Sjofen The Clue speakers

I wish Stereophile and other magazines would decline direct manufacturer setup assistance during the review process. The exception would be when that setup assistance is performed for every purchaser. I realize this is wishful think on my part.

The most common complaint against audio magazines is that they don't publish negative reviews. I don't know if it's a trend, but Stereophile has recently published a number of "non-rave" reviews, with at least one covering a long time ad purchaser's product. Clearly, the reviewer found serious fault with The Clue, but other than that single issue the review was quite favorable. Based upon the response of the manufacturer and previous Stereophile reports on the loudspeaker, the fault appears correctable. The review certainly wouldn't deter me from considering purchasing The Clue if I were in the market for a monitor loudspeaker.

Swampwalker, I'm stunned that you are stunned. If I were the manufacturer of a loudspeaker that was very demanding in its setup requirements and I wasn't absolutely positive that a reviewer was going to adhere to those requirements, then I would ask for the loudspeakers to be returned and the review terminated. That's my idea of being proactive.

"I wish Stereophile and other magazines would decline direct manufacturer setup assistance during the review process. The exception would be when that setup assistance is performed for every purchaser. I realize this is wishful think on my part."

I respectfully disagree. The bottom line is that we as consumers through reviews should be presented with, as much as possible, the most accurate account of what we should ultimately expect if we purchase a product. What else is the purpose of a review? If a reviewer sets up a product review incorrectly then what value is that to anyone? And in this instance, setup assistance is exactly what is offered to every purchaser, and also the reviewer. That the fault is ultimately correctable is immaterial. The damage is done in the view of most readers.

And that the reviewer found "serious fault" in exactly the area where this speaker excels is exactly the point and renders the review virtually meaningless and ultimately extremely hurtful to the manufacturer. You might be willing to overlook such a serious breach, but most readers will dismiss the speaker after such a serious degradation.

And reviews aren't normally terminated, nor should they be IMO. But again, when results seem so far off to what was previously experienced by the reviewer and the manufacturer offers both the reviewer and customers personal support to get it right, the reviewer should have at least made a phone call to make sure he was providing an accurate representation of what the product is capable of. As much as you might want to pin this on the manufacturer, it was the reviewer that was completely at fault here, and everyone has been underserved as a result.

Oh, and just to clarify, Onhwy61 you've never actually heard these speakers right??? Maybe rather than blindly weighing in on procedural issues on a review of speakers you've never heard you could go and actually listen to them and then give us some truely useful feedback. The people who have actually heard them don't seem to have your level of skepticism. Go listen, then speak.

There are two issues at play here, the actual "sound" of the speaker and the review process. I am perfectly willing to give full credence to onhwy61's opinion about the process regardless of whether or not he's heard the speaker, but I disagree that pulling the product while the review was in process is being pro-active. In my mind, that's being reactive. I agree w Soix who said

when results seem so far off to what was previously experienced by the reviewer and the manufacturer offers both the reviewer and customers personal support to get it right, the reviewer should have at least made a phone call to make sure he was providing an accurate representation of what the product is capable of.

But in my opinion, the fault extends higher up the chain of command than just the reviewer. The editor(s) should have caught this one, and sent the draft review back to the reviewer with instructions to, at the very least, go through the phone/email consultation process. Given that most speakers that are reviewed are set up by a representative of the manufacturer, that's the LEAST S'phile should have done.

In the most recent issue of Stereophile there are separate reviews of a Revel subwoofer and a GoldenEar floorstander. For the subwoofer review the manufacturer sends the subwoofer, a pair of main loudspeakers and the loudspeaker designer is present to handle the setup. The setup involved placement, audio measurements and software controlled EQ and crossover selection. With the GoldenEar the company president shows up to do the setup. Apparently the loudspeaker is sensitive to the listening axis and in the reviewer's listening room needed to be tilted forward for proper treble balance and integration.

In each of the above cases the manufacturer's assistance made sure that their products would perform optimally. This type of assistance is standard in the audiophile review community. What I question is whether a typical purchaser of the products can expect to obtain optimal performance? If I buy the loudspeaker does the president or designer show up at my house and make sure the loudspeaker is properly setup? Should audio reviews include a "results may vary" disclaimer?

In the on-line version of the Stereophile The Clue review the comments section has someone's real world experience with the loudspeaker. I found the comments very informative.