Morel - damned by faint praise

jaxwired

jaxwired

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
644
Location
Texas
Here's the closing remarks of the tone audio review of the morel octave 6 speakers.

"Those with large listening rooms, those who crave every ambient nuance of a performance, or those who prefer bass-heavy rock and electronica may want to seek larger and more expensive speakers that can better deliver those characteristics. Those caveats aside, the capability of the Octaves across the audible spectrum is extremely good for speakers in this price range—and their ability to deliver three-dimensional imaging is indeed rare for this price. If that appeals to you, head to your local Morel dealer for a demo."

So, as long as volume, detail, and bass aren't important than these speakers are good considering their low price category.

I feel sorry for any new audiophiles that read reviews like this and don't know how to read between the lines. Here's my advice, never buy a speaker based solely on reviews but if you have to, only believe a review that is massively over the top enthusiastic. Reviewers never met a speaker that wasn't good. What your looking for is praise like "broke new ground and may be the best speaker I've ever heard in my many years of reviewing speakers. I am astonished that a speaker can be this amazing. I am buying it immediately. Not only the best speaker for its price category, but probably the best speaker regardless of price". If a review does not reach that level of hyperbole then the reviewer likely doesn't really like it too much. And it's best if 5 other reviewers have the same opinion. Then you can semi trust that the speaker is worth checking out.
 
I have to say, I agree Jax. Reviewers are so full of superlatives; anything qualifying...and it's like they're trying, really-really hard...to find something good to say.
 
CDLehner said:
I have to say, I agree Jax. Reviewers are so full of superlatives; anything qualifying...and it's like they're trying, really-really hard...to find something good to say.
Click to expand...

Thankfully I haven't had to review any gear yet that I had to try "really-really hard...to find something good to say." I think sometimes the opposite is true in that some reviewers have to try really-really hard to come up with a few shortcomings in order to show their reviewer acumen. Nothing is perfect in audio (and elsewhere on this planet) so we can always pick nits or identify real issues and concerns. I personally hope I never review a product that totally blows and I have to write a trash review. I would much rather spend my time and energy on writing reviews of really good components that I enjoyed having in my system.
 
I'm really just saying that most reviews conclude that the product is either very good, great, or stunning. So on that scale, "very good" is actually mediocre, "great" is actually good, and only "stunning" is actually something really special. And frankly for the kind of money we spend on our equipment it should all be really special. Sort of like how Starbucks calls a small "tall" and a medium is "grande".
 
I think we all know that it is much easier to be a critic than it is to perform the work that is being criticized. I personally can't recall saying a piece of gear was "very good, great, or stunning" in the few reviews I have done so far. That's not to say maybe I haven't or that maybe I won't, I just don't think I have yet. And just because you found something that you thought was "stunning" doesn't mean you could get a roomful of audiophiles to give you vertical head bobs and come to consensus with your opinion.
 
mep said:
Thankfully I haven't had to review any gear yet that I had to try "really-really hard...to find something good to say." I think sometimes the opposite is true in that some reviewers have to try really-really hard to come up with a few shortcomings in order to show their reviewer acumen. Nothing is perfect in audio (and elsewhere on this planet) so we can always pick nits or identify real issues and concerns. I personally hope I never review a product that totally blows and I have to write a trash review. I would much rather spend my time and energy on writing reviews of really good components that I enjoyed having in my system.
Click to expand...

Peter Moncrieff of IAR fame will not write a poor review, but instead returns the unit under review with his feedback/comments the mfr may or may not learn from. I happen to like peters methodology, call it old school, balanced whatever. he's not beholden to advertising money, kinda the way TAS wasnt in the old days, when Myles used to write for them (maybe he can add his two cents). Mark, there will come a time when you dont like or can't endorse the gear you were given to review, whats going to be your policy? PFs policy?
 
I like how "what hifi" gives the products a 1 to 5 star rating. Of course they only really use 3 through 5, but at least they take a clear stand. And it forces them to rank some stuff lower. You can't give all 5s out. But the way most reviews are written, it can be very difficult to tell if the product is a 3, 4, or 5. If you're going to the trouble to review a product how about giving a definitive opinion rather than vague and inconsistent superlatives. You might disagree with what hi fi, but at least you know where they stand.
 
puroagave said:
Peter Moncrieff of IAR fame will not write a poor review, but instead returns the unit under review with his feedback/comments the mfr may or may not learn from. I happen to like peters methodology, call it old school, balanced whatever. he's not beholden to advertising money, kinda the way TAS wasnt in the old days, when Myles used to write for them (maybe he can add his two cents). Mark, there will come a time when you dont like or can't endorse the gear you were given to review, whats going to be your policy? PFs policy?
Click to expand...

For the first part of your question, my answer is that my policy is that I will tell the truth as I hear it/see it. For the second part, Myles can chime in here because I haven't been faced with having to write a review about a piece of gear I really didn't like. And that's not to say that I haven't found things I didn't like about some aspect of gear I have reviewed and those things were mentioned.
 
jaxwired said:
I like how "what hifi" gives the products a 1 to 5 star rating. Of course they only really use 3 through 5, but at least they take a clear stand. And it forces them to rank some stuff lower. You can't give all 5s out. But the way most reviews are written, it can be very difficult to tell if the product is a 3, 4, or 5. If you're going to the trouble to review a product how about giving a definitive opinion rather than vague and inconsistent superlatives. You might disagree with what hi fi, but at least you know where they stand.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have found a magazine you like. Personally speaking, stars are no more meaningful to me than words are.
 
mep said:
Sounds like you have found a magazine you like. Personally speaking, stars are no more meaningful to me than words are.
Click to expand...

Don't see how that can be true. I can tell you the exact ranking of the last 5 speakers what hifi has reviewed. Try doing that with stereophile or TAS. Can't be done.
 
puroagave said:
Peter Moncrieff of IAR fame will not write a poor review, but instead returns the unit under review with his feedback/comments the mfr may or may not learn from.. . . .
Click to expand...

How can anyone do that and have a sense of integrity when they are given something to review?

He didn't want to write a bad review after evaluating the piece, so he sent it back to the manufacturer? I don't care if he gave constructive comments to them. He was given a component people can buy on the street, and rather than give an honest review, he dismisses the task given to him or that he volunteered for. I don't know if I would call it a fraudulent action, but I wouldn't trust what he had to say about other things he reviewed because I would be wondering if he was paid to write something good, but declined to write a negative review, lest he not be given components to review in the future (for which he would be paid for a good review.)

That policy seems pretty crooked to me.
 
Gary, he doesn't have advertisers the subscription base has always been small and paid by subscribers. He has (had?) a business selling parts like wonder caps. wire and solder. Back in the day his views carried similar weight to HP and JGH, mfrs were tripping over themselves to have stuff reviewed on IAR (no strings attached). He's as much a researcher as writer and in his peer group i've never heard or read an ill thing said about him or his reviewing ethics. if he gave them (mfr) a chance to 'correct' the product for a re-review, i dunno.

I asked an audio reviewer on a forum like this, why he never gave a 'bad' review and he refused to answer. in fact, it seemed he never met a component he didn't like (his reviews show up on a 'site driven purely by heavy advertising).
 
Uh, didn't HP used to refer to him as Peter cotton ears?
 
I had never bought anything based solely on reviews that I read until I read the ProAc Response 2.5 review by Michael Fremer in Stereophile in 1998. I went to my dealer, listened to one song and bought them. For 15+ years I never regretted it.
 
GaryProtein said:
How can anyone do that and have a sense of integrity when they are given something to review?

He didn't want to write a bad review after evaluating the piece, so he sent it back to the manufacturer? I don't care if he gave constructive comments to them. He was given a component people can buy on the street, and rather than give an honest review, he dismisses the task given to him or that he volunteered for. I don't know if I would call it a fraudulent action, but I wouldn't trust what he had to say about other things he reviewed because I would be wondering if he was paid to write something good, but declined to write a negative review, lest he not be given components to review in the future (for which he would be paid for a good review.)

That policy seems pretty crooked to me.
Click to expand...

Gary-I respectfully submit that your logic is whacked.
 
puroagave said:
pretty sure it was aczel. peter aczel and ethan winer could have been brothers from different mothers. props tho, you know your history :scholar: (or you're a proficient google sleuth ;))
Click to expand...

I still have most of my early TAS from back in the good old days. I just wasn't motivated to go search through them. Oh Myles....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top