Should be titled:

“Lists of Everything That Got Sent to Us”

“Everything We Have Ever Heard”

“Random Components Randomly Selected by Randomly Qualified People”

———————————

Oh yeah, Neli says I am supposed to be in a good mood when I post. Oops.

It is not as if the stuff we carry doesn’t make all the lists – but it is the principal of the thing…

OK. Here is something:

Why Good People Often Write Random Information-Free Reviews

The problem is with their associated components [and to some much lesser extent their room].

Let’s say a reviewer, let’s call him [yes, 99% are hims] X. X has dull-sounding speakers. To balance these speakers he has a bright sounding amp. Together the sound kind of doesn’t scratch his ears out nor does it put him to sleep. However, the amp is very lean, so his CD player is very warm and harmonically rich, if somewhat veiled with exaggerated syrupy macro-dynamics – to help balance the leanness of the amps.

Now, whenever X reviews a speaker, amp, or CD player, he is going to prefer it to have the same handicaps his current components have – in order to maintain the balance of his system.

But, perhaps X is smarter than your average bear. So perhaps he is not completely ignorant of the compromises of his system – his reviews will still not be accurate [because he cannot provide a clean signal to the component under review, nor a clean transducer to hear the result]. I propose that, unless X is a genius, the review will be almost random – that the best one could hope for is a comparison with the previous component in the system [more bright, less bright, more harmonic less harmonic, etc.]. Of course, very, very few reviewers do this.

Now X gets a pair of cables to try….

Another example: Suppose Mike Fremer gets an amp to review [haven’t picked on Mike for awhile]. Let’s also assume he still has the Musical Fidelity amps that I last heard that he had.

OK. So I know A) what his previous amps sound like and B) that he must actually like that type of sound. I know that he can hear and that he can more or less describe what he hears [within the limits of his responsibilities and persona at Stereophile].

Let’s say that Mike says that the amp under review is dull-sounding. Now, the Musical Fidelity sound to my ears is akin to Bryston and last generation Pass Labs and Krell and might be described as bright and aggressive. So would Mike have meant that the amp under review is dull sounding compared to the MF, or to the average amp, other amps in the same class, or to the sound of real music?

I personally think Mike would, in my way of thinking , well… I am not sure. I think the correct answer would be to compare the amp to a weighted average of real music and the average amp at the given price point, as well as to other amps in general [because amps do some things pretty well close to real – and others not so well at all, compared to real music].

So, let’s say for sake of argument that he takes the time to describe it with respect to all 3 benchmarks. The question still remains, assuming the rest of his system is neutral and revealing – which I think it is – how do I, as a reader of his review, adjust whatever his conclusion is against the fact that his preferred sound is not aligned with my preferred sound?

I had even more issues with Roy Gregory’s reviews. His favorite CD player was Wadia, back when they were deeply, deeply flawed [they are much better these days]. I read his reviews to try and get a glimmer of what certain things sounded like, but it was very difficult to pin down just what his associated equipment was and what his preferences were [though we DO like the same cables :-)].

So, I hope this helps describe why reviews are so random. The best you can hope for is someone who has a very good, mostly neutral system to place the component under review into; someone who has some experience with all ranges of components, but especially those of comparable quality of the component under review; someone who has the freedom and balls and integrity to print what they hear; someone who has the ability to hear and ability to describe what they hear and to describe exactly what they are describing [which hearkens back to our discussion a few weeks ago about how to describe sound].

Sorry for the lack of posts. Been busy around here… and lazy at the same time. Funny how that happens 🙂