$4500 amp beat out the Tenor OTL in the latest TAS

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep" - Saul Bellow

"Proof" is not always found in the pieces, but in the pattern of pieces. I just read an article about Kasparov taking on another Deep Blue chess program. He said that while a computer can add moves together quantitatively, and may even outlast the body inducing fatigue and error, the processing of the mind in chess also involves a "looking ahead at patterns".

This "looking ahead" involves not just a strict probability analysis involving the accumulation of data, but an intuiting of which pattern is the most effective. When I was a trial attorney, I used to tell jurors that the truth was not found only in the pieces of evidence, but in how they are put together, and further, how they feel about that pattern in their gut. If you are going to invoke evidentiary language, know that in this country the truth, at least theoretically (as in, what the law says, because I don't think our justice system is set up to find truth, but to maintain order) is found both in the isolated facts and in how the person responds to them (i.e. a lack of bias does not imply an exclusive focusing on "objective" criteria, only that subjective opinions be reasonable. People who are scientifically materialist in orientation tend to assume that all reason is exclusively objective and a product of accumulation of data, which, not coincidentally, is what science assumes).

Question: Do you really believe that $150,000/yr advertising contracts do not have an effect - a discernible effect - upon the "objective" opinions of those employers and their employed? I know that we want to believe that yellow ribbons and a hundred points of light are real, and that protecting an oil port for ourselves while maintaining a monarchy is really a fight for democracy, or for "freedom fighters", or for whatever is our next delusion, but sometimes it is not true and, in fact, the King has no clothes. The question, then, is whether the King is doing it TO you, or below that, he is just a symptom of your own willingness to believe in what he says - because you are orientated to look to others to tell you what to believe - and ignore what is in the patterns. It is an ignor-ing (the root of ignorance) that seeks to believe in the surface so one does not have to see the pain underneath, which would cause one to change.

There are many wonderful people in the hiend "industry" who love music and see stereos as instruments of the soul and don't want to just make money off you - and there is nothing wrong with receiving value for value done. But there is a large proportion of this microcosm - almost as if it has been concentrated like acid - who are borderline narcissistic, histrionic, catty, vindictive, dishonest and petty. This group of people are embedded and exert a determitive influence on the hiend.

When you look into the hiend from the outside it appears one way because it is dynamically set up to appear opaque; when you are on the inside, you see the way it is, and the severity of the affliction.

My advice is to love your music and your system and gleen what truth you see from magazines, but, in the end, follow what Brucegel says. It is evidence born of experience.

"We don't err because the truth is difficult to see, we err for comfortability." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

I do not see most professional reviewing as subtle problem as Asa does.

The problem is pretty simple.

It is comperable to two lawyers practicing in a small town. These two lawyers are the only two in the town, and they both speak openly about how they have respect for the other (no matter what they really think of the other). They never speak badly of the other to any of their clients. Why is this the case? Because they are the only two lawyers in town. As long as they do not piss anyone off (and one can piss off people quite easilly by speaking poorly of another, esp in a small town), then they are almost assured a 50/50 split of the entire towns legal work.

How is this comperable to professional audio reviews? The audio industry is so small and struggling it does NO ONE any good for a reviewer to critize a product. Reviewers in one way or another depend on the hi-end industry selling products. Without the hi-end industry and audiophiles, they would be out of a job.

I will not go so far as to say that most reviewers deceive people in their reviews by being biased with a favorable position toward the industry. But what I will say is that I find reviewers tend to only review products that they initially like. This I think is Stereophile's big problem: they only seem to review products they like. Where does this get us? It gets us a lot of glowing reviews that many times have little to no reference with other products. Stereophile rarely compares products head to head. Take their Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II review they did a few issues ago. They do not compare the AZ cables to the Valhalla at all, eventhough the reviewer uses the Valhalla as his reference. This is not good reviewing.

This analysis does not even take into consideration the thousands of dollars that hi-end companies spend on advertisements in audio magazines.

Online reviews by private individuals also have problems. Who wants to review something negatively that they just spent good money on in their system? People tend to review stuff they buy positively. My goal when I buy something is to buy it for such a good price I can be totally neutral as to my oppinion of its impact on my system. If I like it better, I keep it. If I do not like the product, I sell it for the same price I got it for. Most of the time I get better sound from the new product. There have been a few times I have not gotten better sound.

Well I must run.

KF

Looking at this thread,one thing seems to have been missed . That is the fact that many mags, particularly Abo Sound profess to compare reproduced sound to the live experience. Well let me tell you,listening to my Taylor guitar's sound and comparing it to any of the equipment listed as the'best'truly shows how completely far off the truth these audio pieces are. Now if one was truly reviewing these SOTA audio pieces against the Abo sound,and being completely honest about the results,the only response would be to trash them all.
Unfortunately,that is my opinion of audio equipment today,and the merit of same.
Having said that,I still enjoy the hobby and enjoy the occassional rave from HP et al.Pity they obviously do NOT have a real musical instrument at hand to 'AB' against.

Daveyf,

Just to play "Devil's Advocate", are you referring to the sound of the Taylor guitar as you play it (next to your person), or the sound of your Taylor being played appx. 6 feet away from you(and within 2 feet of a wall) by someone who you consider an accomplished player?

Food for thought

Audioak

Asa, I largely agree with the essence of what I take it to be that you are saying. My disagreement with Kana813 was intentionally very specific and limited in scope (mainly because so was his remark I wanted to respond to). It is much too facile and easy (not to mention predictable) for audiophiles to continually spout off about how this or that 'rave' review is merely yet another proof of the corrupt control of ad dollars. (BTW, it often seems to me that many of those same audiophiles who proclaim unhesitatingly about, "Of course it got a great review, look at all the ads that company runs!" are also frequently the ones who will scream the loudest about agendas and unfairness when the rare negative review of some pet component comes along - despite any advertising that manufacturer may have done.) Would that the situation were so simple. The point of interjecting my honed dissent was not merely to dispute a particular unsupported accusation, but to highlight the fact that such simplistic and undemonstrable cliches only have the ultimate effect of glossing over or diverting attention from what is in reality a much more complexly insidious systemic disease.

I want to recall Brucegel's keenly observed comment from above, "The illusion of an elite class of stereos is pure BS, just a scam to lift your wallet," and juxtapose it with Kana813 saying, "The marketplace information on Audiogon is more valuable and it's free". Audiogon has its own 'elite classes' of gear, and Tenor amplifiers have been one of these. Members who have contributed to that perception have (with a few exceptions) not received any dollars, in advertising or otherwise, from this manufacturer. It is also likely true that fewer actual owners than posters have helped to foster this perception, so neither is the phenomenon purely a matter of having invested one's own dollars where one's mouth is. Worth noting as well is that this supposed elite class is normally prejudiced against the well known blue-chip, engineering-driven audio companies whose gear tends to populate the reference systems of mainstream reviewers, in favor of newer firms and products with a characteristically evanescent buzz factor to them (nothing against Tenor in particular here, which of course may be the fine product it's reputed to be). I'm not trying to say that all internet amateur commentary is ignorant or manipulative (or I'd be a prime offender), just that one always has to use their own judgement and circumspection. So maybe Asa can get out his quote book (or maybe he won't have to ;^) and attribute a paraphrase for me when I smile and say, "The computer-chair audiophile who doesn't listen for himself has got a fool for a client" - even if the price of admission to get fooled (not to mention the satisfaction in being a skeptic) is less than with reading the mags.