Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 139
  1. #76
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    I really like the idea of "realism triggers".

    I guess biggies for me are "realistic tone" (i.e. accurate timbre) and "minute detail", (i.e. resolution / transparency).
    ah... "timbre".... that's the word I was looking for....

    I really think realism triggers is the most sensible explanation of the different priorities of audiophiles...

  2. #77
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    J. Gordon Holt was probably the first to publish that "Live unamplfied orchestral music is the only reference". Mr. Holt's taste was restricted to classical music. Mine isn't. So I leave out the word orchestral. The other three words (Live unamplified music) are what I'm trying to reproduce in my room with a high degree of fidelity. It's likely an unobtainable goal. I'll continue trying anyway. Working toward that goal has made other types of music sound better. Reproduce the reference and everything else will sound better.
    Mash has a good point with his definition of "manufactured music". The kind of three dimensional playability in a good recording is simply not there on most studio recordings. Listen to a Direct-To-Disc LP or one of the very few CD's recorded live to two track. Any halfway decent system and setup will let you hear the sound of a large room "over there" by and around the speakers. You should then be able to convert to the scale Mash uses.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  3. #78
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Ajani

    Excellent point about JA and Art D. These guys tend to have quite differing views on what constitutes the right sound and both have good ears and are knowledgable about audio.

    I sat down and had a conversation with Peter Qvortrup (Audio Note) at CES for a good 45 minutes while taking a rest from 8 hours of listening to gear. As you might expect he's a bit of a character and is highly opinionated. Remind you anyone? Here is a guy who has been to every major opera house, has heard all the best musicans live - and not just classical - but Rage Against the Machine, Slayer, and the like. He can also afford the best seats in the house. So you have a guy with a staggering knowledge and a collection of classical recordings that people here would crap themselves if they had the chance at them. So he has the music collection, he has the live experience in that he has not just been to the local hall but all the best ones everywhere, he has recorded music, and he has bought all of the best competition. And he makes SET. Michael Fremer who also collects lots of music and is a vinyl diehard buys massive SS amplifiers.

    And you are not going to convince either of them that they're on the wrong path. That's kind of why I like Martin Colloms. He loves AN gear and CJ. He also owned big Apogee speakers. Now he has the top Wilson speakers and loves Krell. I may not agree with the guy on some things but you have to admit that he likes a lot of different things because you won't mistake those brands.

    I remember asking once on AA for people to provide me the most technically accurate system from the resident acoustic engineers and I got panels, horns, transmission lines (like PMC), two-way boxes, line arrays, Omni-directionals which have a certain amount of logic to them, single drivers (ideal sound comes from a single point in space and thus no large speaker can possibly be accurate), dual concentric, SET/Tubes (less to no corrective measures like Feedback which creates a problem then tries to fix it and arguably doesn't do it right) and SS(technically better distortion etc). When the math guys can't agree then there is no wonder there is so much debate on forums.

    That said - My opinion is always right. Even when I change my mind.

  4. #79
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    Well, of course!

    Re:
    "Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely... "

    You have to sell the sizzle, not the steak. If they calmly agreed then wouldn't our interest in their prognostications be significantly lessened? Nothing stimulates audiophile interest better than a good reviewer catfight.

    And in the end, as you have noted, everyone can find something that supports their bias. Everybody feels good about themselves and so they come back for more. All they have to do is keep spending more and more money for their endless upgrades. Which particular upgrades is not important. Audiophiles spending money is all that really matters because it makes Mr. Dudley's and Mr. Atkinson's advertisers very happy.

    Happy advertisers buy more ads.

    Remember what DeepThroat said: "Follow the money!"

    Stereophile routinely publishes recommended equipment lists of what equipment their considered evaluations have led them to recommend.... except from time to time items will disappear from their list without explanation. Oops, now you hafta trade up.........

    I was specifically recommending recitals where one can focus on a few instruments so as to learn their sound, say a concert grand piano. Maybe a Steinway if you want to narrow things more. We can be interested in different specific attributes of a Steinway, but our common reference will be that same Steinway. You judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to you are rendered, and I judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to me are rendered. If we are both satisfied then we can achieve a degree of consensus.

    You have pointed out that consensus is totally lacking between Mr, Dudley and Mr. Atkinson. Their lack of any published consensus will generate greater profits for them. Not for you.

    I was not suggesting complicated symphonies which do not lend themselves to such a learning endeavor.

  5. #80
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    Re:
    "Many audio reviewers constantly rant at length in their reviews, about the live performances they attend on a regular basis... Yet they still disagree completely on what components sound good... Both Art Dudley and John Atkinson of Stereophile, listen to live music regularly... yet they have very different tastes in equipment... members of this forum and many other forums also listen to live music regularly and disagree completely... "

    You have to sell the sizzle, not the steak. If they calmly agreed then wouldn't our interest in their prognostications be significantly lessened? Nothing stimulates audiophile interest better than a good reviewer catfight.

    And in the end, as you have noted, everyone can find something that supports their bias. Everybody feels good about themselves and so they come back for more. All they have to do is keep spending more and more money for their endless upgrades. Which particular upgrades is not important. Audiophiles spending money is all that really matters because it makes Mr. Dudley's and Mr. Atkinson's advertisers very happy.

    Happy advertisers buy more ads.

    Remember what DeepThroat said: "Follow the money!"

    Stereophile routinely publishes recommended equipment lists of what equipment their considered evaluations have led them to recommend.... except from time to time items will disappear from their list without explanation. Oops, now you hafta trade up.........

    I was specifically recommending recitals where one can focus on a few instruments so as to learn their sound, say a concert grand piano. Maybe a Steinway if you want to narrow things more. We can be interested in different specific attributes of a Steinway, but our common reference will be that same Steinway. You judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to you are rendered, and I judge how accurately the Steinway's attributes important to me are rendered. If we are both satisfied then we can achieve a degree of consensus.

    You have pointed out that consensus is totally lacking between Mr, Dudley and Mr. Atkinson. Their lack of any published consensus will generate greater profits for them. Not for you.

    I was not suggesting complicated symphonies which do not lend themselves to such a learning endeavor.
    Even if I was to accept that all reviewers are puppets of their advertisers (which I don't), the problem still remains that audiophiles (who are not reviewers) clearly have different sonic priorities... Even non-audiophiles have them... So there will never be any type of consensus about what sounds more real or live... So even if we both use a Steinway as reference, that doesn't mean we'd agree in anyway on which system more accurately recreates the sound of the Steinway... You might prefer the one that matches the timbre exactly, while I might prefer one which handles the frequency extremes better....

    I don't see any evidence that Professional reviewers choose equipment in a manner much different from the average audiophile, which is part of why I've never bought into the whole advertisers' puppets conspiracy theory... Why should the average Joe disagreeing on what sounds better occur naturally, yet Art Dudley and John Atkinson disagreeing be based on advertising revenue?

  6. #81
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    I bought my first Futterman amp in 1974.....

    I had always heard Maggies at the various ARC/Magnepan dealers, and they were always driven with Audio Research amps. I REALLY did NOT like the Maggie sound I heard at the dealers.

    I went to a doctors house in 1974 & he had maggies that sounded so real I felt I could touch the performer. I looked around to discover what was different. I saw the old-timey tube amp glowing on the floor. I was sold. But there had been NO reviews of Futterman amps in ANY publication FOR MANY YEARS.

    When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?

    Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere. But in 1974 he had a 3 month backlog as a result of "word of mouth", i.e. peolpe like me hearing his amps in someone's house. By 1977 when I bought my monoblocks, he had a 9-month backlog, again from word of mouth. And that backlog continued to grow.

    I never wrote that anyone in the audiophile press was a "puppet of their advertisers". But do YOU really think it is a good idea to bite the hands that feed you?

  7. #82
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    There are reviewers that I place more faith in than others. Certainly Atkinson and I have similar tastes (even if he doesn't know how to test panel speakers!), and even if I do think Art writes with more pizazz. Nobody can hear everything, but if Atkinson likes it, I believe I would too. He's also a good counterpoint to some of the more flowery statements made by other reviewers.

    From my brief foray into professional audio journalism I can tell you that the press needs the industry, and the industry needs the press. Read what you want into that, but a word from a top reviewer can often make or break an esoteric product. In the same way, a reviewer who says a high priced product isn't any better in some way than a low priced one is soon looking for a new job reviewing only low priced products. Is this some kind of conspiracy? No, I would say not, more like a pragmatic way to deal with the reality of the industry as it stands today.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  8. #83
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere.
    There are numerous brands which do not advertise and are reviewed nevertheless. Why? Because they are worthy of comment. Reviewers don't talk much about what they don't like.
    rw

  9. #84
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    I had always heard Maggies at the various ARC/Magnepan dealers, and they were always driven with Audio Research amps. I REALLY did NOT like the Maggie sound I heard at the dealers.

    I went to a doctors house in 1974 & he had maggies that sounded so real I felt I could touch the performer. I looked around to discover what was different. I saw the old-timey tube amp glowing on the floor. I was sold. But there had been NO reviews of Futterman amps in ANY publication FOR MANY YEARS.

    When I met Mr. Futterman I asked him "why no reviews?" Can you guess his answer?

    Because, he said, he did not advertise his amps anywhere. But in 1974 he had a 3 month backlog as a result of "word of mouth", i.e. peolpe like me hearing his amps in someone's house. By 1977 when I bought my monoblocks, he had a 9-month backlog, again from word of mouth. And that backlog continued to grow.

    I never wrote that anyone in the audiophile press was a "puppet of their advertisers". But do YOU really think it is a good idea to bite the hands that feed you?
    Problem is that just as I choose to take the word of some reviewers that they are not biased by advertising revenue, you also must take Mr. Futterman's word on his reason for not having his amp reviewed...

    Many small scale manufacturers don't send samples for reviews to major mags... Sometimes they even say exactly what Mr. Futterman said, based solely on what they believe to be true, rather than on any actual experience they've had... Or they sent a request for a mag to review their product, never got a response and assumed it was because they didn't advertise in the mag...

    Keep in mind that if you already have good word of mouth about your brand, and a loyal fan following, who believe the review mags are keeping you out, then what incentive would you have to get your product reviewed? If you get a bad review it may hurt future sales and word of mouth...

    As for biting the hand that feeds you: Review mags write negative reviews quite regularly, but since most persons who believe the mags are corrupt, don't read the mags anyway, they'd never notice this...

    Also, ask yourself this: Why would a mag the size of Stereophile need to appease advertisers?

    Stereophile gave the Totem Forest a negative review this year, which resulted in Totem pulling their ad revenue from Stereophile. What do you think happened to Totem's ad space? another brand took it... Why? Because Stereophile has a wide readership... so there will always be brands wanting to advertising gear in Stereophile... And there is no way that every product that is reviewed is going to be bad... In fact, considering that many reviewers focus mostly on products that interest them, then most reviews will be positive... So even without any advertising bias, there will be a load of good reviews...

  10. #85
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    538

    Well, E-Stat, if you can have a large and growing backlog

    soley because people hear your unreviewed audio product at someone's house, shouldn't that be proof enough that your product is "worthy"? I think so.

    What better evidence of "WORTH" is there than people voting for a product over MANY years with their wallets? I think this beats ANY reviewer's opinion.

    When NYAL acquired the Futterman they did three things:

    They advertised the Futterman;
    They got reviews for the Futterman, even in Stereophile, and
    They raised the paired-monoblock price from $500 (I paid) - $900 (later) to
    [wait for it] $3000.
    Then they introduced the 4-chassis paired monoblocks for $9000.

    And my Futtermans have all the bells & whistles of the NYAL models...........

  11. #86
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    Certainly Atkinson and I have similar tastes (even if he doesn't know how to test panel speakers!)
    I think the issue with testing at Stereophile is the same as at the Harman group... The tests are designed for more 'traditional' cone speakers and SS amps....

    I'm 100% for testing in HiFi, but I think a lot more tests need to be developed before we can rely on them.... And I'd love to see more clear correlation between the test results and the sonic characteristics they are supposed to test...

    Ideally, testing should get to the point where you can just look at the results and know whether a speaker will have correct timbre and a wide/deep soundstage etc....

  12. #87
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    soley (sic) because people hear your unreviewed audio product at someone's house, shouldn't that be proof enough that your product is "worthy"? I think so.
    Only to those who have limited access to what is available on the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mash
    And my Futtermans have all the bells & whistles of the NYAL models...........
    Congratulations.

    rw

  13. #88
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Stereophile gave the Totem Forest a negative review this year, which resulted in Totem pulling their ad revenue from Stereophile. What do you think happened to Totem's ad space? another brand took it... Why? Because Stereophile has a wide readership... so there will always be brands wanting to advertising gear in Stereophile... And there is no way that every product that is reviewed is going to be bad... In fact, considering that many reviewers focus mostly on products that interest them, then most reviews will be positive... So even without any advertising bias, there will be a load of good reviews...
    No you are mistaken. The final review wasn't negative, and in fact Atkinson takes extra time out to test the speakers and finds the anomaly, he writes;

    So what to conclude from this Follow-Up to a Follow-Up? First, Totem's consistency in manufacturing the Forest to a uniform standard over an eight-year period is impressive.(based on three sets of measurements over a decade)

    "Second, from my conversations with Erick Lichte, it is clear that the woofer of SN PM4002 failed after he had concluded his critical listening to the Forests. However, if the woofer had been abused by one of the dealers who had used the review samples before they were sent to Stereophile for review, it's possible that this either made it more vulnerable, or contributed to EL's finding the Forests' imaging to be not as good as he had been led to expect. "

    He goes on to test the tweeter of the failed speaker and finds that it matches the other within less than 1dB! This can only be done by close matching during assembly. These are no "slap them together" speakers.

    To me it's quite obvious that one speaker had been damaged and the reviewer was oblivious to the fact. In addition he seems clueless about mass loading, something that the speakers were designed for! As a reviewer you have to do your homework. Vince has every right to be mad that the reviewer didn't contact them when something seemed amiss. The whole review might have been completely different if he would have done so.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  14. #89
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    No you are mistaken. The final review wasn't negative, and in fact Atkinson takes extra time out to test the speakers and finds the anomaly, he writes;

    So what to conclude from this Follow-Up to a Follow-Up? First, Totem's consistency in manufacturing the Forest to a uniform standard over an eight-year period is impressive.(based on three sets of measurements over a decade)

    "Second, from my conversations with Erick Lichte, it is clear that the woofer of SN PM4002 failed after he had concluded his critical listening to the Forests. However, if the woofer had been abused by one of the dealers who had used the review samples before they were sent to Stereophile for review, it's possible that this either made it more vulnerable, or contributed to EL's finding the Forests' imaging to be not as good as he had been led to expect. "

    He goes on to test the tweeter of the failed speaker and finds that it matches the other within less than 1dB! This can only be done by close matching during assembly. These are no "slap them together" speakers.

    To me it's quite obvious that one speaker had been damaged and the reviewer was oblivious to the fact. In addition he seems clueless about mass loading, something that the speakers were designed for! As a reviewer you have to do your homework. Vince has every right to be mad that the reviewer didn't contact them when something seemed amiss. The whole review might have been completely different if he would have done so.
    Yes there has been a lot of debate around the Totem review... However, some valid claims are also made by EL about his review: First Totem's instructions don't claim that you MUST mass load the speakers... It is optional... Hence the speakers should work well without the mass loading... Also, it is fair to point out that not everyone who buys a $3,500 speaker expects to have to put in that much effort to get it to sound good... It should sound good without the mass loading and better after... The two previous reviews in Stereophile required quite a bit of adjustment to get good sound from the Forests.... JA's (I believe) required him to put 2 bags of sand on top of the speakers, in addition to the mass loading... Not everyone wants to do that (even if only for aesthetic reasons as it kills the whole look of the Totem)....

  15. #90
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    JA doesn't even have an analogue system (at least in his published associated equipment)! His tests are a joke as even he sees on occasion! For example, his measurements of the AR VSi60 integrated amp indicated that the amp was nothing special. However, when JA reviewed the Acapella High Violoncello II ($80,000!!!), only the AR
    VSi60 made the speakers sound great! I have heard the $80,000 speaker, and was NOT impressed (but then it wasn't being driven by tubes).

  16. #91
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan
    I'm really talking about triple blind tests: those tacking the test don't know what's in the test. They are told to rate the overall sound, from highest to lowest. Yes, a given piece of equipment may have more extended lows (or highs), and still be rated below some other equipment in perceived quality. The Beringer Private Reserve is darker, higher in alcohol, and higher in the use of oak, than their $11 cab (all easily determined). The blind testers still preferred the $11 wine over the $120 one. I have heard that many prefer the Magnapan 1.7 over the 20.1, at 5 times the price. One of the salesmen at the Audio Note room at the CAS admitted that he preferred the J to the various E speakers in most smaller rooms, like the one at the CAS.
    Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...

  17. #92
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Great point, Ajani!
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  18. #93
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...
    The exact same thing happens to "wine lovers". They all too often
    learn to rate high alcoholic, dark, low acidic, fruit bombs highly, just like Parker and the Wine Spectator do. These wines are just horrible with food. Many expensive, thousand watt amps are crap if you actually listen to them. Ditto for $10,000 CD players and $50,000 ss amps. I asked 5 women at the recent CAS what was their favorite room and 4 replied "the audio note" room!!! They did NOT hesitate to answer. It was my second favorite room, but then they were not playing analogue, and I DO have a preference for analogue.

  19. #94
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan
    The exact same thing happens to "wine lovers". They all too often
    learn to rate high alcoholic, dark, low acidic, fruit bombs highly, just like Parker and the Wine Spectator do. These wines are just horrible with food. Many expensive, thousand watt amps are crap if you actually listen to them. Ditto for $10,000 CD players and $50,000 ss amps. I asked 5 women at the recent CAS what was their favorite room and 4 replied "the audio note" room!!! They did NOT hesitate to answer. It was my second favorite room, but then they were not playing analogue, and I DO have a preference for analogue.
    It's too bad AN didn't bring their turntable rig to CAS. They brought it to CES last year and it was the best vinyl sound I have ever heard. The Voyd inspired TT3 was no slouch and went head to head with most out there.

    Of course I will never afford one. Fortunately there is a guy in town who just got the new TT3 and this reminds me that I should give him a ring to see if I can audition it. AN usually at least brings a TT1 - And it usually sounds awesome considering how damn simple it is. check out the TT3 reviewed by Hi-Critic and they compare it to the best CD and DSD and SACD and well read it yourself :-) http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/...s/HFC10_AN.pdf
    Last edited by RGA; 01-08-2011 at 10:57 PM.

  20. #95
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan
    Yes, this is what I am looking for! I need to look into zero feedback amps. Need to get Hi-Fi Choice.
    Somehow this strikes me has hypocritical. The guy who doesn't care about specific characteristics, only about the overall impression, the big picture, is searching for amps of a specific characteristic, zero-feedback.

  21. #96
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Interesting analogy... It leaves me wondering if we (audiophiles) train ourselves to "like" products that the average Joe wouldn't like...
    I would not generalize what an "audiophile" likes. Some of us are into truth, others are into what they perceive as "beautiful" regardless of how euphonic the sound is.

    For example;

    Zero-feedback amps ALL have high levels of second order harmonic distortion. SET amps ALL have reactive impedance loading issues, yet this doesn't stop audiophiles from seeking these flawed designs out. Even calling them preferable to more realistic and truthful-to-the-original-sound (High Fidelity) systems.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  22. #97
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    Yes there has been a lot of debate around the Totem review... However, some valid claims are also made by EL about his review: First Totem's instructions don't claim that you MUST mass load the speakers... It is optional... Hence the speakers should work well without the mass loading... Also, it is fair to point out that not everyone who buys a $3,500 speaker expects to have to put in that much effort to get it to sound good... It should sound good without the mass loading and better after... The two previous reviews in Stereophile required quite a bit of adjustment to get good sound from the Forests.... JA's (I believe) required him to put 2 bags of sand on top of the speakers, in addition to the mass loading... Not everyone wants to do that (even if only for aesthetic reasons as it kills the whole look of the Totem)....
    Actually the claims are IN-valid. ALL thin tall speakers will have much better (lower) harmonic distortion if braced in some way. (why I use Sound Anchor stands for my maggies) While I'm not expecting people to have an engineering degree, I would expect someone who has the wherewithal to afford $3500 speakers to see this as self evident.

    Atkinson is one of the most demanding reviewers in the world. The Totems worked fine without the sandbags, but JA wanted to push the envelope of what mass loading can do for a speaker of this design. Totem uses much more attractive "Beaks" to achieve this. The problem with the beaks is that you have to understand the principle of them and adjust them accordingly. The reviewer didn't have a clue about them, not did he even bother to call Totem to ask. Very unprofessional.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  23. #98
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    So answer me this (this is directed to those who object to blind listening): would you buy a piece of audio equipment that sounded inferior to some other (using your favorite music; yes, use a wide selection)? Based on measurements and/or recommendations of some "expert"?
    I just don't get it. Many wine snobs buy all of Parker's 100 point wines (must be perfect, right?). I bet few, if any, would pick a 100 point wine, tasted blind, from 7 others (most MUCH less expensive). I regularly go to a blind tasting wine group, and we have NEVER rated a Parker 100 point wine #1.

    If you listen blind, and rate the music blind, and prefer say a 5 watt SET amp over a 1000 watt ss one, would you go out any buy the ss amp based either on measurements or someone else's recommendation? YOU must drink the wine and listen to the music. Why NOT buy what you like best?

  24. #99
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan
    So answer me this (this is directed to those who object to blind listening): would you buy a piece of audio equipment that sounded inferior to some other (using your favorite music; yes, use a wide selection)? Based on measurements and/or recommendations of some "expert"?
    I just don't get it. Many wine snobs buy all of Parker's 100 point wines (must be perfect, right?). I bet few, if any, would pick a 100 point wine, tasted blind, from 7 others (most MUCH less expensive). I regularly go to a blind tasting wine group, and we have NEVER rated a Parker 100 point wine #1.

    If you listen blind, and rate the music blind, and prefer say a 5 watt SET amp over a 1000 watt ss one, would you go out any buy the ss amp based either on measurements or someone else's recommendation? YOU must drink the wine and listen to the music. Why NOT buy what you like best?
    When it comes to high end gear I know of nobody who buys gear that they don't think sounds superior in some way. Some people dip their fillet Mignon in catchup too.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  25. #100
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
    When it comes to high end gear I know of nobody who buys gear that they don't think sounds superior in some way. Some people dip their fillet Mignon in catchup too.
    And I, of course, think YOU are dipping YOUR steak in catchup with ss and digital!!! I bet you bought into the CD sound from the beginning! Yes, it's improved, but IMO it still falls far short of analogue. Ditto for ss vs tubes. BTW, you are COMPLETELY incorrect that people do not buy either wine OR audio equipment based on some "expert" recommendation, rather on actually listening and rating blind the units in question.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •