Nice Letter to the Editor in Stereophile

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Stillone

I disagree with both statements. Tubes are nosier with greater distortion and have narrower bandwidth. The SN ratio of SS gear can be 20 to 30 db greater than tubes.

IMHO Tubes are great in the mid's but cannot replicate the highs or lows of SS.

Tubes can do it, it's the speakers that often won't let them. Preamps have no problems in that area. That's why I'm running a hybrid amp, tube stage which is linear drives the ss mosfet output stage which can and does drive the speakers to satisfaction.

[magnmac]

well the 20's were only 50+ years before the CD... why is he referring to cd's as todays technology? I would refer to hi-res downloads as 'todays technology'.

[jdandy]

It is unfortunate that the writer, at age 31, has yet to learn respect and civility, let alone how to make an argument with logic, proof sources, and reasoning to support his point of view. It smacks of the dumbing down of America, and is rampant. IMO

[-E-]

He made me laugh a little, and even shed a tear for how inept he is. Dan, you are spot-on once again. He could have created a far more convincing argument rather than go ad-homonym.

Oh well. At least we all know what we like, what we want, and aren't afraid to express it. I'd take any review from just about any contributor to this site over any print media out there.

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Stillone

In fact, a very popular science magazine evaluated vinyl and stated why old farts like you think vinyl and tubes sound better than CD. They found it wasn’t because it holds more information, ‘cause it doesn’t, but because it causes vibrations in the material itself that creates the illusion that it sounds warmer-or, in your case, better.

Well, I am not that old, nor am I prone to flatulence, so I don't think I qualify as an old fart . Having said that, whatever the reason behind the vinyl and tube sound, I know what I like and I like them both.

Alberto

[cougit25]

IMHO it appears the young man and many of his peers do not know what music sounds like. Classical, Jazz, Opera, Vocals and other non amplified live performances tell the real story. It is by listening to these types of performances that we get an "ear" for what music sounds like.

If all one listens to is "todays technology" of R&B, techno and other over compressed recordings, one becomes accustomed to this artificial sound of music.

If that turns you on, fine, but don't spew out your ignorance on others who have a very different music experience.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by cougit25

IMHO it appears the young man and many of his peers do not know what music sounds like. Classical, Jazz, Opera, Vocals and other non amplified live performances tell the real story. It is by listening to these types of performances that we get an "ear" for what music sounds like.

If all one listens to is "todays technology" of R&B, techno and other over compressed recordings, one becomes accustomed to this artificial sound of music.

If that turns you on, fine, but don't spew out your ignorance on others who have a very different music experience.

I am not taking one side or another here. There are two or more sides to this debate. Your assumption that Classical, Jazz, Opera, and vocals tell the real story. If he or his friends do not listen to those genres why would he care how they are reproduced? He is saying it is important to him that it be able to reproduce Rock & RB. That is important to many of us too. I have heard far to many "audiophile systems" that can reproduce "audiophile CD's or LP's" but fall apart on rock and symphonic tunes. It is pretty easy to get a guitar or other strings to sound pretty good. Until recently I thought all of Springsteen's output was poorly recorded. My system is at the point now where some of it sounds excellent.

[wpines]

If you read the rest of his letter, it puts the first half in context.
I agree entirely with this part of his letter!!!!!

"And third, you guys recommend everything... everything! You even recommended an amplifier that blew up on you, and a stupid magic marker for Cd's. Maybe what you guys need is a new reviewer. Someone who's younger and more realistic. Someone who's willing to do blind tests on cables and CD players that differ in cost by the thousands. Someone who is truly independent because you guys are not. Like I said... you guys recommend everything!
So the time has come to say so long and goodbye. I'm not renewing my subscription. You old farts lost another young member."

At the very least these same old reviewers need to have their own reference systems listed and their audible hearing ranges listed, for context if nothing else.
They should also buy the equipment that they review at list price with their own money and then have to resell it on Audiogon and take the depreciation hit BEFORE they write the review.
That, my friends, would put some real perspective into the review
It's relatively meaningless otherwise.
Paid reviewers playing for free with other people's toys.
Objective?
"Like I said... you guys recommend everything!"

[jdandy]

wpines.......I read the whole letter in my copy of Stereophile. He is still rude, foul mouthed, narrow minded, and has no concept of how reviewers are bombarded with manufacture's requests to audition their products. Free press in national and international publications is extremely valuable, and highly coveted. Why would any established audio publication choose to review any product that was known to be inferior from the outset. Is a publication suppose to pick a few unworthy products, just so they have something to bash so a marginally educated individual can feel warm and fuzzy when he gets to read the trashing of a product? Does a publishing concept that embraces a policy like this add value or authenticity to the otherwise great equipment that makes it to the pages?

There have been many times I have read less than flattering reviews on products in the pages of Stereophile Magazine. One needs to look no farther back than the review of the McIntosh MS750 music server to see that they don't "recommend everything". Of course, when a fool paints with such a broad brush, everything gets covered in two strokes, right?

So cancel the subscription, if he ever actually had one. Who gives a hoot. He will still lean on the magazine rack at Borders and read it anyhow, more than likely feeling quite smug, since it won't cost him a dime.

[wpines]

Choosing inferior products to review isn't the point. A reader who reads TAS or Stereophile that is not an experienced audiophile or who hasn't gobs of money needs to know comparative value, bang for the buck, opportuntiy cost (for you financial folks). When I first got into this hobby heavily, the reviews in these magazines were less than helpful because there was no way to judge relative value from a review. The Stereophile yearly 500 recommended components comes closest to achieving this. Head to head comparisons. This years list shows the $399 Oppo 983 as a class B player along with the $6,000 MS750!!!!!
To someone starting out or on a limited budget, that informs him that he can get a very large slice of the digital pie for $399.
The individual reviews lack this kind of a comparative value, therefore the appearance is that..... they recommend everything!
We need young people in this hobby. More should be done in the "highly coveted space in the national and international publications" to make them welcome.
The inherent snobbiness that has been bred into this industry by the now 50 and older generation has been the ruin of the brick and mortar store.
The mags are next. Their current readership will be geriatric in 15 years.