Bratislav said:
No it isn't - reviewers are not disinterested. By disinterested, I meant the third parties have no interest in the outcome of the test and no knowledge of what's being tested. In other words, a proper attempt at an objective test.
I do agree with you that many people are told what to like. Many people want to be told what to like because it's too much trouble to discover their own tastes.
jeff mai said:
That would be a bit too impractical. What I'm after is TRUTH(tm), whether I can hear a difference, in order to be able to make informed decision whether to spend $$$ on a particular piece of equipment. I do have "fancy" cables for example (I know, I know, Neotech is anything but golden ear category), but that is because I like how they look, not because I think they sound better. Same with other components - my Audio Research LS7 will most likely be inferior in many areas to say DIY BOSOZ (noise floor wise for sure). But I like A-R looks and know that sonically trade-off is insignificant (I can only hear valve hiss in between tracks when cranked WAY up, and LS7 unlike other valve designs is a well engineered product with negligile distortion).
Many people are not interested in music at all, just happy to brag to their mates about sound "quality" this "best" and "latest" that, while never actually bothering to go out and train the ear on a reference (live sound).
PauSim said:
I've actually seen reference to a study that did something similar -- they monitored brain waves to determine which of three systems had the listener more relaxed at the end of a listening session.
As MRI becomes more accessible one would be able to monitor brain activity that way.
dave
Member
Joined 2004
That´s right, Dave.
Only I suspect that it won´t be perfect (although interesting to follow), and sooner there will be a run for yet another way to reach the same dead-end.
The technology already exists. It´s possible to scan a listener´s brain activity to find how it reacts to predetermined stimulation, like switching amplifiers at random. That will say if, when and to whose listener amplifier A is sounding different than amplifier B.
Confronting the scan results to the listener´s own notes will also say how much each listener knows and feels about himself at the time of the listening session...
But, taking as an example the different behaviour of an amplifier to music vs. to a static load and frequency, and like all things in life, people change.
There would be a day when the same listener dranked too much coffee; or is going through a divorce; his team lose the championship; it´s his daughter´s birthday; he got a cold; the traffic was terrible that morning; he had a bad night´s sleep; he´s trying to quit smoking; tomorrow is payday; etc...
All these things will biase the listener´s perception somehow and will reflect in the scan results, I think. No matter how deeply the scans could reach.
Even right down to braincell levels, there will be some physical/chemical activity that is influenced by normal life regardless of how unconscious they are and how accurate the scanning machine is and may contradict last day´s results.
All these variations could be ignored if the reviewer´s name was Nexus 6, or if the differences in the two amplifiers weren´t so infinitely subtle. Given the case where they are so blatantly obvious there wouldn´t be the need for such a radical approach, thus the subject would be creditably aware of those differences, independent of how his serotonine levels were.
I think that we are raising the bar too high whenever we reach that point where differences in the sound of certain amps, cables racks or brilliant pebbles are so subtle they have to be submitted to DBT or have a subjective value to justify their higher pricetag or not.
It´s not worth the trouble.
I´m getting lost here. Please comment.
For subjective´s sake I´d like to add the following:
Hi-Fi will always be a fac-simile of live music just like Cinema is to reality.
When go to a movie we (should) know that what´s going on the big screen is not for real. But that doesn´t stop us to get excited about it.
The better the script, production, acting and so on, the better we respond to it.
There´s no quantization of how an actor, represents his role well or not. Inspite of this, because of subjective critic, certain actors are applauded while others are not.
With directors and screenplayers happens the same thing. Ditto for photographers and SFX magicians.
And if solid-state amplifiers were movies, tube amps were theater plays. Here we see characters in flesh and bone, we hear them speaking and watch they moving in a simple yet so true to life kind of manner not found in film. However, certain aspects like the changing of scenario and an overall lack of dynamic action leave most of us desiring for "better".
Like with certain types of music played on Tube vs. SS amps also certain plays are best for theater than for movies and vice-versa.
Sometimes a movie sells well not because of great direction or acting. Sometimes it´s because the players look good on screen.
Sometimes because of some tiny litlle details that sets it apart, a bad movie achieves cult status.
When confronted with real life, movies and theater plays are the same as cheating in a good sense. Actors are nothing but professional cheaters. Screenplayers are professional liers. Directors, intriguists. And people go to the movies because they feel the need to be cheated that way. They know about it, and they want to.
Many factors may contribute to the success of a movie or a play. Good script, good direction, good acting, good looks, good reviews, good price, good timing, and so on.
Many factors may contribute to the success of a high-end amplifier. Good circuit, good designer, good crafting, gold knobs and connectors, good reviews, high price, in time with Christmas bonus, and so on. That´s the way people like to be cheated.
All that matters in the end is the smile on their faces. Unless it was a horror movie, of course...
Sometimes there are great movies that don´t get much attention because they´re too simple. No over producing. No overacting. No visual artifacts that don´t exist in real life. And a budget to match. Compared to certain movies, sometimes pretty unexciting. They are like life itself. Some people don´t realize this. They want to be entertained, not to get bored...
Only I suspect that it won´t be perfect (although interesting to follow), and sooner there will be a run for yet another way to reach the same dead-end.
The technology already exists. It´s possible to scan a listener´s brain activity to find how it reacts to predetermined stimulation, like switching amplifiers at random. That will say if, when and to whose listener amplifier A is sounding different than amplifier B.
Confronting the scan results to the listener´s own notes will also say how much each listener knows and feels about himself at the time of the listening session...
But, taking as an example the different behaviour of an amplifier to music vs. to a static load and frequency, and like all things in life, people change.
There would be a day when the same listener dranked too much coffee; or is going through a divorce; his team lose the championship; it´s his daughter´s birthday; he got a cold; the traffic was terrible that morning; he had a bad night´s sleep; he´s trying to quit smoking; tomorrow is payday; etc...
All these things will biase the listener´s perception somehow and will reflect in the scan results, I think. No matter how deeply the scans could reach.
Even right down to braincell levels, there will be some physical/chemical activity that is influenced by normal life regardless of how unconscious they are and how accurate the scanning machine is and may contradict last day´s results.
All these variations could be ignored if the reviewer´s name was Nexus 6, or if the differences in the two amplifiers weren´t so infinitely subtle. Given the case where they are so blatantly obvious there wouldn´t be the need for such a radical approach, thus the subject would be creditably aware of those differences, independent of how his serotonine levels were.
I think that we are raising the bar too high whenever we reach that point where differences in the sound of certain amps, cables racks or brilliant pebbles are so subtle they have to be submitted to DBT or have a subjective value to justify their higher pricetag or not.
It´s not worth the trouble.
I´m getting lost here. Please comment.
For subjective´s sake I´d like to add the following:
Hi-Fi will always be a fac-simile of live music just like Cinema is to reality.
When go to a movie we (should) know that what´s going on the big screen is not for real. But that doesn´t stop us to get excited about it.
The better the script, production, acting and so on, the better we respond to it.
There´s no quantization of how an actor, represents his role well or not. Inspite of this, because of subjective critic, certain actors are applauded while others are not.
With directors and screenplayers happens the same thing. Ditto for photographers and SFX magicians.
And if solid-state amplifiers were movies, tube amps were theater plays. Here we see characters in flesh and bone, we hear them speaking and watch they moving in a simple yet so true to life kind of manner not found in film. However, certain aspects like the changing of scenario and an overall lack of dynamic action leave most of us desiring for "better".
Like with certain types of music played on Tube vs. SS amps also certain plays are best for theater than for movies and vice-versa.
Sometimes a movie sells well not because of great direction or acting. Sometimes it´s because the players look good on screen.
Sometimes because of some tiny litlle details that sets it apart, a bad movie achieves cult status.
When confronted with real life, movies and theater plays are the same as cheating in a good sense. Actors are nothing but professional cheaters. Screenplayers are professional liers. Directors, intriguists. And people go to the movies because they feel the need to be cheated that way. They know about it, and they want to.
Many factors may contribute to the success of a movie or a play. Good script, good direction, good acting, good looks, good reviews, good price, good timing, and so on.
Many factors may contribute to the success of a high-end amplifier. Good circuit, good designer, good crafting, gold knobs and connectors, good reviews, high price, in time with Christmas bonus, and so on. That´s the way people like to be cheated.
All that matters in the end is the smile on their faces. Unless it was a horror movie, of course...
Sometimes there are great movies that don´t get much attention because they´re too simple. No over producing. No overacting. No visual artifacts that don´t exist in real life. And a budget to match. Compared to certain movies, sometimes pretty unexciting. They are like life itself. Some people don´t realize this. They want to be entertained, not to get bored...
jeff mai said:
Hey, that's very well said.
Bratislav said:
Those are exactly the guys you DON'T want an oppinion or to participate on any kind of test.
Those are the pseudo-audiophiles.
I have a very close friend that sells hi-fi on one of the major audio distributors here (they have most high-end brands) and he has no patience for those clients that arrive with Stereophile on their hand saying 'Mr, I want to buy this because it's has Stereophile class a rating'.
Then he installs that on the listening room and they listen.
Then he gives his oppinion. Sometimes the guy leaves out with a completely different product, at half the price, sounding much better.
Believe me, you win less money this time, but the client will come back when he needs anything.
Yeah, the mags say Sony SACD players sound very good on CD, but when you put an SCD-1 next to the cheapest Linn CDP, the Sony seems like a discman.
So much for magazine ratings...
To trust a particular reviewer, you have to LISTEN to what he rates and see if you share his oppinion.
This, for instance, excludes any reviewer that rates highly the Audio Analogue 'Primo' CDP and amp.
Most Audio Analogue components, in fact...
It sounds to me like many of you agree that reviews done today, though maybe done with the right intent or in the right vane, are so misleading that its difficult to tell anything meaningful from them. If you take the stance that you must always listen for yourself first and not ever even look at reviews, then magazines period would have no place in audio, other than to be big advertisements. If you believe however that they can be used as a useful tool in helping one narrow down his choices. For many this is important, especially if you are like me and visiting an audiophile level shop requires driving an hour or more away, meaning a major time comitment.
Though a completly formalized method of sound investigation would be a bit over the top, as I have said here before, I do think a little standerdization would be nice. We have some, but its not used. Stereophile, for example, has no training that is done for its reviewers, just guidelines really, and they are far too vague. They have a list of terms with definitions, but the reviewer's still use them differently. They all have differen't things they enjoy in music, and it shows in the reviews, but you really have to read a lot of the reviews to get a good handle on how they are going about reviewing things. They also will write reviews that are politicly positive, so as not to hurt the company or something. If a product is good in one aspect of its use, but bad in another, they ignore that aspect and give it a glowing review only in the one area. My best example is the Wavac PC audio adapters they make. They are great sounding compared with most sound cards, but when compared to a really good cd player, they dont tend to stack up well. Well, this is my view, I know some others think a computer with a good soundcard playing into a stereo sounds as good and better than a cd player, that has not been my experience and I have two studio computer audio interfaces which are great making recordings, but really suck for playback, compared with a good all in one player. I noticed that the stereophile review never made a direct comparison to an equally expensive cd player. If you figure 1500 for the device and 1500 for the computer, or even go cheap and spend 500, your still looking at bewteen a 2000 and 3000 dollar cd player, that would be bested by many other cd players in the same price class.
The class ratings they use are highly misleading as well, such as with the digital class A+ rating. I agree with them that a really good SACD or DVD-A disc can easily best any regular cd, and I do think that SACD's have qualities that begin to approach the sound of true analogue. However, I own two cheap SACD players, and have extensive time with two very high end ones, including the Sony SCD-1. None of these players sounded great with cd's. I own a pioneer Elite DV-47Ai which I bought because I thought it would be good to modify, bought it like the week it was released in stores. I feel that was a big mistake, but for cd I run it through an old modified Audio Alchemy DDE-V3.0 and a home made power supply. Sounds decent, though I still prefer vinyl or 1/4" and 1/2" tape. I too was mislead by the reviews, but fortunatly have only done it with small purchases. With the Pioneer, I feel that its video performance is very good, and its audio on those is good enough for my tastes, I am not a fan of surround sound yet, its too difficult to get right for me, and often the extra channels are more gimmicks than added value, mostly its just an issue of it takes away too much from a good 2 channel system to sacrifice for good movie sound, or it costs too much to have both.
Though a completly formalized method of sound investigation would be a bit over the top, as I have said here before, I do think a little standerdization would be nice. We have some, but its not used. Stereophile, for example, has no training that is done for its reviewers, just guidelines really, and they are far too vague. They have a list of terms with definitions, but the reviewer's still use them differently. They all have differen't things they enjoy in music, and it shows in the reviews, but you really have to read a lot of the reviews to get a good handle on how they are going about reviewing things. They also will write reviews that are politicly positive, so as not to hurt the company or something. If a product is good in one aspect of its use, but bad in another, they ignore that aspect and give it a glowing review only in the one area. My best example is the Wavac PC audio adapters they make. They are great sounding compared with most sound cards, but when compared to a really good cd player, they dont tend to stack up well. Well, this is my view, I know some others think a computer with a good soundcard playing into a stereo sounds as good and better than a cd player, that has not been my experience and I have two studio computer audio interfaces which are great making recordings, but really suck for playback, compared with a good all in one player. I noticed that the stereophile review never made a direct comparison to an equally expensive cd player. If you figure 1500 for the device and 1500 for the computer, or even go cheap and spend 500, your still looking at bewteen a 2000 and 3000 dollar cd player, that would be bested by many other cd players in the same price class.
The class ratings they use are highly misleading as well, such as with the digital class A+ rating. I agree with them that a really good SACD or DVD-A disc can easily best any regular cd, and I do think that SACD's have qualities that begin to approach the sound of true analogue. However, I own two cheap SACD players, and have extensive time with two very high end ones, including the Sony SCD-1. None of these players sounded great with cd's. I own a pioneer Elite DV-47Ai which I bought because I thought it would be good to modify, bought it like the week it was released in stores. I feel that was a big mistake, but for cd I run it through an old modified Audio Alchemy DDE-V3.0 and a home made power supply. Sounds decent, though I still prefer vinyl or 1/4" and 1/2" tape. I too was mislead by the reviews, but fortunatly have only done it with small purchases. With the Pioneer, I feel that its video performance is very good, and its audio on those is good enough for my tastes, I am not a fan of surround sound yet, its too difficult to get right for me, and often the extra channels are more gimmicks than added value, mostly its just an issue of it takes away too much from a good 2 channel system to sacrifice for good movie sound, or it costs too much to have both.
Agreed. How many other markets exist where the bulk of the consumers have to be told what to buy before they even sample it. Hmm.......if they gave out Class A recommendations for Big Macs, would they sell more?
I guess only wine snobs come close to believing the reviewers. Right, SY? At least they probably won't waste more than $20-25 at a pop, rather than $2500 on entry level audio gear.
Jocko
I guess only wine snobs come close to believing the reviewers. Right, SY? At least they probably won't waste more than $20-25 at a pop, rather than $2500 on entry level audio gear.
Jocko
Sadly, the wine world is full of snobs who depend utterly on the ratings by Wine Advocate or Wine Spectator before they know what they like and don't like. Worse yet, the bottles that get the highest recommendations tend to be in the $500+ range... It doesn't mean that they're any "better" than a lot of $10 bottles, just snobbier. And I know this personally, since the one wine I made was done deliberately to get a high magazine rating. It did, the price soared into the ionosphere, and you now have to be some privileged dude to even be allowed to buy a bottle from the few dealers that carry it.
Though no doupt that much of the pricing in Audio is off the wall, and highly disproportionate to value, I have found that some of the DIY stuff I have done or would like to do can get quite expensive. One of the amp projects I want to do some day is make my own massive 500-1000 watt ultra high current amp inline with the large Macs, Music Fidelity's, and whoever else has made em that big. Mostly because I want to hear for myself if that much power would make for an effortless system, as the reviewers have said, and the amp makers. I only once heard such a system, I live near AudioClassics, which is a big Mac dealer, so I heard the complete top of the line refrence mac setup, probably half million dollars worth of gear, well atleast a quarter million. I was impressed, I dont think I would ever spend that much, but it was impressivly effortless, more so even than many horn systems I have heard. I looked into it, and I was quickly over 2000 dollars in parts alone using the kind of parts I had originally thought would be a good idea, and I still needed a chassis for it. At the same time, if I do ever build this thing, even made with the best parts money can buy, I probably still wont approach the 15-50,000 dollars that manufacturer statement pieces go for, and I would probably equal if not best the performance of many of them, given I go with a good design.
I also want to build a large set of speakers some day, something highyl efficiant and capable of huge dynamic swings, while being highly efficiant. Actually, USHER has a statement speaker that is basicly the design of my dream speaker, though I would wonder about the quality, Westlake audio has a better one, but for a cost. Same deal, I added up the costs of the parts, your quickly in the multi-thousand dollar price, and then cabinets would probably double the price of the project.
My point with this is that, even with DIY, trying out new audio equipment is a large investment. With premade stuff I can listen at a shop, sometimes, and hope to get a reasonable facsimile to what I might get at home, then if I like it, I have to buy it usually, but I get a 30 day money back guarantee. So I take it home, and hope that in 30 days I can be sure I want to live with it. With DIY, It usually costs me half as much or less, but at the expensve of being unable to try before I buy. So I spend the money, build the item, and end up stuck with it. On top of that, nobody wants to buy my creation, even if it does sound great for what it is, so if I dont like it, I have spent money fruitlessly. This is where I feel that reviews serve a purpose, and can benefit the public. They will never answer all my questions or give me all the information I need, but if they can get me into the ballpark, great. However, as is, most reviews are just semi-entertaining bits intermixed with more entertaining advertisements. As much as I would hate to see stereophile turn into Consumer reports, they atleast have pretty useful accurate reviews. Since I am not a videophile and dont care as much about the quality of my television picture, I tried to get the most reliable one I could. I have owned sony's in the past with ok luck, noticed that consumer reports rated JVC higher for reliability, I have one that is now 5 years old with no issues, and two broken sony's that are 7 and 3 years old, so they got that one right. I also have a broken Disen vacuum my parents bought for themselves, Consumer reports rated performance as good and reliability as bad, which is exactly my experience.
I also want to build a large set of speakers some day, something highyl efficiant and capable of huge dynamic swings, while being highly efficiant. Actually, USHER has a statement speaker that is basicly the design of my dream speaker, though I would wonder about the quality, Westlake audio has a better one, but for a cost. Same deal, I added up the costs of the parts, your quickly in the multi-thousand dollar price, and then cabinets would probably double the price of the project.
My point with this is that, even with DIY, trying out new audio equipment is a large investment. With premade stuff I can listen at a shop, sometimes, and hope to get a reasonable facsimile to what I might get at home, then if I like it, I have to buy it usually, but I get a 30 day money back guarantee. So I take it home, and hope that in 30 days I can be sure I want to live with it. With DIY, It usually costs me half as much or less, but at the expensve of being unable to try before I buy. So I spend the money, build the item, and end up stuck with it. On top of that, nobody wants to buy my creation, even if it does sound great for what it is, so if I dont like it, I have spent money fruitlessly. This is where I feel that reviews serve a purpose, and can benefit the public. They will never answer all my questions or give me all the information I need, but if they can get me into the ballpark, great. However, as is, most reviews are just semi-entertaining bits intermixed with more entertaining advertisements. As much as I would hate to see stereophile turn into Consumer reports, they atleast have pretty useful accurate reviews. Since I am not a videophile and dont care as much about the quality of my television picture, I tried to get the most reliable one I could. I have owned sony's in the past with ok luck, noticed that consumer reports rated JVC higher for reliability, I have one that is now 5 years old with no issues, and two broken sony's that are 7 and 3 years old, so they got that one right. I also have a broken Disen vacuum my parents bought for themselves, Consumer reports rated performance as good and reliability as bad, which is exactly my experience.
pjpoes said:
If you know someone on the retail business they will tell you that in high-end things cost what they sound.
My friend told me this many years ago and I was shocked. I took some time to swallow it, but it doesn't shock me anymore.
He told me: Carlos, the client doesn't care if it has just a pair of transistors inside, or a single chip, or whatever. He simply doesn't know and doesn't care.
If, for instance, a preamp costs 100€ to manufacture but beats preamps in the 5.000€ price tag, it is worth more than that, and it will sell for that price.
Take note: in hig-end you really PAY for quality.
The thing is... some things cost a lot of money and sound like junk.
Jocko Homo said:
Hmmm. Way too many methinks. Cars. Tyres. Wine. Video gear (TVs/panels/DVD players). Restaurants. Hotels. Anything that gets advertised via "reviews" but is impossible to perform an in-depth evaluation by oneself one reason or another, or is subject to wide variations (cooks have good and bad days, hotels have rooms with nice veiews and ones next to the elevator shaft etc. etc. etc.).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.