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
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).
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

In the 90's such a Magazine was created in Europe. The reviewers wrote
the facts about the sound quality and when it was bad, they wrote it.
They did it with well known brands, not unknown ones. The result after a
year was, the distributors refused to give them their units :-)
They wanted positive "reviews" and not the truth about their
paid items...also they got letters from angry readers who wrote that they
own this "pain for the ear unit" and that they are wrong, it is
wonderful...great reviews in 4 other "mags" ...blabber....
Syntax,
Good example you gave above. No matter what format or guidelines chosen,some body somewhere is`nt going to like it. It just is not possible to please everyone especially with subjective material as audio reviews. People eventually find their comfort zone with a particular site or magazine.Srajan and the other 6 Moons reviewers seem to put in quite the time and effort to get it right to the best of their ability.I appreciate that.
Regards,
Rsf507,
I find that the pics often dwarf the text. There is often a huge pic and another huge pic with a bit of text sandwiched between. Very odd. This looks more like advertising than reviewing to me.