The Listening Rooms of Stereophile & TAS

[tigerwoodKhorns]

The reviewers are well known and they have the ability to describe what they hear and put that into words that are worth reading.

 

I agree that they have the ability, but that they do not actually put it into anything that is worth reading. 

 

The last time I read one of these rags was a free copy from an audio show.  It was a review of a $50,000 pair of speakers, and he mentioned that he replaced a digital cable with a $10,000 cable and "heard an immidiate improvement in tonal clarity" or some BS like that.  It was a one sentence blurb that was purchased by the manuafacturer. 

 

I can't wade into the BS anymore, the smell is getting to me. 

[Chris A]

I didn't read any of the posts.

Perhaps you should...

 

 

 

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.

Perhaps you should read the posts in this thread.  I don't trust some of their opinions as far as I could throw them.  That is the subject of this thread.  YMMV.

 

I find that when a non-technical person starts writing on technical hardware, software, and other forms of engineered products, all kinds of interesting things start to be invented (including, but not limited to purple prose on the reviewed subject.  For instance take the guy that wrote this, please: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt11/m2.html). 

 

If instead you put someone in the job of writing that also understands the technology and its limitations, I find that what comes out is clear, easily understood, and usually reasonable, with the mysteries confined to the constraints of the laws of physics, etc.  YMMV.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Chris A

[Chris A]

For purposes of comparison, here is Nelson Pass' listening room--and things are much, much better in terms of layout and acoustics (even if you don't prefer full-range drivers).  Notice the acoustic treatments on the front wall, the high ceiling, the absence of near-field reflective objects at the loudspeaker or at the listening position(s), no gaps under loudspeakers, loudspeakers toed-in:

 

Edited September 28, 2014 by Chris A

[russ69]

Perhaps you should read the posts in this thread.  I don't trust some of their opinions as far as I could throw them. 

There are many of you that feel the same way, I have no problem with that. But there are others that find their opinions useful. I have my favorites as well, some are frequent posters on other websites and we interact often. There has always been a certain level of skepticism, I think that is healthy but I'm not ready to say that writers opinions are worthless, perhaps some are more trustworthy than others but I find the top reviewers to be a useful part of my hobby.  

[beeker]

those first several posts look just like my main listening room ...mine may look better(I have more gear sitting around unused lol)...messy and lack of style/ good looking which is why I don't post pics(and cause the new forum system makes it more difficult) lol

 

regardless any room or the average room, a pair of speakers may tell any pair of ears something different

 

as mentioned in an above post the only ears to trust are our/your own. I mean heck I know or have known audiophiles who love bose hahahahahaah and im going to say these days for the common man if it aint klipsch then your wasting your time. even with a bottomless pit full of money

 

interesting nonetheless

[Ray Garrison]

I have to think some of the folks commenting on this thread have, at most, skimmed a few issues of Stereophile and come to a rather undeserved conclusion.

 

Sam Tellig reviewed a pair of La Scalas, raved about them, and bought the review pair.

 

Art Dudly LOVED the Volti Vittora, which they rated a "class A" speaker.

 

One of their reviewers uses an Avantgarde Uno as his main reference.

 

J. Gordon Holt thought Klipschorns were probably the most accurate and honest reproducers of the human voice and raved about their low distortion.

 

They mostly love SET's, although Atkinson has raised an eyebrow or two at some of the measurements.

 

They have, on occasion, called a pair of speakers they reviewed "vile transducers".

 

I've been a subscriber since sometime around 1985, and I've found a lot of really useful stuff in their pages.  Also a lot of crap, but that's true of pretty much anything.

[Don Richard]

Stereophile is not so bad, but the other magazine is a waste of paper.

[Mallette]

I have subscribed to $tereophile for years.  I skip 80% of each issue as so much of what they write about is moronic.  However, it's so cheap (I usually don't renew until after it's expired and they give me the bottom rate) it's worth it for the occasional bit of useful information to be found.  Same for Sound and Vision...though it tends to be a bit more newsy and useful, and even cheaper.

 

I really miss Audio and the immortal Edward Tatnall Canby!  THAT was a fine magazine.  Liked Listener, too.  It was seeing how Art Dudley changed from being a real voice to that of a moron when Listener folded and he went to work for $tereophile that proved the point about them. 

 

Dave 

Edited November 2, 2014 by Mallette

[Don Richard]

I really miss Audio and the immortal Edward Tatnall Canby! THAT was a fine magazine.

 

Amen, brother.

[soundbound]

I enjoy live music and then music through any audio system. I'm not critical when listening to music. I enjoy listening to music through my cheap portable radio on my garage's work bench. I find all audio systems and rooms have their differences and strengths which I enjoy, but I'm not impressed with some of what I see in these photos being they're of audio reviewers and advisers systems and rooms.

I read Audio Review years ago and it seemed to me that everything got a good review. I read a few recent audio magazines at the library and it was all very high dollar components. I've learned some from audio magazines, but feel their reviews are as much personal as professional. They need to sale magazines and constantly get more components to review, so their reviews can be swayed with those in mind.

Since we're discussing some Stereophile reviewers, I bought Stereophile's three tests CD which they recommend and for me they're useless and wonder if anyone here finds them useful and in what ways?

[Chris A]

I bought Stereophile's three tests CD which they recommend and for me they're useless and wonder if anyone here finds them useful and in what ways?

I sometimes use the CDs for their test tracks just after making changes to my setup hardware (including disconnecting and connecting cables and reprogramming new-to-me active crossovers) to make sure that I didn't screw things up.  The non-test tracks on these discs are a mixed bag, at best.  The Chesky demo discs I find are much more entertaining. 

 

Below are the track listings for the Stereophile test discs with some interesting data:

 

[russ69]

Since we're discussing some Stereophile reviewers, I bought Stereophile's three tests CD which they recommend and for me they're useless and wonder if anyone here finds them useful and in what ways?

Well I don't use them often but the frequency steps (test tones) are useful,  the test where they walk around the studio for positioning of playback and also the left/right channel test (on complicated systems it's easy to get the wires crossed or reversed). The absolute phase test is not as useful for me, I can't hear the difference. The dynamic range drum cut is always fun.

[Don Richard]

They have a "special burn-in noise" track on disc 3. I wonder if that will work for cables.

[Mallette]

I wonder if that will work for cables.

 

Certainly.  But you gotta be REAL sincere...

 

Dave

[twk123]

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 judgements. And since most of these guys have been in the business for decades you would think they would have accomplished more than this.

Kal Rubinson's listening room

 

Wow, he even has a coffee table blocking the sound stage and absolutely no dampening at primary reflection points. Well, its good to know that a 26 year old who bought some kg 5.5's for his birthday and watched a few youtube videos has a better room and knows more about acoustic treatment than the high end reviewers...

[fuzzydog]

Thought I'd dredge up this old thread to post a pic of one of the AVS official reviewers here: http://www.avsforum.com/psb-imagine-x-5-2-speaker-system-review/

 

 

Not as bad as some of the others, but still far from optimal.  Check out the location of the center...and the surrounds are practically nearfield. 

 

Why in the world would you need a 200 Watt $5,000 amp to power speakers in a shoebox. 

 

At least he's got a patch of carpet on the wall.

[Aggie Klipsch]

The online version of Stereophile is not to bad, but when you go to the forums it is really fun to read Geoff Kait and Michael Green berate each other. One of the reviewers mentioned power cables and said to put one in your freezer then take it out, attach it and how it magically widened the sound stage. Really.

 

Glad I just like to listen to music.

[wvu80]

At least he's got a patch of carpet on the wall.

 

It's probably acoustic carpet. 

+++

 

On the one hand...the reviewer could be criticized if he did his review in an anechoic chamber because nobody listens in a "perfect" environment.

 

OTOH he could be equally criticized for testing in the shoe box room shown in the pic.

 

You should see the goofy asymmetric space I call my living room.  A giant window instead of a side wall, one flat wall opening to a hallway, angled walls, open back, off-center main listening position, wood floor. 

[Wolfbane]

With the exception of the third room depicted I suspect that these are really their wive's rooms and these guys are only allowed to use them from time to time.

[Kal Rubinson]

On 7/31/2012 at 7:57 AM, artto said:

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 judgements. And since most of these guys have been in the business for decades you would think they would have accomplished more than this.

Kal Rubinson's listening room

I just stumbled on this thread where a picture of me from 2012 appears in the first post.  The OP identifies this as my listening room but it is not and has never been my main listening room.  It was built as a HT room in my weekend house and, despite the constraints of its dimensions (small and almost square), it has become a fairly good-sounding (and -measuring) room due to the extensive use of bass traps and absorbent panels.  FWIW.