Morel - damned by faint praise

[GaryProtein]

Gary-I respectfully submit that your logic is whacked.

Sorry, but if your job is to be a reviewer you must review what you have evaluated.

You don't send something back unreviewed because you didn't like it and you didn't want to hurt somebody's feelings or their or your own bottom line. Having integrity means being honest in your reviews.

I admit it, I am a cynic and for very good reasons.

 

[GaryProtein]

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).

I see what you are saying, but even if he sends the manufacturer a list of suggestions, the component is still available for purchase and even if the manufacturer does decide to make changes in future production runs, what about the pieces on the street that are already being sold?

Refusing to answer why a reviewer never gave a bad review [we know the answer] is also suspect whether the magazine takes advertizing or not. I understand it's a tough business, but they need to be honest.

 

[BlueFox]

I just read the review, and the impression I have is that for their price they work quite well. At least as good as other speakers in the same price range. Obviously, there are limitations, and he pointed them out.

The paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted is:

"The Morel Octave 6 Limited floorstanders are marvelous speakers, especially considering the value they offer at a $7,000 per pair. Across objective audio metrics and subjective musical preferences, the Octaves excel."

Personally, I am getting tired of people complaining about reviews and reviewers, especially the implication they are being bought with advertising money. Just as with any other human activity, there will be corrupt and incompetent reviewers. However, I prefer to believe most strive to be fair, and give honest reviews. If they 'hide' negative feelings by using 'faint praise' then it is the reader's responsibility to have adequate reading comprehension skills, and understand what is being said. Just my opinion of course.

Morel Octave 6 Limited Floorstanding Speakers ? Reviews | TONEAudio MAGAZINE

 

[jaxwired]

No intention to suggest the writers are corrupted by ad money. I tend to agree with blue fox on that point. I don't think anywhere near as much of that exists as is often speculated.

My point really was just that although the review reads like the reviewer thinks the speakers are good, compared to the normal over the top reviews, these speakers must be pretty unimpressive. It's a critique of the out of whack reviewer scale.

Why would anyone ever want to buy speakers that are good within their price class when one can easily find reviews stating speakers compete way above their price class?

 

[rbbert]

Why would anyone base their purchases on reviews which always offer over-the-top hyperbole? Especially with speakers, where personal tastes are so varied.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

I guess I just don't see the issue. The reviewer is putting the DUT in perspective relative to the competition. After all the speaker is built to a price point and certain trade offs have to be made. Clearly there are better speakers but the reviewer talks about what the DUT does well and not so well. And he mentions that it does image extremely well. Plus he warns people if you're a bass freak, this might not be the right choice for you.

Plus how many new audiophiles are starting out with a $7K speaker? Not to mention for many people $7K is a lot of dough.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

it was Peter Aczel...get yer facts straight

No it was Moncrieff. IIRC the line was J. Peter Cotton Ears. Off the top of my head, it was a reference to a certain component but for the life of me, I can't remember which one. Something from TAŞ in the 20 or 30s? Most of my TAS's are in storage except for the initial 16.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Why would anyone base their purchases on reviews which always offer over-the-top hyperbole? Especially with speakers, where personal tastes are so varied.

That's such an interesting point and deserves its own thread.

 

[mep]

No it was Moncrieff. IIRC the line was J. Peter Cotton Ears. Off the top of my head, it was a reference to a certain component but for the life of me, I can't remember which one. Something from TAŞ in the 20 or 30s? Most of my TAS's are in storage except for the initial 16.

Thanks Myles. I love it when I'm right!

 

[asiufy]

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 see nothing wrong with the review, specially the section quoted above.
I mean, can't we take the reviews at face value anymore? Do we really have to try and "read between the lines" and find some hidden meaning behind the words?
He says right there: if you have a large room, look elsewhere. Can't be more straightforward than that!
Now, when people like Valin or Harley write reviews full of hyperbole, "BEST EVER!", folks complain too., saying "that can't be true", "he's in XXXX's pockets", etc.
IMO, the Morels are just as described. Not "BEST EVER!", but good for the price.


alexandre

 

[mep]

Sorry, but if your job is to be a reviewer you must review what you have evaluated.

You don't send something back unreviewed because you didn't like it and you didn't want to hurt somebody's feelings or their or your own bottom line. Having integrity means being honest in your reviews.

I admit it, I am a cynic and for very good reasons.

You do when you own the magazine if that's what you choose to do. Look, I don't know of a single publication that intentionally wants to review shitty components so they can give shitty reviews. It wastes the time of the reviewers and those who read the reviews IMO. And having said that, SP calls them as they see them and I can't count how many times JA has called companies out for less than stellar engineering.

 

[jaxwired]

Why would anyone base their purchases on reviews which always offer over-the-top hyperbole? Especially with speakers, where personal tastes are so varied.

Simple. I don't buy from local B&M dealers ever. Since I don't buy from them it would be wrong to use their showroom to listen to their gear, so I don't. That leaves me (and hundreds of other audiophiles) buying equipment we've never heard. Reviews along with forums with other audiophiles are very useful to help decide what to buy. It would be more useful if reviewers didn't like everything. But one does learn to read between the lines which was the point of my original post. A piece of gear CAN move onto my radar based soley on reviews but it requires a review where it's clear the reviewer actually was really impressed. It's obvious to me that the reviewer of the morel speakers was not impressed. If I read a review where the reviewer seemed to be truly impressed then I look for corroboration from multiple other sources. Then it's on my radar if I can afford it.

Every single piece in my current system, DAC, preamp. Amp, speakers and cables, was purchased without hearing it first.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

You do when you own the magazine if that's what you choose to do. Look, I don't know of a single publication that intentionally wants to review shitty components so they can give shitty reviews. It wastes the time of the reviewers and those who read the reviews IMO. And having said that, SP calls them as they see them and I can't count how many times JA has called companies out for less than stellar engineering.

Another way of looking at it is that reviewers don't have unlimited time and resources so why waste your time when you can write about something that's good?

 

[GaryProtein]

You do when you own the magazine if that's what you choose to do. Look, I don't know of a single publication that intentionally wants to review shitty components so they can give shitty reviews. It wastes the time of the reviewers and those who read the reviews IMO. And having said that, SP calls them as they see them and I can't count how many times JA has called companies out for less than stellar engineering.

No one is talking about shitty components. BUT, when a component is acceptable, say that, don't send it back unreviewed with suggestions on how to make it better. Don't make hyperbolic praises on average components either. Once you have spent as much time evaluating as the reviewers have said it takes to do a proper evaluation, the write-up should be a piece of cake.

Another way of looking at it is that reviewers don't have unlimited time and resources so why waste your time when you can write about something that's good?

Because theoretically you aren't reviewing Radio Shack components, you are reviewing components from respected companies. The evaluation of the piece is supposedly what takes so much time and you don't know the product isn't stellar until you set it up, burn it in and evaluate it. I'm sure all of a company's products aren't stellar, and the potential buyers should be aware of pieces that don't make the mark. The write-up should be a simple task. You professional reviewer guys have a way with words and can type much faster than I can, so it should't take very long.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

No one is talking about shitty components. BUT, when a component is acceptable, say that, don't send it back unreviewed with suggestions on how to make it better. Don't make hyperbolic praises on average components either. Once you have spent as much time evaluating as the reviewers have said it takes to do a proper evaluation, the write-up should be a piece of cake.





Because theoretically you aren't reviewing Radio Shack components, you are reviewing components from respected companies. The evaluation of the piece is supposedly what takes so much time and you don't know the product isn't stellar until you set it up, burn it in and evaluate it. I'm sure all of a company's products aren't stellar, and the potential buyers should be aware of pieces that don't make the mark. The write-up should be a simple task. You professional reviewer guys have a way with words and can type much faster than I can, so it should't take very long.

Well maybe others can churn something out in a month (hardly with a speaker review) but a full blown complete review plus trying something with different components takes me with writing at least three months. You are also neglect the fact that most reviewers hold down real jobs too. There's only a few full time reviewers including Fremer and Valin. I'm not counting Harley or Atkinson since they're editors.

 

[rbbert]

Simple. I don't buy from local B&M dealers ever. Since I don't buy from them it would be wrong to use their showroom to listen to their gear, so I don't. That leaves me (and hundreds of other audiophiles) buying equipment we've never heard. Reviews along with forums with other audiophiles are very useful to help decide what to buy. It would be more useful if reviewers didn't like everything. But one does learn to read between the lines which was the point of my original post. A piece of gear CAN move onto my radar based soley on reviews but it requires a review where it's clear the reviewer actually was really impressed. It's obvious to me that the reviewer of the morel speakers was not impressed. If I read a review where the reviewer seemed to be truly impressed then I look for corroboration from multiple other sources. Then it's on my radar if I can afford it.

Every single piece in my current system, DAC, preamp. Amp, speakers and cables, was purchased without hearing it first.

You know, some electronics, and for sure cables, which are fairly easy to set up and/or also to package and return if not liked could reasonably be bought this way (and I have); I can't imagine buying a floor-standing speaker this way, and just barely a bookshelf or stand-mount. And after 40+ years I still haven't found a reviewer I can trust to that extent. But different strokes...

 

[GaryProtein]

Myles, I am aware most reviewers have other full time jobs and I'm not criticizing any of them for the time that it takes to do an evaluation of a component. I accept however long it takes for a review because it isn't as if I'm requesting the evaluation with time constraints. However, if it takes three months (or however long it usually takes) to test a component with various other components in the chain, WRITING the report should be the simplest part of the task once everything is set up and listened to with notes being made in the process.

Why send it back unreviewed? If a reviewer takes a component and puts it into his system and decides in five minutes he doesn't like it, that's another story, but my whole take on this is that you CAN'T decide in five minutes if the component is stellar, good or not and setting everything up and spending time listening is what takes so much time.

I don't see what I'm missing here. If there isn't anything else to explain, I will accept that.

 

[GaryProtein]

Myles, I am aware most reviewers have other full time jobs and I'm not criticizing any of them for the time that it takes to do an evaluation of a component. I accept however long it takes for a review because it isn't as if I'm requesting the evaluation with time constraints. However, if it takes three months (or however long it usually takes) to test a component with various other components in the chain, WRITING the report should be the simplest part of the task once everything is set up and listened to with notes being made in the process.

Why send it back unreviewed? If a reviewer takes a component and puts it into his system and decides in five minutes he doesn't like it, that's another story, but my whole take on this is that you CAN'T decide in five minutes if the component is stellar, good or not and setting everything up and spending time listening is what takes so much time.

I don't see what I'm missing here. If there isn't anything else to explain, I will accept that.

 

[jaxwired]

You know, some electronics, and for sure cables, which are fairly easy to set up and/or also to package and return if not liked could reasonably be bought this way (and I have); I can't imagine buying a floor-standing speaker this way, and just barely a bookshelf or stand-mount. And after 40+ years I still haven't found a reviewer I can trust to that extent. But different strokes...

Shipping floorstanders is no fun, agreed. I've mostly owned stand mount speakers. But there have been some floorstanders mixed in. I find it to actually be the only way to go for me. By buying used or deeply discounted new gear, I am able to basically home audition gear and then just resell if I don't love it. Plus I can pick from anything sold in the US rather than being restricted to brands carried by a local dealer.