Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review

That’s your take on the review. 

@mschott But it’s not even a review — it’s nothing more than an ad disguised as a “review.”  And as for the readers of this thing not being high-end consumers, how many entry-level buyers is crap like this really gonna attract or maintain as subscribers for TAS?  Then again it’s sadly not all that much more useless than their usual pandering fluff reviews so it’s not totally out of character for this rag — I’ll give you that.

It needs to be said that Drew Kalbach’s role at TAS is to review lower end, relatively inexpensive products and relate them to the appropriate target market. He’s younger and the newest reviewer for them. I guarantee the readers of his reviews are not using higher end components. His system is not as relevant. 

I read about three paragraphs and then had to stop. Fluff piece or not, the writing is poor. I actually enjoy good review writing on it’s own merits. It adds to the entertainment and keeps you focused on the product. The sentences are short and inelegant. Much of the focus is on contemporary cliches that have nothing to do with audio. I have a 24 year old son. He is doing great and I am proud of him, but sometimes I worry about the latest generation. I think it is a product of teaching trends that don’t effectively build critical thinking skills.

I just read the last paragraph of reviews and try to interpret what the reviewers convey. The more dramatic parting message is more bullshit it sounds to me. If the reviewer liked the product then conclusion is short n sweet by saying he bought the review sample. That's the one I take note on. 

I subscribed to TAS, STEREOPHILE, and any other audio mags I could get starting >40 years ago. And of course, I've read a ton of 1/2-baked reviews in that time.

Rather than trash this or that reviewer, I'd rather talk about one who is far above the others IMO: STEREOPHILE's Herb Reichert. First, he's an excellent, engaging writer--always thinking how his lead will tie to his conclusion and what should go between the two. Second, though he's a boomer like me, Herb spends little time in reveries about his own audio past; when he does mention his audio past, it's to make a point that lands very much in the present day. And finally, he's better at the impossible task of describing sound itself than any review I can think of.

Writing is hard. Hearing well and describing what you hear is also hard. Reviewing is very hard.

I have a Cayin 50T for a few years now,never any problems. I would recommend it ,differently 

Yes, the Condor motor is plenty strong...  he was just putting too much pressure.  A lot of tables will slow down....  I hope anyone interested in Sota dismisses that.

My Escape is a great table and I probably would go up the line rather than to another brand after owning it.

It may be surprizing to read some article from the past :

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm

Nowdays truth is in short supply, just keep an open mind and use common sense if you have that.

This has been discussed many times.  TAS, Stereophile and others always publish glowing reviews.  A careful read though gives you subtle clues that the reviewer liked his other equipment better.  They live on advertising, and what manufacturer wants to lend out a review sample of some $40K preamp or speakers, only to get slammed in the review?  Sure, I read the reviews all the time, but I look for owners' experiences much more than TAS.  Of course, someone who just bought some expensive piece of equipment will want to like it and will want to distinguish it from whatever they had, as well.  Just once I would like to see TAS or Stereophile say that the product is OK, but for $45K, it is not close to much less expensive equipment!

@lewm  Agreed.  A constant cleaning device like you describe should only slightly slow the platter and the Condor would be able to compensate for it as long as it was applied before the speed is "synched" (less than 0.005 RPM error).  After that point, if the speed error is greater than 0.025 RPM, it will be considered abnormal and will be ignored.  At start up, the first 4 revs are ignored as the platter comes up to speed, then it usually takes a half dozen revs (at a cold start) after that to synch the  speed.  This whole mechanism is reset every time the platter is stopped or the speed/tempo adjust is changed.

"This turntable is gorgeous—its plinth is made from MDF wrapped in 2¼”-thick American walnut"

This is about where I stopped trusting the author.  Details matter as does critical thinking.  It appears he combined different sections of SOTA's website which states (somewhat misleadingly IMO):

• 2-¼” thick walnut wood plinth with interchangeable tonearm base
• ...the thick MDF core wrapped in American walnut.

Who has ever heard of a 2.25" veneer?  Where else has he not appropriately attended to details?

Phoenix, On your comment about my comment that the record brush should not slow down the TT speed, I think when I wrote that I was interpreting the reviewer to mean that he uses a brush that rides the LP on its own "arm", as the LP plays. There are some products like that, some of which claim to remove static charge along the way. I would expect the Eclipse ensemble to overcome that level of constant drag. But I do agree, and do experience, that a record brush can slow down my Phoenix/Roadrunner-powered Lenco, when I momentarily apply pressure to remove dust from an LP surface prior to play. When the brush is removed, the system equilibrates back to set speed within a few revolutions of the platter.

There are some reviewers I do like , Teajay , Reichert and Robert Harley.

I agree with the OP that the TAS review lacks substance which is a real shame as there are technical specs in the Pyxi manual as well as several frequency response and noise plots that might put a little more meat on the bones of this review.

  The circuit of the Pyxi was designed by Wyn Palmer and he has published a very erudite white paper about the design as well as his personal philosophy on what makes a good phono stage and the science of psycho-acoustics.  It leans more technical than the review but is still a good read for anyone interested in the subject (the paper is about the Acrux phono stage which has not gone into production but is closely related to the Pyxi in design and execution):

Wyn Palmer White Paper

Really, Part Time Audiophile as an example of good reviews?  Their stated policy is to NOT publish a bad review.  The puff pieces I've read on their site goes far beyond hagiography and would make even the most shameless fan boys blush.  No measurements at all.

@phoenixengr Point well taken.  Truth be told I haven’t read PTA reviews in a while but used to like his reviews back when he was on his own, so I probably shouldn’t have included them cause I’m not very familiar with their current reviews/writing staff.  Thanks for the redirect.

@lewm wrote:

Also, "I did notice that a record brush slows everything down considerably, which was a minor annoyance." That ought not to be happening with the Roadrunner/Condor/Eclipse motor system up and running. Something is off.

This is misconception on the part of the reviewer.  The Condor/RR corrects for speed drift over time, it cannot adjust for the amount of drag that is applied with a record brush.  All belt drive tables will have this phenomenon due to belt creep.  Even the most powerful direct drive tables will loose speed synch if enough drag is applied.  None of this should happen while the stylus is in the groove.

In fact, one of the techniques that the Condor uses is NOT to apply correction in the presence of "unusual" amounts of drag; if we did, the speed would suddenly shoot up when the record brush is removed and would take longer to come back down to normal.  By not applying correction, the speed will slow while the brush is applied but will quickly return to normal as soon as the brush is removed.

The irony with audio reviews is that everyone hears differently.  A piece of audio gear that sounds good to one person may not sound good to another.

@jimmyblues1959 Exactly.  And this is why doing product comparisons in a review is so important.  When a reviewer just shares what he thinks about a product in isolation (as TAS habitually does) we’re only getting his take based on his ears.  But when the product is compared to something else we get a sense of relative differences, which I find adds very important context that can help us as readers form a clearer perspective of the sound of the review product regardless of how the reviewer hears things.  In other words, a comparison acts like a check and balance on the reviewer’s individual opinion and provides for a much more approachable and ultimately more useful review for the reader.  However, if you’ve read a reviewer long enough you get a sense of how he hears so you can compensate somewhat for his biases and still possibly glean some useful information out of the review, but this is still no substitute for doing a legit product comparison IMO.

I actually enjoyed reading it although I wouldn't call it a review.  TAS shouldn't have marked it as a review on the page.  More of a moment with newly available gear. Not particularly informative except in a home shopping network kind of way. 

I did find it extremely useful, though, in his recommendation of Blind Guardian. As soon as everyone is awake in the house I plan to load up the speakers with that one! 

I lost all respect for TAS about 12 years ago when they posted a 4 part series on digital audio that insisted that copying a FLAC file from one HDD to another degraded quality.  That was among about 25 other conclusions that were laughable then and heresy now. It just showed their editorial standards were low.

@soix - Really, Part Time Audiophile as an example of good reviews? Their stated policy is to NOT publish a bad review. The puff pieces I’ve read on their site goes far beyond hagiography and would make even the most shameless fan boys blush. No measurements at all. IMHO, that site is the biggest joke of all reviewers.

@ghdprentice - I respectfully disagree that it would be in no ones best interest to publish a bad review. The purpose of using measurements should be to confirm the published specifications are accurate; what we are witnessing now in the absence of verifiable measurements are wild claims by mfrs that defy logic and known principles of physics and electronics without any accountability for stretching the truth,or in some cases, just making things up out of whole cloth. The turntable industry is especially rife with this problem exactly for that reason: no independent measurements. The major magazines apparently have testing capabilities as they do very analytical testing of amps and speakers but for some reason, they take what ever specs the turntable mfrs publish as gospel (they do add a disclaimer such as "according to the mfr, blah blah blah" which they assume gets them off the hook). I think what is needed is to resurrect the Consumer Reports model where the reviewers do a complete tear down of the product to comment on its construction, capabilities and deficiencies including detailed measurements of its performance as well as operational and listening tests.

I doubt that will happen. In the mean time, a major "tell" for me is how a mfr responds to questions about their claims; if they are transparent and engaging, especially if they provide actual measurements, I have more confidence in their specs. If they deflect or hide behind "we only care about how it sounds" or "it’s secret sauce and we can’t tell you" then one has reason to doubt what they say.

Another way to look at it is this: If a mfr publishes a spec and it is reasonable or close to the median for that type of product, it shouldn’t draw suspicion and shouldn’t be difficult to prove if challenged. But when a spec is orders of magnitude better than anything else in its class, it begs for an explanation. A mfr should WELCOME any challenge as a chance to prove it and draw further attention to their ground breaking product. Making outlandish claims then running away from anyone challenging those claims is sure sign that something isn’t right.

The irony with audio reviews is that everyone hears differently.  A piece of audio gear that sounds good to one person may not sound good to another. It's a very subjective hobby.  In a perfect world we would be able to listen to audio gear before we decide whether or not to purchase it.  But since that's not always possible we find ourselves relying on audio reviewers who may like a particular sound that does not appeal to everyone.

IMHO,  this is why so many audio enthusiasts spend so much time and money chasing the right system.  

The bottom line is that your own ears should always be the deciding factor in an audio purchase.  As such,  whenever possible you should listen to equipment before you decide to purchase it. 👍

I liked the reviews HP wrote in the early TAS days. They were always entertaining. I'm not so convinced that the current iteration of that magazine is a worthy successor. 

@ghdprentice 

Cynical is Skeptical and Skeptical means TEST.

TEST is the one that can define right from wrong.

If I have to derive truth from between lines of such reviews, than I have different angle of observation. To me, under such "angle" Commercial Advertisement + Technical Review = Commercial Advertisement.

@soix I do not read them anymore. What I hate most is the silly descriptions of how something sounds, the things I what to know are never talked about in depth and I really do not care what esoteric records the reviewer is using. I think the approach you took is valid and your rational appropriate. 

@dayglow I have an Adcom 545 in my workshop system and it has powered 4 Mirage speakers at ridiculous volumes for 30 years under the most adverse conditions you can subject an amp to short of throwing it into the bathtub. Imagine a guy with hearing protectors on running two big machines making mountains of dust with Hendrix blaring at 110 dB so he can hear it over the ear muffs and machines. It also survived a lightning strike that killed a Krell Preamp, all the computers and phones, the garage door ops and the burglar alarm. People wonder why my wife is crazy. 

Never understood the importance that many Audiophiles place on reviews. I learned early on that Adcom did not live up to the "giant killer" status AHC claimed. After 1 year of ownership the Adcom(545) stack was trading in for Amber(conrad-johnson) gear that I enjoyed for over a decade. Was ready for a system upgrade(late 90's) and was really interested in the ML Aeries i that would be replacing a Magnepan SMGa. Auditioned the ML on various amps and found the budget Yamaha MX 1/CX1 combo was nearly equal to a MAC power/pre at < half the price. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Yamaha CX 1 or MX 1 were never mentioned in the subjective press as value leaders, it was always NAD/Rotel or even B&K etc. Yes, that was 25 years ago but not much has changed considering Stereophile placed a Schitt Freya+ as a Class A preamp ready to take on VAC/BAT or CAT preamps(lol). 

Stereophile for one let it be know a while back that they only review products that they approve of, and do not review poor quality products. Therefore, there would be no bad reviews in the publication. 

@czarivey 

Cynical and wrong. There is real information, you simply need to read a lot and be able to read between the lines… about the reviewer and products.

@roadcykler

It is in no one’s best interest to review a bad product. No one. You can be sure a company making terrible sounding gear is not going to be submitting it for review and no reviewer is likely to choose it..

@soix +1

Reading reviews as I have for nearly fifty years I can easily detect a mediocre product… you know… dammed by faint praise.

it is definitely true that there is more content with less depth that has happened over the last ten years over TAS. But there is way more value then midfi and consumer electronics reviews.

All reviews in TAS are commercials so they can't be true at all

Reviewers almost never give an actual bad review because they know if they do that, manufacturers will stop lending gear for evaluation.

@roadcykler Actually that was not my experience. Over 17 years I only wrote one negative review, and I was not opposed to writing more if warranted. The thing is, for a product to make it to the level of getting a review among the thousands of products out there it needs to have some positive and usually even some special buzz about it. So almost every component that gets reviewed has been well vetted by many users and others so bad sounding equipment just never tends to even get reviewed. In short, the system self selects very good sounding gear right from the start. Also, the major manufacturers know what they’re doing, and it’s almost non existent that something they’d release to the public sounds bad. So this is really why you rarely read a bad review.

That said, that’s where the “art” of reading between the lines in reviews becomes important. Unlike the crappy “review” I mentioned in this thread, most good reviews will include a paragraph or two near the end just before the conclusion (that’s where I always put it) where a reviewer will elaborate on any shortcomings/limitations or qualities that he may have alluded to during the review that seem a bit off or things the reader may want to hone in on while listening or comparing to other equipment. THIS IS CRITICAL INFO SO READ IT CAREFULLY! So, while the product overall may be very good, these would be the potential “negatives” that the reviewer feels are important to highlight but they’re not nearly enough to trash the product and throw the baby out with the bath water. This again is why product comparisons are so important because these potentially aberrant qualities can be analyzed on a relative basis versus another known product and provide a very useful perspective on any potential issues. Also, reviewers aren’t all-knowing oracles and what we may think is a shortcoming for our system/tastes may well not be the case for many other potential customers, so better to just point out what we heard objectively and let the reader decide if that’s something they’d still like to explore further. Last, most audio manufacturers are not rich and do what they do for the love of it and many others might be relatively new, and a bad review could literally sink a company. Now, if the product outright sucks so be it although it’s highly unlikely that product would’ve made it to review anyway as mentioned above, but if a product isn’t perfect yet shows some promise as a reviewer you’ve gotta weigh the extent of the shortcomings and if they’re bad enough to potentially put the company out of business. So there are many things to consider as a reviewer. I wasn’t on the business end so can’t speak to manufacturers threatening to not send any more gear if they get a bad review, but I never heard of anything like that although it may happen. Anyway, I hope this sheds a little light on why there are so few negative reviews. It’s really not a conspiracy in my experience.

Reviewers almost never give an actual bad review 

I somewhat agree, however it is common for reviewers to pick and choose which products to evaluate, often these products are at least average or above- that’s a major reason why fewer negative reviews. The companies chosen are somewhat established so have likely learned lessons on what sells in their market segment.

I wholeheartedly agree @soix  with the “usefulness” or lack thereof some of these reviews.  Comparative analysis to similar products and the reviewer’s audio chain helps us to determine “value” of the product, without such comparisons we have no reference other than if the reviewer subjectively liked the product or not which is useless.  

Often, we have to read between the lines to derive a value judgement.  For instance, in HiFi+ review of the Siltech Classic cables here, the reviewer seemed surprised “…first note on the page was “Why haven’t I used Siltech Cables more often?”  and “net an extremely neutral and exceptionally detailed cable series. The ‘nothing’ part is just how good that sounds beyond that.”   I purchased a few  of these IC as I wanted neutral uneditorizing cables and the price seemed fair and within budget.

"Transfer functions" of various cartridges, tonearms, etc?  Please define.

Reviewers almost never give an actual bad review because they know if they do that, manufacturers will stop lending gear for evaluation. Even things that make no objective difference like cables or tuning dots or any of the myriad other things that do nothing get high praise. 

It’d be nice to see the transfer functions of various cartridges, tonearms, etc. It could be measured, and could provide some clues about what kind of sound to expect. I’ve owned different turntables and cartridges and some of them sounded very different for sure, much more different from each other than comparing different digital devices.

You know, it could be possible to make a device that wiggles the needle in a very precise way, something that’s not a spinning vinyl disc that drags the needle through its grooves. Now imagine if you used a digital source to drive the needle wiggler, and now you hear the music coming through your cartridge, tonearm, and phono stage, with all the associated coloration. You could even get nice thumps coming through the speaker if someone jumped too hard on the floor. The only thing missing would be the rumble from the spinning platter and the wow and flutter from the warped record. But that could all be simulated. This would drastically reduce wear and tear on the needle.

Given true long format reviews typically take six months to do. It is really not that surprising that each issue could only contain a few of these. Do the math.

@ghdprentice I can’t speak for TAS, nor would I care to, but at Soundstage we had three months to complete a review. I used to use the first month for break in and initial impressions and the next two months for critical listening evaluation and writing up the review, and that was sufficient time IME.

Out of curiosity, of the full format reviews how many provided a comparison to a competitive product? I’m gonna guess none and will be shocked if it’s higher than that cause that’s just not how they roll. Much quicker/easier that way although much less informative and useful IMHO.

Dear siox -- So what do you think of John Mendelsohn's review of Led Zeppelin I in the March 15, 1969 issue of Rolling Stone? Well over a half century ago, I read printed reviews of new albums and audio equipment in an attempt to enhance my music listening enjoyment. Some reviews were informative, some seemed to be page fillers, and some seemed to simply be a platform for reviewer biases. Take a deep breath and exhale. Enjoy the music.

Having given it a little more thought.

I would not call it a review. More of a quick note that the table exists and may be worthy of further investigation. An information note.

I flipped through the most recent edition. There are full format reviews (under the heading of xxxx Focus) on a number of the components: Burmeister turntable, Vandersteen speaker, Magico speakers, and some others. These all contain sections on associated equipment, and are in depth. The “reviews” in between in depth Focus reviews look like an attempt to cover more equipment. With the hundreds of components, there would be no way to cover them all in depth. So, it looks like a way to say something about more.

Given true long format reviews typically take six months to do. It is really not that surprising that each issue could only contain a few of these. Do the math. 

@jhnnrrs @aolmrd1241 I can’t speak directly about the other sites, but having written reviews for Soundstage for 17 years I can tell you that all they strive for are thorough and honest reviews, and BTW they have a site dedicated specifically to “budget” gear (Soundstage Access) so they don’t only review “uber high-end” equipment. Over all those years I was never told to write anything other than what I heard, and all of what I wrote always made it to publication without any alterations (other than some light editing) whatsoever. Furthermore, to ensure the reviews were as useful/rigorous as possible all reviews had to contain a relevant comparison section, and if you didn’t have a comparable product on hand or couldn’t get something you didn’t get the review, period, and all the equipment in the reference system used during the review was always fully disclosed at the end of the review. All this put together makes for what I call rigorous and credible reviews that are likely trustworthy and well worth reading and using to help decide which components are worth pursuing further.

After writing and reading reviews for many years it gets pretty easy to tell which reviews are more objective, thorough, and honest and which are more useless, superficial fluff so just dismissing reviews out of hand because the site uses ads will block you from a lot of truly useful and helpful information that is out there. Some basic tells for me is if the reviewer compares the review sample to other product(s) to give some critical perspective on the sound, the reviewer shares any shortcomings/limitations and/or unique sound signatures the product has (they all have them), and the reference system is fully disclosed. There are some good reviews that may miss some of these, but if any of those elements are missing I consider it a red flag and read with a jaded eye. Last, you can kinda tell just by the way the review is written whether it’s by someone who really did the work as opposed to a guy who just throws out a bunch of generic platitudes. Sorry to drone on, but that’s my approach to it and I’d encourage you to seek out those good sites/reviewers rather than throwing out the whole bunch for using advertising or because of some bad apples out there. There is some extremely helpful and informative info out there if you have the time/patience to uncover the gems. Again, FWIW.

All reviews and reviewers exist to sell product to their followers ... Either through advertisement fees...or dealers looking to make a profit hocking their wares...Pretty simple huh?

@soix I disagree with your assessment of the sites you mentioned. I find them little more than advertising media for uber-hi-end equipment and useless, expensive audiophile jewelry. Any site that devotes two thirds of its viewing space to ads (the ones with ads running down the left and right borders) is unlikely to post honest "reviews" for products that subsidize it.

I much prefer comparative reviews. The British What Hi-Fi mag did(does) it. I always enjoyed Car magazine's shootouts of similar class cars.

Soix- agreed. that's why I used "most". There are certainly some exceptions. 

Most all reviews are now Infomercials.

@yesiam_a_pirate I actually somewhat disagree with this. There are many publications out there where reviewers are passionate about conveying honest and useful information for readers in their rigorous and thorough reviews. Unfortunately there are also many where profit/attracting eyeballs takes precedence over review quality. The key is to identify the more credible sources/reviewers from the hucksters/posers. Here’s a list off the top of my head, and in no particular order, of publications I read and find provide mostly credible and useful reviews…

- Soundstage, 6 Moons, Part Time Audiophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, The Audio Beat, Stereophile

FWIW.

As someone who’s first TAS issue was #4, I am also frustrated by the extremely variable quality of their reviews. Some of the most profound things that a few of their newer reviewers will say is “it made my toe tap.” Ok, at least you didn’t go running from the room. Reviews are more of a description of music played than anything about what the unit sounds like. And lots of inexcusable and amateurish shortcuts- using the pre out jacks of a cheap integrated amp as the sole source of driving a multi thousand dollar amplifier under review is a sorry excuse for reviewing. 

I thought TAS lost their objectiveness with the MQA shilling. It was a sell out. It made me think of Julian Hirsch and his rejection of dynamic measurement (SID and TID).

One final rant- their recommended lists are ridiculous. Very little meat in the categories where most readers are: building sub $40K systems.

I agree that this product deserves a better, more comprehensive review and a performance comparison with other TT's in its price range. The review was vague and bordered on a fluff piece, but each reviewer has his own style and ability. TAS has had quite a turnover in its review staff; some you will like, others you will not.

Most all reviews are now Infomercials.

TAS and Stereophile (to a greater extent) have  been changing their editorial approach in the attempt to attract a younger demographic. Personally, I don't like the writing style of the new crop of journalists. However, at the same time, age is a major existential threat to audio. Just go to any hi-fi show and look at the attendees - predominantly male, over forty and usually a fair bit older than that. The high end depends on people coming from entry/mid level hi-fi, so if younger people are not coming through that is a major concern - and not just for magazine sales.

I will read them because I like hearing about new products on the market, but would not buy something without a demo in a store or at a trade show.  To me, the music reviews are the worst.

soix

Sorry for the rant, but especially as a former reviewer this piece of garbage pushed all my buttons and really ticked me off.  

Are you often this excitable?