The Impossible Has Happened


If you've been visiting this forum for very long you know that many people consider professional audio reviews, the ones in the print (Stereophile, TAS, etc.) and online magazines, at best to be paid promotion and more likely outright lies in an attempt to scam you out of your money.

Here is a quote from a recent thread that was about reviews, not about their honesty or value, but got a number of posts about those attributes anyway.

Just once I would like to read a review of a pricey piece of equipment that said that the reviewer couldn’t hear any difference between that and something far less expensive . . .

Well believe it or not that has just happened in TAS, considered by many to be the worst abuser of the truth. The situation is not exactly as in the quote above, the less expensive gear is being reviewed in this example, but it is the same in essence, IMHO.

Alan Taffel wrote a review of the T+A Series 200 components.  In it he says 

"I happen to own a wonderful-sounding modular integrated amp: the CH Precision I1.  Comparing it to the Series 200 was natural but a bit unfair.  The CH unit costs more than double the price of the Series 200 stack.  Nonetheless, I was glad I embarked on this comparison, because otherwise I never would have known that the two systems sounded almost identical."

 

The CH I1 starts at $38,000.  Fully loaded it costs over $50,000..

The Series 200 stack, consisting of a transport/streamer, a DAC and an integrated amp in 3 separate boxes, costs $18,475.

So I'm not saying you should believe everything you read in professional reviews or even any of it, but here is an example where a reviewer stated that a system costing less than half a more expensive system sounded "almost identical" to the more expensive system. 

And CH Precision has a full page ad in that issue of TAS, February 2023, while T+A has none.  Just thought you might like to know.

128x128tomcy6

Any time a TAS review bothers to compare any review component to something else is indeed noteworthy. 

Their editor in chief must have been on a 3 month vacation with no cell service or electricity to not have “proofed” that out. Then again- maybe it was read ahead of time and inserting the word “ALMOST” was made mandatory. Either way, it’s not enough to drive me back into subscribing.

My view on the rags remains consistent.  Positive or negative I must always consider the effect that advertiser spend, or LACK of advertiser spend may have influenced the reviewer.

Along these lines… what would an ideal review look like and what business model supports a mag full of that ideal review style?

reviewers live in an eco system, often the blunt truth does not serve the eco system

best to understand how the business works, who plays what role in it, how influence works, directly and subtly, to whom and how personal and commercial interests are aligned (or misaligned), and how purchase decisions of the end product are arrived at and so on

developing a nuanced understanding of how the world (or in this case, a rather niche industry like high end hifi) is commercially 'wired' is essential in understanding behavior and motivations of those within it