I have shared respect for Michael Fremer in the past but I think I am changing my view; recently I just received the latest catalog from Music Direct...go look at the phono pre section alone. All those accolades from Mikey make me shudder when I see phono pre after phono pre where he attests, to paraphrase, "that it is among the best I've heard." I wonder if the folks at MD are aware of the blunder they have created. Yes it is possible folks, there are some components where EVERY MODEL CAN BE BEST!
Recommendations to "Professional" Reviewers?
What would recommend to the reviewers at Stereophile, TAs and the likes? Not in terms of equip to review, but what they need to include in their review write up more consistently? Also not about ind discounts etc....what should they do more to make the reviews more helpful to us consumers? Lets start this thread as quite a few reviewers are Audiogon members and hopefully take this feedback.
From my perspective,
Need to consistently contrast & compare against equipment in similiar price range: frequently done but not consistently...comparing to the mfr's old model is not helpful enough without the added info on competitors. Not asking to name what is "best" but what are the rel individual strengths and weakness within the group?
Try to link technology used to listening results: a lot of times, we see write ups dealing with this as separate issues: though at times it would be pure conjecture, but at least make an attempt
Don't tweak excessively: the review is about the equip, not what tweaks u can do to your system
Try to suggest other equip in the chain that would seem a good match
When reviewing Hi-rez digital, always always first comment on redbook CD capability (I have seen quite a few exceptions to this obvious rule!)
From my perspective,
Need to consistently contrast & compare against equipment in similiar price range: frequently done but not consistently...comparing to the mfr's old model is not helpful enough without the added info on competitors. Not asking to name what is "best" but what are the rel individual strengths and weakness within the group?
Try to link technology used to listening results: a lot of times, we see write ups dealing with this as separate issues: though at times it would be pure conjecture, but at least make an attempt
Don't tweak excessively: the review is about the equip, not what tweaks u can do to your system
Try to suggest other equip in the chain that would seem a good match
When reviewing Hi-rez digital, always always first comment on redbook CD capability (I have seen quite a few exceptions to this obvious rule!)
- ...
- 15 posts total
In speaker reviews, I would appreciate some comments on how well the speaker performs at lower volumes. Some speakers don't deliver the goods at all until you crank them, while others can be very satisfying at low volume. I want to know this. I also appreciate overall characterizations of components, such as Teajay's excellent digital thread elsewhere on Audiogon. Comments such as "great bass, transparent midrange, sparkling highs" don't help me as much as an observation that a component is characterized by an overall pristine clarity and detail, while another component is all about a relaxed, soft focus. Even a red wine - white wine distinction is helpful, but maybe that's just me. |
Subjective rating scale as done by enjoythemusic Tonality 85 Sub-bass (10 Hz - 60 Hz) 80 Mid-bass (80 Hz - 200 Hz) 90 Midrange (200 Hz - 3,000 Hz) 85 High-frequencies (3,000 Hz on up) 85 Attack 85 Decay 85 P.R.A.T (Pace, Rhythm, Acceleration, Timing) 85 Inner Resolution 80 Soundscape width front 85 Soundscape width rear 85 Soundscape depth behind loudspeakers 75 Soundscape extension into the room 80 Imaging 80 Fit and Finish 90 Self Noise 100 Value for the Money 100 |
- 15 posts total