Today's $18,000 wonder is next year's $10,000 White Elephant.
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.
- ...
- 45 posts total
Stereo reviews are like car magazine reviews, rarely if ever will one read a bad one. In my case, I like 1970's into early 1990's stereo hardware often very inexpensive to buy (swap meets, estate sales, etc.) and costly to restore, but still far less than a beautiful tubed McIntosh amp. At 73 only my second-hand Accuphase M-60 Monoblock amps and Accuphase CX-260 preamp allow me to hear detail w/o headphones. So much fine hardware out there, best to stick with the proven and less costly. |
"A direct question. Has anyone ever read a review of new equipment in which the reviewer simply disliked the product? Sound quality far below the sales price, overhyped, chintzy build quality, etc? Has it ever happened?"
@chocaholic in response to your question there was an article in one of the major magazines a few years ago that indicated that they will not print a review of a product that is just downright awful. They will inform the company as to why they won't run it but don't put it in print. It has nothing to do with the paid advertising, but the editors of that magazine didn't feel they wanted to be in a position to potentially harm or destroy someone's livelihood (or company) or the employment of the people at said company via their review. They ask the companies to correct the product and try again. |
- 45 posts total