The Listening Rooms of Stereophile & TAS

[Mallette]

what is carriage return? CR?

It's that place right near the dock where you return the rental carriage before you get on the ship...[]

Dave

[Chris A]

Colin's writeup in formatted text:

"At first I was shocked to see not only the modesty of some of the exalted reviewer’s humble abodes, but also the horrible speaker placements and conditions with which they have to cope! For Cardinals of the Golden Ear, their homes are NOT cathedrals of Audio Nirvana. Most of the tweaking audiophiles in my Suncoast Audiophile Society (SAS, Meetup.com) who host our monthly meetings have superior arrangements. The listening room defines the sound of home movie and music reproduction systems. Yet, while a few of them have some foam panels, very few have more acoustic treatment than that (one doctor has a custom designed room).

Unfortunately the reviewer’s modest rooms are like mine. Not hardly ideal at all. In fact most people’s homes do NOT have an ideal room for a purist audio system. I wonder why speaker manufacturers don’t design loudspeakers for particularly difficult set-ups, such as a bookshelf. How many times have you seen a perfectly decent speaker shoved so far back into a shelf that the walls are blinders to sight and sound?

Because most rooms aren’t ideal, I applaud Bose (gasp, Bose!) for incorporating an automatic EQ into some of their over-priced systems. They really do know how to get the most sound and consumer dollars out of as little of their investment as possible! Yet the impact is the same as EQ with actually good equipment; it helps make modest systems sound better, maybe as good as they can be.

I hardly consider myself a self-anointed or pious expert. I consider myself a fellow consumer. I ask vendors a lot of stupid questions. I don’t read electronics books in my spare time. I learn as I go. I report what I hear. I don’t “charge people for the sham.” I charge for my labor. It is less than a day’s pay for a week’s work. So it is NOT employment for me normally but I will admit it has helped buy groceries these past few years. I am NOT an emperor but I still stand naked before my readers.

Having auditioned several dozen units of equipment over the past decade, I can say with confidence, that I do indeed hear differences. I read how some reviewers’ describe those same differences. I am pleased that I have yet to get a unit wrong. I am very pleased that later Stereophile reviews only confirm what I heard and tried to describe previously. I certainly wish I did some simple measurements and I welcome suggestions in that regard.

I do try to explain why somebody might purchase the unit I am reviewing and I rarely find units I just hate (often, the review gets killed anyway, threat of lawsuits, don’t ya know).

It is true that reviewers may NOT hear all the nuances of what they are writing about since their rooms are indeed “clearly saddled with issues.” Their room acoustics do affect the response of the unit. Personally, I would hope that these missing features are nuances only and NOT major characteristics of the unit. I could be wrong.

When Supravox came and pulled their loudspeakers further into the room than I ever would, the soundstage opened up like the Grand Ole Opry (

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0112/supravox_carla.htm

)! My review would have missed that. Therefore, I try to review each piece of equipment in another location. The SAS has been wonderful for that. I think other reviewers try the same thing, only NOT so formally; they try to review on different systems too.

Do you need a good room to review a $500 piece of equipment? Perhaps NOT. Usually its flaws are obvious, but its capabilities might be hidden.

Then do you need a good room to review a $50,000 piece of equipment? Definitely NOT! Its capabilities are obvious as a nose, but its flaws, such as performance with much higher end equipment, might be hidden. It is the removal of weaknesses, the elimination of flaws that drives up the capabilities and cost of equipment. Most of the equipment I’ve reviewed sounds fairly good…to a certain extent. It is what IT CAN’T DO that limits them and defines their usefulness in the home movie and music reproduction system.

Super expensive dream systems, can indeed make almost all music sound quite good. (

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0902/deprecating.htm

) Good recordings show off superior systems in ways that mediocre ones cannot. And vice versa. Poor recordings sound lifeless on even the best stereo. For that reason, I solicited, reviewed and continue to use what I believe are above average recordings:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/music/0704/stereophile.htm

,

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/music/0512/classical/test_track_4.htm

I do NOT however think that the source material is the “end all and be all” of a great sounding system. Far too often in the SAS homes and even AXPONA, the system simply does NOT have the capability Dr. Floyd E. Toole, Vice President Acoustical Engineering, Harman International, espouses in his white papers. They do NOT have “flatness and smoothness of high-resolution on-axis curves.”

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Pages/WhitePapers.aspx

I did mention the sound pressure levels before. I will get back to doing that.

I have NOT heard slight differences with couches and other things affecting sound very often. I recently heard the effect made by a Mexican serape placed over an unused-center speaker. The 3D image of the singer was distinct and strong. I kept thinking the system owner was driving the center channel. It diminished the distinct. He wasn’t. Unintentionally, the passive center driver helped nail the illusory location of the singer in the wide room. The system’s owner never realized the wonderful effect it created.

If I had followed the advice of local stereo shops and high-end magazines, I probably would have a basic sounding solid-state receiver with cone loudspeakers, at a modest price. Instead I have a kick-*** system that when properly tuned, comes awfully close to some very good high-end systems I have heard at the same modest price. Thank you neighbor Ralph Karsten of Atmo-Sphere OTL amplifiers for my teenage enlightenment."

Edited May 4, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

Do you need a good room to review a $500 piece of equipment? Perhaps NOT. Usually its flaws are obvious, but its capabilities might be hidden.

Then do you need a good room to review a $50,000 piece of equipment? Definitely NOT! Its capabilities are obvious as a nose, but its flaws, such as performance with much higher end equipment, might be hidden. It is the removal of weaknesses, the elimination of flaws that drives up the capabilities and cost of equipment. Most of the equipment I’ve reviewed sounds fairly good…to a certain extent. It is what IT CAN’T DO that limits them and defines their usefulness in the home movie and music reproduction system.

By the way, I can't agree with this because it flies in the face of my personal experience and my understanding of "hi fi".

I've found that good rooms (acoustically) are always needed to accurately review any piece of audio equipment regardless of the equipment's inherent capabilities/performance, but especially with higher performing equipment. I think that the rationale for this statement is apparent: the end state performance is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain...if we are talking about systems.

Chris

Edited May 4, 2014 by Chris A

[Colin]

Thanks, for both Chris, you beat me to it, gonna try IE anyway....

[Colin]

At first I was shocked to see not only the modesty of some

of the exalted reviewer's humble abodes, but also the horrible speaker

placements and conditions with which they have to cope! For Cardinals of the

Golden Ear, their homes are NOT cathedrals of Audio Nirvana. Most of the

tweaking audiophiles in my Suncoast Audiophile Society (SAS, Meetup.com), who

host our monthly meetings, have superior arrangements. The listening room

defines the sound of home movie and music reproduction systems. Yet, while a

few of them have some foam panels, very few have more acoustic treatment than

that (one doctor has a custom designed room).

Unfortunately, the reviewers modest rooms are like mine. Not

hardly ideal at all. In fact, most people's homes do NOT have an ideal room for

a purist audio system. I wonder why speaker manufacturers don't design

loudspeakers for particularly difficult set-ups. Such as a bookshelf. How many

times have you seen a perfectly decent speaker shoved so far back into a shelf

that the walls are blinders to sight and sound?

Because most rooms aren't ideal, I applaud Bose (gasp,

Bose!) for incorporating an automatic EQ into some of their over-priced

systems. They really do know how to get the most sound and consumer dollars out

of as little of their investment as possible! Yet the impact is the same as EQ

with actually good equipment; it helps make modest systems sound better, maybe

as good as they can be.

I hardly consider myself a self-anointed or pious expert. I

consider myself a fellow consumer. I ask vendors a lot of stupid questions. I

don't read electronics books in my spare time. I learn as I go. I report what I

hear. I don't "charge people for the sham." I charge for my labor. It is less

than a day's pay for a week's work. So it is NOT employment for me normally,

but I will admit it has helped buy groceries these past few years. I am NOT an

emperor, but I still stand naked before my readers.

Having auditioned several dozen units of equipment over the

past decade, I can say with confidence, that I do indeed hear differences. I

read how some reviewers' describe those same differences. I am pleased that I

have yet to get a unit wrong. I am very pleased that later Stereophile reviews

only confirm what I heard and tried to describe previously. I certainly wish I

did some simple measurements and I welcome suggestions in that regard.

I do try to explain why somebody might purchase the unit I

am reviewing and I rarely find units I just hate (often, the review gets killed

anyway, threat of lawsuits, don't ya know).

It is true that reviewers may NOT hear all the nuances of

what they are writing about, since their rooms are indeed "clearly saddled with

issues." Their room acoustics do effect the response of the unit. Personally, I

would hope that these missing features are nuances only and NOT major

characteristics of the unit. I could be wrong. When Supravox came and pulled

their loudspeakers further into the room than I ever would, the soundstage

opened up like the Grand Ole Opry (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0112/supravox_carla.htm)!

My review would have missed that. Therefore, I try to review each piece of

equipment in another location. The SAS has been wonderful for that. I think

other reviewers try the same thing, only NOT so formally; they try to review on

different systems too.

Do you need a good room to review a $500 piece of equipment?

Perhaps NOT. Usually its flaws are obvious, but its capabilities might be

hidden.

Then do you need a good room to review a $50,000 piece of

equipment? Definitely NOT! Its capabilities are obvious as a nose, but its flaws,

such as performance with much higher end equipment, might be hidden. It is the

removal of weaknesses, the elimination of flaws that drives up the capabilities

and cost of equipment. Most of the equipment I've reviewed sounds fairly

good...to a certain extent. It is what IT CAN'T DO that limits them and defines

their usefulness in the home movie and music reproduction system.

Super expensive dream systems, can indeed make almost all

music sound quite good. (http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0902/deprecating.htm)

Good recordings show off superior systems in ways that mediocre ones cannot.

And vice versa. Poor recordings sound lifeless on even the best stereo. For

that reason, I solicited, reviewed and continue to use what I believe are above

average recordings: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/music/0704/stereophile.htm,

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/music/0512/classical/test_track_4.htm

I do NOT however think that the source material is the "end

all and be all" of a great sounding system. Far too often in the SAS homes and

even AXPONA, the system simply does NOT have the capability Dr. Floyd E. Toole,

Vice President Acoustical Engineering, Harman International, espouses in his

white papers. They do NOT have "flatness and smoothness of high-resolution

on-axis curves." http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Pages/WhitePapers.aspx

I did mention the sound pressure levels before. I will get

back to doing that.

I have NOT heard slight differences with couches and other

things effecting sound very often. I recently heard the effect made by a a Mexican

serape placed over an unused-center speaker. The 3D image of the singer was

distinct and strong. I kept thinking the system owner was driving the center

channel. It diminished the distinct. He wasn't. Unintentionally, the passive center

driver helped nail the illusory location of the singer in the wide room. The system's

owner never realized the wonderful effect it created.

If I had followed the advice of local stereo shops and

high-end magazines, I probably would have a basic sounding solid-state receiver

with cone loudspeakers, at a modest price. Instead I have a kick-*** system,

that when properly tuned, comes awfully close to some very good high-end

systems I have heard, at the same modest price. Thank you neighbor Ralph

Karsten, of Atmo-Sphere OTL amplifiers, for my teenage enlightenment.

Flood's listening room is 12.5 by 18 feet long. One corner

of the front wall is open with desk (dining) area and hallway. The other front

corner has sliding glass door. Therefore, his classic Klipsch corner horns have

false half walls (solid core doors cut in half) behind them. Front and back

walls are concrete block. Floor is wood laminate on slab. Back wall bisected by

staircase with enclosed steps. Eight white Realtraps panels reduce slap echo

and modes. A Behringer digital EQ could reduce peaks, but Flood rarely uses it.

[Colin]

What is more important? The front-end electronics and source or the back-end speakers? In "Stereos, As They Relate to Indoor Sport," I swap boom-box parts for high-end and listen to the difference: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/senselessrambling/

Senseless Ramblings

www.enjoythemusic.com

Last night my daughter went out and bought a boom box from Sony for $179. Despite a living room dominated by two of the largest three way horn speakers ever made, she purchased a silver MHC-RXD2 for its CD player and dual cassette decks, with out any consultation from me. I knew that she woul...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Big-Ole-Horns/142663002431283?ref=hl

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Much to my surprise Art Dudley, in the September "As We See It" column in Stereophile, actually calls "bullshit" on expensive interconnects and equipment manufacturers who try to justify absurd prices by virtue of fancy cabinetry and not the contained electronics! I never thought I'd see the day that such a position would be put forth in that magazine. A similar sentiment is rendered by Markus Sauer in his review of the Munich High End Show in the same issue. Perhaps they're finally realizing that many people are not taken in by their hype.

Can you post the article? This should be interesting.

[Mallette]

Can you post the article? This should be interesting.

Haven't ready my September yet, but it may be that Art isn't totally ruined by association with $tereophile yet. When at Listener, Art was the voice of reason and almost everything he wrote was reliable. I really enjoyed Listener. Since he joined $tereophile he's written much that is in line with their BS line...but every now and again a bit of the old Art who could wax rhapsodic about the joys a pair of large Advents, an ST-70, a PAS-4, and an AR turntable, will show through.

Dave

[tube fanatic]

Can you post the article? This should be interesting.

Haven't ready my September yet, but it may be that Art isn't totally ruined by association with $tereophile yet. When at Listener, Art was the voice of reason and almost everything he wrote was reliable. I really enjoyed Listener. Since he joined $tereophile he's written much that is in line with their BS line...but every now and again a bit of the old Art who could wax rhapsodic about the joys a pair of large Advents, an ST-70, a PAS-4, and an AR turntable, will show through.

Dave

I gave the issue to a friend after reading it through, and the articles are not yet up on the web site. Dave, can you perhaps scan it and post?

Maynard

[Mallette]

Dave, can you perhaps scan it and post?

I fear not. I occupy a rather delicate position here and releasing it before $tereophile might constitute a copyright breach. Certainly fair use to quote a key point or so, but I haven't even had time to look at that issue yet.

Dave

[thebes]

You reached a mite too far when you state that people should listen to the music not their equipment.

If I said that, my wordsmithing has deviated from my thinking. What would a Waterford wine glass be without wine? Does that mean, however, I cannot admire that wine glass even if it's empty or contains Ripple? That's my point. If I knew somebody with a Rockford turntable I would want to hear the Virgil Fox Stan Richter DDiscs played on it fer shure. I can say, however, without worrying over my words too much that if you actually hear your equipment something is wrong with it.

Let's face it, Sterophile and other review mags and blogs fill a need, and that's for perceived, repeat, perceived professional rendering of opinions regarding equipment that amounts to a large outlay of cash for almost anyone spending up to or beyound their audio budget.

Indeed they do. And I am a $tereophile subcriber of quite a few years along with a number of other audio journals. Like UFO shows, I occasionally actually learn something useful from them.

Oh, since the source is everything. I'm sure you'd be happy to send me your Frasiers in exchange for some nice Realistic floorstanders I've run across.

That statement tells me I still have a long way to go before I can claim any abilities in writing. What I have tried to get across is that I can tolerate far more inaccuracies in an equipment playback chain than in the source material itself, and a truly first rate recording can transcend all but the very most awful playback chain. However, the better the equipment gets the worse the experience of listening to a bad recording.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to why in these pages this would be a controversial statement.

Dave

Good good. It appears you have finally come around to my way few thinking which may raise a tad of bile, leading to a somewhat upset stomach. To calm it, I'd recommend what I had for dinner, which is Cal Blacksmitth's award winning ribs, but I'm afraid you folks in Texas are somewhat barbeque challenged and probably too poor to trade your brisket for a more exalted and expensive cut like pork ribs.

Suffice it to say that while I am not a great believer in that audiophile mantra called "system synergy", I do believe that all real components in the chain, (no that does not include cables, plugs and mp3's, must be a movin and groovin so I can play that funky chicken.

But now, without guidance from those exalted purveyors of online and print in the realm of high-end stereo I'm forced back upon the tender, and so far, tremendously helpful mercies of my fellow forum members.

[Mallette]

Good good. It appears you have finally come around to my way few thinking

Have I been elsewhere...sheesh, the stuff is wearing off. Got any more?

but I'm afraid you folks in Texas are somewhat barbeque challenged and probably too poor to trade your brisket for a more exalted and expensive cut like pork ribs.

Actually quite aware of the superiority of North Carolina pulled pork and that thin vinegar based sauce...even with with the slaw...as well as the fortes of a number of other, all southern, variants on ribs and such. OTOH, only Texans can take something as challenging as brisket and make it not only good but fork tender, and even then you gotta know somebody who knows Bubba to get it.

There you have it, my friend. Perfect concordance. Glad you came around... []

Dave

[George O.]

What a cluttered and unpleasant looking room.

[Don Richard]

Yeah, but he has cable elevators to keep the wires off the floor.[*-)]

[jacksonbart]

That is the worse rug I have ever seen.

[George O.]

Yeah, but he has cable elevators to keep the wires off the floor.

Those are ESSENTIAL! Otherwise some of the music gets caught, or at least slowed down, by carpet fibers.

[George O.]

That is the worse rug I have ever seen.

You must have lived in higher class apartments than I have, then.

I'm thinking those little bits of red tape near the speakers and in the center ARE little bits of red tape, maybe to outline precise speaker placement when speakers are swapped out repeatedly. And they've just been left on the floor after being dislodged.

Generally speaking, though, we can't see the rooms in their entirety or know what kind of influence they have on the sound of reproduced music. They may be fine sounding for all we know. I think a room should be comfortable to listen to music in, a relaxing room, and would not want or expect it to be an audiophile-tuned room. If you can have both, though, that's great.

[Chris A]

I've previously posted a couple of these in another subject thread in another Forum area but have since also come across John Atkinson's listening room, so I'll post them all again along with his.

 

I really have to wonder what these guys are thinking and who they think they are as to be so pious to charge people subscriptions for their judgments. And since most of these guys have been in the business for decades you would think they would have accomplished more than this.

 

I just stumbled across the bios of these three guys: 

 

Greene (who has written for The Absolute Sound in the past, but not recently) is the most impressive as an amateur violinist and professor of math at UCLA, Rubinson is a professor of physiology at NYU School of Medicine, and Atkinson is basically a career hi-fi magazine writer that graduated from U London.

 

Looking again at their listening rooms, I'd have to say that I'd most like to listen in Mr. Atkinson's room, and least in Dr. Rubinson's and Dr. Greene's rooms.  Atkinson has some interesting stuff (including cable elevators) but I can forgive him that indiscretion.  Greene's listening rooms are by far the most troublesome wrt what I see.

 

The least impressive was Art Dudley (whose room is shown below) - who apparently has no technical background, but rather writing only.  His listening room is shown below.  It tells me a lot about what these guys are writing about (and not writing about):

 

 

I'm still amazed by these pictures.  If I were one of these guys, I'd make sure that no one takes any pictures of their own listening rooms (with the possible exception of Atkinson).

 

Chris

Edited September 28, 2014 by Chris A

[mike stehr]

Baseboard heating?

[russ69]

I didn't read any of the posts. The set-ups look like fine near field set-ups to me but then again, I would hold my opinion until I heard the room and see if it was working or not. The reviewers are well known and they have the ability to describe what they hear and put that into words that are worth reading. They all are known to have the ability to differentiate the differences in equipment to a fairly accurate level. I guess you can criticize the look of their systems but the tools they are using are getting the job done, if it wasn't they would have no credibility at all and nobody would read what they say and that is certainly not the case.