Should a GREAT component sound good (of not great) in all systems? (Did TAS or Stereophile botch the VTL 450 II Review?)
David Matz -- Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:52
I come from a school of thought that a great component should sound great in most systems. I realize that it's not possible 100% of the time- but at least that component should sound good! Some reviewers and editors don't seem to subscribe to this viewpoint, however. A few years ago, John Atkinson openly adimitted in his review of the Magico V3 that the speaker did not sound good with 2 of the 3 speakers he tried it with (review is posted online on their site). I think he liked with it Levinson but said that it was thin with Parasound JC1's and other amps. He still awarded it Product of year. I think TAS gave the speaker the same award. I don't recall what amps Mr. Harley or Mr. Valin reviewed that speaker with, but to me it should have disqualified the speaker from such high honors if what Atkinson found is true. At the time I thought that since Magico if not my cup of tea (sounds too detailed, lacks a midrange a $1500 electrostat can produce, and has a distinct sound of treble, bass, midrange drivers, etc.) it was just audio media gushing about something I didn't really follow closely.
Fast forward a couple of years. Stereophile awards the VTL 450 II a runner up for Product of the Year. TAS writes a lukewarm review. There could be many factors. Fremer wrote the review. With the death of JG Holt, no one is singly associated with the Stereophile brand as Fremer. (He single-handedly saved analog from the garbage dump of history!) He can't be wrong. Personally, I appreciate negative reviews. Most readers would love to see more negative reviews. However, in this case Stereophile has tested this amp with many speakers since this amp was a VTL 300. (Could it be groupthink?) Another possibility could be that TAS may not have done its due diligence 100%.
Is Stereophile wrong again or should TAS have tested this amp with several other speakers to present this a more accurate picture of this amp?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
From What I have gathered over the years is that Stereophile does more followups or more reviewers might spend time with a perticular product compared to TAS. TAS would generally avoid having 2 reviewers review the same thing in detail. Which has both positives and negatives. It seems like for TAS it gets too expensive/inconvenient to have multiple reviewers evaluate a single product for example they simply reposted one of the Focal top of the line speaker review from HiFi+ to TAS. On the other hand, one great thing they do is try to have the same reviewers review similar or the same brand of stuff since they have past experience with it. There are so many products it would be tough to test them in many different settings, although it would be nice if they could and to get more people to give their input on the same product in both TAS and Stereophile. One such example is the heated debates on the Benchmark DAC in TAS and Wadia 170iTransport in Stereophile, I was very impressed and happy that multiple reviewers came out and put their views in, some positive some negative. Now thats true evaluation!
A few thoughts on the OP and Sam's comment.
First, Paul used two different speakers for his test. Perhaps he could have tried more speakers, but at some level practical constraints are involved in every review.
Second, Paul used a listening panel, as well as his own experience in writing the review. So, while many reviews are done by a single person, this one in effect wasn't.
Third, Paul certainly doesn't try to position the review as covering all users and all systems in all rooms with all music:
"It’s precisely this sort of thing that makes trying to get a fix on these amplifiers so frustrating. It’s almost impossible to predict how they’ll interact with any given speaker system. Having lived with a pair of MB‑450s on and off for several months now, I remain impressed by their clarity, dimensionality, dynamic range, and ability to reproduce size and scale. But while I’ve greatly enjoyed them—especially in the seductively “romantic” triode mode with my Quads—I never felt I was hearing a sound that I could ever quite describe as truly neutral. Allow that this may owe in part to its interaction with the Quads and that, as I’ve already suggested, this is to some extent true of the vagaries of most tube amplifiers faced with real‑world loudspeaker loads—and the conclusion is inescapable: If ever there were a classic instance of a component you should most definitely audition before buying, preferably with the speakers you plan on using, this amplifier is it."
Paul and the OP leave us with the question -- should all good/great products work very well with all other good/great products? Ideally, I think we'd have to say "yes". But experience suggests that it doesn't work this way in practice. All hi-fi components are engineering exercises, meaning that they involve considered tradeoffs to pursue a goal. If we want it to be otherwise, that's understandable. If we expect it to be otherwise we're living in La La Land. Amplifiers have output impedances in the real world, and speakers have impedance curves so there is no universal solution. Speakers have physical dimensions and so do rooms, so there is no universal match. We're often talking about subtle musical phenomena where small differences matter (audiophiles define "work well together" much more strictly than is the case in some other consumer fields). To condemn products for existing in the real world wouldn't make much sense.
A suggestion is that we assume Stereophile used speakers with the VTLs that were a better match than the Quads or the Verities that Paul used. I would assume that Stereophile's findings about the sound Michael heard were accurate. I would also assume that Paul's findings represent what he and his panel heard. Given the frequent experience that reviewers have (the speaker/amplifier interface is quirky) these different views don't seem conflicting (especially since Paul was able to hear many excellent qualities in the amp).
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
"On the other hand, one great thing they do is try to have the same reviewers review similar or the same brand of stuff since they have past experience with it."
Which could also mean preconceived notions/ideas. Which is a whole lotta not good!
It surely is a double edged sword. It's good that they can tell how much and what kind of a difference is there from the previous model or a different model in the same line up. But if they like or dislike certain brands, yes even the readers can guess what the reviewer will say well before a review. It would be difficult if random people evaluated random stuff. I think the best approach would be to have more than one person review the product, and multiple people give their view. Stereophile does that more often then TAS. But even so both mags also have their favorites. Ex. Ayre for Stereophile and magico,Wilson,audioresearch for TAS.
AHC with Thiel? Stuff needs to be spread around. The same, identical Focal Grande Utopia EM review in both mags was a disgrace. I have seen and heard that speaker and understand the logistics of moving it around, but still......................
Sunday -- this may not satisfy you, but a key reason for running the Focal review in both HiFi+ and TAS was to bring the review to both audiences. 90% of the TAS and HiFi+ audiences do not overlap, so this was a way to bring a flagship product to both groups. In theory we could have reviewed it twice, but practically, as we've explained, that wasn't possible. In our minds, bringing interesting products to each audience is our job.
As for the other items under discussion here there are pros and cons to any approach as Sam says. No one is this field has infinite resources or infinite space or infinite reader attention (or anything like it!). So, of course, we can't do everything.
One way we deal with the apparent focus of some reviewers on particular brands is to be sure that each reviewer covers many brands. One needs that to have perspective on what is possible.With the huge number of brands out there, even this will be a necessarily limited endeavor.
Another approach is that we try to place the focus of our remarks on the specifics of how each product sounds vis a vis the absolute sound. We try not to focus on whether a reviewer "likes" a product (since you, by definition, aren't the reviewer, your preferences may or may not align with his/hers). But at some level, the idea is that you would hear the qualities he/she hears. If those qualities work for you or don't work for you, then the review has served its purpose.
Philosophically, this approach just isn't aligned with the idea that reviews are subjective -- that reviews are about what the reviewer likes. One can try to read things that way (as if reviewer likes/dislikes are the point), but that isn't what the tool is intended to do. We think this approach reduces the need for multiple reviewers to be involved with a given product. That's because two reviewers will tend to find the same basic qualities in a product if they are following this philosophy (one reviewer might "like" the product and the other might not "like" it, but that isn't the point).
There are (at least) two problems with our approach. First, it requires some pretty heavy user participation -- readers have to have a good idea of what sonic attributes are realism triggers and realism inhibitors for them. Second, if we really do our jobs well, our reviews often don't work very well for validating specific purchases or settling pub arguments. We realize that may frustrate some needs, and we're looking at how to address it.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Anyone ever hear of Sea Cliff Long Island?
I've been there many times. Nice place, nice people, interesting history.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
That is where the Grande Utopia EM's belong for review. Wilson gets multiple reviews of his Alexandra's at $158k the pair, so why not Focal? They have NA distribution thru Audio Plus Services.
Sure, there's no reason not to do the Focals again. Unless Harry or Robert have other priorities or Focal doesn't have a review pair available.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
It's too late baby! The Focal folks aren't crazy. This should have been done in the first place.
Mr. Martin, that would be a great idea. However, since TAS has given up on enlightening us as to the reviewers' preferences, as in days of yore, how the heck does anyone KNOW what the reviewer likes.
Valin, for example, only 2 years ago admitted he LIKED Nordosts' upper midrange emphasis. Not something revealed in previous reviews, and trust me, for someone who forgets where he put his glasses five minutes ago, I have a nearly photographic memory for the last 20 years of TAS reviews (if the reviewer is one I trust. Some of the recent reviewers lack the critical capabilities of say, John Nork, or Neil Gader, and their reviews go into my memory's circular file). When, exactly -- if ever -- do you intend to reinstate the Reviewers listening rooms, preferences in sound and what they do and do not care about? It would certainly take TAS from its current "popular" magazine status , where it has languished for the last, oh....decade (a bit less than that, I think, but...) and give the readership an actual sense for what matters to a reviewer and what doesn't. Jon, for example, has (finally) made it clear that his love for music lies in small ensembles, not the big power works and therefore his sensibilities need to be considered when reading a review. You're dead wrong that it's unnecessary for multiple reviewers to be involved with one product unless you think that any one reviewer's perspective contains ALL the cogent points (which they almost NEVER do, much to the dismay of many buyers who trust your reviews). By contrast, Neil is the proverbial bulldog, leaving (nearly)no stone unturned (if he can help it). His review of the MBL stand mount was excellent, pointing out that the MBL puts a sort of "atmosphere" over most types of music that is not exactly accurate. Nothing wrong with liking the component, but if say, SK or RH had reviewed the same component, how likely is it that they'd have mentioned it. For that matter, one wonders if they'd even have noticed it. I don't mean to insult Ms. Kraft or Mr. Harley by writing this. It's a trend with TAS. I've read the last 10 issues over the past week, and if you can find 5 reviews that focus on micro-dynamics, the very soul of what makes a sound not just a sound, but an expression of a human being lending his artistry to the music, you'd be fortunate. And I'm being kind. I could just say flat out that your reviewers are completely brain-dead in mentioning this extremely important component of music. Otherwise, it's just staccato/legato or whatever. Fred Kaplan was another reviewer who was completely excellent at bringing this awareness of which component sounded like a human being was playing the instrument (I believe he called it "the breath of life") in contrast to the listener just hearing the sound come out of a trumpet. You've killed off the reviewers who actually differentiate between a component that imitates life and those who are satisfied with a mere imitation of life. And man, does that stink!
By now, it's clear the intercommentary system is dead, which, from my perspective, dropped TAS from the heights of Valhalla (heh, heh and not that damned expensive cable company) to the Elysian Fields, where the dead merely live in bliss. If you gather I'm one of the less enthusiastic of your readers, you've hit the bullseye. No one is perfect in their observations, and what they miss can make the difference between joy and sorrow for those who use the reviews as serious guides for what to audition. I've borrowed some components, and bought others, and frankly, have only completely trusted Gader's reviews for a while. Mr. Cordesman is a gem, but very dry -- which is fine. Dr. Greene's perspective seems to be almost shoved in a corner (almost nobody ever agrees or "seconds" anything he trumpets. It's unfortunate that, given the sky-high pricing of so many components (with that odious phrase "a bargain for what it does [didn't someone agree to murder that utterly ridiculous phrase?] that one can only, as your reviewers are wont to say, "pays your money and takes your chances." One expects to be fleeced by the government, but not by TAS' uncritical eye. It's 90 parts "it's great!" and 10 parts "....well, it doesn't do midbass well, but realllly, that's jut quibbling." Really? A mediocre midbass is quibbling over things?!?
Thank God for Harry Weisfeld: he sees what High End has come to, and will fight it to his last breath. And when he runs out, I'll donate some of my breath to keep him going. But he's rare. Too rare.
McBrion: thank you for your comments.
Let me suggest some steps which might address a few of your concerns.
1. I've created a forum section where editors can post their listening orientation and notes on the music they tend to use.
2. In that same forum section editors can post their room specifications and list their reference equipment
3. I've created a forum section where editors can post comments on equipment already reviewed
By making these part of the forums, I hope readers (print and online) will have a fixed place to find this information any time they wish (if we put it in the magazine, inevitably it isn't in the issue where one wishes to find it -- newsstand readers, online readers and subscribers who do not save their copies have all complained about this access problem).
Hope that helps.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
To return the subject to the issue that started this thread, the VTL review is a special case in that its high output impedance will result in significant changes in frequency response as a function of the loudspeaker's impedance curve. All the other factors that Tom Martin mentions as being variables exist with all reviews, but an amplifier with a high output impedance will sound considerably different in tonal balance depending on the loudspeaker it is driving.
I disagree with McBrion's assertion that TAS writers in general, and I in particular, ignore the role of micro-dynamics in musical realism. I've just finished writing a review of the dCS Puccini CD/SACD player and dCS U-Clock USB converter and high-precision clock in which the dCS' resolution of micro-dynamic detail figures prominently. Incidentally, Jonathan Valin contributes to the review with his own sonic commentary.
Here's an excerpt from my review, which will appear in our February issue.
There’s one area in which the Puccini/U-Clock significantly distances itself from all competition, and that is in the reproduction of very fine high-frequency transient detail. I was floored by the Puccini’s resolution of micro-detail—think brushes on cymbals, shakers, the zils on a tambourine, gently struck triangles, and güiro. The lower the level and the more transient the nature of the signal, the greater the extent to which the Puccini outshone other digital I’ve heard. Information that was simply blurred by other digital was resolved with pristine and vivid clarity by the Puccini. For example, the triangle on Rachmaninoff’s Symphonic Dances had a delicacy that vividly conveyed the mechanism by which the sound was made. It wasn’t just a high-frequency transient, but a pitch accompanied by a strong sense of the attack, ringing, and decay. But the track that most dramatically illustrated the Puccini’s unmatched performance in this area is the beginning of “Valentino“ by Victor Feldman on the JVC XRCD title Audiophile (a compilation of two records made in the 1980s, engineered by the great Alan Sides). The track starts with a rain stick behind Hubert Laws’ gentle flute passage. I’ve listened to this track countless times over the years, but have never heard the individual beads moving through the rain stick with such startling clarity. I point this out not because I enjoyed this quality for its own sake, but rather to illustrate how the Puccini accurately conveyed very fine transient detail, and how this fidelity fostered a sense of hearing the instrument itself rather than a reproduction of it.
It occurred to me that one reason the Puccini/U-Clock rendered timbres with such realism could be this fabulous resolution of low-level detail, particularly low-level transients. Musical waveforms contain a richness of micro-dynamic structure (a reed moving back and forth, for example); accurately conveying that structure makes instrumental textures and tone colors more lifelike. Although we’re not consciously aware that the timbral realism is derived from this micro-transient information, it’s simply one less cue to the brain that we’re hearing a reproduction rather than the instrument itself.
Inever heard the puccini/U clock but experimented since one month the effect on my system of adding the grimm audio clock to my P03 D03 esoteric THE bettering is extremely significant in every aspect of listening and specialy quality ot timbres .It confirm your observation on the effect that a good external clock on a high class c d player .the most evident effect is on s a c d recorded directly in d s d .Some of recent s a c d of channel classic ,arts, pentatone ,offer an outstanding quality which make me deeply sorry that the big editors of c d had abandonned the s a c d .I would be very interested to know if you experimented some method of treatind the c d as nespa lazer treatment ;audio desk system which rectify the edge of c d ;degaussing ,and some liquid treatement . my experience made me convinced that using those treatements let you discover a new level of quality of your hardware .
Robert, man you are on fire with these cutting edge digital players. I am glad that you have tested such different verieties and brands of top notch digital equipment. It gives the readers a nice overview of the different tastes each of the different cutting edge models brings to the table. Very Nice! When can we expect the 2009 POY awards issue?
Thanks for the comment, Sam. The 2009 Product of the Year Awards issue is at the printer, and mail to subscribers on November 30.
I appreciate Mr. Martin's pointing out there is a place where reviewers can post the room/listening tastes, etc. Could you tell me where to find that? I mean, what section to navigate to?
And to respond to Mr. Harley's comments, I certainly KNOW that you have more experiece with components than I have: that's a given. HOWEVER, if you care to look at, oh, say, the last 7 or 8 issues, you might notice that any mention of micro-dynamics is substantially missing from the reviews. Either that, or it's phrased in some not-easily-understood-that-it's-microdynamics-being-discussed way. I almost ALWAYS look for any mention of this parameter, ever since I had a Jadis Defy 7 and a Convergent preamp. I'd never heard that type of nuance in my playback system before (and not since, either, although I've had components that were quite top level ones) and it helps me decide what I'm going to spend my money on. So, when it's not mentioned, I read the review, file it away in memory, and pass that component by.
Just for fun, I reached for whatever issue of TAS was nearest my arm (short arms). It happened to be the Golden Ear issue, July 2009. I scanned through articles and found the word microdynamics once, in, as could be expected, a Neil Gader review. Other than that, nada. I understand that it may be a matter of vocabulary: someone may use "low-level resolution" in place of "microdynamics." Isn't that, though, part of the problem? The vocabulary of TAS' writers is all over the place. As I recall, the magazine (or more distinctly, HP) pioneered a common vocabulary so one wouldn't have to learn "reviewer-speak" which is to say one could read the review and KNOW what was being said. I now require tutors to educate me in reading THROUGH the words to understand exactly what is being written -- and I'm not exactly "slow" -- and then comprehending the particular reviewer's wordings in past articles in order to compare to current articles to.....oh, never mind, you get the point, I'm sure. Every "language" has common words with standard meaning. "UP" means upward in most languages (except baby-ese, which can mean anything the baby wants it to mean). What does "smooth" mean anymore? Smoothing over? Smooth as in no frequency bumps? Smooth as in the timbre/texture is less apparent? More apparent? Starve a cold? Feed a cold?
Understand my motives: TAS used to be a source of education in HOW to listen and WHAT to listen for. It is no longer that. Read your magazine and find an example when someone pointed out that you could tell that a frequency was missing transient attack by using a specific recording, as say, REG used to do. I remember how he referred in one review to how you could tell something was missing by the "E string" (or whatever: this IS from memory) on the violin and how, if you listened, you would hear that xyz wasn't there, as it should be when someone played that string. The reviews are nice, but they're pablum, with exceptions (NG, for example, whose reviews are every bit as good as they were back in 1992 and as outstandingly precise in describing what's there and what's not). I want TAS to be GREAT, not just good. It is certainly still able to point out emerging technologies and such, but killer reviews, (and I don't mean rave, as you well understand: I mean, concise, exact and completely able to describe the sound of a component so that the reader can almost "hear" it when reading the review) which means superb writing, are not very apparent. And, although I certainly marvel at RG's reviews, I can rarely understand what he means. Not saying he's not excellent, just that from reading Hi Fi Plus, I can "make out" what he means, but only with an extremely concentrated effort. Top quality writing is like reading Maureen Dowd: you know precisely what her point is in her columns. I can be half-distracted, and still know exactly what's being said, with a deeper appreciation for her writing when I'm not reading her column while driving on Interstate 95 at 90mph(New England, and that's a joke!).
Still, getting back to the vocabulary, maybe that's why it seems the reviews are less than enthralling: the energy required to read through the words to the intent. Unless writing has changed since I was a reporter (and, of course, it has: I can hardly read the NY Times without wincing whenever the use the word "whether" as in "whether he is going to comment""when what they should be using is the word "if" as in "it is not clear IF the president is going to Burning Man to address the crowd), that's a sign that there's considerable room for improvement. If I can figure out Shakespeare with just a little assistance, and both appreciate and learn from it, reading TAS should be both easier and equally enjoyable. The fact that I can understand Shakespeare more easily than TAS doesn't thrill me at all. He's dead, after all and from 5 centuries ago and he didn't really speak English, after all. Only Americans TRULY speak English, right? So, why's it so hard to "get" what something sounds like these days?
Of course, it may be just me. But I talk the same way I did 20 years ago, and my vocabulary's as clear to those who know me as it used to be. Yours should be, too.
Post of the century!
McBrion, you obviously think a lot about this stuff and in depth. You should apply to TAS for a reviewers position, or join the GE club to meet with these guys to have everyone on the same page. Its a difficult task. H.P cannot be around forever and neither can he review everything....there is too much stuff out there to review.
Maybe editorial responsibility should be given back to HP?
Perhaps I'm the odd duck around here.
I expect TAS to 1) set firm standards for "minimum acceptable quality and performance", 2) review a broad range of products that meet that standard, and 3) use descriptive wording such that 95% of our readers can understand what they are saying 95% of the time. That gives me a general framework for my visits to specialized dealers.
I do not expect reviewers to tell me what to buy and why. That's up to my ears -- we all hear and appreciate different aspects of music even when listening to carefully selected music while sitting in carefully constructed demo rooms, let alone listening to our own music in our own homes.
Toward that end, I highly recommend The Ultimate Demonstration Disc from Chesky Records. Chesky provides a tutorial on various aspects of music and what we should listen for. For example, Track 16 describes what they call the "Visceral Impact of Music", and Track 17 uses Monty Alexander's "Sweet Georgia Brown" to illustrate their point. I find their disc helpful in training my ears as well as reviewing new equipment.
That said, publishing the reviewers' musical preferences and listening environments provides important perspective.
Keep up the good work.
Dave
Dave, I think they already do the first two things you mention. 1. Minimum acceptable quality and performance eliminates most all mass market products in TAS reviews. but they have to review lesser quality stuff as well for those who cannot affort the mid-fi or hi-fi or exotic stuff. And the cheaper stuff will generally be of lesser quality/performance then expensive stuff up to a certain point. Now what that minimum should be is a tough call to make. All audiophiles must be considered in that judgement or the majority will be left out. 2. They do review a very broad range of products, many times things we have never heard off, they also go out of their way to find for example all "competitive" USB DAC's, or "competetive music servers". They cannot possibley review ALL USB dacs or ALL music servers in the world. I think that last point you make number 3. is where lots can be done. R.H. books on high end have a glossary and he describes in chapters what to look for and what the terms mean when listening/evaluating music/equipment. I believe thats a good starting point. Other reviewers over the years have invented other terms. It would be nice that each reviewer under their prophile on AVguide also list the terms they use and what it means and possibley get together with other reviewers of TAS to come up with one set of terms that everyone understands...that might help address that question. Otherwise it surely will confuse many readers. I believe that there arent that many terms that are new or different so it shouldn't be a difficult task to address.
Sam, you've made my point: each reviewer now uses his own "terms" and it is left to the reader to switch gears according to the reviewer. Can you imagine several interpreters at the United Nations, all Americans translating Russian, and each one changing a word to suit his personal meaning of the word? I believe that happened once, back in history. It's called The Tower of Babel. (Is this where they got the word "babbling"? I just bet it is!!)
This is the reason Walter Cronkite was so revered: while he delivered the news, it was clear, concise, exact and did not vary over the course of his legendary career. This is what I expect from TAS: objective observations, subjective reactions and common vocabulary. In other words, one reviewer's use of the word "smooth" should mean the same as the next reviewer's use of the word. For example "smooth" can also mean: a lack of texture (a bassoon's sound is different than an oboe's by the size, shape and emission of the sound). I think Dr. Green pointed out in a review in 'the good ol' days' that a piano, removed of its transient attacks, would sound like an accordion (he says it so much better than I ever could. Now imagine someone playing a banjo or a balalaika. Wouldn't you think they would sound different from each other. But if something is smoothed OVER, it can demolish that differentiation of instrumental sound/timbre/texture. In fact, RG pointed that out in his review of the Grand Veena's in his review in Hi Fi Plus, when he said the Grand Veena's one flaw was a subtle lack of texture on instruments. A brilliant observation, and something that would cause me to pause in my tracks if that was something I wanted to hear (and frankly, I can't imagine anyone who truly loves The Sound of Music to not care that the banjo and balalaika sound alike. The sounds of instruments thril me, personally).
Again, it comes down to the "do your own thing" axiom of the 60s roosting in the pages of TAS. I find that unbearable. I expect no more than what TAS delivered "back then," but also, no less, either. I'm not asking for anything that wasn't obvious for the first 20 years of the magazine's life. I get the impression that TAS has "dumbed down" the magazine to appeal to a wider audience. No point making it hard for Kim Kardashian to understand "focus" or "specificity" or "lack of coherence." My darkest thought is this: it's a case of making the magazine wanting to be more profitable (nothing wrong with that) by sacrificing its standards, standards TAS itself set back in 1973. Those of us reading it since then can easily see the decline. It's so easy to see: just read a review in the magazine today and then pick up an issue from say, 1980 -- any old issue will do -- and tell me that there's not case of evident literary schizphrenia in these pages. And if you CAN'T see it, guess what? You're the PERFECT reader for the TAS of 2009.
And yet another great post, which I entirely agree with! Tom Martin/Robert Harley are you reading this?
McBrion
As a write, (though someone who does not write about audio), the idea that people should use the same language when reviewing equipment strikes me as a non-starter.
One, it is inhumanly constricting. Individuals do not use the same language to describe different phenomena. That's simply the way the world is. A person who is "thorough" to one person may be "dogged" to another and may be "hard working" to yet someone else.
But there is a bigger problem. Talk to any lawyer on this. Even when people use the same language, they often do not mean the same thing. I teach writing and when I say a student's writing is "clear," believe it or not, other teachers who are at least as discerning as I am, probably would not mean the same thing I mean when I use "clear." I teach college writing, but I was trained as a newspaper journalist for a decade. Newspaper writing aims to be ultra clear to a one-time reader who is reading in a hurry (in the old days, reading over breakfast in the morning). My colleagues won't necessarily agree with my definition of clarity.
The experience of law and litigation reminds us of this fact. If language were 100 percent precise (as in the reader could know all the qualification and nuances of what every word someone uses is), then we wouldn't need lawyers. There could be no disagreements. In fact, the law is written by a legislature. It is often interpreted through a number of court decisions. But the meaning is never 100 percent clear. That's how you can have lawyers arguing on opposite sides of a case, arguing not just the facts, but what the law says about the facts.
Language is just not 100 percent scientifically precise. And that's fine with me. My view is that the TAS reviewers ( my favorites are Valin and Harley) are pretty damn clear to me in their reviews. This is not an "objective science." Who says we all hear the same thing? We do not all like the same music. Why not? Is there a law that says that all good listeners have to like Mahler? Dylan? No, there is not. Listening occurs under a thousand different conditions, in a thousand different rooms, with a thousand different varying components, with different music preferences.
I assume Valin and HP and Harley and Gader don't like the exact artists or the exact recordings by specific artists? Why should it be otherwise? ... and if they don't like the same music, why should they like the exact same components?
Great post, Phillymanhere. Consistency of meaning is even more difficult when describing reproduced sound, but we do our best.
In The Complete Guide to High-End Audio I laid out a detailed explanation of the terms I use.