The biggest problem with….

Interesting article... however, as usual with anything I have read from Jeff I simply do not like his writing style. He spends far too much of the article on tangents to make a point that could have been made much more efficiently. I also don't really agree with him although he makes some good points. Four companies... and that's it.... hmmm, what about Fynne, Kharma, MBL, Harbeth, KEF, B&W, etc., etc., etc.? But he does try to write about interesting, or lets say unique topics that are not usually written about. I will give him credit for that one.
 
Randy - I think his points are very valid and become quite choppy waters if not navigated properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Mike said:
Randy - I think his points are very valid and become quite choppy waters if not navigated properly.
Click to expand...

He certainly has some valid points, but I am not a big fan... and I don't like the way he discounts so many brands, and what many of us consider some of the best brand... statements like this...

"Still, the four brands I just named all make top-tier products, and I feel safe recommending that someone in the market could do a lot worse, and probably no better, than auditioning and choosing a speaker from one of these four manufacturers."
 
That was a spot-on assessment of reviewing and manufacturing in high end audio today.

I see a lot of manufacturers making schoolboy errors in ‘statement’ pieces because they don’t have the knowledge or competitive context to really play in certain product categories. Then reviewers without the appropriate context write glowing subjective reviews of these products, which then drive sales, perpetuating the cycle.
 
kiwi_1282001 said:
If the answer is yes then perhaps one take away for audio reviewers is to resist the urge of comparing with the “ultra” or the so called "best" which is always debatable and focus instead on comparing with a line-up of similarly priced products.
Click to expand...

This was also a point I was trying to get across. This fixation with the ultra and making it seem like you can never be done, or your system being satisfying unless you have the ultra is just plain ridicules. It also is a huge turn off to some people who might otherwise love our hobby, thinking they could never afford it so why bother. Instead, the comparisons should be made with gear that people can actually afford and strive for instead of gear that very few people will ever be able to afford.
 
For me all those reviews are the same, everything sounds warm, gentle, subtile, detailed, analogue etcetera

Take some scissors, cut 20 hifi pictures (speakers, amps, dacs, cables,powersupplies, may be mixed), and seperate from the conclusion about sound quality. I bet not many are able to replace the right conclusion to the right item.
 
Alkyogre said:
For me all those reviews are the same, everything sounds warm, gentle, subtile, detailed, analogue etcetera

Take some scissors, cut 20 hifi pictures (speakers, amps, dacs, cables,powersupplies, may be mixed), and seperate from the conclusion about sound quality. I bet not many are able to replace the right conclusion to the right item.
Click to expand...

This adds to my opinion expressed above about audio reviews in general being too verbose with (usually) irrelevant tangents. Although measurements may have limited value, at least those sections of reviews which include them stay on-topic.
 
It’s fun to find reviews of equipment you already own to see if the reviewer’s perceptions match your experience with the product.

I’d never heard of Jeff Fritz, the author of the subject of this thread. I read his Sonus Faber Amati Futura review and I think he did a fine job of describing how they sound and what to expect.

Reviewers are only valuable if they have a very long tenure in the business and have experienced a lot of product. If you own or have owned or experienced gear they have reviewed, you can figure out if your tastes match those of the reviewer.
 
W9TR said:
...
I’d never heard of Jeff Fritz, the author of the subject of this thread. I read his Sonus Faber Amati Futura review and I think he did a fine job of describing how they sound and what to expect.

Reviewers are only valuable if they have a very long tenure in the business and have experienced a lot of product.
Click to expand...

He would appear to fit your criteria. He's been reviewing for a while, and for a pretty wide variety of components in the $10k - $100k MSRP range
 
There's logic in Jeff words, if you don't have a reference point it's hard to review.
However, even the ultra-high-end is made out of 4 or 40 companies Aries Crete Asylivox, Zellaton, Tidal Audio, Marten, Wilson Benesch, Raidho loudspeakers, and many, many more.
The same is true for electronics, cables, turntables, etc..
 
I like the article, and agree with many of the points. I disagree with the author's title for the article though... "The biggest problem..."
Mike already identified "the biggest problem with reviewers" in a previous thread, one in which a fellow member and contributor to Part Time Audiophile noted the trend to only publish positive reviews, and simply not publicize unfavorable ones. Mike pointed out that that would be anathema in any other industry (autos, for example).
I agree.
 
IMO, Jeff's title of his article is so far off the mark, it's laughable. As for the point I think he was trying to get across was a bit irrelevant or perhaps should go without saying.

If Jeff is saying others ought to do their homework first, I'm fine with that. But if Jeff is saying, one must first research, know, comprehend, etc all little idiosyncrasies of the market or competition, Jeff's assuming these idiosyncrasies are all noteworthy and benefiicial and I doubt there's much proof of that.

Overall, I thought the article was a big nothing burger.
 
rbbert said:
He would appear to fit your criteria. He's been reviewing for a while, and for a pretty wide variety of components in the $10k - $100k MSRP range
Click to expand...

Rob, you may be right. I’ll check out some of his other reviews. Maybe I’m prejudiced but I haven’t found many (any?) online reviewers with the ‘chops’ to be really credible. Some of the more straightforward functional online reviews (how it works, not how it sounds) are pretty good.
 
Great article! Thanks for sharing Mike.
I like Jeff's content and usually end up reading a few more articles whenever I visit Soundstage Ultra

Not sure what the fuss is all about with the article but I found it to be balanced with the appropriate counterpoint where needed.



.
 
Ricky64 said:
I like the article, and agree with many of the points. I disagree with the author's title for the article though... "The biggest problem..."
Mike already identified "the biggest problem with reviewers" in a previous thread, one in which a fellow member and contributor to Part Time Audiophile noted the trend to only publish positive reviews, and simply not publicize unfavorable ones. Mike pointed out that that would be anathema in any other industry (autos, for example).
I agree.
Click to expand...

"" in a previous thread, " I must have missed that thread
 
W9TR said:
It’s fun to find reviews of equipment you already own to see if the reviewer’s perceptions match your experience with the product.

I’d never heard of Jeff Fritz, the author of the subject of this thread. I read his Sonus Faber Amati Futura review and I think he did a fine job of describing how they sound and what to expect.

Reviewers are only valuable if they have a very long tenure in the business and have experienced a lot of product. If you own or have owned or experienced gear they have reviewed, you can figure out if your tastes match those of the reviewer.
Click to expand...

Most of the "long tenure in the business" reviewers are just guns for hire. Feel free to point me to any critical or even 'less than stellar' review you read lately by any of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top