John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
The one and only
Joined 2001
Paid Member
the above reviewer was most likely paid and or was given a free amp to blather so proficiently

There are people who might say that Mikey can't hear, but the accusation
that he was bribed in some way is not appropriate.

This goes for the rest of the reviewers. In 40 years I've learned that you
can be friendly with a reviewer, but you can't buy a review, and advertising
does not assure a good review.

:cool:
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Nelson,
Sadly, not true of all reviewers.

There are instances where reviewers have been given the reviewed product which they may sell at a later date. Some even expect to be given a product.

I have heard this directly from individuals involved in getting products reviewed. I've even had to cover some repairs under warranty that were on "indefinite loan". As for the review process, a couple people up here even expose amplifier products to destructive tests, like a Lightstar running full power with a square wave signal.

I'd really love to think the best of reviewers, and some must be honest people as you've indicated. But the experience over the years does point to a rather different reality. As for all the excess verbiage they tend to use ... there is no excuse for that. They invalidate their own review in this way.

-Chris
 
12962

"As for the review process, a couple people up here even expose amplifier products to destructive tests, like a Lightstar running full power with a square wave signal."

What's wrong with that? Sounds like one of many tests that should be performed to determine reliability. Thermal cycling is another. So is testing RF emissions which manufacturers must do to conform to FCC requirements. Magazines don't usually have the facilities for these types of tests but they can test at full power for prolonged periods. Manufacturers of consumer audio equipment don't publish MTBF data. How else would you find out what the limits are without testing them?
 
Thorsten, good for you to 'chime' in. It is beyond my capacity to understand why people get so upset about what differences many audiophiles hear.
I personally 'discovered' high fidelity, after I had finished 3 years in college in engineering-physics, a year at Underwriter's Labs, playing guitar for about 6 years, while working at Lockheed Burbank (LA) and listening to a colleague's Koss Pro 4 headphones at his house. I was KNOCKED OUT! In the following months, I started to acquire my own mono hi fi system out of used components, and Dynakits, and my own pair of Koss Pro 4 headphones. Hog heaven! 'except' that I started experimenting, in order to see what happens. I actually added a 3.3 ohm series resistor to reduce the damping factor to my AR-1 loudspeaker to 1, AND it sounded better! It wasn't my original idea, Ed V talked about it first, in the 1950's. However, later, when I asked him about it, he flatly denied it, citing the DYNA's DF of 15 was perfect (he was showing with DYNA). I never trusted him, again. Why, on Earth, would I add a SERIES resistor to an already inefficient loudspeaker, IF it did not sound better? I knew OHM's Law, and my losses across the resistor were considerable. Yet, it sounded better.
Now, what about later?
For a few years, I believed in AR, then I heard my first K-horn, and I knew that there was something important about its sound. It just made the AR seem like a toy, (mostly probably because of Doppler distortion, denied by Ed V.) However, after several years with the K-horn, I found that the path length differences started to drive me crazy, especially with vocalists who I personally knew. This too, was denied by Klipsch, but there it was, and it became nagging and annoying. Then I tried my first Magnepan loudspeaker, and I even measured it. It was one of the worst measuring loudspeakers I have ever measured, BUT it had a 'right' quality about it, even so, especially with imaging and solo voices. At this time, I had STAX electrostatic headphones, a big step above the Koss Pro 4's, but mostly edgy with most solid state power amps. I tried SAE, Marantz 250, Marantz 500, still a problem with the phones. Then these 2 guys from Electrocompaniet visited me with an Otala amp under their arm. It was very amateurishly wired, BUT it really sounded great with the headphones, and I virtually insisted that I buy it on the spot. They didn't want to sell it to me, as it was their prototype, but I convinced them finally, and gave them a broken American amp to take back home. (good riddance). I used that amp, off and on, for the next 15 years, always trying to replace it with something more powerful, better looking (internally) or with tubes. I always went back to the Electrocompaniet, especially with the headphones. The only other amp that I found worked better with the Stax headphones was the Audio Research D150 tube amp, but alas, it did not sound as good with real loudspeakers (Gale in this case). My prototype power amp for Gale sounded better with the speakers, yet worse with the headphones. Now, where is the VANITY NOW? If I were so inclined, I would have insisted that MY design was better, no matter what! But it wasn't. This is the way of a successful audio designer. Learn as much as you can intellectually, try things, AND TRUST YOUR EARS.
It is true that in short term listening comparisons, I can sometimes be fooled, but not over time. Then, the flaws become apparent, even if everything sounded just fine at first. How do we test for THAT, double blind? Where is the EGO when the other guy's unit sounded better?
 
Hi,

There are instances where reviewers have been given the reviewed product which they may sell at a later date. Some even expect to be given a product.

When I still reviewed it was normally possibly possible to purchase a review product at "industry accommodation" which usually means the manufacturers ex. factory price or the local dealers cost. This usually comes with a 2 year (or longer) ban on selling the product.

Some manufacturers like to leave a well reviewed product with a reviewer on "permanent loan", it tends to make sure the product gets mentioned again. I cannot put it past some reviewers to ask for such a loan, but most would probably just shrug their shoulders at a no.

As far as HiFi goes, Reviewers are are permanent Casanova, there is always a new girl to play with and often one is happy enough the previous one is gone...

As for all the excess verbiage they tend to use ... there is no excuse for that. They invalidate their own review in this way.

Reviews need to be written to be amusing and easy to read, while still conveying the gist of what the product does well and what it does not. The degree of success reviewers achieve in this varies and often it is difficult to render sonic differences in print.

If you think the reality is different, why don't you start to review and bag all this free gear while writing without all that excess verbiage?

I know a fair few reviewers both from my days as reviewer and now working with manufacturers. I also know a fair few manufacturers. I can only say that largely the rumours of underhanded dealings, outrageous bribes and the like are greatly exaggerated, with the exception of one single former editor and still occasional reviewer in the UK, who indeed was found doing some things that left many in the industry speechless.

Of course, such occasional bad apples only happen in Audio, there obviously is never a dishonest banker, politician, cosmetic surgeon, food products manufacturer, Taxi driver or shopkeeper. If there was, one would of course rightly presume that all such banker, politician, cosmetic surgeon, food products manufacturer, Taxi driver or shopkeepers are dishonest, baaed on the single example...

Ciao T
 
Well said, once again Thorsten. Being in the consumer audio business since 1974, I have 'heard of', bribes of equipment being demanded on occasion. Most of the people who once did demand these bribes are either deceased or 'dismissed'. However, I never bribed anyone, and I would not, at any time. STILL, I seem to do OK with the reviewers today, and over the last decades. Heck, we never bought advertising for Vendetta Research or the CTC Blowtorch, yet we did OK. Parasound used to advertise extensively, BUT it did not save the HCA2200mk1 or the HCA3500 from an indifferent review in 'Stereophile'. Why, if this is necessary to get a 'good' review?
 
Last edited:
If someone is going to effectively give you equipment to review you can keep and sell in two years, that would seem an incentive to write a good review, to keep the market price for it high. Sounds at the very least like a conflict of interest to me.

Don't most reputable magazines either buy the equipment they review on the retail market or just get it on loan and have to return it. The reviewer may live with it for several months to become familiar with it but isn't that all of what should happen?
 
Am I the only one who reads the reviews carefully? If an amplifier (or other gear) is other than neutral or open or similar uncolored description then it is coloring the sound. A warm, bright, upfront etc is to me not a compliment. Or am I mis-reading them?

Now on a very small scale I review products and sometimes get accused of graft! (Really!)

When I review products sometimes small electrical components are given to me as I do not expect to tear the gear apart to return them. More often I am asked to review a given category and I purchase the products myself. I do not ask for reimbursement as I consider that is my way of saying thanks for the others whose shoulders I stand on. Every so often I find a product deficient and write a review, if you wonder if they get published...http://www.audioxpress.com/magsdirx/ax/addenda/media/simon2894.pdf
was an article done with a sense of humor and other than the title change I think shows quite a bit of publishing honesty.
 
In my sense, this is how technological evolution happens. We are all here on a petri dish together. Good idea's and theories competing with (perhaps) even betters.

In audio, this means we will have to keep the market for high end up, with all the quirks and sometimes bloted press this generates. Because this is where innovation happens. And in the end, what is best will survive, and before we understand all psycho-acoustics and technology involved, subjective fill-ins are for me a welcome addition. This is what these reviewers provide to me, and it is up to me to filter.

I have always had the idea that the reviewers ( I know Stereophile best) I am familliar with, are just likeminded nerds with a fascination I share. In that sense, I take issue with some allegations being made. It is still a quest for the best, there is no denying that. And these guys are part of that search.
 
In audio, this means we will have to keep the market for high end up, with all the quirks and sometimes bloted press this generates. Because this is where innovation happens.

I rarely, if ever see innovation in the high end. I see inventions, but that's not the same thing. Innovation includes re-thinking the marketing proposition, not just clever or novel circuits.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi John,
I have a friend currently that was once much as you describe on his audio journey. His passions change much as yours have as he discovered the next better thing. It is rare to bump into a person who has so much of his life invested in what he listens to that feels so deeply for each new level of truth. That is precisely why those who muddy the waters with false claims and promises tend to bother me as much as they do. There is much to be said for understating performance. As it is, he has wasted tens of thousands of dollars on sure-thing hopeful solutions. All due to those who trade on their egos to hawk their wares, or should I say warz. He is now critically aware how much this has cost him - and who has lied to him over the years. He ain't happy about it.

It started as he wrestled with the problems that poorly designed but critically acclaimed equipment brought to the party. My explanations where like a slap in the face, but he gave me a chance. Over the course of at least 15 years now, I was able to prove my case with everything he had, and his friends had. Now, he has commissioned complete redesigns and has seen each step improve performance while various instruments indicate improvement as well. (Shock and horrors!) I know you also both measure and listen, so no slight there. What I can see however, is that these various high end tweaks and gizmos do improve the performance of various pieces of audio equipment, and you can hear the change. But (<-- that's a big but), these things matter only when something is amiss in that system. No, you can't generally measure any changes because noise and distortion artifacts smother anything you could measure. So you see, there is an actual reason for some changes that you can hear, but have a great deal of difficulty to measure. But the claims are half truths and represent money wasted on hopeful answers to things that the audio press excite the readership about.

BTW, I have rebuilt Marantz 500's, 240's and 250's so that they outperform most newer amplifiers. Of course that is a subjective view that the owners have, but they do possess that very agreeable sonic experience that I enjoy listening to once each is done on the bench. I rebuilt the 500 that Dayton-Wright owned for it's new owner back in the late 70's, and several representatives for different brands really liked it a lot. Once finally bought one for me to rebuild very recently. Those models had a certain "rightness" after a rebuild. Same schematic, just matching certain parts and using better capacitors and resistors here and there. The original 500 I did was only part matching, nothing else. They still refer to that amplifier, those that heard it.

Hi ThorstenL,
The resale rule is one year for 'com purchases in Canada. I haven't a clue how long it is in the good 'ole USA. However, there are articles out there that describe the poor pay of reviewers and how they survive by selling some reviewed goods. That's hearsay, so I didn't refer to those in my first post. These were on printed matter, so don't ask for a reference. Unlike many, I discard those issues once read.

"Permanent loan" is another word for "you can keep it". The product is removed from inventory often enough, and for all intents and purposes does constitute a payment (but under the table). I have never seen any come back, and why would they? These are by that time superseded with new models, although I imagine it could be traded in for a newer model. The old one is of no value, and a distributor does not want it back.
The degree of success reviewers achieve in this varies and often it is difficult to render sonic differences in print.
I'm pretty sure they try to outdo each other. Watch the progression of a catch phrase.
If you think the reality is different, why don't you start to review and bag all this free gear while writing without all that excess verbiage?
I know my place, and it's behind a soldering iron. I am not a writer, but I do know something about communication. What I do in a board room will not work in print for general consumption. Besides, in meetings I am asked to attend, the participants all understand the topic(s) under discussion. These are also normally only 20 minute meetings where all topics have been addressed. Verbiage would be most unwelcome. :)
I can only say that largely the rumours of underhanded dealings, outrageous bribes and the like are greatly exaggerated
That is certainly probably true, depending on what makes the cut. Let's say that there is a way things are done, and if people play by that there is no foul called. It's a gentlemanly agreement with tact understanding and guidelines. Personally, I don't have any problems with that business, and reviewers help push sales forward. They are one component in the advertising process (notice I didn't say game?). Their are also human motivations that will ensure the next new thing is better than last years thing. It doesn't matter if the older thing is better or not because it is unavailable. It's just that the slant isn't clear to the general public. I also don't think reviews are as honest as the ones way back in R-E for example. I also believe that excessive metaphor is the tool used to cover up the lack of substance. That much is clear if you read carefully. These days we are typically dragged through a painful description of the material used for listening, and the review morphs into a review of that material often enough. This type of article is a waste for most people who understand audio equipment.
Of course, such occasional bad apples only happen in Audio, there obviously is never a dishonest banker, politician, cosmetic surgeon, food products manufacturer, Taxi driver or shopkeeper. If there was, one would of course rightly presume that all such banker, politician, cosmetic surgeon, food products manufacturer, Taxi driver or shopkeepers are dishonest, baaed on the single example...
I can't disagree. However, we were talking about audio reviews recently here, not what is wrong with the rest of the world - yes?

My only desire would be to have reviewers get to the point in a clear manner. That's all. They failed the english course communication segment.

-Chris
 
Hi,

If someone is going to effectively give you equipment to review you can keep and sell in two years,

Industry accommodation is not "give", but rather "give you a good discount". Dealers cost tends to be around 60% of retail. If you pay this and sell after two years, even with a rave review you are not liable to make a lot of money, more likely to loose some. So as reviewer you are able to buy the review loaner, which is now "2nd Hand" anyway at a discount that is substantial, but not outrageous. If you don't like to pay, you have to send it back.

Don't most reputable magazines either buy the equipment they review on the retail market or just get it on loan and have to return it. The reviewer may live with it for several months to become familiar with it but isn't that all of what should happen?

That is exactly what happens. And as said, if you liked the review unit, you can usually buy it at a discount, as reviewer.

As said, some manufacturers may find it strategically a good idea to leave something the reviewer liked there on "permanent loan" (this means you cannot sell it), simply because it up's their chances to have their stuff mentioned again. For a reviewer it means he has more gear for comparison and there is one more familiar "benchmark". But even such "permanent loaners" eventually come back.

But of course, as you wish to misunderstand things anyway, non of this will make any difference.

Ciao T
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Ed,
I see you've met TIM as well! He prides himself on how many things he can work on per hour. A really good article that I enjoyed reading, but unlike audio reviews. I am assuming that TIM isn't you of course!

There is one brand of soldering station I ran across 15 ~ 20 years ago I think. I still use the first one I bought, and various tips are available for it. I even got a schematic from the manufacturer recently (!!!). These sell with various names, but the one I'm familiar with is called a "SOLOMON, SL-30". It is temperature controlled, about 50 watts. I even calibrated mine. I bought a spare iron years ago and recently bought a backup for it. It failed, but a set of new capacitors restored it to full working order. These sell for $90 to $120 from what I've seen.

Weller irons (I had 15 or so) caused me nothing but grief. Expect a high cost of ownership there. Obviously I was once a believer in that brand.
Am I the only one who reads the reviews carefully?
Nope. You are quite right about that, except that most people who buy these magazines do not read between the lines. They are looking for clear guidance, and that is one thing they do not get. I refer to reviews as "the comics".

Hi John (again),
Another point to consider. Many junior reviewers will not write a bad review on a well respected product. They must gain trust in order to join the ranks of respected (?) audio reviewers. Many entrenched reviewers can easily end their career by going against a strong brand. A bad review need not be published as their are several to choose from. Therefore most reviewers will not write a bad review, simply choosing to skip reviewing a product instead. There are more ways to guide reviews than out and out criminal practices. As long as everyone plays along, everything will continue, status quo is maintained.

-Chris
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2004
Paid Member
BTW, Cyril Bateman has commented on Ed Simon's article in Linear Audio Vol 1 about resistor non-linearity. Cyril has provided copies of test equipment data and app notes, including the CLT1 that Demian uses. I'm sure you're interested in these vintage documents. Here are Cyril's comments with the links to these docs.

jan didden

Thanks for making those available. i have a lot of documentation but have never seen the original article. Also the special transformer option I have never seen before for the CLT-1. It would be very useful to have the 4 wire/kelvin connection ability. I have two so I can measure 3 and 4 terminal devices, which really eats up floor space.
 
Hi,

Weller irons (I had 15 or so) caused me nothing but grief. Expect a high cost of ownership there. Obviously I was once a believer in that brand.

What a peculiar statement this.

I came across Weller tempco solder stations first in the mid 80's, behind the iron curtain. They where a revelation. I severely abused the ones at work over the years, up to the point of soldering sheet metal that made the front of the Iron glow dull red (I still occasionally solder stuff with my Weller that is too big for it and make it glow dull red, not recommended, but handy for those fat Hai End binding posts).

I have personally owned exactly four since 1989. One I still regulary use, one I gave away to a friend as I had a spare and he needed one and one got lost during moving (the girlfriend lost it, I was quite put out over that), the first one I left in Germany when I moved to England and it may still languish in a basement somewhere. Behind the Iron Curtain I owned a profusion of locally made junk, Tempco and not, all simply awful.

In all these years I have never broken one Weller, except for the plastic case of the base station that fell from my bench on the floor and has been since (for quiet a few years now) been held together with this universal jury rigging band aid, duct tape. I have had that Weller in my travel tool kit, it has accumulated massive airmiles.

Also, when I compare tip life and all those areas as well as ergonomics with the various stuff I have encountered elsewhere (especially the all prevalent Hakko) I'll keep my ancient magnetostat Weller, thank you very much.

I guess Soldering Irons are as subjective as the sound of HiFi, quel dommage, what a dismal surprise...

Ciao T


They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hopes;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.

Lewis Carrol - The Hunting Of The Snark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.