audio reviews

[timm]

So I went to the TAS online area - and I looked at Jonathon Valin's review on the 3.7... He talks about better coherence and the lack of 'Maggie grain'...a vast improvement over the 3 and 20 lines.... I find it interesting that when he reviewed the 20.1 he never mentioned this. All he said was it was the best speaker money could buy / best soundstage / best coherent top to bottom speaker etc....etc... etc.... Now apparently there was some lack of coherence and grain which the 3.7 solves? He also mentions the problem with the ribbon on the Maggies making itself noticed...(i.e. the coherency issue).... He makes some point about this causing a problem with the speakers disappearing....

WHAT???? These guys have never written anything like that about the old models before - at least what I have found. Is this just an article to justify the 3.7 over the other lines???

 

[User211]

Just don't take reviews too seriously. I just spent a weekend listening to a myriad of systems using tech from the 1930s onwards - and they for the most part all sounded from pretty good to just plain excellent.

The majority of the hi-fi press tries to convince you the latest is the greatest but it is, IMHO, absolute and utter BS. It just isn't the case, and the proof is out there - but not so easy to listen to, usually, unless you get busy on the 'Gon or feebay, or go to events.

I've just had my head reset again by some restored ESL57s and some Celestion 66s (1970s) which were and are still both absolutely fantastic.

They can't listen for you. Use reviews to derive shortlists only, I think.

 

[JMAUSGP]

Just don't take reviews too seriously. I just spent a weekend listening to a myriad of systems using tech from the 1930s onwards - and they for the most part all sounded from pretty good to just plain excellent.

The majority of the hi-fi press tries to convince you the latest is the greatest but it is, IMHO, absolute and utter BS. It just isn't the case, and the proof is out there - but not so easy to listen to, usually, unless you get busy on the 'Gon or feebay, or go to events.

I've just had my head reset again by some restored ESL57s and some Celestion 66s (1970s) which were and are still both absolutely fantastic.

They can't listen for you. Use reviews to derive shortlists only, I think.

That was the most logical, coherent and layback post I have ever seen you make.

Begs just one question, who is this really and what have you done with Justin?

 

[User211]

Begs just one question, who is this really and what have you done with Justin?

More to the point - just who is Justin?

Hm... let me pause for reflection on that one...

 

[MPS]

This issue reminded of another site: http://www.high-endaudio.com/reviewers.html#Rul

 

[amey01]

Just don't take reviews too seriously. I just spent a weekend listening to a myriad of systems using tech from the 1930s onwards - and they for the most part all sounded from pretty good to just plain excellent.

The majority of the hi-fi press tries to convince you the latest is the greatest but it is, IMHO, absolute and utter BS. It just isn't the case, and the proof is out there - but not so easy to listen to, usually, unless you get busy on the 'Gon or feebay, or go to events.

I've just had my head reset again by some restored ESL57s and some Celestion 66s (1970s) which were and are still both absolutely fantastic.

They can't listen for you. Use reviews to derive shortlists only, I think.

My thoughts exactly!

It's not just a problem with hi-fi - this mentality is everywhere in our overtly consumerist, "new is best", "chuck it away and buy, buy, buy" world in which we live.

Reviews are very often just nice flowing words, and if you actually read them with any intelligence or application of what they say then they all fall apart.

I remember reading one loudspeaker review (can't remember for what speaker just now) back in the mid-'90s that stated it was a "textbook performance loudspeaker". It wasn't even that expensive from memory. Certainly not "high-end". Now, correct me, but I thought "textbook performance" meant that "theoretical perfection".

So if you take that for what it is, then there should be no need for any other speakers - this mid-fi piece of crap in the '90s achieved perfection and cannot be bettered!!

 

[Gordon Gray]

If you have followed JV's reviews over the years, you will find a common theme on the newest, latest, greatest.

This is the best

This is the best

This is the best

I'm pretty convinced he's taking advantage of his position as the TAS writer (knowingly or unknowingly) who generally reviews the top of the top.

I was in the same room at RMAF 2009 where he asked the exhibitor to play some of his reference stuff. I had no opinion since the room was large and I would guess the volume level was 75 - 80db max. I read his review about this room / equipment and the things he said were so inconceivable based on what I heard, the only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that he wanted to make disparaging remarks without any foundational basis.

If you want to read more about this, visit the "ultrahighendforum.com" website.

Posters on that site seem to support the above observations.

Reader beware!

GG