Some of you guys really don't get it - Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc. are old-fashioned hucksters, plain and simple. They are big businesses that have no agenda other than selling adspace - NONE. The fact that Fremer and pals can write reasonably well, know a modicum of theory, and a lot of jargon, does not make their ears any better than anyone elses, including the average Audiogon'r - and it certainly doesn't make their ethics any stronger. If you actually read Hardesty's publications you will see that he has no ulterior motives, other than making a living by giving advice on how to achieve excellent audio reproduction. If Wilson's were great speakers, in his opinion, he'd say so.
The irrefutable reality about Wilsons, and a lot of the newer crop of speakers, is exactly what Hardesty says. They're not designed to reproduce the original recording faithfully, but to EQ it in such a way that people with more money than ears take the bait. The "boom and sizzle", as Hardesty calls it. And as he also points out, you can like "boom and sizzle" AND the Wilsons, and there's nothing wrong with that - but THEY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT REPRODUCE THE RECORDING ACCURATELY, period! No argument. Because they don't even attempt to - it's demonstrably inherent in the design. Which doesn't mean they won't impress your buddies with sizzling cymbals and slammin' bass.
So the question comes down to what you consider to be the "audiophile" quest:
1. the pursuit of absolute purity in reproduction OR
2. Impressive Sound, which in our younger days we'd get by pushing in the "Loudness" button.
What Hardesty, and many others, are saying is that the Wilson style of speakers simply has the Loudness button built in and flipped to "on".
Personally, I'd rather have absolutely flat, phase and time correct speakers as a starting point. Without that, how can you possible call it "audiophile". You can call it High End, you can enjoy the Bling, your friends can say WOW, but it ain't audiophile in my book.
It's not that "flat" is what I enjoy all the time either. There are electronics which can be added into the chain (such as DBX 5BX, EQ, and even subharmonic synth.) to pump up or tone down certain recordings or media, a little or a lot, on demand. And believe me, the electronics can do it with far more effectiveness and versatility than a Wilson Sophia.
So I also disagree with "audiophiles" who say that processing the signal to make it more enjoyable is unacceptable or "wrong". If I enjoy it more, I win. But having a fixed version of it built into the speaker makes no sense.
So I very much agree with the Hardesty camp that Flat, Time and Phase Correct HAS to be the holy grail, at least as a starting point, for serious listening. |
My post was not meant as a personal attack on MF, whose unique motives I cannot possibly know. His is simply the name that comes up most often when discussing "reviewers". And indeed, the fact that he purchased Maxx2's (regardless of the discount) means that he really, truly likes them.
But since MF wants to get into it name-calling I'll indulge him another opportunity just this once:
First off, as consumers, we have every right - and every reason - to question the credibility of those who recommend big $$$ purchases and receive very valuable $$$ consideration from the manufacturers they are recommending. "Questioning" is not "Indicting". Questioning your motives is indeed our responsibility. There is an outrageously clear POTENTIAL conflict of interest that we'd be idiots NOT to consider. The fact that so few reviews in the mainstream media mention a flaw serious enough to reject a purchase is evidence, in and of itself, of a very strong bias - the standard industry arguments which you don't need to repeat, notwithstanding.
That Fremer angrily and relentlessly berates with name-calling (see Arthur Salvatore's website if you want some real examples) those who even "dare to question" brings to mind Gertrude's, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It also makes me personally doubt that his motive is always the altruistic goal of introducing people to the fun of this hobby. The two personality traits do not seem consistent to me.
Calling someone an idiot four times in one post doesn't make it true, and defending your integrity with a fusillade of insults followed by one or two anecdotes of honesty from a long career probably doesn't convince the heretics.
Again, no reader can possibly know a particular reviewer's motive in a particular case. All we can know, keeping "buyer beware" in mind, is that precious few negatives have ever been mentioned in the Audio Mags about major advertisers.
In this case, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that MF likes the Maxx's very much, but that doesn't negate Hardesty's opinion as to Wilson's entire speaker line. Or the fact that many experienced audiophiles hear it the same way as Hardesty. Or that Wilson's measure out as fairly colored speakers. Since all speakers are apparently so colored, why bother even doing test measurements? Is that the next logical media revelation?
Hardesty (and I with the huckster comment) may have over-stepped the bounds of courtesy, but I can't think of any logical reason to doubt his knowledge of what goes on inside the industry, inside speakers or his integrity. And I have absolutely no axe to grind with either of these guys. What I do know, is how Business works, how Marketing works, and how employees subservient to a corporate entity MUST work, unless they don't really want their job. Does this apply to Audio Reviewers - I dunno, I'm an Idiot - you decide. |
Unfortunately there's been an obvious trend for a long time in the corporate news media. The "bottom line" is Job #1, Market Share is Job #2, and reporting, a necessary evil subservient to #1 and #2, is targeted to the lowest common denominator with the highest net worth. They're running sports updates and MTV length "news" segments on Nightline now, and Koppel is "leaving", because ABC wants to compete with the David Letterman show. The New York Times has so little regard for editorial accuracy that we end up with one scandal after another out of their News Desk. Even the Village Voice is now owned by a media conglomerate and a consortium of investment banks.
If you really think that Stereophile and other big audio mags are any different, because their real mission is to provide unbiased, complete, and accurate audiophile information, advertisers be damned - well then, you're probably part of their target audience. |
re: VTL/ARC
The fact that they may use these as reference speakers (for now) doesn't necessarily mean anything except that:
1. Manufacturers need to know how their stuff will sound with the other popular speakers/equipment of the day.
2. VTL and ARC are marketers, too - how would they "look" to the deep-pocketed Stereophile audience (i.e. their target market) if their references were the more accurate Meadowlark, Dunlavy's, GMA's or Vandersteen 5a's? Those are not Sexy - especially if they're no longer in business.
3. Who says that guys who build amplifiers necessarily have ears any different/better than the general population. There's no doubt that a lot of people like listening to Wilsons, so why shouldn't they. That's not Hardesty's point.
What Hardesty says is irrefutable (and you don't have to be very "smart" or knowledgable to understand it) - The Wilsons are made with inexpensive off-the-shelf parts and are technically modest designs that make it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for them to be true a "reference" (as in REPRODUCE THE SOURCE ACCURATELY) transducer. There is simply no argument to be made against him.
Wilsons are built nicely, finished nicely, and it's not wrong if you absolutely LOVE the "sound" - but it's not what the old school audiophile considers Reference. I love to I crank up my DBX expander, use Impact Restoration and pump up the punchy midbass with an EQ for certain recordings - but I wouldn't claim it's audiophile reference. It's fun as hell to listen to, but I sure wouldn't want my speakers doing it automatically without my permission.
As to these people who harp on whether Hardesty had a pair at home to "review" - You don't have to fly a plane with one only wing missing to know that it's a bad idea. You don't have to drive a Ferrari with 3 wheels to know that a 4-wheeled VW will outcorner it. You don't have to hear a 96k sample rate recording to know that it sounds better than the same session recorded simultaneously at 48k and then downsampled to 44.1k. Speaker design is not as complicated a mystery as high-end marketers would like everyone to believe. Accuracy is predictable and measurable - and to a some degree, obtainable. Coloration is not so predictable - hence the vast choices in what type you can purchase. And yes, expensive coloration DOES sound better than cheap coloration.
It's not lost on anyone in the industry that almost every speaker builder who produces (near) flat frequency response, time and phase coherent designs has gone out of business. "Flat" doesn't sell speakers. Punch and Sizzle does. Even if a Zillion people love Wilsons' sound, that in NO way invalidates any of Hardesty's points. |
I challenge one Hardesty "basher" here to:
1. Actually read Hardesty's entire Watchdog article, (which many of you quite obviously have not) and then
2. Post a direct quote, in full context, and then
3. Tell us explicitly why you disagree with it (other than "They sounded great at CES", which in no way refutes any of Hardesty's premises or observations.) |
This thread is bogging down a bit, so I'll inject this, just to crank it up a bit :)
First off, (and I really don't intend this as a personal attack, but as info that readers should know) "Samuel" is not just a Maxx2 owner, but is an industry insider defending industry insiders. If I may quote him from an older thread for clarification, "I am a former consumer, reviewer and now marketing and sales person for a company that manufacturers, among other things, power cords". I don't know who he works for, but he hasn't mentioned perchance if they advertise in these magazines or benefit from the same reviewers he's defending.
Second, to talk "journalism" of sorts -
Samuel accurately says that reviewers are "are accountable for their opinions." Of course. But to who? To me and you? Not likely. Name a writer that got into trouble because the "public" didn't agree with yet another glowing review.
Many Audio mags are obviously not bothered by the ethical standards of traditional journalism. Washington Post reporters aren't offered discounts on Corn Flakes when General Mills gets a review of a new cereal. Ted Koppel doesn't interview Advertising Executives who decide, in turn, how much to spend at ABC next year. Consumer Reports, unquestionably, the most successful and useful "Review" publication ACCEPTS NO ADVERTISING at all.
The audio mags have a good thing going, and they do it as cleverly as possible. None of this is new, and they're aware of the persistent public suspicion over the buddy-buddy nature of the industry and the various "accomodations". So of course they throw in "weaknesses", "context", and measurements, etc. and the advertisers understand the unfortunate need for it - because otherwise the mags would be a laughing stock. But they finesse their way around any "negatives" a la JA's summary at the end of the Maxx2 measurements.
Ask yourself this - how often have you seen a straightforward recommendation NOT to buy a frequent advertiser's component, or to buy a competitor's product since it's sonically equal, but a much better value.
Perhaps more telling - how often do you see reviews of chronic NON-advertisers. You haven't seen many reviews of Tyler Acoustics, Oris Hornspeakers, Grounded Grid amplifiers, Granite Audio, Eclipse TD's by Fujitsu (amazing), and many others, now have you. Hmmmmm.... These are all strong companies with excellent products at attainable prices, and decent customer bases, that don't advertise and don't get the quid pro quo reviews.
The reason that these types of companies are so rarely "reviewed" has been asked of Stereophile repeatedly. About a year ago John Atkinson responded with, "It basically comes down to my feeling that a) a product's manufacturer is real..." b) the component is one to which it is worth devoting some of the magazine's always limited space.
Quite obviously these products are very worth devoting space to, and people would be thrilled to know about them, so it comes down to who they consider a "real" manufacturer. I think I have a pretty good idea what the criteria for "real" is.
Or how about articles on great vintage equipment (not necessarily cheap, either) that blows away newer stuff. Would that be helpful to readers? Is that not of major interest to most audiophiles. But you won't see it. BECAUSE, FACE IT, THAT'S NOT WHY THE AUDIO MAGS ARE THERE.
I don't think Stereophile (as an example) is evil, but I don't think they care less about journalistic theory practice. They have a great business and they do what's best for themselves - that's capitalism. And I'm not anti-captalism. I'm anti Naivism.
A real review with journalistic intent, that a Washington Post reporter, might write would point out that:
1. The Maxx2's are hella fun to listen to and to admire, but they are NOT nearly as "accurate" at reproducing the source signal as many other speakers, according to Stereophile's own AND other independent measurements and/or as an example:
2. At 1/3 of the retail price, Tyler Woodmeres, using very similar quality components, meticulous build quality, and even sporting a similar D'Appolito High/Mid configuration with 2 woofers for the bottom end, may be an alternative to consider.
Is a review that doesn't bring up those possibilities closer to Journalism or closer to Touting?
The three allowable comparisons/cliches that you WILL see in audio reviews because they won't offend anyone in the industry are:
1. THIS component "approaches" the quality of ones costing 50% more.
2. THIS component is much better than the similar DISCONTINUED model.
3. THIS component is UNDERSTANDABLY better (in certain ways) than a cheaper one from the same manufacturer.
(And I do believe we've seen all three in this thread.)
That's it for me - my wife is gonna kill me if I spend any more time on this one! |
For the record - I'm not taking potshots at Samuel. He seems like a very nice, intelligent, and reasonable person and an asset to this discussion. I tend to play the devil's advocate on Audiogon when no one else is doing it and I was just pointing out that he comes from a particular point of view which clearly has interests on one side of the fence, so to speak. Nor am I implying that ANY manufacturer/marketer of audio equipment is involved in what some people keep calling "conspiracy". That's not a word I've ever used here. Advertising and promotion is what equipment makers and suppliers are SUPPPOSED to do, and what consumers EXPECT them do to. If someone (e.g. Stereophile) is willing to help them even further because they advertise, then by all means, why shouldn't they take the help in the form of a review or any other way.
It's the MEDIA that, IMO, isn't doing things quite the way that consumers should expect of them. It's possible that the structure of the whole business/marketing "foodchain" is so "normal" to the media people that they're in denial as to why they're really there, who is paying them to be there, and that they do have unwritten, ingrained rules that they must follow to keep that pay coming in.
But enough on that - I'm just saying that my skepticism has nothing at all to do with the "production" side of the industry, and that Samuel seems like a fine person to me - he just brought up a couple more points that I felt like running with (mostly because it was a slow day at work).
|
