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

"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.

 

Still, the reviewer is giving this product a glowing review.  I wouldn’t be surprised if later he reviewed the CH Dac and found “details I haven’t heard before “.

I agree with the above poster who said he used reviews to find out what’s out there and their features.  
 

michael

It reminds me of car and driver always doing reviews for cars 99% of the population could never afford to own let alone drive. 

I recall in the 1980s one of these hifi magazines raving about how good a specific model of a Radio Shack portable CD player could sound.  The magazine article claimed it was a real giant killer.  Out of curiosity I walked into my local RS store to check it out.  The salesman had the portable CD player in stock and noted the review in the hifi magazine.  His store price for this precious gem was over 2x retail, as I recall.  

The crazy thing to me was that same magazine had an article arguing the difference of using a drive belt vs. using dental floss made on the the sound of the  Airport One turntable.

A study of contrasts.

Audio electronics have been transparent to the source for several decades - contrary to what the manufacturers want you to believe!

If this is correct, can you explain the tubes/solid state that's been going on for so long? The tube guys assert that most solid state is harsh and bright or lean and dry. The solid state guys say the tube amps are colored due to FR variation and the 2nd harmonic. IME there is truth to both positions. 

The publications have declared war on blind testing exactly because most components sound virtually identical. The entire industry is founded on expectation and confirmation bias.

IME this statement is problematic. While there is lots of confirmation bias, IMO its false to say the industry is founded on it! And that's because the first statement is false. There are still plenty of differences you can hear between competent equipment and IME you can measure those differences too.

There's an on-going argument decades old between the subjectivist  and objectivist camps. I'm of the opinion that if you can hear a difference, you can measure it too. Both camps hate that (and this has to do with confirmation bias of which both camps are guilty).  If real progress is to be made, that has to stop. Sure, lots of solid state equipment sounds the same- and IMO/IME, most of it also has the same solvable problems (insufficient, poorly applied feedback, insufficient Gain Bandwidth Product..). There are solvable issues on the tube side as well, where you are far more likely to hear bigger differences.  

I can say from direct experience that advertising does not affect the reviews in TAS. I can also say from direct experience that is most definitely does in Stereophile. I can't say at all for any of the other magazines as I have less experience with them, but for the most part my limited experiences suggest they keep a decent firewall between editorial and advertising. I have also seen some pretty underhanded stuff go on- no organization is entirely squeaky clean.