$4500 amp beat out the Tenor OTL in the latest TAS

I do not see most professional reviewing as subtle problem as Asa does.

The problem is pretty simple.

It is comperable to two lawyers practicing in a small town. These two lawyers are the only two in the town, and they both speak openly about how they have respect for the other (no matter what they really think of the other). They never speak badly of the other to any of their clients. Why is this the case? Because they are the only two lawyers in town. As long as they do not piss anyone off (and one can piss off people quite easilly by speaking poorly of another, esp in a small town), then they are almost assured a 50/50 split of the entire towns legal work.

How is this comperable to professional audio reviews? The audio industry is so small and struggling it does NO ONE any good for a reviewer to critize a product. Reviewers in one way or another depend on the hi-end industry selling products. Without the hi-end industry and audiophiles, they would be out of a job.

I will not go so far as to say that most reviewers deceive people in their reviews by being biased with a favorable position toward the industry. But what I will say is that I find reviewers tend to only review products that they initially like. This I think is Stereophile's big problem: they only seem to review products they like. Where does this get us? It gets us a lot of glowing reviews that many times have little to no reference with other products. Stereophile rarely compares products head to head. Take their Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II review they did a few issues ago. They do not compare the AZ cables to the Valhalla at all, eventhough the reviewer uses the Valhalla as his reference. This is not good reviewing.

This analysis does not even take into consideration the thousands of dollars that hi-end companies spend on advertisements in audio magazines.

Online reviews by private individuals also have problems. Who wants to review something negatively that they just spent good money on in their system? People tend to review stuff they buy positively. My goal when I buy something is to buy it for such a good price I can be totally neutral as to my oppinion of its impact on my system. If I like it better, I keep it. If I do not like the product, I sell it for the same price I got it for. Most of the time I get better sound from the new product. There have been a few times I have not gotten better sound.

Well I must run.

KF

Looking at this thread,one thing seems to have been missed . That is the fact that many mags, particularly Abo Sound profess to compare reproduced sound to the live experience. Well let me tell you,listening to my Taylor guitar's sound and comparing it to any of the equipment listed as the'best'truly shows how completely far off the truth these audio pieces are. Now if one was truly reviewing these SOTA audio pieces against the Abo sound,and being completely honest about the results,the only response would be to trash them all.
Unfortunately,that is my opinion of audio equipment today,and the merit of same.
Having said that,I still enjoy the hobby and enjoy the occassional rave from HP et al.Pity they obviously do NOT have a real musical instrument at hand to 'AB' against.

Daveyf,

Just to play "Devil's Advocate", are you referring to the sound of the Taylor guitar as you play it (next to your person), or the sound of your Taylor being played appx. 6 feet away from you(and within 2 feet of a wall) by someone who you consider an accomplished player?

Food for thought

Audioak

Asa, I largely agree with the essence of what I take it to be that you are saying. My disagreement with Kana813 was intentionally very specific and limited in scope (mainly because so was his remark I wanted to respond to). It is much too facile and easy (not to mention predictable) for audiophiles to continually spout off about how this or that 'rave' review is merely yet another proof of the corrupt control of ad dollars. (BTW, it often seems to me that many of those same audiophiles who proclaim unhesitatingly about, "Of course it got a great review, look at all the ads that company runs!" are also frequently the ones who will scream the loudest about agendas and unfairness when the rare negative review of some pet component comes along - despite any advertising that manufacturer may have done.) Would that the situation were so simple. The point of interjecting my honed dissent was not merely to dispute a particular unsupported accusation, but to highlight the fact that such simplistic and undemonstrable cliches only have the ultimate effect of glossing over or diverting attention from what is in reality a much more complexly insidious systemic disease.

I want to recall Brucegel's keenly observed comment from above, "The illusion of an elite class of stereos is pure BS, just a scam to lift your wallet," and juxtapose it with Kana813 saying, "The marketplace information on Audiogon is more valuable and it's free". Audiogon has its own 'elite classes' of gear, and Tenor amplifiers have been one of these. Members who have contributed to that perception have (with a few exceptions) not received any dollars, in advertising or otherwise, from this manufacturer. It is also likely true that fewer actual owners than posters have helped to foster this perception, so neither is the phenomenon purely a matter of having invested one's own dollars where one's mouth is. Worth noting as well is that this supposed elite class is normally prejudiced against the well known blue-chip, engineering-driven audio companies whose gear tends to populate the reference systems of mainstream reviewers, in favor of newer firms and products with a characteristically evanescent buzz factor to them (nothing against Tenor in particular here, which of course may be the fine product it's reputed to be). I'm not trying to say that all internet amateur commentary is ignorant or manipulative (or I'd be a prime offender), just that one always has to use their own judgement and circumspection. So maybe Asa can get out his quote book (or maybe he won't have to ;^) and attribute a paraphrase for me when I smile and say, "The computer-chair audiophile who doesn't listen for himself has got a fool for a client" - even if the price of admission to get fooled (not to mention the satisfaction in being a skeptic) is less than with reading the mags.

Zaike: Thank you for your response. Yes, I understood what you were saying vis-a-vis Brucegel; my opinion was general. Thank you for being a good sport. On what you said, the "elite" I am taliking about are not the purchasers, regardless of how much they spend or their socio-economic standing outside the hiend subculture. The elite is an insular group of reviewers and manufacturers who produce, in tacit dynamic, a system of operation that produces covet-ing in the mass consumer that is not commensurate with performance, even as they percieve it. Its a carnival show. Not that components have no merit, but that there exists a marked incongruency that can be 1) percieved from the outside through patterns over time, just like any observation of an experiment would do, and 2) percieved directly from the inside by direct experience. My point is that until you have been in the dragon's belly, you are very suseptible to the propoganda. I remember that I was and was shocked when I got there and saw what it was. I didn't enjoy seeing what it was, but I wouldn't want to not know either. For those on the inside, there exists a strong bond of mutual self-interest to maintain this system that, because of its concentrated size, and because it attracts those minds whose idea of themselves includes "art salon member", tends to produce "politics" that are similarly reflective of that concentration (which itself, is only a reflection of the cycling self-interest in society at large).

I enjoy reading the mags. Its fun, but I know what it is. This does not make me a skeptic or a cynic, although to one who is attached to the Guru's message - who nneds a King to feel safe from the post modern darkness of the assumed unknowable - it will be categorized as so.

Tok, yes, not so subtle, but again it depends on how closely you are watching, your orientation while watching and from where, inside or outside. I was trying to be courteous. I disagree with you, however, that because of the size of the hiend end - which I take you to imply, fragility - we should be willing to ignore these issues. I refer you to the quotes above. The need to be safe - to keep the warm home that I have, the set of ideas that I already have and know - is a lack of resolve to do anything about it. Talkng about it is the first step. That is why control-orientated systems, their apex actors, the so-called "elite", e.g. fascism, always seeks to gain control of the means of communication between non-elites by control of information in exchange for security, or the promise of security (look out you front door right now...). And, be clear, this is not a landed gentry per se, although the top actors do stay longer, but a systemic issue; in the period of nobility you could follow the aristocracy through kinship, now, the aristocracy is more transitory so they are harder to locate directly. You just may need to be more perceptive to see. Then again, making all of us more perceptive to, and less willing to enable, those who would predate upon another over things may be part of the evolutionary point. Didn't a guy named Jesus say something about that...Now there's a quote (!).

So, what do i want to do about it? Stay centered and see, but leave unto Caesar that which is what he covets.