|
|
Going over to the dark side
Holidays coming and spending too much time chatting. One topic that
came up I thought might make an interesting thread (but what do I know my last one got no responses) and exercise the memory a bit. What was the first article or review you read that metaphorically punched you on the nose and made you realise that the mainstream audio press might be foresaking the path of light and truth and going over to the dark side? In my case it was a review of a Linn turntable. I cannot remember which magazine but the reviewer stated being able to hear instruments that were inaudible on other turntables (i.e. going a bit further than equivalent reviews today but this would have been one of the first of this type and I presume it would take a few to get the balance right). I think he may even have made the mistake of the naming the instrument (?) and the record (Roberta Flack?). I also recall something about leaving records on the carpet. Again if I recall correctly, this perfectly decent turntable had been around for a few years prior to the review but after it the price rose dramatically and, I assume, so did demand. Does anyone else remember the review and did a story behind the review ever come out? |
Going over to the dark side
I don't know what the first one was, but more recently in HFN, almost
anything by David Allcock gets me going. It's almost as if he's deliberately trying to live up to his name...... His latest, page 56 of the January 2006 HFN, when reviewing a passive (note, passive) preamp (that, in itself, is a misnomer..its a switch and a variable resistor....) he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Give me Percy Wilson and Gordon J King anytime. S. "andy" wrote in message oups.com... Holidays coming and spending too much time chatting. One topic that came up I thought might make an interesting thread (but what do I know my last one got no responses) and exercise the memory a bit. What was the first article or review you read that metaphorically punched you on the nose and made you realise that the mainstream audio press might be foresaking the path of light and truth and going over to the dark side? In my case it was a review of a Linn turntable. I cannot remember which magazine but the reviewer stated being able to hear instruments that were inaudible on other turntables (i.e. going a bit further than equivalent reviews today but this would have been one of the first of this type and I presume it would take a few to get the balance right). I think he may even have made the mistake of the naming the instrument (?) and the record (Roberta Flack?). I also recall something about leaving records on the carpet. Again if I recall correctly, this perfectly decent turntable had been around for a few years prior to the review but after it the price rose dramatically and, I assume, so did demand. Does anyone else remember the review and did a story behind the review ever come out? |
Going over to the dark side
|
Going over to the dark side
Thus spake Serge Auckland:
I don't know what the first one was, but more recently in HFN, almost anything by David Allcock gets me going. It's almost as if he's deliberately trying to live up to his name...... His latest, page 56 of the January 2006 HFN, when reviewing a passive (note, passive) preamp (that, in itself, is a misnomer..its a switch and a variable resistor....) he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Give me Percy Wilson and Gordon J King anytime. "andy" wrote in message oups.com... Holidays coming and spending too much time chatting. One topic that came up I thought might make an interesting thread (but what do I know my last one got no responses) and exercise the memory a bit. What was the first article or review you read that metaphorically punched you on the nose and made you realise that the mainstream audio press might be foresaking the path of light and truth and going over to the dark side? In my case it was a review of a Linn turntable. I cannot remember which magazine but the reviewer stated being able to hear instruments that were inaudible on other turntables (i.e. going a bit further than equivalent reviews today but this would have been one of the first of this type and I presume it would take a few to get the balance right). I think he may even have made the mistake of the naming the instrument (?) and the record (Roberta Flack?). I also recall something about leaving records on the carpet. Again if I recall correctly, this perfectly decent turntable had been around for a few years prior to the review but after it the price rose dramatically and, I assume, so did demand. Does anyone else remember the review and did a story behind the review ever come out? Hi Fi reviewers Rulebook: 1 Check to see if product is not made by someone on the magazine's taboo list, whatever the badge says. 2 Check if the item you are about to review has already been done elsewhere & read the 1st & last paragraphs. 3 Decide to agree or disagree having consulted with one's editor. 4 Pull from said reviews any catchy observations & rewrite them. Include a good sprinkling of punning titles. 6 Add phrases using keywords such as slam, height, involvement, tactility etc. The occasional foreign phrase gives the piece a nice tone. 7 Reinforce the magazine's party line such as integrated amps are better value or pre/power combo's will guarantee better sound depending, in this case at least, which type is being reviewed. 8 Make sure that program material mentioned in the review is on the approved list of obscure music. This will lessen the likelihood that any potential purchasers will be familiar & therefore cut down on awkward letters actually sent in by readers. It doesn't matter if said material is unavailable of course. If feeling particularly self-congratulatory, merely invent the name of the band or ensemble. 9 If reviewing budget items, make sure that any other item of equipment mentioned costs ten times more. Doing so will be consistent with Hi Fi shows & will remove any likelihood that the manufacturers will complain. Make sure any cable mentioned costs more than the item under review. 10 Do not be tempted under any circumstances to actually turn on the equipment for review! 11 Graciously accept lunch or other gratuities offered by either the manufacturer or agent - both if possible & don't forget to compliment them on their sexist advertising. 12 Remember to recommend removing all even pages from any books in the listening room & remove any headphones so they don't effect the sound. Unsoldering the speakers from TVs is naturally a good option for those purchasers who insist on having such frivolous non-Hi Fi goods near their stereo. 13 Don't forget to mention all upgrades, bolt-on PSUs etc available from the manufactures but don't mention prices! As for going over to the darkside, that presumes they've been somewhere else 1st. The idea that the source equipment was always the most important item made sure the only item from that Scottish manufacturer that I'd ever buy, was an HDCD disc. |
Going over to the dark side
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... I don't know what the first one was, but more recently in HFN, almost anything by David Allcock gets me going. It's almost as if he's deliberately trying to live up to his name...... His latest, page 56 of the January 2006 HFN, when reviewing a passive (note, passive) preamp (that, in itself, is a misnomer..its a switch and a variable resistor....) he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? **Try it yourself. Load down the output of any given source by an excessively low impedance load and unpredictable results ensue. Passive controllers are often configured to present a low(ish) impedance load, so that their source impedance is low enough for successive stages. The whole issue can be easily and non-intrusively solved by the simple addition of a buffer stage. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Going over to the dark side
"Serge Auckland" wrote in
: he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and find out why this effect is happening. Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another look at the human mind. -- Cessna172 |
Going over to the dark side
Not so, loading a passive controller will reduce only the level, turn it up
a bit more, and it's the same. I agree that if the controller has a silly value, say 1Kohm, and the output stage of the source is really poor and can't drive 1K, then yes, unhappy results can occur, (I do not accept "unpredicatable", as a knowledge of the output stage of the source will allow you to predict what will happen into a low value load) but this was not the case in the review. The Alner Hamblin passive controller has a 10k pot, and the following power amp has an input impedance of 20K, so the source should see a worse-case input impedance of 6.7K at maximum volume or around 8-9K at normal volumes. If the source used (not stated in the review) was of any sort of competence, it should drive this load correctly. S. "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... I don't know what the first one was, but more recently in HFN, almost anything by David Allcock gets me going. It's almost as if he's deliberately trying to live up to his name...... His latest, page 56 of the January 2006 HFN, when reviewing a passive (note, passive) preamp (that, in itself, is a misnomer..its a switch and a variable resistor....) he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? **Try it yourself. Load down the output of any given source by an excessively low impedance load and unpredictable results ensue. Passive controllers are often configured to present a low(ish) impedance load, so that their source impedance is low enough for successive stages. The whole issue can be easily and non-intrusively solved by the simple addition of a buffer stage. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Going over to the dark side
But the review was about electronics, and if you're suggesting that every
listener will hear something different, then what's the point of subjective reviews? That's a question I've often asked myself. In my opinion, as the technical performance of competing audio equipment is now so close (arguably indistinguishable), technical reviews will not make interesting reading, so reviewers have to write personal pieces, based on nothing other than will it be an interesting read? Paul's post, albeit wonderfully cynical, I don't think is too far out from what I've read in Hi-Fi magazines in the last 10 years. S. "Cessna172" wrote in message .205... "Serge Auckland" wrote in : he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and find out why this effect is happening. Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another look at the human mind. -- Cessna172 |
Going over to the dark side
|
Going over to the dark side
In article , Cessna172
wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote in : he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and find out why this effect is happening. Indeed. And the first step would be to see if we could determine if the assertion by the reviewer was produced by any actual change in the sounds coming from the audio system - or was either produced by some other cause, or was simply a delusion. To do that, the reviewer would need to engage in a suitable test. Yet they never do.... Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another look at the human mind. The "human mind" may well be a factor. What is less clear is if the actual sounds produced by the audio system are... :-) The above is yet another example of the "faith based" approach which often appears in magazines. They try something, decide they hear a 'difference' then *assume* (indeed *know*) that the item is changing the sound. Then they do no test with would check to determine if they are either: A) making a mistake and thinking the sound altered, when it might be their imagination *or a change in their hearing*. B) that the sounds changed, but for a reason that had nothing to do with the actual item or mechanism they think is the 'cause'. Given this, why accept what they say? The failure to test their assumption/idea makes it a 'belief' and the insistance that no test or check of the above possibilities should be done or is needed makes it a 'faith'. They then expect readers to accept what they say on the basis of "It is so because I say so. I am a reviewer. I have golden years. Believe!". This is the basis of 'faith' as used in religions, etc. Yet the scientific method exists, and can be applied to test their belief to see if it actually is supportable, or is wrong. i.e. we could check to see if they are mistaken. We could also check to see if any change they think was due to the resistor was actually due to something else. But these tests/checks can't be applied because they refuse to put their 'faith' to a test... As true belevers, they know they are right. Thus the rest of us have no real idea if they are correct, or if they are talking drivel. You may be prepared to accept whatever you read in magazines simply 'on faith' that the reviwer/writer must be correct. I do not share this view. Indeed, I have often found that a statement in a magazine is either factually incorrect, or mis-states the relevant physics or engineering. I have also often found that my opinions about things differ from those printed. I would be suprised if this has never happened to you. Given this, why would you accept what they say? Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Going over to the dark side
HiFi Answers used to be the most 'dark side' UK magazine. 50% useful info
mixed with 50% wacky stuff. I remember they kept going on about some magic bits of sticky tape or something invented by Peter Belt. These had to be stuck on just about anything and everything to get a better sound. Seems like he's still around..... www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/787/index1.html |
Going over to the dark side
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Cessna172 wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote in : he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and find out why this effect is happening. Indeed. And the first step would be to see if we could determine if the assertion by the reviewer was produced by any actual change in the sounds coming from the audio system - or was either produced by some other cause, or was simply a delusion. To do that, the reviewer would need to engage in a suitable test. Yet they never do.... Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another look at the human mind. The "human mind" may well be a factor. What is less clear is if the actual sounds produced by the audio system are... :-) The above is yet another example of the "faith based" approach which often appears in magazines. They try something, decide they hear a 'difference' then *assume* (indeed *know*) that the item is changing the sound. Then they do no test with would check to determine if they are either: A) making a mistake and thinking the sound altered, when it might be their imagination *or a change in their hearing*. B) that the sounds changed, but for a reason that had nothing to do with the actual item or mechanism they think is the 'cause'. Given this, why accept what they say? The failure to test their assumption/idea makes it a 'belief' and the insistance that no test or check of the above possibilities should be done or is needed makes it a 'faith'. They then expect readers to accept what they say on the basis of "It is so because I say so. I am a reviewer. I have golden years. Believe!". This is the basis of 'faith' as used in religions, etc. Yet the scientific method exists, and can be applied to test their belief to see if it actually is supportable, or is wrong. i.e. we could check to see if they are mistaken. We could also check to see if any change they think was due to the resistor was actually due to something else. But these tests/checks can't be applied because they refuse to put their 'faith' to a test... As true belevers, they know they are right. Thus the rest of us have no real idea if they are correct, or if they are talking drivel. You may be prepared to accept whatever you read in magazines simply 'on faith' that the reviwer/writer must be correct. I do not share this view. Indeed, I have often found that a statement in a magazine is either factually incorrect, or mis-states the relevant physics or engineering. I have also often found that my opinions about things differ from those printed. I would be suprised if this has never happened to you. Given this, why would you accept what they say? Slainte, Jim 'Accept' is obviously too strong, although this is a body of evidence - empirical field data that is often mirrored in similar 'tests', conducted with a degree of comparison (the reviewer's own system usually), and accompanied by certain measured data. They put their ideas to the test in the sense that their reputation depends upon user experience of what they write. IOW there *is* a case, which varies between 'instantly dismissible' to 'highly persuasive'. My view is that manufacturers (or more precisely their marketing people) make what they predict people will want, and this all becomes manufactured consent. Sadly, with the possible exceptions of improved materials, convenience, ergonomics and engineering, very few benefits arise - it's the audio experience that has changed. And on the OP's point - anything by HiFi World ('the expert's audio magazine', ahem). I subscribed for a year and from memory failed to draw anything useful from it. And vaguely related, most reviews of LCD TVs. Rob |
Going over to the dark side
In article , Rob
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: [snip loads] 'Accept' is obviously too strong, although this is a body of evidence - empirical field data that is often mirrored in similar 'tests', conducted with a degree of comparison (the reviewer's own system usually), and accompanied by certain measured data. That is fair enough - provided we have established good reasons to accept that the reviewers *can* reliably distinguish one component from another. Alas, their simply asserting this would not suffice to establish this. Thus repeated tests where they had to rely on the sounds alone would be more useful as a basis. Unfortunately, they rarely do tests of that kind. It seems reasonable to at least consider what they say, though. Although my experience is that I, and others, often disagree with opinions in magazines. They put their ideas to the test in the sense that their reputation depends upon user experience of what they write. IOW there *is* a case, which varies between 'instantly dismissible' to 'highly persuasive'. I would agree. Alas, we often have little evidence to use to assign a location on that scale to a particular review comment. And in my experience I disagree with them about as often as I agree. So I would get similarly reliable 'views' by tossing a coin. :-) An additional snag is that unless we use *their* system in *their* listening room, and play the same selection of music, it may be largely irrelevant if we would have agreed with them if we'd been with them at the time. Too many other variables. Thus the problem is often not that you can be certain that what they say is wrong (although this is clear in some cases). The problem is that you often have no way to tell if they are providing useful info, or irrelevant nonsense. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Going over to the dark side
One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172'
except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Going over to the dark side
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:56:39 +0000, Cessna172
wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote in : he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything? Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and find out why this effect is happening. Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another look at the human mind. First, you have to determine if the effect is real, or just typical reviewer's bull****. You seem unwilling to concede this possibility. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Going over to the dark side
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
: One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172' except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........ Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and not a meter. I must get so much more enjoyment out of my music. I think anybody that understands flying, will follow what the artificial horizon is telling them - any debate would have to wait until they are on the ground. Sitting in front of a log fire with a drink and dimmed lights, one can't relax just a little and smile. -- Cessna172 |
Going over to the dark side
In article ,
Cessna172 wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172' except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........ Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and not a meter. I must get so much more enjoyment out of my music. That seems fine if it suits you. :-) However I also seem to enjoy music a great deal via the audio systems I use. And my experience is that not only being able to 'read a meter', but being able to design, test, and understand the kit has been very useful in allowing me to produce systems that allow me to thoroughly enjoy the music. It seems a strange attitude to imply that somehow *not* being able to 'read a meter' or understand the kit allows someone to "get more enjoyment out if the music" than if they did. It is not my experience. Nor that of various people I have known who design equipment, either as professionals or as enthusiasts. I think you would find that most of the people who produce the equipment we use both 'use their ears' and 'read meters' to aid them. BTW One thing I have found interesting over the years is just how many professional scientists and engineers play instruments and love music. Being able to 'read a meter' does not seem to stop them doing this. Forgive my bias, but I tend to prefer education to ignorance, and understanding and skill to inability. I also tend to prefer to regard claims which seem to conflict with my experience and understanding with some caution. My experience is that these preferences pay dividends in terms of musical enjoyment, as in other areas... :-) However YMMV. ;- Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Going over to the dark side
"Cessna172" wrote in message
.222 Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172' except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........ Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and not a meter. This is essentially an "excluded middle" argument. The only options are not just sighted listening and meter reading. There is a reasonable middle ground - listening subject to reasonble controls on significant variables like playback levels, time-synching, and with bias controls. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk