Class D Amplification Announcement

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The bashing of audio reviewers by audiophiles who are themselves wannabe reviewers; it’s been sport as long as there have been audiophiles. Out of control egos who are so convinced that it is in their opinions, and their opinions only, where truth can be found. These audiophiles always forget that there is, and always will be, no substitute for personal experience with a product. The usefulness of audio reviews is simply as guides to making a more informed buying decision; no more. This requires following a reviewer’s  output in order to gain a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from. One isolated review is of little value; context is key. For me, the ultimate value of reviews is determined not only by what the reviewer says (writes), but also by how he says it. Attitude counts for a lot in my book. So, speaking of attitude:

In this thread we have the comments of two reviewers with distinctly different attitudes. One comes on like a bull in a china closet lambasting a publication that has been at the forefront of this hobby much longer than most and insults the integrity of a specific reviewer for that publication. The other reviewer, the subject of this attack, responds in a gracious manner, explains his position and demonstrates reasonableness all the way around. Hmmm…… which of these two reviewers will I be most inclined to go to for, if not “truth”, a guide to help me make a more informed buying decision? A no brainer in my book.

Re the bull’s main (I think) criticism of the mentioned publication: He forgets (or is simply unaware of the fact) that since it’s inception, one of this publication’s main stated tenets has been to never base a review on comparisons to other products; only to the sound of music itself instead. That is where having “a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from” comes in. Imagine that…a comparison to the actual sound of music. What a quaint proposition!

soix, thank you for the evenhanded response.

The problem with comparisons to other gear as the basis for a review is twofold.

First, to take that approach assumes that everyone, or even most, interested in the piece of gear being reviewed has heard all the other competing gear which are “what most would consider to be head on competitors/alternatives”. Big assumption; and as we all know the “opinions” of many are often based on reviews and word of mouth, not actual first hand experience. Not to mention, the sonic effects of the necessarily different rooms, cables, ancillary gear, setup. Moreover, consider how much disagreement there already exists among audiophiles about the pros and cons of a lot of even top gear.

Secondly, most audiophiles have heard (hopefully often) the sound of music in a live setting. A review that relates what the reviewer hears to the sound of live music, subjectivity and all, seems to me will be much more effective in conveying a sense of what the reviewer hears. Some might consider this approach invalid because of issues around subjectivity, but ask why this same concern should not apply to our perception of the “sound” of gear.

Understood and I appreciate your attitude in the face of disagreement.

**** the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. ****

I could not disagree more. To use your example and turn it around, are we to use studio recordings as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with recordings of acoustic music performed in a hall?

**** a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended****

How do we know what they intended? We don’t. Re gear comparisons:

**** Example — Review speaker X sound brighter and more detailed than speaker Y. While a reader may not have heard speaker Y they may know the house sound of the brand or other speakers that sound similar to speaker Y, ****

How does a listener know what speakers sound similar to speaker Y if they have never heard speaker Y? This tells the listener nothing useful, imo.

Contrary to popular belief, there are enough “constants” in the various aspects of the sound of live music which allow a listener who is very familiar with the sound of live music to better judge how faithfully a piece of gear reproduces that sound. Of course, for this approach to be useful there has to be an interest in attending live performances in order to form a useful reference point.

**** To me there’s always room for more than one opinion because people see/hear things differently so there can’t be one right answer ****

I agree that there is always room for more than one opinion. As to the second part of your comment:

Yes, we all hear things differently. However, whatever physiological differences may exist among listeners which then cause us to hear differently will exist whether we are listening to a live performance, or to an electronically reproduced one. For instance, if my hearing apparatus hears with a dip at, say, 2K that dip will be there when I attend a concert as well as when I sit in front of my stereo at home. That is why comparison to live is useful and, imo, the most informative. Of course, there are many more aspects of sound than frequency balance to consider when judging gear.  

**** The sound of a high rez two channel system sounds nothing like live music****

Three possibilities:

- The “high rez”’system is not assembled well; is not well balanced.

- Recordings being played are not very good.

- The listener is not familiar with the sound of live music.

A great recording played back on a well balanced (!) high resolution system can sound, while never exactly like, fairly close to the sound of live.

**** What we are looking for at home is a hyper real (as in unreal) experience****

No offense intended, but speak for yourself. That is not what many of us are looking for.

I suppose it’s a sign of the times. Hyper real flavors in food (way too salty). Hyper loud movies and concerts. Hyper fast, hyper personalized experiences. Hyper connectivity, and more. I’m old school, I prefer my music to sound as natural as possible; as close as possible to the real thing. Others may want a different experience. As far as I’m concerned Harry Pearson had it right. However, to each his own. Enjoy your music!

Fantastic advice from Atmasphere re making one’s recordings “to know what’s right and what isn’t”.  I would include and stress increased attendance to live performances.  In that advice is the simple reality that there IS a “right”…..certainly within a narrower spectrum of variability (for various reasons) than that which I hear among many different audio systems, all claimed to be right (“accurate”).

**** The idea that there can be a high rez system (def: revealing of the recording) that is not well-balanced is, if anything, a contradiction in terms. ****

Wrong! Most audiophiles with systems that have aspirations of being truly “High End” (high rez) have systems that sound distinctly different from each other. IOW, they are each balanced differently. So, by extension, it can be said that some (most?) are not balanced well. Some are, and it is these that can best reproduce a great recording of live acoustic, or minimally amplified music really well. It is also those systems that can reproduce “Kamakiriad” or “Close to the Edge” with sound closest to what the engineer/producer intended; IOW, sound closest to what is actually on the recording. That sound may not be to the listener’s liking, but it will be closest to what is actually there.

**** Whether or not the listener is familiar with the sound of live music (I am) is simply not relevant- neither the recordings nor the equipment is designed to simulate a live performance. ****

Wrong on both counts.  Telling, the use of the word “designed” in reference to recordings. Many recordings strive to simulate the sound of the performance as it sounded live. Likewise, many of the best audio equipment designers have as their goal getting as close as possible to the sound of live. Just ask them if you get a chance.

**** How much of the music that is consumed these days is comprised of acoustic instruments on a stage, recorded ‘live’? Virtually zero.****

With respect, you should get out more often 😊

Cheers.