Anatomy of an Audio Review

markmarc

My right hand man at A$$A, John Hoffman, put this question on another forum and asked me to place it here to inspire some deeper thought:

I do a bit of writing for Affordable Audio, and have my spent a bit of time thinking about how to properly set up the reviewing process. It is my opinion that there are two main ways to review a component.

One is to install the new component into an existing reference system, and report the results, either good or bad. I can understand the benefits of proceeding in this manner, but it's not my method of choice.

Another choice is to find a complimentary mix of components that result in a system that the review component works well in. In this case, understanding the mix of components in the review system is as important as the description given of the unit under evaluation. Of course, this method is limited by the stable of stereo gear that the reviewer has access to, and his abilities to properly set the system up. This is the my preferred method of writing a review, although it may lead to articles with a consistently positive slant. The key to understanding the review is to carefully look at the system that has been assembled for the piece, and think about how the pieces will interact.

A review should never be the sole basis for a buying decision. I think many of us who have been in the hobby awhile understand this. Although the review will give a perspective buyer an idea if a component should be on their short list of components to audition.

These are my thoughts on the subject, yours may vary. Please feel free to express your thoughts and opinions on this subject.

treitz3

I see nothing is said about what types of music they listen to. This can make a subtle to huge difference in the outcome of certain components within the system.

treitz3

....and to what level [db] playback is.

hearingimpared

I disagree with finding a system that the "reviewed" component would work well in. When I buy a cartridge I don't rebuild my system around it. I do however make sure that the cartridge will work in my system. I make sure the cart is compatible with the tonearm, the cart output is sufficient for my phono pre, I make sure my pre can handle the required cart loading.

It does seem like going with components that best perform for a review is quite slanted but to take a piece of gear that has nothing in common is not giving the review sample a snowballs chance . . .

Besides what better circumstance for a review than you own reference system. I would think the one of the most important things is that the piece of gear to be reviewed be broken in properly.

I agree with Tom on the music aspect too.

I really don't think there is a simple answer here.

Just MHO.

Early B.

hearingimpared wrote: »

I disagree with finding a system that the "reviewed" component would work well in.

Besides what better circumstance for a review than you own reference system.

I agree with Tom on the music aspect too.

Yeah, me, too. Finding a system the reviewed component will work well in makes no sense at all. How would that be determined anyways?

Also, the types of music the reviewer prefers is very important for the reader to know.

wingnut4772

I forget which HT magazine does it but one combines reviews. They take a new receiver, speakers and say an amplifier , put them all together because they SHOULD match well etc. - and I hate that method. How can the reviewer possibly know how to review any of these pieces accurately without having first hand experience in depth with any one of them in a system he or she is familiar with?


I prefer the reviewer just implements the product into a system he or she is familiar with and goes from there.

Jim Shearer

I see no point in trying to build an entire synergistic system for a review. As said earlier: we aren't likely to go out & buy everything to start over again. And besides: the room you play it in has more effect than some of the components. What do you do about that? All we can hope for from a review is to learn what the reviewer likes in various components (which perhaps we have heard for ourselves) and how they react to this new piece of gear.

Cheers, Jim

Music Joe

Fred Kaplan review

Focus on the [Sound] section. I thought this review exemplified conveying a piece of gear in within prints space and word limit.

Early B.

Hey Music Joe --

Since we're talking about writing reviews -- I love to read a brief review of your Soliloquy 6.5's and the mods you made to 'em.

treitz3

...and do they keep all associated gear on for a certain amount of time before the review or just slap it together, turn it on and do the review?

Dennis Gardner

Sounds like a way of justifying, giving advertisers only positive reviews.

"Yeah we reviewed your cd player, but haven't yet found the perfect system to play it in to give you the rating your $$$ you spend with us deserves...........maybe next month when more gear arrives.":rolleyes:

Gaara

I much prefer reviews where the reviewer uses pieces in their own system. It makes it easier to compare and contrast since you can read prior reviews and see what impact various pieces had on one system.

For the reader it also helps alot, especially if you can find a reviewer with a similar system and taste in music. For a while I had a very similar system to Srajan over at 6moons so it made reading his reviews a blast. When he tried components I could see how they would directly impact my own system.

Music Joe

Early B. wrote: »

Hey Music Joe --

Since we're talking about writing reviews -- I love to read a brief review of your Soliloquy 6.5's and the mods you made to 'em.

After hearing a friends pair several times I wanted a pair. He found a used pair with silver Wave Launch plates(darn) but said they'd been modded.A pair of Sonicaps in the tweeter crossover and some Black-hole[?] damping as it turns out. I think caps were 6.8 and 2.2 not 100% on that second value because silicon applied on caps. Although we didn't do a side by side with his...we both agreed his system sounded better...better & different electronics in a very large room.
Who-ever put the Black-hole pulled out all the dacron. I put a little back in, because it had an occasional mechanical sound from the port.
I took out the Straightwire [I assume since mine are earlier model].
I used some PC-OCC in teflon interconnect wire to the tweeters and dome mids.
Then 13 ga pc-occ that was biwire speaker cable to the six inch drivers.
The wave launch plates were held with allen head wood screws. Some felt stripped or about to, the grill holder slotted studs your supposed to us if you want to put grills on were smaller and probably caused this.

The damping behind the plates was a thin foam gasket which I replaced with vinyl-copolymer damping sheet, also added some to cabinet inside side-walls from woofers down.

When I put it back together I drilled all the mounting holes and put in T-nuts and stainless allen head machine screws for the drivers and plates. I remember being very,very nervous about forever changing an engineering choice.
That decoupled driver thing in the Soliloquy literature could only have been the foam gasket which had flattened.
IMO Phil Jones sent Soliloquy his drivers pre-mounted to these plates and instructions on electronics and parts selection with cabinet plans.
The undersized Allen-wood-screws seemed like a shortcut.
IME the 3/8" thick aluminum Wave launch plate was to give the tweeter/dome mid a solid point source and low resonance mounting surface to affix to which the sound could launch from like an aluminum bat vs wood.

I think they sound a lot better, the bass was warmish even though they did go low. Now they have very precise image outlines all the way down.
Now the transient attack is very much improved. And warmth doesn't seem added.

And the vocal/highs now sound plain real. That was due to early and too much room reflection.

I still have a room caused bass dip. My Overture 3's had a similar problem in my 2 channel room. Tony my friend who got me interested in these has his 6.5's in a good sized living room system (maybe 27x22) which delivers a big realistic 3d image down to the low frequency.
The lowest octaves in my room however delivers pressure. He called it room lock.

I couldn't write a decent review. I need more knowledge of music & music instrument terminology, to be able to convey musical events in a universal and understood way.

hearingimpared

Nice write up!

BTW Black Holes are sorbothane pods.

Early B.

Great write-up, MJ. It shows that even "high end" speakers can benefit from some internal "tweaking." I owned the 5.3's a while back and they were nice, but the 6.5's are definitely in another league.