I'm guessing you've not heard the speakers Onhwy61? Those are only some of the facts. The most relevant facts are that these speakers depend more than most on being set up properly for a given room, and that both buyers and reviewers are offered access to the manufacturer to help them get it right. And the reviewer knew this going into the review. When they're not set up right they will sound bad in exactly the way he described, and that's the review we got. Hence, the review is no way near accurate as you assume. That the speakers performed poorly precisely in the areas where they are supposed to overachieve (and they do) is a big red flag for a reviewer. Again, there is no excuse for the reviewer not at least contacting the manufacturer to see if something either A) might be wrong with the speakers or B) needs to be changed in setup or associated equipment. It's just common sense of you want to make sure you're providing an accurate assessment of a piece. Further, all the owners and reviews I've seen have nothing but glowingly positive impressions of the speaker. In fact, other than this turd of a review I've never seen a negative comment about these speakers. If they exist they are in the vast minority. Yet another red flag that would've led a competent reviewer to at least ask some questions. So your suspicion that a large number of buyers have noted the tonal imbalance is also unfounded.
I know plenty of reviewers and they all say almost all equipment that gets to the point of a review these days is at least decent or very good and very rarely does something sound significantly flawed to the level stated in this review. No publisher wants to review crap when there's so much good stuff out there. If something sounds that off they always check with the manufacturer or distributor to check on A and B mentioned above to make sure they're reviewing properly functioning equipment the way it's designed to be used.
To answer your question, I heard the speakers at a show in the stacked configuration in a horribly configured hotel room. I thought there's no way something that looked like that could possibly sound coherent or even decent in that room, but they sounded downright incredible. I agree with you in most instances that if a reviewer does what this guy did it should result in a fair assessment of a product, and since you probably haven't heard the speakers I certainly understand your skepticism. But this is a different kind of product where something a little more than the standard review tactics were required. And what's worse, the reviewer heard the speakers before and was so impressed he asked to review them, so he already KNEW going in how they were capable of sounding. Any more competent or seasoned reviewer would've caught this and the review would've turned out quite different. The saddest thing is that this piece of crap review could end up seriously damaging a small company that's putting out a truly outstanding and innovative product at an incredibly affordable price point. Again, S'pile should be seriously ashamed of themselves. |
Hey Rebbi, I'll take your cynicism and raise it one. The flip side of what they do for major advertisers as you say is what they did to the clue. Financially Sjofn means nothing to them, so they can afford to throw them under the bus with virtually no consequences and come out the other end unscathed with an additional piece of evidence to say "hey look, we put out negative reviews too." Both the reviewer and JA had an easy path to find out why their poor findings were as they were and possibly find their cause and address them, and neither lifted a finger to do anything. NOTHING. Beyond suspicious in my book for a publication that -- as Rebbi eludes to -- frequently bends over backwards to accommodate other manufacturers to apparently get at "the truth."
As I see it there are two choices here. Stereophile can man up and do a follow-up review utilizing the manufacturer to insure the speakers are being reviewed and measured properly, or they can just bury their heads in the sand and hope this ridiculous review somehow goes away. The second strategy may well work given the relatively little notoriety of Sjofn here in the US, albeit at the expense of John Q. Audiophile. But taking the higher ground and giving them an honest second shot would go a LONG way toward repairing their reputation at least in my book. The public -- even audiophiles -- have a great capacity to forgive if someone does the right thing in the end and admits their mistakes. As it stands, IMO Stereophile's credibility and reputation have taken a major hit here. I'm most disappointed with JA as I think he knows his stuff and works hard to produce a quality product. But this all happened under his watch and I find it greatly disappointing on every level in terms of an audio equipment review. Mostly I feel bad for Sjofn. Like most audio companies they put their sweat and blood into something they passionately believe in for relatively little monetary reward. To have that damaged because of incompetence or some other agenda is tragic and fowl. Sleep we'll S'pile. |
I heard these at an audio show in NYC and thought they sounded phenominal. I think he had four speakers playing with one on top of the other on each side backed pretty much right up against the wall. Almost didn't even sit down to listen cause I thought there's no way this mess is gonna sound good. Couldn't believe what they were doing, and I even played the role of the dope looking around for the subwoofer. Biggest surprise of the show for me. Glad somebody brought these up as I'd almost forgotten about them. |
He used the quick setup guide they provide. It is not meant to be optimal for every room. Read Croft's response in Rebbi's link. It aptly points out the ways the 'pile failed in this instance. And again, as a reviewer who somehow made it to Stereophile he should've been been more thorough in his process to insure he was providing an accurate assessment of the speakers. Ditto JA. |
Oddly indeed. That review runs counter to just about any assessment I've seen of these speakers, including mine. That the reviewer didn't reach out to the manufacturer given his negative experience, especially since these speakers are so placement and room dependant, to me is very irresponsible and inexcusable. IMO this reviewer is lazy or incompetent, or maybe both. And it doesn't look like Atkinson bothered to contact the manufacturer to see what was going on with the measurements either, which he should have given the importance of the room and placement being so critical to this speaker's performance. I think this review is a failure across the board by Stereophile and in no way is reflective of how the speakers actually sound. They should be ashamed of themselves. I bet if the company paid for advertising there would've been more of a effort made to get it right. BTW I don't own these speakers nor do I have any affiliation with the company. |
Thanks for the link Rebbi. I found Croft's response particularly interesting and seemed to make perfect sense, as I guess it should since he designed the things. By contrast JA's comments didn't quite pass the smell test and have more than a hint of ass-covering about them. Found it VERY telling that he did not respond at all to Croft's numerous cogent points about where both he and the reviewer screwed up. I totally agree with you the proper thing would to do a follow-up review, which they have done in the past in these circumstances. Doubt that will happen here though as there'd be far too much egg on S'pile's face as a result -- everything they did wrong and won't admit would be exposed and confirmed. Funny, the only people defending the review (other than JA) are those who haven't heard the speakers. Those who have know the review is pure garbage. |
So, once again the reviewer set the speakers up according to the basic quick setup instructions. And nothing further. There are frequently situations, especially with even more conventional speakers, where even minor placement adjustments can make a huge difference in what you hear. And the manufacturer proactively offered further setup help to the reviewer that, for some reason, the reviewer chose not to take advantage of. Despite being very impressed with the speakers in a different setting. Really??? Yes, these speakers obviously require particular attention to setup. But a so-called "expert" reviewer should have been well aware of that and acted accordingly to produce a professional and accurate review of the product. The reviewer knew everything he needed to know going into this review and failed in his duty to make sure his review was accurate given that information along with his past experience with this speaker. In my opinion he completely failed as a reviewer. The responsibility for an accurate review does not lie solely with the manufacturer. And when a reviewer encounters strange results, especially when they run counter to what he personally heard previously in a live demonstration, he at the very least should give the manufacturer a chance to explain why that may be and help fix the problem. You can try to blame the manufacturer for this but there's no denying that the reviewer, given all the information available to him including his own personal experience with the product, didn't conduct the due diligence he should've done. |
"I wish Stereophile and other magazines would decline direct manufacturer setup assistance during the review process. The exception would be when that setup assistance is performed for every purchaser. I realize this is wishful think on my part."
I respectfully disagree. The bottom line is that we as consumers through reviews should be presented with, as much as possible, the most accurate account of what we should ultimately expect if we purchase a product. What else is the purpose of a review? If a reviewer sets up a product review incorrectly then what value is that to anyone? And in this instance, setup assistance is exactly what is offered to every purchaser, and also the reviewer. That the fault is ultimately correctable is immaterial. The damage is done in the view of most readers.
And that the reviewer found "serious fault" in exactly the area where this speaker excels is exactly the point and renders the review virtually meaningless and ultimately extremely hurtful to the manufacturer. You might be willing to overlook such a serious breach, but most readers will dismiss the speaker after such a serious degradation.
And reviews aren't normally terminated, nor should they be IMO. But again, when results seem so far off to what was previously experienced by the reviewer and the manufacturer offers both the reviewer and customers personal support to get it right, the reviewer should have at least made a phone call to make sure he was providing an accurate representation of what the product is capable of. As much as you might want to pin this on the manufacturer, it was the reviewer that was completely at fault here, and everyone has been underserved as a result. |
Oh, and just to clarify, Onhwy61 you've never actually heard these speakers right??? Maybe rather than blindly weighing in on procedural issues on a review of speakers you've never heard you could go and actually listen to them and then give us some truely useful feedback. The people who have actually heard them don't seem to have your level of skepticism. Go listen, then speak. |
Fair points Onhwy61. I have no idea why some manufacturers get to optimally set up their speakers for review and others don't. My guess is that if the manufacturer offers to do it S'phile would probably let them do so, but that's just a guess. From that perspective, and certainly if I'm Sjofn, I would've asked to do just that knowing how placement/room sensitive the speakers are and how important the review would be to future sales. Maybe they did offer, but no way to know at this point.
But to me by far the biggest blunder here again was that the reviewer was proactively offered help if needed and he for some reason didn't make any effort to take advantage of that despite being significantly disappointed with certain aspects of the speaker's performance. That to me is just flat out indefensible, and IMO this reviewer is completely incompetent and should be fired. I know I'd have zero confidence in anything this guy has to say going forward. He's lazy or incompetent -- probably both actually. He certainly at the very least doesn't have the reader's best interests in mind.
I also found the S'phile online comments odd in that one guy spent hours and hours trying to get the speakers to sound good, and once he found the right spot he was very happy with and impressed by the speakers. Why wouldn't that guy just contact Sjofn for help??? Probably would've saved him a ton of time and frustration, and the company makes it clear they are there to help each and every customer. Sometimes people just baffle me. And I echo what Swampwalker said that had the reviewer worked with the company as he should have it would've made for a much more complete, interesting, and most importantly a more informative review. And it would've actually helped prospective buyers understand what to expect if and when they buy the speakers and the significant difference it makes between having the speakers properly set up or not. And it would've gone a long way in answering Onhwy's question as to whether buyers can expect to achieve optimal performance or not. EXACTLY THE POINT. Isn't the ultimate value of a review to let readers know what they should expect if they actually buy a product? The reviewer did a complete disservice to both the manufacturer and the readers. Epic fail. |
