advertisement


Common sense from The Audiophiliac.

I would go further and say that a 'better' system can actually be counterproductive. It can, for a variety of reason, make you enjoy your music less.

Yes, I know where you are coming from; it's a matter of hitting that sweet spot, between a system that gets the clues from the grooves and one that opens the window a trifle too much.
 
Yes, I know where you are coming from; it's a matter of hitting that sweet spot, between a system that gets the clues from the grooves and one that opens the window a trifle too much.

I'm sitting here right now thinking about selling my RP10 for exactly this reason. It's an amazing turntable but do I need amazing?
 
Check out the New Record Day review of the new ELAC Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 on YouTube, that’s a good example of a detailed, professional review:

 
Yes, I know where you are coming from; it's a matter of hitting that sweet spot, between a system that gets the clues from the grooves and one that opens the window a trifle too much.

I disagree, the more the window opens the less the music system imposes itself between music and listener. A playback system that is sufficiently effortless and unstrained will allow the good parts of bad recordings to shine through.
 

A self-admitted rant against all-in-one active speakers etc. I don’t think it’s perfectly formed as his ‘bought-in or off the shelf technology’ argument also applies to many of the components he cites as counter-arguments (e.g. Harbeth use SEAS tweeters, Wilson use Focal etc), plus there are other logic flaws to my mind, though it is great to see something approaching a green/right to repair argument being made in the audio mainstream. About bloody time!
 
Check out the New Record Day review of the new ELAC Uni-Fi 2.0 UB52 on YouTube, that’s a good example of a detailed, professional review:


Crazy good 'speakers at affordable prices. Andrew Jones, designer - his time has come.
 
Coincidentally, I just watched that video before coming to this thread. Good heavens, he is just a clown. It’s embarrassing that so many people actually pay attention to what he says. He’s a shameless shill for the industry...and he’s not very good at that.
 
Coincidentally, I just watched that video before coming to this thread. Good heavens, he is just a clown. It’s embarrassing that so many people actually pay attention to what he says. He’s a shameless shill for the industry...and he’s not very good at that.

Haters gonna hate.

(getting a tad tedious though).
 
So if one criticizes the professional competence of someone (Guttenberg is a professional reviewer, in that he earns money with his videos), that makes one a “hater?” I certainly don’t “hate” Mr. Guttenberg, indeed I bear him no personal animosity at all. But I certainly think the content of his videos is often abysmal.
 
It is very much here's the latest gizmo thing I loaned and it IS amazing.

A far cry from someone like A British Audiophile with his very down to earth demeanour.
 
I don’t always agree with his reviews but I do find him more engaging than most. I like the fact that he talks about budget gear often which is not really the approach of mags like Stereophile and Absolute Sound. He did write reviews for CNET etc. So he’s not really a clown. I think it’s a little harsh. I find the British Audiophile so dull in comparison.
 
So bad products coming in you just cancel the review so not to embarass the maker? :)

I don’t think that is an unreasonable position. Reviewers inevitably get access to prototype and pre-production product and if something really isn’t right it makes far more sense long-term to hoof it back to the designer with an explanation as to what wasn’t liked or found wanting. It is a two-way dialogue and a far more grown-up way of dealing than the ultra cheesy internet click-bait of say ASR absolutely crucifying a speaker some random reader sent in for the LULs. I have vastly more respect for the Stereophile approach. No one’s business was hurt, there was no spite, agenda or vendetta, and neither was there any compromise or possible shill accusation as no positive review for a product the writer felt was poor appeared. All seems perfectly fair to me. A refreshingly adult way of dealing with things.
 
Skip to 10:29


So bad products coming in you just cancel the review so not to embarass the maker? :)

Steve has broached this in the past. He sees it as pointless to present a bad review as he thinks his job is to advise people on what to buy and why, rather than spending 10 minutes telling people to not buy something. I'm sure he'll pass on his misgivings to the manufacturer and explain to them why he isn't going ahead with the review. He's offering these videos, which I find mostly entertaining if not that informative (in fact, I watch his reviews for his music recommendations more than anything else) for free, so he can review and not review what he wants.
I can never quite understand the hostility to people who provide content for free (as far as the viewer is concerned) on platforms like youtube, when you can simply choose to not watch the stuff.
 
And yet the b&w standmount gets speaker of the year despite God awful FR errors and masses of port noise...

It cuts both ways, surely
 
And yet the b&w standmount gets speaker of the year despite God awful FR errors and masses of port noise...

It cuts both ways, surely
He just doesn't do things that way. He commented this week that he just uses his ears and doesn't see why that seems so hard for some audiophiles. I do see his point - I have no interest in FR errors if the speaker sounds great.
 


advertisement


Back
Top