Thank you.
Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review
I’ve harped on how crappy and useless many “professional” reviews are because they lack rigor and omit critical information. This one is from TAS that is a main offender of pumping out shallow/unsupported reviews, but most of the Euro mags among others are guilty of this too IME. One key giveaway that a review is crap is that after reading it you still have little/no real understanding of what the piece under review actually sounds like or if it’s something you’d like to consider further. I mean, if a review can’t accomplish those basic elements what use is it? This review is so shallow it reads like it could’ve been written by someone who never even listened to the review sample and just made it up outta thin air. In addition to failing on this broad level, here are some other major problems with the review:
- There is no info regarding any shortcomings of this “budget” turntable — everything is positive. Sounds like it was perfect, ehem.
- There are no comparisons to another product in the same general price category or anything else.
- The reviewer doesn’t even share what equipment is in his reference system so we can at least infer what he may have based his impressions on.
In short, in addition to this review being so bad/useless for all the reasons stated it actually reads more like advertisement for the product than an actual unbiased review. I can think of nothing worse to say about a review, and sadly many reviews out there are similarly awful for the same reasons. Sorry for the rant, but especially as a former reviewer this piece of garbage pushed all my buttons and really ticked me off. What say you?
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/sota-quasar-turntable-and-pyxi-phonostage/
87 responses Add your response
@tvad Here’s a review of the same speaker that is much more rigorous and contains all the elements I mentioned before (review system, comparison, limitations) that the TAS review completely lacks As a result I find this review much more informative and provides much needed context to get a better idea of the speaker’s overall sound and character not only on an absolute but also on a relative basis. Not only do I come away with a better idea of the speaker’s sound, I have a much better idea if this is a product I’d be interested in pursuing further that I could not as clearly discern from the other review, and isn’t that really the point of reading a review? All that said, it should be apparent how much more time and effort it takes to produce a review of this caliber as opposed to just spewing superlatives in a bubble with absolutely no context whatsoever. Like I said earlier, the TAS review is much easier/faster to produce but is much less useful or effective IMO. Hope this comes through for you too and that this clarifies things a bit. https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1859-goldenear-t66-loudspeaker |
| Post removed |
@tvad Its not about perspective, it’s about a review containing basic critical elements that make it truly informative, thorough, and ultimately more useful. Pretty much any review will be more effective if it includes a discussion of a product’s limitations or potential shortcomings (all products have them), comparisons to another product, and the equipment in the reviewer’s system used during the review. This is basic stuff any rigorous review should include and none of which this review does. I can attach another review but don’t feel it’s necessary as the problems here are just in this review’s multiple deficiencies and omissions that make it basically useless — it’s just a guy waxing poetic about the wonderful sound of a product in a bubble. It’s a lazy, useless piece of drivel that can be cranked out in a matter of a couple hours because it requires none of the discipline, time, or effort to assess and include these other critical elements in the review. The benefits to TAS of these “reviews” is they can produce more reviews more quickly while avoiding any accountability or scrutiny because there’s no check and balance on a review’s opinions and assertions. The ability to generate ad dollars is tangible while the tangible benefits to the reader are minimal. |
As a follow-up, here’s another crap review by the same reviewer that I only read out of morbid curiosity as I never bother reading TAS “reviews” (aka product ads) anymore, but at least this is a little more like a review than just a pure product ad (although it’s pretty damn close to one). But still and yet again, in the end I have very little idea of what the speaker actually sounds like, which is about the worst thing that can be said about a review. It is so generic it reads like it could’ve been written without even listening to the speakers at all, and all he does throughout the review is extoll the speaker’s apparent virtues in a bubble and reveals no limitations or qualifications whatsoever so apparently they’re perfect!?! On top of that he never compares them to anything else or even bothers to disclose what speakers or any other equipment is in his reference system!!! It’s ridiculous and about as rigorous and thorough as your typical crappy youtube video review, but sadly this type of unsubstantiated and basically useless garbage is par for the course at TAS so this dude fits their mold to a “T.” |
The problem is that people confuse at least three vocabulary : Audiophile vocabulary. Acoustic vocabulary. Musical vocabulary.
The most important concept in hearing acoustic about playback system experience in a room, or about live performance listening in a great Hall is listener envelopment and his relation with the auditory source width LV/ASW. ( crosstalk with playback system and timbre are the other two) Now if we try to understand what it is and how to control the related physical parameters reading audio threads or audiophiles magazine we will go nowhere...😊
During the solar storm this week end i just put my final important last device to create this LV/ASW ratio in my system/room. ( i already created it in my first room/system few years ago) The first time it was a grid of many resonators located in a bigger room.Now it was a single but more complex resonator with two other smaller resonators inside and many little open one around it.. *I put this complex closed Helmholtz resonators behind my listening position , I created it with an abandoned long big plastic pipe i pick walking. 😊With cardboard and many types of straws, i inserted in the tube two others smaller resonator tubes of different lenght. I also inserted around it open tubes resonators without absorbing floor. I tuned them by ears. The result was so stunning that no other modification could compare, even the two big modification on my speakers, nor the isolation/coupling damping load for the speakers, nor the shielding of EMI nor the introduction of a tube preamplification etc , Nothing compare in impact for the listener envelopment factor improvement and auditory source width ratio improvement as with this resonator set. And i winned also at the end with a better "timbre" experience. ( acoustic passive treatment with a balance between absorption reflection and diffusion is not enough.Resonators are active not passive treatment of a room pressure zone distribution ) Helmholtz resonators are not only absorbing some frequencies band they also are diffusor for some frequencies band ... And open resonators are powerful diffusor... Cost : peanuts... Reading about acoustic vocabulary and concept matter the most ...Experimenting is funnier than buying and more rewarding.
By the way i get this idea about putting a resonator inside a resonator by contemplating my room : two speakers especially with porthole are simple Helmholtz resonators which are in a room open with a door then the entire room is a resonator with speakers resonators INSIDE it. My two ears canals are also resonators ... I decided to create a resonator inside another one. 😊 |
"Every specialist interest has its jargon" Very true. The audiophile descriptions of many things sound a bit creepy to me. Not sure how a speaker can sound syrupy but I did see that as a description... I don't get too involved with much of the audiophilery stuff. I'm more of an enthusiast, at least for the last 50 years or so. Thanks for the comment!
Thanks for your comment! All the best everyone! |
Language is the very foundation of rational thought. With an increasingly abundant and nuanced language surrounding a subject a person is able to perceive and understand more, as well as communicate to others. Specialized language is not designed to keep others out, but on the contrary to allow others in… to teach and allow quick learning. Pre-existing language is the foundation used to teach so each person does not have to learn everything themselves. To take gross attributes and break them into more elemental pieces and allow them to be communicated among practitioners and help introduce newcomers to the nuances of a discipline.
@dogberry I would recommend starting a thread. Something like, could someone help me understand the term “air” as used in audio. |
The reviewer wrote " it’s strength is Pace, Rhythm, and Timing." How can a machine that is supposed to spin the recording at a constant, specific speed provide that? Is that not the responsibility of the musicians? Pace: This refers to the tempo of music. Rhythm: Rhythm encompasses more than just tempo. It involves elements like time signature, phrasing, syncopation, and accents. Timing: This is where things get interesting. Musicians rely on precise timing to sync with each other. (thanks google) |
@mschott But it’s not even a review — it’s nothing more than an ad disguised as a “review.” And as for the readers of this thing not being high-end consumers, how many entry-level buyers is crap like this really gonna attract or maintain as subscribers for TAS? Then again it’s sadly not all that much more useless than their usual pandering fluff reviews so it’s not totally out of character for this rag — I’ll give you that. |
It needs to be said that Drew Kalbach’s role at TAS is to review lower end, relatively inexpensive products and relate them to the appropriate target market. He’s younger and the newest reviewer for them. I guarantee the readers of his reviews are not using higher end components. His system is not as relevant. |
I read about three paragraphs and then had to stop. Fluff piece or not, the writing is poor. I actually enjoy good review writing on it’s own merits. It adds to the entertainment and keeps you focused on the product. The sentences are short and inelegant. Much of the focus is on contemporary cliches that have nothing to do with audio. I have a 24 year old son. He is doing great and I am proud of him, but sometimes I worry about the latest generation. I think it is a product of teaching trends that don’t effectively build critical thinking skills. |
I subscribed to TAS, STEREOPHILE, and any other audio mags I could get starting >40 years ago. And of course, I've read a ton of 1/2-baked reviews in that time. Rather than trash this or that reviewer, I'd rather talk about one who is far above the others IMO: STEREOPHILE's Herb Reichert. First, he's an excellent, engaging writer--always thinking how his lead will tie to his conclusion and what should go between the two. Second, though he's a boomer like me, Herb spends little time in reveries about his own audio past; when he does mention his audio past, it's to make a point that lands very much in the present day. And finally, he's better at the impossible task of describing sound itself than any review I can think of. Writing is hard. Hearing well and describing what you hear is also hard. Reviewing is very hard. |
It may be surprizing to read some article from the past : https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm |
This has been discussed many times. TAS, Stereophile and others always publish glowing reviews. A careful read though gives you subtle clues that the reviewer liked his other equipment better. They live on advertising, and what manufacturer wants to lend out a review sample of some $40K preamp or speakers, only to get slammed in the review? Sure, I read the reviews all the time, but I look for owners' experiences much more than TAS. Of course, someone who just bought some expensive piece of equipment will want to like it and will want to distinguish it from whatever they had, as well. Just once I would like to see TAS or Stereophile say that the product is OK, but for $45K, it is not close to much less expensive equipment! |
@lewm Agreed. A constant cleaning device like you describe should only slightly slow the platter and the Condor would be able to compensate for it as long as it was applied before the speed is "synched" (less than 0.005 RPM error). After that point, if the speed error is greater than 0.025 RPM, it will be considered abnormal and will be ignored. At start up, the first 4 revs are ignored as the platter comes up to speed, then it usually takes a half dozen revs (at a cold start) after that to synch the speed. This whole mechanism is reset every time the platter is stopped or the speed/tempo adjust is changed. |
"This turntable is gorgeous—its plinth is made from MDF wrapped in 2¼”-thick American walnut" This is about where I stopped trusting the author. Details matter as does critical thinking. It appears he combined different sections of SOTA's website which states (somewhat misleadingly IMO):
Who has ever heard of a 2.25" veneer? Where else has he not appropriately attended to details? |
Phoenix, On your comment about my comment that the record brush should not slow down the TT speed, I think when I wrote that I was interpreting the reviewer to mean that he uses a brush that rides the LP on its own "arm", as the LP plays. There are some products like that, some of which claim to remove static charge along the way. I would expect the Eclipse ensemble to overcome that level of constant drag. But I do agree, and do experience, that a record brush can slow down my Phoenix/Roadrunner-powered Lenco, when I momentarily apply pressure to remove dust from an LP surface prior to play. When the brush is removed, the system equilibrates back to set speed within a few revolutions of the platter. |
I agree with the OP that the TAS review lacks substance which is a real shame as there are technical specs in the Pyxi manual as well as several frequency response and noise plots that might put a little more meat on the bones of this review.
The circuit of the Pyxi was designed by Wyn Palmer and he has published a very erudite white paper about the design as well as his personal philosophy on what makes a good phono stage and the science of psycho-acoustics. It leans more technical than the review but is still a good read for anyone interested in the subject (the paper is about the Acrux phono stage which has not gone into production but is closely related to the Pyxi in design and execution):
|
@phoenixengr Point well taken. Truth be told I haven’t read PTA reviews in a while but used to like his reviews back when he was on his own, so I probably shouldn’t have included them cause I’m not very familiar with their current reviews/writing staff. Thanks for the redirect. |
@lewm wrote:
This is misconception on the part of the reviewer. The Condor/RR corrects for speed drift over time, it cannot adjust for the amount of drag that is applied with a record brush. All belt drive tables will have this phenomenon due to belt creep. Even the most powerful direct drive tables will loose speed synch if enough drag is applied. None of this should happen while the stylus is in the groove.
In fact, one of the techniques that the Condor uses is NOT to apply correction in the presence of "unusual" amounts of drag; if we did, the speed would suddenly shoot up when the record brush is removed and would take longer to come back down to normal. By not applying correction, the speed will slow while the brush is applied but will quickly return to normal as soon as the brush is removed. |
@jimmyblues1959 Exactly. And this is why doing product comparisons in a review is so important. When a reviewer just shares what he thinks about a product in isolation (as TAS habitually does) we’re only getting his take based on his ears. But when the product is compared to something else we get a sense of relative differences, which I find adds very important context that can help us as readers form a clearer perspective of the sound of the review product regardless of how the reviewer hears things. In other words, a comparison acts like a check and balance on the reviewer’s individual opinion and provides for a much more approachable and ultimately more useful review for the reader. However, if you’ve read a reviewer long enough you get a sense of how he hears so you can compensate somewhat for his biases and still possibly glean some useful information out of the review, but this is still no substitute for doing a legit product comparison IMO. |
I actually enjoyed reading it although I wouldn't call it a review. TAS shouldn't have marked it as a review on the page. More of a moment with newly available gear. Not particularly informative except in a home shopping network kind of way. I did find it extremely useful, though, in his recommendation of Blind Guardian. As soon as everyone is awake in the house I plan to load up the speakers with that one! I lost all respect for TAS about 12 years ago when they posted a 4 part series on digital audio that insisted that copying a FLAC file from one HDD to another degraded quality. That was among about 25 other conclusions that were laughable then and heresy now. It just showed their editorial standards were low. |
@soix - Really, Part Time Audiophile as an example of good reviews? Their stated policy is to NOT publish a bad review. The puff pieces I’ve read on their site goes far beyond hagiography and would make even the most shameless fan boys blush. No measurements at all. IMHO, that site is the biggest joke of all reviewers.
@ghdprentice - I respectfully disagree that it would be in no ones best interest to publish a bad review. The purpose of using measurements should be to confirm the published specifications are accurate; what we are witnessing now in the absence of verifiable measurements are wild claims by mfrs that defy logic and known principles of physics and electronics without any accountability for stretching the truth,or in some cases, just making things up out of whole cloth. The turntable industry is especially rife with this problem exactly for that reason: no independent measurements. The major magazines apparently have testing capabilities as they do very analytical testing of amps and speakers but for some reason, they take what ever specs the turntable mfrs publish as gospel (they do add a disclaimer such as "according to the mfr, blah blah blah" which they assume gets them off the hook). I think what is needed is to resurrect the Consumer Reports model where the reviewers do a complete tear down of the product to comment on its construction, capabilities and deficiencies including detailed measurements of its performance as well as operational and listening tests.
I doubt that will happen. In the mean time, a major "tell" for me is how a mfr responds to questions about their claims; if they are transparent and engaging, especially if they provide actual measurements, I have more confidence in their specs. If they deflect or hide behind "we only care about how it sounds" or "it’s secret sauce and we can’t tell you" then one has reason to doubt what they say.
Another way to look at it is this: If a mfr publishes a spec and it is reasonable or close to the median for that type of product, it shouldn’t draw suspicion and shouldn’t be difficult to prove if challenged. But when a spec is orders of magnitude better than anything else in its class, it begs for an explanation. A mfr should WELCOME any challenge as a chance to prove it and draw further attention to their ground breaking product. Making outlandish claims then running away from anyone challenging those claims is sure sign that something isn’t right. |
The irony with audio reviews is that everyone hears differently. A piece of audio gear that sounds good to one person may not sound good to another. It's a very subjective hobby. In a perfect world we would be able to listen to audio gear before we decide whether or not to purchase it. But since that's not always possible we find ourselves relying on audio reviewers who may like a particular sound that does not appeal to everyone. IMHO, this is why so many audio enthusiasts spend so much time and money chasing the right system. The bottom line is that your own ears should always be the deciding factor in an audio purchase. As such, whenever possible you should listen to equipment before you decide to purchase it. 👍
|
Cynical is Skeptical and Skeptical means TEST. TEST is the one that can define right from wrong. If I have to derive truth from between lines of such reviews, than I have different angle of observation. To me, under such "angle" Commercial Advertisement + Technical Review = Commercial Advertisement.
|
@soix I do not read them anymore. What I hate most is the silly descriptions of how something sounds, the things I what to know are never talked about in depth and I really do not care what esoteric records the reviewer is using. I think the approach you took is valid and your rational appropriate. @dayglow I have an Adcom 545 in my workshop system and it has powered 4 Mirage speakers at ridiculous volumes for 30 years under the most adverse conditions you can subject an amp to short of throwing it into the bathtub. Imagine a guy with hearing protectors on running two big machines making mountains of dust with Hendrix blaring at 110 dB so he can hear it over the ear muffs and machines. It also survived a lightning strike that killed a Krell Preamp, all the computers and phones, the garage door ops and the burglar alarm. People wonder why my wife is crazy. |
Never understood the importance that many Audiophiles place on reviews. I learned early on that Adcom did not live up to the "giant killer" status AHC claimed. After 1 year of ownership the Adcom(545) stack was trading in for Amber(conrad-johnson) gear that I enjoyed for over a decade. Was ready for a system upgrade(late 90's) and was really interested in the ML Aeries i that would be replacing a Magnepan SMGa. Auditioned the ML on various amps and found the budget Yamaha MX 1/CX1 combo was nearly equal to a MAC power/pre at < half the price. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Yamaha CX 1 or MX 1 were never mentioned in the subjective press as value leaders, it was always NAD/Rotel or even B&K etc. Yes, that was 25 years ago but not much has changed considering Stereophile placed a Schitt Freya+ as a Class A preamp ready to take on VAC/BAT or CAT preamps(lol). |
It is in no one’s best interest to review a bad product. No one. You can be sure a company making terrible sounding gear is not going to be submitting it for review and no reviewer is likely to choose it..
@soix +1 Reading reviews as I have for nearly fifty years I can easily detect a mediocre product… you know… dammed by faint praise.
it is definitely true that there is more content with less depth that has happened over the last ten years over TAS. But there is way more value then midfi and consumer electronics reviews. |
