Which gear reviewers do you respect / trust?

'Crosley pimps'.... ugh. Pretty sad.

As bad as that is though, at least they're costing ppl only about $70 a pop or so. As opposed to a dishonest review in say TAS, Stereophile, or one of the other high-end rags/sites, which may help someone make a bad decision that'll cost them $10K or more.

But in the end, shilling for a bad product is shilling for a bad product, period.
.

 

What I find troublesome is more and more technobabble in the audio reviews. I really want to know what features a particular piece of equipment has, etc. I don't want or need to know every IC or capacitor the manufacturer used. What is bad also, especially in Stereophile, is when Atkinson's measurements don't match up to what the reviewer heard. What the hell are you supposed to believe then?

 

One thing that always makes me scratch my head is the Stereophile 'Recommended Components' List.

For instance, you go and look at the Recommended 'Class B' components in a particular category. Maybe you see a $1500 one (good value!), but right next to it, perhaps there's a $20,000 one... and they're both 'Class B'. So, sonically, roughly in the same league. We get that.

But, shouldn't Stereophile, as a reviewing entity, care about its readers pocketbooks enough to avoid recommending 'poor value' gear? Because that $20k 'Class B' component is essentially just a failed Class A component, more or less.

Or, maybe you see $3K and $140K components together in Class A in a category (this is actually true on their 2017 list). Isn't the $140K product just a failed 'Class A+' component? I mean, geez, give even a mediocre designer an enormous enough budget, and he should be able to make a very good-performing product... but that's not the toughest part, obviously.

But, I guess if the goal is court manufacturers and ensure the continued flow of ad dollars, a great many things you review have to end up on the Recommended list, poor value or not.
.

 

I forgot to mention that there's also a number of YouTubers who also shill the infamous Audio Technica LP60 and variants of the Hanpin FU-700/R200 models (i.e., Pioneer PL-990, Sony PS-LX300, Denon DP-29F). There's one, who shall not be named, who is very infamous in that front.

 

Since the ratings are based only on sound quality, there are other factors that might influence someone's choice, such as operational features and size.

 

Believe the measurements, ignore the subjective reviewer, that's what I say. They're just trying to describe their psychological states -- hearing is 50% psychological anyway, and when they start talking about stuff like "bass slam" or a "relaxed presentation" or stuff like that, they're talking about things that exist only between their ears at that moment. It's not something meaningful or useful to any one human being in any other room with any other gear at any other point in time. And if they're not hearing the effects of, I dunno, big measurable spikes in speaker cabinet vibrations at 200 Hz or large amounts of 2nd harmonic distortion from a piece of electronics, they're either not very acute listeners, have a lousy environment for listening, or both.

Personally, the ONLY thing I'm interest in in an audio review is the tech stuff. And it's the only part that's not babble, it's actual fact, fact that a reporter can verify. And an audio reviewer is a consumer journalist, verifying and reporting facts is job one. Features, those you can read off the spec sheet, you really don't need a reporter to spend a lot of column inches reporting that stuff.

More and more tech? There's almost no tech written about in audio anymore. It used to be that everyone in the hobby knew at least a little something about the tech -- you had to, in fact, going back farther, a lot of the stuff was kit built or at least home assembled in terms of speaker systems from components.

Now consumers expect pure plug and play operation, which is fine, lovely and easy even, but they don't want to know anything about how the stuff works, and, taken together with the rise of the subjectivist -- whatever you hear and like is OK -- approach to "high fidelity" (which used to be about faithfulness to the recorded source), I think now there's a lot of magical thinking and psychological gobbleygook and navel gaze that constitutes the bulk of what's in an audio review. 20 years ago I subscribed to multiple audio mags in print and regularly bought others on newstands. Today I barely ever bother checking in with any audio reviews online and I'd never consider paying for them, they're not worth it.

 

I'm sure Stereophile's recommended components issues are it's annual biggest sellers and highest billing issues and possibly the recommendations are the biggest traffic parts of the website -- it's consumer journalism and people mostly turn to it when they're ready to make buying decisions.

But I don't really find it very meaningful or good journalism. The capsule reviews are barely informative. There's really not much in the way of clear, granular, hierarchical data that understandably separates class A from class B never mind the frequently encountered phrases "low class A" or "high class B." And of course there's not attempt to comprehensively review every piece of gear that might likely fall into "class A" or "class B" or whatever, so it leaves consumers with the impression that if something's not on the list at all anywhere it's not worth considering (even though I know there's disclaimer language to the contrary).

 

That sounds suspiciously like a logical argument. Are you sure you want Stereophile to start using logical arguments in their reviews? Think about the consequences!

 

When the reviewer ends up spending their own $ on the gear after review I take it a little more serious. Other than that it's more about reading between the lines on multiple reviews and trying to find the common hyperbole.

 

Well they're not based only on sound quality - Art Dudley wanted the AN E to be class A - and it wasn't selected. And the DeVore Orangutan was class B until I pointed out to JA that he made a mistake putting the Orangutan as Class B. Art, you see, bought the $12,000 Orangutan (Class B) but Stereophile had the $3k DeVore 3XL as class A. And since all Class A speakers are better than all Class B speakers I pointed out to JA that this makes Art look like an idiot because why would a reviewer spend $9,000 more for a worse sounding loudspeaker? SO several months later the Orangutan got class A.

Anyway just for fun I will provide my very quick not super thought out passing letter grade of Stereophile's letter grades just to see hoe many of them I would rank as an A (Gold Standard) loudspeaker. Class A really should do it all - but it must have the Gestalt and overiding passion for the artists and move me emotionally. A graph isn't going to win me over as it does with Stereophile. SO just for a hoot let's see how their best speaker list shapes up from my hearing of them. Many of these are only under show conditions - but then Sterophile judges things on show conditions as well so fair is fair -- in most cases I heard them in professessionally set up dealer showrooms. (grain of salt)

Bowers & Wilkins 802 D3 Diamond: $22,000/pairBR> (Vol.39 No.6 WWW)
Richard's Rating C+ (An often dull sounding loudspeaker that lacks the breath of life - integration of drivers is middling as one always hears the tweeter as a separate entity. This fake sound is ever present and has been with every tweeter on top model. Compounding the problem is that they are difficult to drive forcing the user to use high power mostly high negative feedback amplifiers. The speaker is beautiful to look at but better sound can be had for a fraction of the price.

KEF Blade Two: $25,000/pairBR> (Vol.38 No.6 WWW)
Richard's Rating B This is a fine sounding speaker - if you can position it properly - it is basically the KEF LS-50 with a large glorified bass/subwoofer attached to it. The treble still isn't superb and at this money it is more of a style product similar to B&O and B&W. Looks first - sound second. Solid hi-fi - no goosebump factor.

Magico S5 Mk.II: $38,000/pair–$42,750/pairBR> (Vol.40 No.2 WWW)
Richard's Rating B This is a fine $8000 speaker unfortunately the charge $30 grand more to heat their pools. No goosebump factor but technically a nice hi-fi presentation. If this brand is around in 15 years I would be stunned.

Marten Coltrane 3: $100,000/pairBR> (Vol.39 No.6 WWW)
Richard's Rating C- Just boring boring boring to listen to.

mbl Radialstrahler 101 E Mk.II: $70,500/pair ★BR> (Vol.35 No.4 WWW)
Richard's Rating A The only speaker Stereophile gets right but a HUGE caveat that this speaker is not easy to position and won't work in many rooms and is highly idiosyncratic. You have to buy into the omni-directional design - so while I give it an A - it will also likely be one many will utterly hate.

Revel Ultima Studio2: $15,998/pair $$$ ★
FK's long-term reference. (Vol.31 No.3, Vol.32 No.12 WWW)BR>
Richard's Rating B - Technical wizard that is musically vapid. A much better sounding speaker for similar dollars is the Usher B10 which has better bass, better treble better everything. Revel is a big snooze fest.

Vandersteen Model Seven Mk.II: $62,000/pair
(Vol.33 No.3 original version, Vol.39 No.5 WWW)
Richard's Rating C+ Can't get away from the price and again a lack of cohesion from big speakers. Idiosyncratic sound that if you like is well worth it - but again Vandersteen has always sounded boring to me. And treble sticks out too much.

Vivid G3 Giya: $39,990/pair ★BR> (Vol.37 No.4 WWW)
Richard's Rating B Again the price is nuts for these things and again it's a style first brand. Cohesion is good - sounds like hi-fi - no goosebumps.

Wilson Audio Specialties Alexandria XLF: $210,000/pair ★BR> MF's long-term reference. (Vol.36 No.1 WWW)
Richard's Rating C None of the speakers ever integrate - hearing cymbal crashes 8 feet over your head - it's all over the place. The price is stupid. The cheaper models actually sound a lot better and you can always add two premium subwoofers to the Sasha and likely get vastly superior bass response and a much more integrated sound. This is just for people to show off.

YG Acoustics Sonja 1.3: $106,800/pair ★BR> (Vol.36 No.7 WWW)
Richard's Rating B+.
Again YG sounds quite good - price is dumb - and no goosebump factor - hi-fi pyrotechnics. But it does what it does very very well I'll give them that.

Stereophile Class A LLF
ATC SCM19 v.2
Richard's Rating C+ A fine speaker but not musically satisfying - sounds like a recording engineer speaker - you hear everything it has punch - and after an hour you want to turn them off. The SCM 20 is better and the 100 is very good.

Bowers & Wilkins 805 D3
Richard's Rating C Yup this is overpriced style first product and has absolutely no driver integration - compresses badly. The Audio Note AX Two trashes this speaker for $800.

DeVore Fidelity Orangutan O/96
Richard's Rating B-
The price again is simply too high - better or equivalent sound can be had from the AN E/Lx for $5500. Less than half the price. I'd rank the SQ higher B+ or even B++ but the value isn't as high.

DeVore Fidelity Gibbon 3XL
Richard's Rating D Boring sounding by the numbers loudspeakers - weak bass congested midrange and boxy - and again way too expensive. This is double the price of the KEF LS-50 and Harbeth P3ESR - both sound better with ease. The Gibbon 88 doesn't fair well for me either.

Dynaudio Contour 20
Richard's Rating C One Day Dynaudio will make a speaker where the bass doesn't just sound dead and lumpy - low efficiency speakers SUCK - they sound dull and lifeless and dry and boring and this is another in a long line of speakers from Dynaudio.

KEF LS50
Richard's Rating B - I'd rank the sound a C+/B- overall but the overall value and style prop it up a little more because it's great at $1200. But it has one note bass, lacks good tonality and has a middling metal tweeter with that metal tinge that never goes away. It's a fine speaker - what it isn't is a product of the year giant killer. Although judging by what Stereophile thinks are good speakers - heck the KEF can slay a bunch of those.

Bowers & Wilkins 683 S2
Richard's Rating C Just run of the mill ho hum from B&W. Metal tweeter ringing dinner bell - okay value but no goosebump factor. No life, no emotion. Meh

Dynaudio Excite X14
Richard's Rating C see contour 20

Harbeth Super HL5plus
Richard's Rating B+ Yeah not perfect - don't like the super tweeter - pingy pingy ding dong. But a nice warm fat sound - musical - has goosebump factor - can live with it long term enjoyable. Price is too high sensitivity too low - I prefer other speakers for less $$$ that are also far more efficient.

Sonus Faber Venere 2.5
Richard's Rating D Coma inducing.

Wilson Benesch Series II Square One
Richard's Rating C- Overpriced and lifeless. Audio Note dealer in Hong Kong Carried this line so heard it a lot - they no longer carry this line. It had zero chance against the vastly cheaper and vastly superior and less expensive speakers the dealer carries.

Zu Audio Soul Supreme
Richard's Rating C Just too expensive and sound that is too up front and punishing in the treble. Some Zu models are quite good and some are really honker sounding to me. This one is sort of in the middle.

Wharfedale Diamond 10.7
Richard's Rating B- Good value - good sound for the money - Diamond has been around forever and always been a bit underrated - at least it is musical.

ATC SCM7
Richard's Rating C Too expensive not enough sound to warrant the price - boxy.

One class A speaker with heavy caveats. I raise a glass to impossible standards.

And you really don't want to see my grades on Solid State amplifiers. They all get sent to summer school to improve.

 

Richard, you are so kind. In particular the 683 S2 received multiple good reviews, so why would anyone believe you? I guess if it doesn't sound like your AN-E's it's garbage.

I find Absolute Sound's recommendations to be even more confusing as only one speaker at each price level gets a recommendation. Is it implied they get better as the prices go up? There is no such rule, although some reviewers act like there was.

How about your recommendations? Then someone else can trash them.

 

Why on earth would I be interested in how a reviewer at best thinks it sounds like. A reviewer always does more harm than good.

 

JA is a fraud. stereophile is a fraud. we just have the proof of their double standard when they did the yggdrasil dac review then the chord dave.

their classement means nothing. actually, id stay away from their class a rating.

we put our hard earned money for those buffoon who will hype any product as long as the company pays them enough to do so.

 

I have the kef ls50, shl5+ and scm7 v3 here with me, in my house.

the shl5+ destroy both speakers of course.

scm7 v3 destroy the kef ls50. destroy them in every way possible. im surprised by your opinion of them. kef ls50 tone is a joke compared directly to the harbeth or scm7 v3. I guess you dont value tone but I try again and again to put the ls50 in my bedroom and I cannot stand them more then a hour and the P3ESR go back.
id take scm7 v3 and P3ESR over the ls50 anyday of the week. the ls50 have more bass, but its floppy bass that just sounds unnatural. the ls50 sounds like hifi, scm7v3 or harbeth sounds natural.

 

Not this again. Oops I hear a car horn, I should just ignore it and step into the street because I'm just imagining it.

 

Still waiting to read your recommendations. I find your post to be seriously hilarious and a likely product of a burnt breakfast.

 

While I agree about the Harbeths your room is so idiosyncratic that your recommendations are useless. This isn't a personal attack only an observation.

As to Richard, what is your room like? You live in Hong Kong where space is expensive. You teach English. I would assume that your pay is not very high and that your room is small. Most of those speakers are not going to work in a small room. Again an observation, not a slur on your reviewing or your opinions.

It seems so much of this is idiosyncratic, based upon the room listened in and the mood of the reviewer, as well as their memory of what they heard before. Aural memory is not very good, even when we think it is.

 

I know WhatHiFi get dumped on a lot, but I kind of prefer reading their reviews. Only because they are to the point. I don't really put a lot of stock into reviews anymore - I prefer hearing a component myself.

Measurements are helpful to assist with determining if different pieces will work together, so I check out JA's results there. But the subjective part of each review is just that - subjective. I have as much chance agreeing as I do disagreeing. So I'd rather read a brief summary of the general sound of a component and let that help me focus my search. The long @ss reviews say so much that they often say nothing at all. Not saying WHF is always right or without their problems, but they are to the point and that is appreciated. I just need to know some strenths/weaknesses to start with, not how every second of music sounded to the reviewer.

 

Well that's a far cry from bass slam but close to body slam

 

One other plus for WhatHiFi reviews is that if they don't like something they say so. None of the "you have to read between the lines" BS. WhatHiFi has their own issues/biases but at least I don't have to interpret what they are trying to say.

 

I am trying to think of what size and operational features would make me inclined to spend for the $140K Class A component over the $3K one. Not having much success.

Perhaps the $140K one also serves mixed drinks and gives a world-class Shiatsu massage?
.

 

I know exactly who you're talking about.

The only reviewers I really respect are amateur reviewers. I'm not talking about YouTube reviewers that have a ton of "sponsors" and never give anything a bad review either.

I'm much more likely to take seriously the opinions of people on here that have spent their hard-earned $ on something that are willing to tell me the good, bad, and ugly about a particular unit than any pro magazine reviewer.

Sometimes pro reviews are interesting because they post measurements, or because they have entertainment value. Other than that I have little use for them.

 

My favorite was when they talked at length about the acoustic and sonic properties of a hi-fi rack. Hard to take them seriously after that one.

 

Just out of curiosity, what specifically is your complaint with the reviews of those two components?

 

It may be a no-win situation to some extent, but the course is clear even so... if a review site/mag cares about their readers, they protect them. End stop.

Otherwise, why would they bother reading you?

Too bad many/most mags and sites forget this, and just pander to their advertisers.
.