2. misc-audio
  3. 1151564759

Many reviewers will lead you down the wrong path.

A lot of reviewers will tell you that they listen for something specific on certain records to see if things are correctly setup. Either they don't know what they are talking about, or it is very misleading. This is how you tweak a system. One: use the objective parameters, i.e., tonearm should be level with record being played; speakers should be so many feet from the back and/or side wall, anti-skate dial should match tracking force dial, etc. Two: slightly tweak things one way or another, until you hear what does what. When they tell you that from memory, they think such-and-such, ask their age. I would discount anything they say if they are over 50(I'm 55). When you find out what does what, you will know what to do. If the final answer doesn't have the treble that you've heard before, or has sibilance, or not enough bass, too bad. You do not use things to dial in things that you know exist. Your job is to find out what is best for what you are dealing with. Ignore all the other stuff. You'll be glad that you heard this from me. Go on to other parameters, but do not try to dial in one thing from one tweak. That is not how it is done. You listen until you hear what one thing does and put that right.
mmakshak
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Kal:

"I'd be more concerned with those who do not preface their comparisons with a disclaimer"
And I'd be inclined to agree with you -- except that, in many instances, how could a reader (or an editor for that matter) even tell when a disclaimer wasn't used which ought to have been?

[I mean, that'd be like somebody spelling a word which they can't spell or something...]
gregm
3,409 posts
 
Audio reviewing is done for entertainment purposes -- NOT for providing guidelines to interested parties.
It also seems to help the hi-end industry by keeping its products in the limelight (weak as this light may be).

Otherwise, why would most reviewers deal with components, most of the time -- "IMPROVE your system= buy a NEW component".

"Reviewers" could just as well write about improving a system with what is already there.
But it wouldn;t be as much fun, would it?
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,693 posts
 
Zaikesman wrote:
"I'd be more concerned with those who do not preface their comparisons with a disclaimer"
And I'd be inclined to agree with you -- except that, in many instances, how could a reader (or an editor for that matter) even tell when a disclaimer wasn't used which ought to have been?"

Sure. OTOH, if the writer does give the provenance of his comparison, you are better informed than not. Where the info is not given, you can only guess.

Kal
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Kal: No argument here, just that the idea of missing what you don't know isn't there struck me funny.

Personally, I'd have thought that by now, especially given the existence of Audiogon, there might have started up an advertising-free, subscription-only review 'zine (e- or otherwise) where late-model review components were purchased new or used, instead of loaned by manufacturers, and then quickly sold again for negligible loss upon review completion, in order to divorce the objective review process from the need to sell ads or procure loans -- more like Consumer Reports than the car mags, for instance. In theory, audioreview.com and the Audiogon review forum could serve this purpose, but in practice audiophiles who write reviews are generally dealing with components they have a personal investment in -- psychically as well as monetarily -- and little that's critically detached seems to get written (not to mention written well).
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,693 posts
 
Well, Zaikesman, you have identified a need. The issue is whether there is a way to do this without losing a lot of money.

Kal
More to discover