| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
October 10, 2008 - 10:56am
#1
Better than components that cost twice as much!
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
That would indeed be a useful list.
Make it easy on yourself, just consider whatever you are hearing to be better than what's twice as expensive and never buy anything that isn't half as cheap as that piece of equipment. You'll save yourself a lot of money and eventually get bored with this hobby. But you won't have a lot of expensive gear sitting around unused when you move on to cameras, wine, cars, etc.
Yes, well, my general point is that the claim is dubious and disingenuous unless they have something specific in mind.
They probably do. But the point is their opinions are subjective and meant to convey the high points of the product under review. That same product might not perform as well as other items costing just as much if you are not listening for those strong points. A little of this and not so much of that ... you have an audio product. You hear some of this and I hear some of that ... if we all agreed on what we heard from each piece of equipment playing any particular piece of music, we would all own just a handful of items and Stereophile would be a yearly list rather than a monthly review magazine.
Quite often a Stereophile reviewer will do a short synopsis of the product under review and make brief comparisons to other product's strengths and weaknesses. Sam Tellig doesn't make such comparisons. Which approach you prefer is subjective.
The final point here is this is a hobby and you are putting together a system not a collection of pieces. Go out and listen for yourself to determine which products perform above their pay grade and which do not in your own opinion, not that of a reviewer. The more you hear, the more you'll know.
At least dubious.
This is just another example of Salvatore's THE (SECRET) RULES OF 'AUDIO REVIEWING' in action. Now, I'm not a fan of Salvatore. I find him verbose and boring, and think he's a rather poor writer. However, I think he makes some really good points in that list.
In forums like Critic's Corner over at AA, people bringing up this list, or views similar to those expressed in the list, are often characterized as conspiracy theorists. That's the standard debating technique over there. I think there is some (very) small kernel of truth to that view. However, rather than being a conspiracy, the recurring appearance of cases that match almost perfectly with Salvatore's "Rules" is just an example of how people and organizations will tend to act in their own self-interest. There's a fine line here. Magazine XYZ needs to convince its readers that it is acting in their best interests, yet it must do so without alienating the industry that makes its own existence possible. When push comes to shove, I have my doubts that any high end audio magazine would subject itself to what e.g. Consumer Reports did in their 1970s review of the Bose 901 that led to a lawsuit that took ten years to settle.
This situation ultimately leads to the need for the reader to "read between the lines" in a review. This makes reviews considerably less useful than they could be. I don't see that situation ever changing.
The situation changes when the reader makes the effort to change how they absorb information.
"WAHHHHHHH, I want someone to spoon feed me model numbers of what to buy!!!!!"
"WAHHHHHHH, the magazines and manufacturers and retailers are all conspiring against me."
WAHHHHHHHH, I bought what they recommended and it doesn't sound like I want it to."
For God's sake, take some responsibility for what you know and how you learn it. So many people want to complain about how this hobby is written about and carried out without ever thinking about anyone but themself.
Learn about products.
Learn about music.
Learn about the reviewers whose salaries you are supporting by buying a magazine.
Stop complaining!
Start a positive campaign to enrich your life rather than sitting in a dark room posting negative comments about how your life sucks because of someone else!
If you are a day old neophyte to the high end audio world, you have an excuse for ignorance. But from that first day you have a personal responsibility to learn something that will improve your life. Learning about the reviewer's prejudices and their listening space(s) along with how they write will only improve your ability to disseminate information. But that would involve effort and work. Something our society and the audio community in general abhors.
Would it kill you to go out and listen to some live music so you might establish a reference point? How much harm can you inflict on yourself by listening to systems other than your own? Would it kill you to understand AD and JA have personal experiences with live music and the act of creating music and yet do not share exactly similar views of what a system should promote?
The problem is not in the writing of the reviewer nor the editorial policies of the magazine, it is in the non-comprehension of the reader and the unwillingness to change that situation.
But then this wouldn't be the Stereophile forum if we had something good to say about audio.
It's your life. Live it in the dark or screw in a light bulb.
I know where I'd like to screw in that light bulb.
How many Californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
None, Californians screw in hot tubs.
Jan - so you don't read reviews at all? Why be spoonfed information? Just get off your lazy butt and review it yourself.
I expect reviews to give me accurate information in a simple and informative way.
This is the same line I hear for people in the legal profession (and other technical fields) when people argue for using simple language, rather than useless technical jargon. Their response is "these people want to be spoonfed!!" The response: YES! And they should be! I read a review to be spoonfed information! Obviously, if I reviewed every single item myself, I wouldn't have to read the review. Now, I don't rely 100% on reviews (that is foolish), but rather use them to narrow down my pick.
When you say that statements force you to read between the lines, it you're endorsing a writing style that throws the reader off the trail, so they have to think more. No. That is clearly not the purpose of writing.
My point stands. My hypothesis is that there is only so much hyperbole you can use in a review, so this statement is oft repeated, but the reviewers don't really think about it (i.e., the REVIEWER is being lazy). You're taking my point to be something much more ambitious.
"And I can see Russia from my house!"
Judicata,
Don't take Jan seriously. Most of us have him on ignore or learned to simply ignore him. He does not want to understand your position. In fact, he will make active effort not to do so to prolong any argument he can generate. (BTW, he also sends nasty PMs. If you happen to hear from him, just delete the message.)
OTH, I agree with you. Some reviewers are excellent, but many rely on hyperbole and idiomatic cliche. One should never be forced to read between the lines to understand a review.
Unless the reviewer happens to also be an excellent poet.
I have no idea how you came out of your rabbit hole with the thought I don't read reviews. You must have ignored everything I said, dashed down the hole and become extremely confused about who said what and when it was said. I did not make the statement about reading between the lines, it was andyc who posted, "This situation ultimately leads to the need for the reader to 'read between the lines' in a review. This makes reviews considerably less useful than they could be. I don't see that situation ever changing." It was that response to which I replied with a get-up-off-your-butt summation.
I'm not suggesting you review a product yourself. I am advocating you go listen to other systems and components and real music for yourself. Is that too much to ask?
I don't believe it is, not if you are interested in audio or you are a music lover or you share both interests for that matter. Go listen for yourself. Make your own decisions. Once you do so you will have the intellectual capacity to declare such hyperbole as mere piffle! What better way to make yourself feel superior to another human being than to reject their thoughts as nothing more than balderdash, bunkum and juvenile twaddle? Try it, you might like it.
I share your desire for accurate and informative writing. But this is a subjective review we are discussing. Accuracy is not a matter of numbers and decimal points nor facts to be checked against one another. Accuracy in this field is relating your experience with this particular product reproducing music in your own home. Whatever degree of "accuracy" we can expect therefore is based upon the reviewer's and the reader's experiences. That would place half the burden upon the reader - you. So get up off your butt and do your job. The rest of us are waiting for you to catch up.
Is there someone you feel doesn't provide accurate information when writing for Stereophile? Is this some sort of generic rant about your frustrations or do you have specific issues to discuss with the Stereophile staff? I would think if you provided specific examples of your frustration we would be on better ground for a real discussion. As is your disagreement is substantially more generic than any bit of lazy writing on the part of the Stereophile writing staff. Give specifics and let's discuss them. Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement amongst all of us instead of me seing this as just another "WAHHHHHHHHHH" thread.
Really?!!! You wish to be spoonfed information?!
Oh, my!!!
I'm not sure what to say. You would have a terible time if you were to pick up a copy of the US Constitution, or Shakespeare or even a theater review. I guess this is where we part company. I read to be challenged and not to have my brain anesthetized. If you prefer mindless drivel spoonfed to you, you might try "Electronic Home" or one of the objective review magazines with more charts than text.
We are clear that I did not say you should "read between the lines", right? My experience with people who do so leads me to believe reading between the lines can be exceptionally dangerous when you do not truly realize what exists within the lines. So you won't catch me suggesting you read anywhere but where your eyes belong in the first place. Nope! Not me.
What I am suggesting is that you become familiar with what is being written about. If you would pursue that path, I believe you will find your reading will take you down far fewer rabbit holes and you'll make not quite as many wrong turns off the path. You will begin to see the writing style more as a tree with many branches, any one of which might be an outgrowth to the main trunk of the review, all of which rely on the trunk for sustenance. Knowing which branch has the ripest fruit will serve you well - but gaining that knowledge will require some effort on your part. You might have to crawl out on a limb a ways to try the fruit before you can establish which limbs are heavy with sweet, tasty fruit and which are barren. IMO that is the purpose of good writing. Poor writing leaves you without questions simply because there have been no challenges made of your intellect. Your own driver's license becomes a tale of misconceptions and misrepresentations. The only good news here is you can curl up with a good telephone directory.
Well, yes, I suppose you can stomp your feet and throw a fit until you get your way but that won't serve much purpose either. I cannot apologize for perferring something ambitious over something vapid.
Possibly, if you could provide an example of something specifically hoary and platitudinous we could all agree to have the writer taken out and lashed to a degree of excrutiating pain that would be equivalent in some ways to someone with twice as much fortitude.
Elk, you've repeated and repeated this bit about my sending you PM's. To my recollection I have only ever sent you one PM. That was to ask why you were being such a PITA in the "size" thread. To my further recollection you didn't have a reply, which I took as a complete answer to my question. Oh, well, good to see you're being consistent if nothing else - and there is nothing else you are being.
Has that light bulb been screwed in tight enough?
Incredible post. Suggestion - chill out and take my comment for what it was. I mean, it was posted in the "Rants and Raves" section, correct? I did not attack any particular individual, but simply noted that this certain phrase comes up time and time again, and I have my doubts as to its veracity, and suggested that it is probably hyperbole. Of course I cannot prove the statement is incorrect for the reason that I have no idea what other item the reviewer is thinking about. If they did so identify, I of course would be more than happy to listen to them both and agree or disagree.
I sarcastically suggested you didn't read reviews, because you apparently despise being spoonfed information. Why read reviews at all?
Is it too much to ask people to listen to stuff? Heck no! I apologize if I ever suggested that. But, as you agreed, reviews are supposed to be helpful.
Good writing should spoonfeed people. It really is that simple. People should wrestle with - and challenge - the ideas conveyed in the writing. They should not have to wrestle with the language to try to determine what the heck the writer is trying to say. Any lawyer, judge, or scholar worth his salt will tell you this. I read the Constitution, statutes, court opinions, and codes, and contracts all day. A shockingly high number of disputes arise out of unclear language in a contract, statute, or regulation in which someone did not adequately spoonfeed the information they were trying to convey (i.e. it was unclear). See also most major Supreme Court Constitutional cases.
The phrase sounds good - that is why it is so often repeated - but in the end it is really meaningless unless substantiated.
In sum, I am expressing my annoyance at the use of a phrase of questionable value. Do I find it annoying because I'm lazy or not a thinker? If you knew me, I seriously doubt you'd jump to that conclusion. I find it annoying because it is empty rhetoric, and is used to buttress a review's conclusions while really adding nothing. But I'm expressing an annoyance (a rant or rave, if you will), I'm not basing my Presidential campaign on the issue.
For the record, I apologize for attributing the "read between the lines" statement to you - I misread. But, it was still an implication of your previous statements.
Jan, you are consistent; deliberately misstating what others post, condescending and unnecessarily nasty. This is why we ignore you.
I have no clue what you stated in your PM to me. Your reputation for nastiness in PMs preceded its receipt so I ignored it as others advised. A non-reply is just that - a non-reply.
Back to ignoring you. Judicata can easily handle you on his own.
Hola,
I have an answer to this question that is my own, but might help...
I think there are two ways of saying, "Advances the state of the art."
One way is to actually extend the state of the art, going where no product has gone before. This is usually in the realm of cost no object components, and we're all pretty much comfortable with this trend.
The other way of saying "advances the state of the art" is by pointing out that a new, much cheaper component now sounds as good (or better) than gear that costs twice the price.
When a reviewer says that, I don't think so much along the lines of "What gear at twice the price?" I take it as meaning that the more expensive gear just had a piece of cheaper kit enter its realm of performance, and puts the makers of the more expensive gear on notice.
"As good as something twice the price" tells me that the state of the art has been extended at a given price point.
Cheers.
upd, you've been on persistent "ignore" for so long I barely remember you exist. However, I am confident whatever you posted did not deviate at all from your excedingly poor standards of communication.
Don't waste your time responding to me, upd, you are writing - if one can call it that - only for your own amusement. Though I suppose if I lived your life and had your system, I'd want a laugh every now and again too.
Sir, I've been chilled for quite some time now. I was unaware threads posted in the "Rants and Raves" section were not open to dissenting opinions. Where did you read that bit of information and are you certain it was not meant for a thread that is at least twice as important as "Rants and Raves"?
Elk, poor boy, I don't send PM's. I've probably sent no more than a half dozen since I joined the forum. You should offer your services to the McCain campaign, they are running out of lies to tell.
I take it you've not caught on to the fact I have been ignoring most of you for the longest time.
At one time I offered you a truce, we could stop the nastiness and start over afresh. You didn't want that deal. So let's just stick to ignoring each other and you can cease with the unsolicited insults.
How about it? Think you can hold up your end of that deal?
Buddha, with nothing specific to groan about and this thread just hanging there, I would agree with your assessment. Good post. That should keep the natives happy for awhile.
Good point Buddha. I had not thought of that, and I will look to that next when I read such statements. My hypothesis is that good, seasoned reviewers are more likely to intend it to mean that, while careless ones are likely just using hyperbole.
I completely agree with you. The first rule of writing: say what you mean and mean what you say.
Speaking of saying what one means, seems as though Jan is back with a nasty case of verbal diarrhea. Welcome back, Jan. Feel better soon.
+1
However the phrase remains overused, but not quite to the extant of veil lifting.
And I dissent from your dissenting opinion. Want to dissent from my dissent of your dissent? We can keep going.
My point is that you criticized my statement for being a complaint. Well, yes, it is. And it is posted in the appropriate forum.
Alex, it's so disappointing to see you still have nothing but negative remarks in your keyboard.
Oh, and you're still an immoral reprobate. Otherwise, thanks for the welcome back, but you're still being ignored too. Once you all decide there are positive things to comment on, maybe we can establish something to discuss. As is, you guys are about as much fun as watching a worm crawl across a dry Texas sidewalk. You know the outcome in advance and there's no point is sticking around waiting for it to happen.
Very good. Have a nice life.
Please take DUP with you.
What part of "i-g-n-o-r-e" don't you get?
upd is all yours since you and he seem to have become brethern, both ready to sling insults whenever you approach this forum. Just what is your problem, Elk. I've offered a truce, I've offered to ignore you and yet all you can do is come up with insults.
And for what reason?
Because I didn't march lockstep in agreement with you on one thread.
At one point I thought you were a smart person with a good amount of information to add to this forum. Then I disagreed with you and you decided I am unworthy to share the space where you post on every thread - whether you have anything to say or not. And there's no point in even adding Alex's idiocy to the mix. You and he are about as insulting as it gets on this forum. Thank God there's still upd to keep you two from being at the very bottom of the pig sty, eh?
This forum is teeming with negative threads and people who really only want to insult the other members. Half your posts on this thread alone are insulting. I prefer to ignore the juvenile stupidity of the group who are consumed with the constant negativity this forum has to offer. So I've avoided the likes of you and a few others.
Everyone is encouraged to see upd as a laughable goon who can do no harm. And then the forum begins to fill up with more negative threads and more threads started by upd repeating the exact same three motives he has driven into the ground for the past four years.
And you still see yourself as the only sane one here?! All the while being just as guilty of insulting behavior as he is.
I did not enter the first insult on this thread, you did, and you want to keep it coming with no provocation on my part. You just can't resist an opportunity for an insult, and from what I can tell it is just for your own amusement. Tell me how that's any different from what upd does.
You are incapable of a discussion at this point. You post inanities and insults. That's what I expect to see from Elk now days. Good ol' Elk, the jerk who just keeps on giving!
Obviously you don't want a truce and obviously you cannot maintain your part of any agreement to ignore each other. What's left? I'm not going away, just avoiding the negative contributions that abound on this forum as best as I can.
So what's it going to take to get you to behave like an adult while I'm on this forum? I'm here for a discussion of audio. What are you here for?
If you don't like the way I discuss audio, that's kind of too bad since this is a public forum. Why don't you just pull your panties out of your crack and get on with coexistence? Or, you can continue to make a fool out of yourself and post things no one else cares about.
Gee, that sounds just like upd!
Jan, you stated that there is "no point is sticking around."
I merely wished you well as you left.
You are a liar and a lunatic not to mention being a coward. A trifecta of poor personal qualities!
Man- you really know how to get right in there express your "feelings", Jan. But really, how can someone be a liar AND a lunatic? I mean, if they were crazy, how would they know what was the truth anyway? And as for being a coward, wouldn't that also be mitigated by the insanity argument?
Now in your case I'd say we mostly have a combination of paranoia and an unheathy attraction to pain. But remember: Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't actually out to get you!
Is that another one of those things "everyone knows"?
Jan, if you are going to leave, leave.
If you are going to stay, stay and add positive contributions.
Please simply pick one.
As already recognized I am too cowardly to lie, and enough of a lunatic to be unaware if I have.
And it's too fun to spend the autumn in rut to be worrying about such things.
LOL Well, that was uplifting. I'm glad you're carrying the banner of positivity.
Jan
"Take that underwear off your head, enh? Enough is enough."
Lets continue.
Jan, please, this kind of talk is unnecessary. And you really don't have to remind people that you're ignoring them, that they needn't respond to you, etc.; it's very childish and unproductive.
That said, I do think you understand the intent of judicata's original post, and I do think you make some very valid points. At the same time, I appreciate and, to some degree, agree with judicata's opinion; I think all writers, especially professional reviewers, need to be reminded to communicate clearly, and I will strive to keep this in mind myself.
However, I do think there's a place to meet somewhere in the middle, which is exactly where Buddha directed us.
The ever wise Buddha.
Judicata, your in your first year of law school, yes? How is legal writing going? It surprises many that the primary goals of legal writing are clarity and pithiness.
Thank goodness no. I'm in my second year of practice.
On second thought, maybe I would rather be in my first year of law school...
It surprises most people because legal writing has an earned reputation of being convoluted and using waaaay to many "hereinafters" and "whereintofores" (using these words once is too much). This probably stems partially from a desire to keep the "uninitiated" from understanding what the heck is going on, or to sound like you belong to a profession (the same reason cops say "proceeded to pursue the perp on foot" rather than "then I ran after the guy") But, when you think about it, you are either writing for clients or judges, neither of whom have time to waste figuring out what you're trying to say. If you're writing to opposition, you might just tick off the judge by obfuscating (and it is just dishonest). I've learned that the best legal writers are just good writers.
My favorite is at the dinner table: "Wonderful looking green beans. Please pass said green beans."
Perhaps it is another forum member who is just learning how to read 500+ pages each night.
Yep, it was another newcomer too. I forgot who said person was, though.
Lamont Sanford: Hey, New York, you ever been to that there Cotton Club?
DUP: The Cotton Club in Manhattan? Many times, man, I damn near lived in the Cotton Club. I tell you, the Cotton Club is all right. But it ain't got nothin' on The Boom Boom Room. If you ever go to New York, go to DUP's Boom Boom Room.
Jan Vigne: Hey there, DUP! What's that you talkin' about, the Boom-Boom Room?
DUP: That's my spot, DUP's Boom-Boom Room, the most happening space in all of Manhattan.
Elk: Ha ha, so you got your own nightclub?
DUP: Well, right now it's kinda in the development stage, but I'm workin' on it, I'll get it.
Buddha: So it don't exist.
DUP: It exists in my mind, Buddha; that's where it starts. It starts in your brain first. You know, it got to exist up here first. "As a man think it, so then shall he get", you know, some shit like that. You know you read the Bible.
I seen that movie just recently, I'm can't recall the name, LIFE? With the funny dudes. Good movie