Jump to content

gmgraves

Members
  • Content Count

    7516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gmgraves

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just as Mr. Quint does on this thread, this reveals what these guys really think of consumers who do not go along with the current status quo of radical subjectivism, industry first/trade promotion, and overall "hear no evil, see no evil" technical incompetence. The Old Guard really has built themselves an intellectual and ego redoubt from which they cast judgement on "skeptics" and the like. MQA has revealed like nothing else just who is in fact "small" Which brings us back to the question: Why would any audiophile bother to read this sort of "Audio press"? I dunno, entertainment? As for negative reviews, I do not recall. It’s been too long.
  2. Unfortunately, there is a portion of this industry that actually COUNTS on the technical ignorance of most audiophiles. That’s how they get away with selling products of such dubious technical merit. The interesting thing is how it is the technically ignorant audiophile community themselves who insist that some of these products, products which cannot possibly work, are the best things, sonically, to ever be incorporated into their systems!
  3. Go to Stereophile.com, and enter “George Graves” into the search window at the top right of the screen (look carefully, the window is small). You will get a number of my reviews (mixed in with other stuff that the search engine dredged up that has nothing whatsoever to do with me). Happy reading!
  4. Well, a show report is hardly more than a cursory glimpse at what was at the show. There is no way to really evaluate anything. One attendee might mention what he thought was the best sound at he show, but that is a very quick opinion at best. Most show “reporters” tend to concentrate on two things: their favorite manufacturers and stuff that is truly new and noteworthy (read that as “expensive”).
  5. Well, then, that makes you the exception that proves the rule.
  6. My main problem with both of the leading US audio rags is their love of lists. Seems like every time one turns around, there is almost the entire issue taken up with page after page of capsule rehashes of recent equipment or recording reviews! When the Brits do it (as in “HiFi News And Record Review”), they do it with a thirteenth issue rather than take up an entire month’s worth of editorial space to list what they think is the latest and the greatest. On another front, criticisms of today’s magazines as being little more than rewrites of manufacturer’s PR material, I must disagree. Unless you are of “a certain age”, you probably don’t remember the days before “Stereophile” and “TAS” when the major audio magazines in the US were “High Fidelity” and “Stereo Review”. Now, those magazines were notorious for their “non reviews”. With the attitude “Of all of the (insert component type here: turntable, amplifier, tuner, speaker, etc.) we have ever tested, this was one of them...” and phrases such as. “... as with any modern (again, component type, here), this one met all of it’s specs and has no sound of its own. Reviewers like Julián Hirsch all had this “yes, we have no opinion” attitude toward equipment reviews. If a component did not meet it’s published specs, the review was not published. This was editorial policy, FOR REAL! These magazines existed to serve the equipment and record industries, NOT the magazine’s readership. This is the reason why Holt started “Stereophile” and Pearson started “TAS”.and for a number of years, neither accepted any advertising. Eventually, “TAS” started to accept ads from audio emporiums only (no manufacturers). And eventually the gates were breached and anyone could advertise. With these two magazines, came the era when equipment could be panned with a bad review. I clearly recall when the nascent “TAS” openly said that Infinity’s “POS” model bookshelf speaker’s name stood for “Piece Of Shit”. That was truly “telling it like the reviewer found it”! No one had ever seen that before. So things are much more honest today than they used to be, but still, I have to say that no reviewer enjoys writing a bad review. I know that I don’t. Often, for that reason and that reason alone, I will return a product to its manufacturer with a “thanks, but no thanks” note attached simply because I didn’t want to pan the product. Of course, some products need to be panned, then I have felt duty-bound to write about it.
  7. I’ve been a reviewer for more than thirty years. I started with Gordon Holt’s “Stereophile” in the late ‘70’s, worked briefly for HP at “TAS” in the early ‘nineties, and have worked for “The Audiophile Voice” since the mid ‘nineties. I do not now, nor have I ever had any interest in selling anyone anything! My two motives are simple: I like playing with the latest and greatest equipment, and I love to write. Seems to me that makes being an audio writer a no brainer!🧐
  8. It’s more than a myth, it’s just plain incorrect. Like I said in another thread. Audio magazines’ reviews and articles are merely the opinions of dedicated audio enthusiasts such as ourselves. Most of us tend to align ourselves with writers (notice that I did not say journalists) with similar tastes to our own. But even writers whose tastes and ideas are diametrically opposed to our own can be useful. To illustrate this point, I’m going to use an analogy from the past. Back in the late 1960’s through the 1970’s, TV Guide magazine had a resident movie critic named Judith Christ. I couldn’t stand her. The more she raved about a film, the more sure that I was that I would hate the movie in question! But I soon realized that just the opposite was also true! The more she panned a film, the better I would like it. It became axiomatic with me. Judith hated; me like. Judith loved; me hate. So in a negative way, I soon found her criticism of a movie or an actor or director to be unerringly accurate to the point where I could count on her reviews absolutely. So, in spite of being diametrically opposed on almost all cinematic criteria, She gave me reviews that I could count on. Nonetheless, it was that author’s opinion, and that opinion has got you and others on this forum talking about the subject, and will probably cause many streaming fence-sitters to listen to both for themselves, and that’s the goal (or should be) for all audio writers.
  9. I think that we need to, for this discussion, anyway, separate the mechanics of human hearing from how we interpret what we hear. Some aspects of sight and sound are pretty universal for instance if any of us were standing in the middle of a road and saw a car bearing down on us, we would respond by getting out of the way. That’s pretty universal, I should think. Also if we found ourselves walking down a train track in the middle of the night and the sound of a train bearing down on us, even though we couldn’t see the train, again, anybody would try to get off the track! From that standpoint, at least, I think everybody with healthy sight and hearing sees and hears alike.
  10. I’ve often wondered that myself. John Grado wouldn’t send me a cartridge review sample because I was using a unipivot arm. He said his cartridges didn’t work well with them!!?? All we can do is speculate. A unipivot probably has the least amount of arm friction of any design. The only point of contact between the actual arm and the arm mount (and thus the turntable plinth) is the single point upon which the arm sits. I would think this to be a good thing! OTOH, however, unipivot designs do tend to rock from side to side because unipivots work in all lateral planes; 360 degrees, while conventional gimbal designs can only move right to left in an arc, or up and down in the fore-to-aft direction. But I’ve had several unipivot designs (including the walnut arm that Joe Grado, the company’s founder, sold in the early Sixties) and I’ve never noticed any unipivot arm rocking side to side while playing.
  11. I was happy to see that the Elac seems to have an actual volume control! so many modern, slim designs do not, they have only up/down buttons for volume. I used to have a Krell KAV-300i integrated amp that sounded spectacular, but it had buttons for a volume control and I hated it. Personal quirk? Maybe, but you can adjust the volume instantly, up or down with a knob, not so easily or quickly with buttons. Now, of only more equipment manufacturers would put rotary volume knobs on their remote controls!
  12. Sure. But eyes are less easy to fool than ears (or so it seems to me).
  13. Like I said, Chris: “The other were a pair of AR model AR-H1 planar magnetic headphones which I had recently returned toAR’s PR firm.” So, no. Haven’t had them since early June.
  14. Easy peasy, nothing sinister going on here. At the time I posted this, I was evaluating a bunch of headphones at once. The Audeze LCD-4z had been returned to Audeze to be “repaired” and I had listened to two different headphones at that time for which I did not care. The other were a pair of AR model AR-H1 planar magnetic headphones which I had recently returned to AR’s PR firm. When I posted that opinion in mid-June, I merely confused the sonic signatures of two phones that I found wanting. I couldn’t check to confirm which was which because I had neither in my possession at the time (and I had been “evaluating” 4 or 5 other phones along with the AR and the Audeze LCD-4z). BTW, I post here under my own name but I review under a nom de plume for a reason that has nothing to do with Audiophile Style, per se.
×
×
  • Create New...