DAC chip, and we each designed a DAC around it, each would sound different.

 

Applying that same logic to other pieces of the audio chain, I would expect each to sound different, regardless if each design was sound, our if they were introducing harmonics to create a certain sound.

 

Anyway, to bring it all back, at the end of the day, what ever sound you enjoy is the true pursuit of all of this.

 

Jeff