Class D Amplification Announcement

Ordinary audiophiles are not paid to write reviews. 

The journalistic integrity of TAS is unquestionable. Furthermore, I have never heard of Mr Valin being proven wrong.

@psag You have got to be kidding me. TAS reviews are a joke, mainly because they never put their balls on the line and bother to compare a review sample to anything else. I reviewed for years, and almost without fail when I thought I had a review product nailed down I’d be completely humbled when plugging in something for comparison. Do you know how easy it is to write a review when you don’t have to bother with the accountability of having to make comparisons? Worst of all, 90% of the time I read a TAS review, in the end I still have no idea how the product actually sounds. It’s tough to prove Valin wrong precisely because he (and the rest of the TAS writers) refuse to make comparisons that would provide accountability and a better reference for accuracy. But they’d rather just avoid that. What an Absolute Joke.

or am I missing something here? 

@johnlnyc You’re absolutely missing something here. 

and if a reviewer was to say anything negative about a piece of equipment they are reviewing, wouldnt that hurt the company that made it as well as the review company ?

@riley804 Having written professional reviews for 15 years or so, I was never instructed to not say anything negative about any review product.  The fact is that the only pieces that make it to the level of warranting a review are pieces that have very good customer feedback or pedigree, so crap products that probably deserve negative comments just never make it to being reviewed.  The way to read reviews is not to look for negative comments but to glean from the review where a product may fall short RELATIVELY to other gear.  That is why product comparisons are so critical in a truly thorough, credible, and useful review and why TAS reviews are Absolute Crap. 

@twoleftears Nice!

I did make the comparison but couldn’t write about it for the review, because it would have been irresponsible to do so. This kind of thing happens all the time in the course of reviewing audio gear.

@aquint You’re kidding with this, right? The dog ate your homework excuse? This is insulting to the intelligence of the people on this site. Don’t make me go back and copy the prior discourse — it will not go well for you. And no, this kind of thing absolutely does NOT happen all the time when reviewing audio gear. I reviewed equipment for 16 years and this never happened to me, not even once.

Hey Andy, my name is Tim Shea and you can look up my reviews on Soundstage. I’m not hiding from anything, and I stand by my reviews — ALL of which have comparison sections BTW — and I don’t have to twist myself in knots trying to defend my less-than-rigorous reviews. All that said, I’m glad you’ve finally seen the light and are open to doing comparisons in future reviews, and if you can manage to get the other TAS writers onboard you might even win back some of us here who gave up on your “reviews.”

@aquint This scans well—every Soundstage! Review has "comparisons"—but I’m not so sure how helpful it actually is to a prospective purchaser, as there are likely a dozen candidates that he or she is considering, and Tim’s comparison product may not be among them. From my point of view, it’s more helpful to use the language of subjective audio reviewing and comparisons to live music to define the character of the gear being considered. We are just hoping to help a reader develop a short list of products to audition in the flesh, if that’s at all possible.

Yes Andy, on this point we will continue to disagree, but that’s ok. There’s always room for more than one opinion in the room, and if your method works for you and the readers still feel they get something out of it that’s really all that matters. As they say there’s always more than one way to skin a cat, different strokes for different folks, etc. I have to say it’s always nice to link up with a fellow reviewer because nobody knows what it’s really like to write product reviews except those who actually do it, and there are those on this site and elsewhere who completely dismiss what we do because we don’t trash products we review. I have my own thoughts on this, but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.

Cheers,

Tim

i've come to realize how much of my perceived need for tubes in the chain was palliative in nature, solving for digititis and/or solid state artifacts introduced in the source and amp stages... in this crazy, unpredictable journey i have been on, i would never, never have thought i would be here... 

@jjss49 I thought this was a very interesting point — as digital has gotten better with less edge, glare, etc. while simultaneously improving significantly in its ability to portray tone and microdynamics it’s at the point where it can now stand on its own without needing tubes to cover up former deficiencies.  That Ralph, the quintessential OTL tube supporter, now manufactures a GaN amp I think jibes with your experience.  Great time to be an audiophile. 

Years ago at a show in NYC I heard Joseph Audio Pulsars driven by Bel Canto Ref 500M mono blocks and it sounded excellent — changed my perception of Class D on the spot and realized it’s really all about implementation.  Definitely one of those “aha” audio moments. 

@lloydc Have you heard any of the newer GaN- or Purify-based amps?  They’re not your father’s Class D anymore. 

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.

@frogman Bull in the china shop here. As a reviewer I think this is very, very well said. Learning to read between the lines of any review is key to getting the most out of it. Sorry for coming across maybe a bit too strong, but I, like many audiophiles, am passionate about this hobby and sometimes I’m not as “gracious” as maybe I should be and for that I do apologize and will try to do better on that score down the road. All that said I still strongly disagree with both you and Andy about the importance of comparisons as there can be significant unreliability of judging a piece of audio equipment without them. I’ve been proven at least partially wrong on my initial assessments almost every time once I compare a review product to something else, which is why I think comparisons are critical for not only getting it right but also for providing crucial context for both the reviewer and the reader thus making the review more accurate, informative, and useful in conveying how a component really sounds.  Anyway…

@frogman The purpose of doing comparisons is really twofold — it provides the reviewer a check on what he/she thinks they are hearing, and it gives the readers a relative comparison for context. Humans are notoriously bad at absolutes and very good at judging relative differences, and it really matters not if the reader has heard the comparison product as the relative comparison in and of itself provides very useful information. 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, which makes this comparison extremely useful. Also, if the reader knows they like more a laid back/warm speaker presentation it gives them an area to key in on if/when they look into speaker X further.

As to your second point, the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. What if a recording was made in the studio and made to sound like it was made in the studio (i.e. Donald Fagan’s solo work)? Are we to use live music as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with those recordings? I think not. To me, a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended and if it does it well it almost always sounds good unless the recording is crap. To judge everything through the lens of live music when a lot of music is not recorded live seems misplaced to me.

All that said, I don’t want anyone to mistake the passion for my opinions for me thinking I’m right because that’s not the case at all. I make my points and other people make theirs and that’s what keeps things interesting and also how we learn from others’ points of view. 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 — it’s impossible with the myriad of variables present. Anyway, that’s my take on it. Peace.

I believe that audiophiles are chasing a sharper definition than the real world. In the real world everything just blends together into a wall of sound and through the reverberations of the room. There’s no stereo effect and crystal clear "instrument separation". In the real world most live performances are way too loud and confused. Soft jazz, acoustic music and orchestral music avoid that problem.

@kokakolia I agree. I think the recording engineers enhance the 3D imaging/soundstage to compensate for us not being able to see where the musicians are placed in the performance. I confess that while it might not be true to how a lot of live music actually sounds, I like it and it enhances my listening experience. One good example is “Like JT” from Patricia Barber’s Companion CD where it’s clear the engineers worked to add a sense of depth, but damn it sounds so good I could care less.

There’s also the LSA Voyager GaN 350 from Underwood HiFi. 

@pehare What tube amp were you comparing the Atmaspheres  to?

The idea that a good recording is supposed to simulate a live performance is simply false for the vast majority of recordings.

Big +1. Listen to Donald Fagan’s Kamakiriad or Morph the Cat — they were clearly recorded in a studio with absolutely no pretense of sounding at all like live music, so if a system makes them sound “live” it’s manipulating the crap out of the recording and is highly inaccurate. But, as I said earlier, different strokes…