0) … Hopefully not like Arthur Salvatore’s criticism of reviewers

With J.A. telling a reader to “get out more” in the latest Stereophile Letters (even tho the thrust of the reader’s arguments were correct) and HP calling people (like me ) ‘jackasses’ who do not think The Absolute Sound of, say, a symphony is the end-all-and-be-all of judging quality of system playback, not to mention MF’s flames on Romy’s site - the level of discourse in the Audio world is not very polite and very often content free. We will be different - hard hitting, content rich but in a professional and respectful manner.

1) The rooms - very, very important point. I’ve recently been working on acoustic treatments in my listening room. It makes such a big difference! I never understood myself why most high-end audio reviews don’t detail their room and acoustic treatments. You shouldn’t let Srajan off the hook - his pictures show his listening chair right against the back wall. I hope he adjusts that when doing critical listening…

People vary on acoutsical treatments, of course. You ahve the Rives approach, which often creates a aesthetically sterile, yet acoustically predictable environment to our approach, which is to maximze aethetics of the total expereince: multiple comfortable listening positions, visually pleasant , livable, and sonic excellence sacrificing a few decibles at the top - i.e. reducing the maximum loudness possible without room distortions overwheling the music

I always held Widescreen Review in very high regards because they always documented their reference systems, including room shape/dimensions + treatments.

Me too. Though I keep waiting for the Dunlavy’s to get replaced…. not that they aren’t great for surroundsound video - but because they have not been made for several years.

2) What exactly do you mean by “Srajan is trying so hard to do the right thing?”

What DO I mean by that? Hmmmm… Srajan appears to care aboput the impact of his recommendations and comments on the quality of the systems of his readers. He seems to care about the evolution and health of the grassroots part of our hobby. JV cares about finding cool new sounds to play with. HP wants to be the discoverer of the Next Great Inexpensive Component and Next Great Expensive Component. MF wants to be the uber reviewer of analog and now audio in general.

[Neli wants me to verify that everyone understands these descriptions are, necessarily, characerchers, short one sentance descriptions of what are real people - real people who canoot be described by one sentence, or a million. OK. Now I can tell Neli everyone understands this ]

Just my observations and opinions of course. Although I say hi to a few of these guys at shows sometimes - I do not really know any of them - so it is easy for me to be ‘on the outside’ to look at what their impacts are on audiophiles, dealers and the industry as a whole. Srajan is pleasant to Neli and I at shows and MF has given me thoughtful advice on both show reportage and the highest end turntables when we were just starting out.

The biggest negative of all these guys is that audiophiles buy what they say is GREAT but fail to like the equipment for long because it is only GREAT in a specific context and that context is not communicated when reviwers say it is GREAT.

3) Where was Danny Kaey before? (He’s currently a blog contributor at sonicflare.com) Did he write for a rag before?

Danny Kaye was (is?) with Positive Feedback. I believe he is working on getting a real life, as opposed to the one we all live Perhaps he will comment further on here or SonicFlare.com?

4) Grand Prix Monaco component rack does not count as vibration control? Srajan has been using that for a while now…

I didn’t know that. Yes, that is one of the few racks that we think (albeit based on only second hand comments, technical analysis, and our observations at shows) make a positive difference vis-a-vis negative vibrations. I will correct the text in the original post.

Thanks!