Sjofen The Clue speakers

Hey Rebbi, I'll take your cynicism and raise it one. The flip side of what they do for major advertisers as you say is what they did to the clue. Financially Sjofn means nothing to them, so they can afford to throw them under the bus with virtually no consequences and come out the other end unscathed with an additional piece of evidence to say "hey look, we put out negative reviews too." Both the reviewer and JA had an easy path to find out why their poor findings were as they were and possibly find their cause and address them, and neither lifted a finger to do anything. NOTHING. Beyond suspicious in my book for a publication that -- as Rebbi eludes to -- frequently bends over backwards to accommodate other manufacturers to apparently get at "the truth."

As I see it there are two choices here. Stereophile can man up and do a follow-up review utilizing the manufacturer to insure the speakers are being reviewed and measured properly, or they can just bury their heads in the sand and hope this ridiculous review somehow goes away. The second strategy may well work given the relatively little notoriety of Sjofn here in the US, albeit at the expense of John Q. Audiophile. But taking the higher ground and giving them an honest second shot would go a LONG way toward repairing their reputation at least in my book. The public -- even audiophiles -- have a great capacity to forgive if someone does the right thing in the end and admits their mistakes. As it stands, IMO Stereophile's credibility and reputation have taken a major hit here. I'm most disappointed with JA as I think he knows his stuff and works hard to produce a quality product. But this all happened under his watch and I find it greatly disappointing on every level in terms of an audio equipment review. Mostly I feel bad for Sjofn. Like most audio companies they put their sweat and blood into something they passionately believe in for relatively little monetary reward. To have that damaged because of incompetence or some other agenda is tragic and fowl. Sleep we'll S'pile.

Rebbi this reminds me of a story that a friend of mine who is a speaker designer shared with me recently. Back when he showed at CES years ago a reviewer for a major audio rag went into his room and was over the moon about the sound. Subsequently the reviewer offered to review the speakers. When the review came out it was good but had been shortened considerably because he would not spend money for advertisement.

He also told me of another story where he had gotten a great review and at the end of it the reviewer stated he was purchasing the speakers. My friend never saw a red cent and the reviewer kept them.

So the reviewer did set up the loudspeakers as per the manufacturer's instructions, but that setup isn't always optimal.

If a product is that demanding in setup and/or system matching, then maybe the manufacturer should be a little proactive in ensuring its optimal use.

So, once again the reviewer set the speakers up according to the basic quick setup instructions. And nothing further. There are frequently situations, especially with even more conventional speakers, where even minor placement adjustments can make a huge difference in what you hear. And the manufacturer proactively offered further setup help to the reviewer that, for some reason, the reviewer chose not to take advantage of. Despite being very impressed with the speakers in a different setting. Really??? Yes, these speakers obviously require particular attention to setup. But a so-called "expert" reviewer should have been well aware of that and acted accordingly to produce a professional and accurate review of the product. The reviewer knew everything he needed to know going into this review and failed in his duty to make sure his review was accurate given that information along with his past experience with this speaker. In my opinion he completely failed as a reviewer. The responsibility for an accurate review does not lie solely with the manufacturer. And when a reviewer encounters strange results, especially when they run counter to what he personally heard previously in a live demonstration, he at the very least should give the manufacturer a chance to explain why that may be and help fix the problem. You can try to blame the manufacturer for this but there's no denying that the reviewer, given all the information available to him including his own personal experience with the product, didn't conduct the due diligence he should've done.

Thanks for the link and the time you spent on that thread Rebbi. I heard a stacked pair of (the clue) at NY HE show a couple of years ago and found them remarkably good sounding even when driven w SS (Hegel) electronics. They were playing some american roots music, and also some Fleetwood Mac. Thin sounding w tilted up treble they were not. I thought they were the best, moderate cost rock speakers I had heard in quite some time.

What disturbs me most about this whole affair is the reviewer's flat out refusal to allow the manufacturer to assist w set-up. And JA's continued rationalization of same, even after being repeatedly called out on it. There is no credible explanation that I can think of for this deviation from what is obviously common practice. I wish I had $100 for each speaker review I've read that started out with a description of how the manufacturer/designer/distributor arrived with favored speaker cables in tow, and spent X hours tweaking the location, toe-in, height, baffle to back and side wall distance, etc., etc. I'd never have to even listen to a "pretender" like (the clue). This is especially unfathomable when the reviewer had previously heard and was impressed by the speaker on several occasions. Unless he felt he'd previously been deaf.

I've always been one to give the mags and their reviewers the benefit of the doubt about the linkage between advertising $ and reviews, but this has set me on my ear a bit. Now, sure you can say it's dissonance reduction since I heard them once and liked them, but again, if S'phile has frequently had manufacturers assist w speaker set-up, why not this time? And not just (as their reviewers like to say) an error of omission, but one of commission. The manufacturer offered and the reviewer flat out refused to allow it. Perhaps a bit embarrassed that he needed help?

Maybe (probably) I was naive to think that there weren't some cozy inside relationships between the media, reviewers and manufacturers, but this has really set me back more than a bit. I'm not saying the there was an explicit quid pro qou and of course we'll never know, but when one of the big boys delivers a product that does not work as intended (no one is going to suggest, I hope, that the designer wanted the speaker to sound thin) they always seem to get a do-over. The products they review aren't purchased off the shelf like Consumer Report does. When a product is sent for review w/o a complete and total going through/tweaking/rebuilding, it says a lot about the QA/QC of the builder. S'phile always lets you know when that happens, but then they base their detailed comments on the repaired/replaced/retweaked unit. So what gives? Color me skeptical and more than a bit disillusioned.