2. misc-audio
  3. 1351255839

6Moons.com vs. Stereo Times

I was looking for RMAF 2012 reviews today and my search led me to the Synergistic Research site. I noticed their Home Page announcement that "6 Moons.com just reviewed our Tranquility Base." When I clicked to read more I found that the review in question is of Ed Meitner's EMM Labs XDS1 SE SACD Player with the Tranquility Base being used in the context of the EMM product. Let's have a look at how 6Moons.com reviews this audio equipment.

On the first page of the review there are two page-wide views of the Tranquility Base but there is only a single brief paraqraph about the Tranquility Base, highlighted by this statement, "The Meitner was tested in tandem with an anti-vibration/noise-reduction platform." The reviewer then defers to a lengthy explanation from Synergistic Research on page two of the review, accompanied by one more page-wide view of the Tranquility Base. So far, the only "review" here consists of quotes from Synergistic Research literature and prominent photos of the Tranquility Base. I used to be in the advertising business. So far, this looks more like advertising to me than a review.

But wait. On page 3 of the review the comments about the Tranquility Base finally appear. But, as is typical of many 6Moons.com reviews, where twists and turns and tangents abound, couched in florid prose and convoluted phrasing, the review introduces a third product to compare with the Tranquility Base. This third product is a Japanese platform called the RAF-48. At this point things become muddied:

"The Meitner atop the RAF-48 platform was more austere. It was perfectly audible that the Synergistic created a golden glow which clarified but also saturated the top end. This lacked with the AR. Meanwhile the bass seemed better articulated and differentiated with the Japanese platform. The difference was not significant but repeatable and audible with each record ..."

Until we arrive at the very end of the review where we read, "This platform [the Tranquility Base] is manufactured with unique attention to detail. It is not very high and its outer edges are trimmed out with aluminum banding ...", along with more information taken from the Synergistic Research site about the physical features of the Tranquility Base.

The most important thing that the review had to say about the Tranquility Base was found on page 3 of the review smothered by the accompanying prose:

"The Synergistic Research Tranquility Base is a very interesting product. It clearly influences the sound in a good way. It is prohibitively expensive but worthy at least a listen just to be aware of what’s possible. I think it will be very versatile and improve the sound for any type of component sitting atop it."

In other words, the Tranquility Base does something good but it is way overpriced for what it does. On 6Moons.com you often have to wade through the mire to get to the point. What took them so long to get to the point?

This review confirms why I am not a fan of 6Moons.com reviews. In my opinion, their reviews are characterized by florid prose that is ostentatiously literary. And their convoluted comments are pockmarked by comparisons, digressions and tangents that twist and turn, ending by often obscuring more than they reveal.

In comparison, I find Stereo Times' reviews a breath of fresh air. 6Moons.com reviews make me feel like I am trying to unravel a puzzle wrapped in a mystery couched in an enigma. How do you feel about 6Moons.com and Stereo Times?
sabai
br3098
995 posts
 
After several years of growing frustration, I just can't read 6moons anymore. A recent example was where a five page review contained approx. 3 paragraphs of actual review. I don't know what the hell the rest was; part philosophy, part travelogue, part food review...

Sam Tellig does the same thing, but better IMO. And at least he gets to the point eventually and provides a concise description of the gear he is describing.

While I enjoy the fact that 6moons review some less covered and new equipment. But it has just gotten too esoteric for my taste.
mitch2
4,006 posts
 
Those here who have had a lot of gear pass through our systems know the truth to Roscoeiii's statement that
"no review is a substitute for hearing a component yourself, preferably in your own system."
The better reviewers have a wider range of experience and generally do a better job of discussing how a component (or speaker) sounds with different partnering equipment, limitations on the partnering equipment, and comparisons to similar products in the marketplace. However, none of them have the same system, room, and tastes as the reader so, at best, the review offers enjoyment, information (about the circuit, build quality, parts, etc.), and the reviewer's impression of sonics and appearance.

IMO, reviews from either of the two publications can be enjoyable if the equipment being reviewed is something I am interested in, although some of the reviewers are better than others. Srajan is colorful in his writing, but I don't mind that since I find him to be generally thorough and, again, I like the pictures in the 6moons reviews second to only the old HiFi+ photos (before they changed hands), which I found to be the gold standard.
rsf507
2,324 posts
 
Pics are great at 6moons but after hearing of the politics that goes on at Stereo Times (and no I can't or will not elaborate) I read neither.
podeschi
303 posts
 
Br3098, couldn't agree more. Too lofty and obtuse for me. Cut to the chase. I'm also growing tired of every review site or magazine catering to advertisers...they can't speak objectively about a component in fear of offending potential ad revenue. What we need is a magazine or e-site that has no revenue tied to advertising - with rock solid reviewers who cut to the chase and say what is good and bad and can compare without worrying about offending. I've had access to even great review sites and writers and ALL of them are boxed into not offending so never really get an honest review. Six moons just makes it even more difficult to understand how they are not offending.
roscoeiii's avatar
roscoeiii
1,155 posts
 
More data points are always preferable to fewer data points, especially if the folks providing the info are upfront about their preferences and biases.

Srajan certainly provides a lot of data points by trying components in multiple systems and configurations, as opposed to with one "reference" system. It is important to know the character of the associated components in any review, and the last 6moons DAC review I read was nice in that it laid out what combinations of equipment the DAC was synergistic with, and which combos did not work well.

And Srajan is clear about what he does and doesn't like. His own listening prejudices are usually quite explicitly spelled out.

I also become suspicious of writers who do not indicate what recordings they are listening to in their reviews, since some components are much better suited to different types of music (or qualities of music whose prominence varies across genres of much).
More to discover