Thiel Speakers & Stereophile
Richard Harding
The latest edition of Stereophile carries another effusively
flattering review of a new Thiel speaker, the CS6. Yet I
note with some concern that the models originally received
by the reviewer were rejected as faulty, upon installation,
by Jim Thiel himself.
IIRC, the CS7 speakers reviewed by Stereophile last year
were also defective and had to be replaced, subsequent to
which the replacements received a glowing review.
As a prospective Thiel purchaser, I am concerned by this
apparent lack of quality control, especially as I am
unlikely to have Jim Thiel himself visit my listening room
to give the final QC on the speakers.
I am also rather concerned that Stereophile does not seem to
have a problem with a manufacturer who on two consecutive
occasions delivers for review extremely expensive equipment
that is not up to snuff. I have a hunch that not all
manufacturers would be so indulged.
So, I ask myself:
a) Does Thiel have a QC problem?
b) Does Stereophile have an integrity problem?
c) All of the above
Richard
Pinderz
>So, I ask myself:
>Richard
About 3 years ago, Stereophile did a blind-test review of 4
speakers. One of the speakers was received consistant low scores
throughout the audition by the 3 reviewers. They all mentioned a
problem with the midrange.
After the review was complete, it was discovered that the midrange
driver of the "bad" speaker was defective. If my memory serves me
correct, it was an Alon speaker. The manufacturer was notified and
the driver was repaired (replaced). Then....the reviewers all praised
the repaired (replaced)speaker, particularly noting the midrange was
much improved. .
So, did they include the newly repaired speaker in the blind-test
review?? Remember...this is Stereophile.... NOPE....
As you read the review, there are numerous mentions of the midrange
problem with the speaker and finally at the end of the article, they
mention the problem with the faulty midrange driver. UUHHH???? And
then they mention that the driver had been fixed and all of the sonic
problems had been corrected with the new driver. DOUBLE UUHHH??
Of course, in the manufacturer comment section, the speaker maker
took Stereophile to task for not adjusting the review for the
repaired speaker that they provided.
Stereophile's response was...hey, we evaluate them like we receive
them. If you send a faulty product, we evaluate it on that basis.
If you have read other Thiel reviews, you should have known what they
would write before you opened the magazine. It would not have
mattered it the x-over was duct-taped to the outside of the cabinet &
the tweeter had been installed backwards.....the review would be
glowing.
So, the answer to your multiple choice question is "c" ... all of the
above.
Bob
DepCochlea
>I am also rather concerned that Stereophile does not seem to
>have a problem with a manufacturer who on two consecutive
>occasions delivers for review extremely expensive equipment
>that is not up to snuff. I have a hunch that not all
>manufacturers would be so indulged.
>
>So, I ask myself:
>
>a) Does Thiel have a QC problem?
>b) Does Stereophile have an integrity problem?
>c) All of the above
Hit the nail on the head!!! Thank you for giving me this opening. One of the
reasons that I have come on line under the assumed name Deep Cochlea is to
begin to expose the fraud that exist in our industry. At the center of this
fraud is the most powerful high end hi-fi magazine in america. Stereophile.
The situation with Thiel is exactly as you expect. But the problem is a
much larger one. One thing that has happened in our industry over the years is
the formation of a "Good ol' Boys Club" where the founders of our industry are
given the get out of jail free card. Bad design, poor quality control, or
worse yet, poor sounding product is met with a turning of the other cheek by
the magizine. Unfortunatly, the consumer suffers. In the future, I will write
at length on this subject.
As for your question of Thiel... A great case in point is the Stereophile
issue about a year and a half ago with the Thiel CS-7 on the cover. What a
contradiction. If you were to read the review, it spoke of the problems
associated with the original pair sent in for review. They were defective.
Once repaired, the speaker was reviewed in a very negative light. ( The short
life of the CS-7 is a testimony as to how bad this product really was.)
However, even though the product was found to be sub-par, offering a level of
performance beneath its lofty price, it was still put on the cover of the
magazine, and listed in the recommended component list as Class-A, state of the
art. Yet the paragraph that accompanied the Class-A ranking bore no
resemblance to the text of the review. Very odd???
The truth of the matter is that the words integrity, and Stereophile do
not belong in the same sentence. The magazine is operated as a pure business.
We are duped into believing that they care about us and want us to have great
sound. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only interest is turning
a profit through rag sales. The bottom line is affected directly by the
advertising dollar. Long term contracts buy you more than just a pretty add.
They buy the good will of the magazine. Thiel has built many loudspeakers
through the years, many fine ones too. But they have also built up alot of
good will at Stereophile. Open your eyes people.
JM
DepCochlea <depco...@aol.com> wrote:
: Hit the nail on the head!!! Thank you for giving me this opening. One of the
: reasons that I have come on line under the assumed name Deep Cochlea is to
: begin to expose the fraud that exist in our industry.
As a newbie who doesn't want to get sucked into this fraud,
I'm very interested in which brands and/or components you feel don't
live up to the glowing reviews they have received.
To the extent possible, please provide some details on how you
base your opinion--listening in various systems, people you know whose
components have failed, etc. Also please describe what kind of sound
you typically prefer to hear from equipement, and what components you
think are sound great.
Perhaps you should post this as a separate thread so that
people not interested in Thiel speakers read it as well. Thanks for
sharing your experiences.
Regards,
John
--
_________________________________________________________________
*** To send me e-mail, remove the "fake" from my user name. ***
_________________________________________________________________
AnalogLvr
Deep Cochlea is a bit cynical but mostly right.
Stereophile (and the other high end mags, but Stereophile to a much
greater degree) has two credibility problems. First the overt one of
the correlation of advertising and review coverage. Companies such as
Thiel and Audio Research which advertise heavily will have just about
all their products reviewed (usually in glowing terms), be mentioned
in show reports and perhaps get a cover. Believe you me no
non-advertiser will ever appear on the cover no matter how news or
note worthy. Granted, most of these products deserve good reviews,
but small problems may be glossed over. Most audiophiles I know just
assume a good review can be bought.
The second credibility problem is more subtle. The stereophile
reviewers are so closely associated with the manufacturers that is is
difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. It is
only natural to befriend those in the industry with obvious similar
interests and obsessions. But it then becomes difficult to criticize
what your friend may be making as product. You will at least
unconsciouly give him the benefit of the doubt. For instance, Shannon
Dickson just seems too close to Audio Artistry and Rowland to be
completely objective. He seems to have become the spokesman rather
than reviewer of these two companies. I know for a fact that Shannon
if a man of integrity, but I also know for a fact that the Audio
Artistry Dvoraks he reviewed in Stereophile were not stock; but this
was never mentioned in the review. The other major reviewers probably
have similar stories. The reviewers need to come clean. They need to
disclose their relationship with the manufacturer of the product under
review and their relationship to the product itself. For instance,
when they say, "I liked the product so much I bought it myself," they
need to disclose just how much they paid for it. Hey, I might like a
product so much I'd buy it if I could pay say $5000 for $15,000
speakers knowing I could sell them in a year for at least as much.
Also, I might like a product real well if I could have it on "long
term loan." Isn't that just another way of saying the manufacturer
gave the product away. Unless, of course, the reviewer finds
something he likes more and the manufacturer has to pay to haul the
piece away.
Whether out of dishonesty or naivete, all of this shit gives the high
end a bad name. No wonder many of us are turning to Positive
Feedback, Vacuum Tube Valley, and Glass Audio for our reading kicks.
Fed up in Paradise, but still a believer,
alan
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
AnalogLvr wrote:
> Believe you me no
> non-advertiser will ever appear on the cover no matter how news or
> note worthy.
You are Sooooooooo absolutely dead wrong on this that it is laughable.
Dunlavy Audio doesn't spend much money on advertising if any, in
Stereophile, and they have been speaker of the year twice in the last
4 years nad product of the year once in the last four years. Your
suggestion that their advertising correlates to reviews is absolutely
preposterous.
> Granted, most of these products deserve good reviews,
> but small problems may be glossed over. Most audiophiles I know just
> assume a good review can be bought.
Please show me one instance where you know this to be true. Please
supply proof.
> The second credibility problem is more subtle. The stereophile
> reviewers are so closely associated with the manufacturers that is is
> difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins.
Please name names here. General accusations with no proof? I cannot
believe that the moderators even allowed this post. I have taken
pot-shots at Stereophile, like there absolutely absurd recommended
components listings, but you are totally out to lunch on this one.
> It is
> only natural to befriend those in the industry with obvious similar
> interests and obsessions. But it then becomes difficult to criticize
> what your friend may be making as product. You will at least
> unconsciouly give him the benefit of the doubt. For instance, Shannon
> Dickson just seems too close to Audio Artistry and Rowland to be
> completely objective. He seems to have become the spokesman rather
> than reviewer of these two companies. I know for a fact that Shannon
> if a man of integrity, but I also know for a fact that the Audio
> Artistry Dvoraks he reviewed in Stereophile were not stock; but this
> was never mentioned in the review. The other major reviewers probably
> have similar stories. The reviewers need to come clean. They need to
> disclose their relationship with the manufacturer of the product under
> review and their relationship to the product itself.
>For instance,
> when they say, "I liked the product so much I bought it myself," they
> need to disclose just how much they paid for it.
On this particular issue, I tend to agree with you - however, it can
easily by assumed that they do not pay retail.
Hey, I might like a
> product so much I'd buy it if I could pay say $5000 for $15,000
> speakers knowing I could sell them in a year for at least as much.
> Also, I might like a product real well if I could have it on "long
> term loan." Isn't that just another way of saying the manufacturer
> gave the product away. Unless, of course, the reviewer finds
> something he likes more and the manufacturer has to pay to haul the
> piece away.
That this happens is also known -
> Whether out of dishonesty or naivete, all of this shit gives the high
> end a bad name.
No it doesn't.
> No wonder many of us are turning to Positive Feedback, Vacuum Tube
> Valley, and Glass Audio for our reading kicks.
Those are whacko audio comic books.
> Fed up in Paradise, but still a believer,
....... and barking up the wrong tree.
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Barry A. Rothman
DepCochlea wrote:
>
> >I am also rather concerned that Stereophile does not seem to
> >have a problem with a manufacturer who on two consecutive
> >occasions delivers for review extremely expensive equipment
> >that is not up to snuff. I have a hunch that not all
> >manufacturers would be so indulged.
> >
> >So, I ask myself:
> >
> >a) Does Thiel have a QC problem?
> >b) Does Stereophile have an integrity problem?
> >c) All of the above
>
> reasons that I have come on line under the assumed name Deep Cochlea is to
From what I am told, the situation is alot more complex in the
industry than a story of simply advertising$$$ = good reviews + cover
pictures. I have heard from people in the know (who will remain
nameless) that some form of financial incentivization is at play in
the audio publishing industry, and I won't point a finger at
Stereophile since all I know is just heresay, and that it involves
circular transactions between manufacturers, distributors, publishers
and other parties. The money trail is not simply a matter of
advertising dollars. For example, take a look at the strange reviews
some products receive, wherein the review seems negative throughout,
but ends with a back-handed positive recommendation. The reader is
easily put off by the article, which by comparison to the review of a
competing piece of equipment that recieved a glowing praise, now makes
that product seem inferior. Nonetheless, the product didn't get
slammed, which makes the magazine seem very unbiased. It is only when
you look at the totality of the reviews, and the annual recommended
lists, and place them in context with each that a pattern emerges.
Let the reader beware, all is not as it seems. This is a big business
Awith very large amounts of money at stake, with products that carry a
very large profit margin for manufacturers.
AnalogLvr
Dear Zip and fellow audiophiles,
I wrote my posting to warn those new to the world of high end audio
that mags such as Stereophile need to be read with informed
skepticism. It is not a Bible and the reviewers are in empowered with
supernatural abilities, except with the ability to cripple a small
company with a bad review.
Zip wrote
> Your
>suggestion that their advertising correlates to reviews is absolutely
>preposterous.
I do believe there is a correlation with the amount of advertising a
company does and how heavily their product line is reviewed. And I
don't believe a product from a company that doesn't advertise has ever
been featured on the cover.
> Most audiophiles I know just
>> assume a good review can be bought.
>
>Please show me one instance where you know this to be true. Please
Boy you are nieve.
> The stereophile
>> reviewers are so closely associated with the manufacturers that is is
>> difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins.
>Please name names here. General accusations with no proof? I cannot
>believe that the moderators even allowed this post.
I believe I gave the example of Shannon Dickson. Also Jonathan Scull
and Forsell and Jadis (less so now that Victor Goldstein is no longer
the distrubutor). One could write pages on the problems with the
Forsell turntable alone. I deliberately picked on Shannon because I
know he is a good, honest person. I did not say nor do I wish to
imply there is a conspiracy between manufacturers and reviewers. I am
just saying that one must be aware of the context of the review, and
that true objectivity is sometimes difficult to achieve no matter how
well intentioned.
I still have a problem with the special attention and consideration
reviewers receive from manufacturers out of deference to the
reviewers' power and effect on sales. It irritates me when a reviewer
says a $25,000 pair of speakers is a real bargain. Maybe it is to him
because he can have it for free or less than 1/2 of the retail price.
>> No wonder many of us are turning to Positive Feedback, Vacuum Tube
>> Valley, and Glass Audio for our reading kicks.
>
>Those are whacko audio comic books.
I know they are but at least they are entertaining and still show a
sincere enthusiasm and passion for the field.
My best,
alan
Curtis Leeds
DepCochlea wrote:
> One of the
> reasons that I have come on line under the assumed name Deep Cochlea is to
> begin to expose the fraud that exist in our industry. At the center of this
> fraud is the most powerful high end hi-fi magazine in america. Stereophile.
Fraud is a very serious charge - a felony in fact - and not
one to be leveled casually. That you would make this charge
in the absence of evidence and while hiding under a silly
pseudonym says nothing to support your premise and even less
about your own integrity. Why don't you tell us who you
really are, and what it is that you expect to gain from this
campaign? Most of us know a heck of a lot more about
Stereophile than we do about you.
Curtis Leeds
cle...@idt.net
wearing my "Ultimate Audio" reviewer's hat for this post.
There is neither fraud nor right-wing conspiracy at Ultimate
Audio.
DepCochlea
>Fraud is a very serious charge - a felony in fact - and not
>one to be leveled casually. That you would make this charge
>in the absence of evidence and while hiding under a silly
>pseudonym says nothing to support your premise and even less
>about your own integrity.
>Most of us know a heck of a lot more about
>Stereophile than we do about you.
>
>Curtis Leeds
>cle...@idt.net
>wearing my "Ultimate Audio" reviewer's hat for this post.
>There is neither fraud nor right-wing conspiracy at Ultimate
>Audio.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dear Curtis,
I wish to respond to your letter and concerns at length. Let me
start by saying that you must first realize that there are those of us
who have been associated with this industry much longer than yourself,
and sit in much higher " positions of power" so to speak. I have
devoted more than 20 years of my life to helping this industry grow.
I have been involved in all facets from retail, product design and
manufacturing, to product marketing (ie: national sales) for various
companies in this industry.
The thoughts that I began to set forward in the post that you
mention are not unfounded. Furthermore, they express the loud
concerns that flow through our industry at the manufacturing level.
In future articles, I will gladly post my views on the state of this
industry, and do my part to help expose the cancers that grow within.
Yet at the same tome, you and everyone else out ther will have to
understand the sesitive nature of this very conversation. There is no
manufacturer in this industry who would want the content of our
private conversations made public with their name boldly emblazoned
there upon. Nor would I consider putting any of these companies in
such a position as to have to deal with the problem that this would
create. If you doubt my integrity, realize that I am entering into
this course of action only to bring to light the "dark side" of the
audio press and to answer the until now unanswered question that has
been nagging so many for so long: CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE WHAT WE READ?
Please tell me what harm I am doing by respecting and seeking to
protect the consumer?
Furthermore, I have nothing to gain from this on a personal level
other than to see an Industry to which I have given so much, and one I
truely love so much, not be destroyed on my watch. If i can begin to
create change then this forum has served its purpose. Lets get
control of the future of the high-end industry back where it belongs.
Back in the hands of those product designers who live and are consumed
by a passion for music and its recreation, not those with deep pockets
who only serve to make them deeper at the industry's and thus the
consumer's expense. Do You have a problem with this lofty ideal?
However, if it will pacify you for a period of time I will
mention a few things that have happened through the years.
1) I sat at a dinner with a certain reviewer and a few other
people present, one of whom was the importer for a highly regarded
cost no object line of electronics. This reviewer did not work for
the rag in question, but for a now defunct rival. ( though he is
still writing for one of those guys) I mentioned to him how much I
enjoyed his article in that months issue on a new very expensive
digital product which was also featured on the cover. His reply
shocked me. "That piece of Shit". I was stunned, for he had just
written a rave review on this item stating that it was the new
industry standard. He went on to explain that the unit really was
crap in his opinion, but since this particular company had not given
anything to the press to review in many years, what was he supposed
do? Furthermore, he state4d that the positive review would result in
geeting other items from this company, then he would have his
opportunity to slam them.
Now there is integrity for you. I'm sorry if the offense that i
take with a press that acts this way is offensive to you. But nI want
more for this industry than that.
One thing is for certain. Anyone getting advice from Deep
Cochlea will get the best I have to offer. I hope you will always be
able to say the same!
I look forward to talking with many of you.
Barry A. Rothman
My business (which I own) is the financial public relations/corporate
communications field. I work primarily with publicly held companies,
and directly with CEO's of those companies. My dealings are not with
marketing staffs or other line level personnel. So, I have very
intimate knowledge of what goes on at these loftier levels.
While none of my clients are in high end stereo, in their own
respective industries it is easy to "buy", if you will, trade
publication articles, product reviews, management interviews and the
like. With financial publications, it is not so easy. They are like
pit bulls who would rather write a negative article. But, trade
publications can be "had", due to advertising dollars, "give-backs",
side deals with distributors and exporters, etc. In these situations,
story pitches are made with the publisher, not the magazine's editor
or a line level writer. It is a known fact and everyone in the
respective industry takes these articles a grain of salt.
What I am saying is that no one should be so naive about what goes on
in the business world. The majority of the big audio magazines are no
different than any other industry's trade publications. The are not
the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune or Business Week. There is
no Securities and Exchange Commission or trading exchange scrutiny of
a stock's trading as it correlates to the timing and content of
news/story publication.
Yes, there are several publications in the audio field who I am sure
are above board. But, consumers, particularly gullible ones, need to
know that just because it is written in a newspaper or magazine, it
ain't necessarily so. Heck, a quick look at today's political
landscape should begin to tell you something about how the real world
actually works.
Curtis Leeds
DepCochlea charged Stereophile with fraud, and I wrote:
> >Fraud is a very serious charge - a felony in fact - and not
> >one to be leveled casually. That you would make this charge
> >in the absence of evidence and while hiding under a silly
> >pseudonym says nothing to support your premise and even less
> >about your own integrity.
> >Most of us know a heck of a lot more about
> >Stereophile than we do about you.
Now, our anonymous poster writes:
> I wish to respond to your letter and concerns at length. Let me
> start by saying that you must first realize that there are those of us
> who have been associated with this industry much longer than yourself,
> and sit in much higher " positions of power" so to speak. I have
> devoted more than 20 years of my life to helping this industry grow.
> I have been involved in all facets from retail, product design and
> manufacturing, to product marketing (ie: national sales) for various
> companies in this industry.
Okay. Who are you? Where have you worked?
> The thoughts that I began to set forward in the post that you
> mention are not unfounded...
Okay. Please provide documentation of your charge that
Stereophile is at the center of a massive fraud.
> In future articles, I will gladly post my views on the state of this
> industry, and do my part to help expose the cancers that grow within.
Will you be providing any proof, or just proof by assertion?
What cancer are you talking about? Who are you?
> Yet at the same tome, you and everyone else out ther will have to
> understand the sesitive nature of this very conversation. There is no
> manufacturer in this industry who would want the content of our
> private conversations made public...
> If you doubt my integrity, realize that I am entering into
> this course of action only to bring to light the "dark side" of the
> audio press and to answer the until now unanswered question that has
> been nagging so many for so long: CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE WHAT WE READ?
Is this to advise that you have accepted the mantel of
protecting innocent victims? From whom and from what exactly
are you protecting them, and in what way can we be assured
of your objectivity? As my original response to you noted,
most of us know much more about Stereophile than we know
about you. That means that even for those who might distrust
Stereophile, at least they have enough information assist
them in interpreting what they read.
> Please tell me what harm I am doing by respecting and seeking to
> protect the consumer?
It is not at all clear that protection is your motivation. Why do you
feel entitled to level serious charges against an industry, yet shield
yourself from any responsibility for those charges? And please explain
how you "respect" the consumer from your position of total anonymity.
Generally, the best way to respect people is to tell them
the truth, and then let them form their own opinions.
>Lets get
> control of the future of the high-end industry back where it belongs.
> Back in the hands of those product designers who live and are consumed
> by a passion for music and its recreation, not those with deep pockets
> who only serve to make them deeper at the industry's and thus the
> consumer's expense. Do You have a problem with this lofty ideal?
Yes, I have a problem with this "lofty ideal". The industry
should rightfully be controlled by consumers as a group, and
not by any one self-appointed, unknown individual in
particular.
> However, if it will pacify you for a period of time I will
> mention a few things that have happened through the years.
> 1) I sat at a dinner with a certain reviewer and a few other
> people present...
This is nothing but hearsay. You've made serious charges and
claims. It's time for some documentation. I'm not demanding
pacification; I'm requesting some documentation of your
charges of a widespread felonious conspiracy in the audio
industry.
Curtis Leeds
Still wearing my "Ultimate Audio" reviewers hat.
Beware of those who would "protect" you from a free press.
Curtis Leeds
Mkuller
As an equipment reviewer for the Absolute Sound for the past 12 years, I
would like to throw my 2 cents into this discussion. Speaking from own
experience, I have found the reviewers I have come into contact with to be
generally, honest and of high integrity. Now, of course, we're all human. A
good reviewer will go to great lengths to insure that what he writes is
accurate, true and not influenced by the manufacturer or rep. I've given good
and bad reviews to products where someone from the company came to my home and
helped do the set-up. An accurate review requires a lot of work - extended
listening with a variety of other components.
Even at their best, reviewers will disagree about the merits of a
particular product (hence TAS' intercommentary system), primarily because they
value aspects of reproduction differently (listening biases). Politics may
come into play at times in regard to WHICH components get reviewed. But I
have never had any pressure to slant a review in a particular positive or
negative way and have never seen anyone else under pressure to do so either.
That doesn't mean it never happens but that I suspect it is much rarer than
many of you seem to think. Why would a reviewer want to risk sacrificing his
credibility by writing an inaccurate review? Anyone who works in the audio
industry or is an member of the audio press is able to purchase equipment at
industry accomodation prices (wholesale). This should not influence a
reviewer one way or another.
So if you find a review inaccurate or omitting certain information, I
would tend to see it as sloppy reviewing, writing or editing and not an
industry-wide conspiracy. You guys have been watching too much X-Files.
Regards,
Mike
Tim McTeague
AnalogLvr wrote:
>
> Deep Cochlea is a bit cynical but mostly right.
>
> Stereophile (and the other high end mags, but Stereophile to a much
> greater degree) has two credibility problems. First the overt one of
> the correlation of advertising and review coverage. Companies such as
> Thiel and Audio Research which advertise heavily will have just about
> all their products reviewed (usually in glowing terms)
Hmmm, well back when I bought my first Thiels 10yr ago I read all the
rags with reviews. At that time Thiel did no advertising, at least I
never saw any ads (and I was looking), and Stereophile,Absolute Sound
and Stereo Review rated the CS2 very highly. I guess they are all
crooked- thats more likely than the fact that Thiel makes a great
speaker. Not perfect but better than anything I have heard in their
price range. Okay a review speaker was defective. What would you as a
reviewer do? Trash the brand? If one pair was defective the whole
line stinks! Time to get a little perspective. Thiel can now advertise
much more as word of mouth and great reviews have caused the company
to grow. Don't like 'em ? Fine buy another product but leave the
conspiracies to the addle minded.
Tim
Stephen Condon
I didn't see the review of the CS6 as an example of Stereophile being in
cahoots with Thiel.
When I read the review of the Thiel CS6, I just thought that any
manufacturer with such poor quality control isn't worth considering for
my system regardless of the reviewer's opinion.
If Thiel is shipping defective $7,900.00 a pair speakers to John
Atkinson it just shows that they don't bother to adequately test their
products prior to shipping.
Jim Thiel certainly isn't going to listen to the average customers
defective CS6 at their home to "ensure that we are listening to
representative samples". Thiel should evaluate every speaker they build
to ensure it's a representative sample before they ship
it out.
John Maio
One of my other hobbies is gun collecting (please - no flames). The
"gun rags" operate the same way when they review new products from
certain manufacturers that do heavy advertising. But that industry
may have an answer. There is a news-letter called "Gun Test Report"
which accepts no advertising and is subscription only. Its one of the
few places I can get an honest appraisal of the latest hot new whiz
bang (literally).
Are high end audio consumers interested in taking this kind of step?
>I am also rather concerned that Stereophile does not seem to
>have a problem with a manufacturer who on two consecutive
>occasions delivers for review extremely expensive equipment
>that is not up to snuff. I have a hunch that not all
>manufacturers would be so indulged.
>So, I ask myself:
>a) Does Thiel have a QC problem?
>b) Does Stereophile have an integrity problem?
>c) All of the above
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Audioadic
>This is nothing but hearsay. You've made serious charges and
>claims. It's time for some documentation. I'm not demanding
>pacification; I'm requesting some documentation of your
>charges of a widespread felonious conspiracy in the audio
>industry.
>Curtis Leeds
>Still wearing my "Ultimate Audio" reviewers hat.
>Beware of those who would "protect" you from a free press.
Curtis,
I would guess that Deep Cochlea wishes to remain anonymous, otherwise
he would have already come forward with his true identity. Although
I have never seen some of things that he speaks of, I would guess
they could be true. As a businessman myself (outside of the audio
industry), I see plenty of "under the table" dealings. Why would the
audio industry be any different? Perhaps he is a member of the "good
ol' boys" club that he speaks of. Is it possible that he truly means
what says? I mean, let's face it, Stereophile makes alot of money
for a company with a favorable review. It's all about money, money,
money. Everyone on this newsgroup has the right to believe or
disbelieve these posts. And for the record, I don't feel that this
Deep Cochlea person is portraying some huge conspiracy as you seem to
think he is. In my opinion, he is just stating what many of us have
suspected all along.
By the way, this is not me jumping in to defend some anonymous
poster, or an attemp to step on your toes. I have just seen your
response to his posts, and thought I'd put in my two cents worth.
Best Regards,
Bryan Tosh
jc
Compared to reviewer ethics at some of the other hi-end mags,
Stereophile's are pretty good, I think. A main incentive to review
for Audiophile Voice, for example, which doesn't pay for reviews, is
the chance to deal with manufacturers: extended loan opportunities,
markdowns on prices, etc.
--
max
tom brennan
It seems to me that Stereophile is very much concerned with it's
place in the high-end industry and with building up the industry. I
don't think this attitude is compatable with looking out for
consumers. How can they serve the needs of the builders and the
readers at the same time? I don't think they can.
Tom Brennan
MMorse22
I've read the posts herein and want to contribute my 2 cents. I've
been an audiophile and Stereophile subscriber since the early 80's. I
have found in recent years that most of what Stereophile reviews is
found to be adequate to recommended. I've learned that a luke warm
review is probably a product they could take or leave. Rather, than
attributing this to some manufacturer's conspiracy, I think it
reflects the general state of products being produced today. Gone are
the days of real crap being pawned off as high end product. Most of
what's available is at least listenable and suffers few if any blatant
flaws. Should a reviewer nit pick every minor flaw when compared to
the best? He knows to do so, could doom an otherwise adequate and or
good value for the money product to oblivion. That not only hurts the
manufacturer, but ill serves the customer. Every reader should take
mag reviews only as a starting point when considering
products. His/her own ears should be the final arbiter as to what is
good and what isn't. As far as Stereophile is considered, I consider
a polite review to be one that tells me the product is average by
today's standards. Incidently, the mag reviewed 2 new lower end Audio
Research pieces recently and gave a polite review to one piece and
suggested people pass on the other one. That tells me there are no
special favors being extended to Bill Johnson and CO. At least not
when it comes to false reviews.
Audioadic
Eric Daniel Barry
On 17 Mar 1998, John Maio wrote:
> One of my other hobbies is gun collecting (please - no flames). The
> "gun rags" operate the same way when they review new products from
> certain manufacturers that do heavy advertising. But that industry
> may have an answer. There is a news-letter called "Gun Test Report"
> which accepts no advertising and is subscription only. Its one of the
> few places I can get an honest appraisal of the latest hot new whiz
> bang (literally).
>
> Are high end audio consumers interested in taking this kind of step?
First of all, one should note that this is what stereophile used to
be--fully independent, no advertising, just Gordon Holt and his mates
listening to equipment. It was a much better mag in those days, at
least in terms of readability. In the mid-80s Larry Archibald bought
the magazine but JGH remained editor. Things really shifted when John
Atkinson became editor (nothing in particular against JA, but the
purpose and character of Stereophile have shifted so radically that it
bears little relationship to what it used to be). On the plus side,
we now have a diversity of opinion and more equipment gets covered, on
the downside, who can trust them these days.
Much as I loved old stereophile, they were not immune from bias
despite their freedom from advertising--they declared so themselves
after recommending Fulton Speakers so highly when Fulton himself was
coming in all the time and tweaking and modifying their Class A
reference.
The small independent mag offers at best an unbiased opinion--but a
few guys writing their own mag are a)unlikely to have a full notion of
the range of available goods at a given price rangee (which means
often that the best piece of equipment sent to them becomes the best
ever, or if they are not used to listening to cheaper equipment,
whenever they do it offers a surprising amount of sound quality for
the money)) b)they may be more likely to be wowed by perks.
In my opinion, no reviewer should ever talk to a designerbefore the
publication of a review. Once relationships become personal,
objectivity is lost.
Now stereophile certainly does not criticize equipment the way it used
to, and they certainly give much fuller coverage to the product lines
of certain companies, like Thiel, ARC, ML which happen to be the
biggest, best selling, most heavily advertised brands. Furthermore,
when something goes wrong with a reviw sample, these companies get the
benefit of the doubt (which perhaps they should given their records of
service and reliability). And certain people in power at Stereophile
love particular brands (and there is no doubt that LA loves Thiel and
JA loves B&W). Whether they are literally in bed with certain
manufacturers, they are certainly "scenesters" with biased opinions.
But unless a magazine of the scope of stereophile were to somehow
remain anonymous and never take part in industry eventsor cultivate
freindships with manufacturers, then we'll never have a satisfactory
cnsumer oriented mag--and even that would be subject to the personal
biases of the reviewers in terms of what shound they prefer.
The point to all this is use you ears. Careful reading of reviews can
give you some notions of the sonic character of a given piece of
equipment, and to a lesser extent the quality level, but when you are
buying, it's totally on you to decide. The only thing reviews do is
probably effect the resale value of equipment.
Tom Hickey
Eric Daniel Barry <ed...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<re7m5tx...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> First of all, one should note that this is what stereophile used to
> be--fully independent, no advertising, just Gordon Holt and his mates
> listening to equipment. It was a much better mag in those days, at
> least in terms of readability
Eric:
Well written and I want to support what you've stated
> In my opinion, no reviewer should ever talk to a designerbefore the
> publication of a review. Once relationships become personal,
> objectivity is lost.
I'm not sure that this is possible - but the reviewer should state
the nature of the relationship if one exists. For example, if I were
a reviewer I'd have a difficult time giving a bad review to
Quicksilver equipment. I have a lot of respect for the owner and
I've received excellent service from the company in the past. Maybe
some reviewers can distance themselves - I don't think I could -
maybe that's one of the bazillion reasons I'm not a reviewer. If the
readers know that a relationship exists (even a superficial one) it
helps put things in perspective.
> And certain people in power at Stereophile
> love particular brands (and there is no doubt that LA loves Thiel and
> JA loves B&W). Whether they are literally in bed with certain
> manufacturers, they are certainly "scenesters" with biased opinions.
For me, personally, biases aren't a big deal I think it's pretty easy
to read around peoples biases. To me consistancy in a reviewer is the
biggest concern. JGH was very consistant in his likes (biases) and I
miss his reviews. Recently I've found consistancy with Steven Stone's
reviews. I think the big advantage to magazines is to find a group of
reviewers that you "click" with and use them as an initial pass at
interesting equipment. Of courrse, there are the reviewers that I
think are completly looney - that I read for pure entertainment!!
Tom Hickey
AWRigby
I been the Director of Marketing & Sales for two high end audio companies (Jeff
Rowland Design Group and Dunlavy Audio Labs), and as such, have been in direct
contact with a wide number of publishers, editors, and reviewers associated
with trade/industry publications, and I have never been approached by any
individual looking for a hand out, a freebie, or any other incentive in
exchange for a good product review (or any review for that matter). Never.
As Steve Zipser previously stated, Dunlavy Audio Labs has received a large
number of excellent reviews and major accolades/awards for its products in
trade publications (e.g. - Stereophile has awarded our SC-IV "Product of the
Year" & "Loudspeaker of the Year", our SC-I "Budget Component of the Year", and
our SC-VI "Loudspeaker of the Year"), and we have only published four single
advertisements (Dec. '96 - Stereophile; Dec. '96 - Robb Report; Oct. '97 -
Audio; Feb. '98 - Home Theater). Our products have been reviewed, or are
currently under review by Stereophile, Audio, Home Theater, The Sensible Sound,
Soundstage!, and a myriad of international audio/video publications. (Our
products even made the cover of a couple of magazines without associated
advertising, something that one individual stated as an impossibility!)
In fact, it has been my experience that most audio reviewers and their
publications have been rather reticent once a product has been submitted for
review, only contacting the manufacturer once the review was completed and
submitted to the magazine for publication (usually only for technical
clarifications/corrections). Many times, we have had to wait right along with
the public to find out how the review turned out.
No one has ever solicited myself or the company that I was employed by for
monies, product, or advertising in exchange for a positive review. It wasn't
even hinted. So I am somewhat shocked by the insinuations and allegations of
impropriety between high end audio/video manufacturers and trade publications.
My personal experience has shown that there is a high level of integrity in
these relationships, at least the relationship between Dunlavy Audio Labs and
the audio press.
Sincerely,
Andrew Rigby
Dunlavy Audio Labs
Robert.J...@dg11.cec.be
Could I make a point here?
HOW MANY THIEL OWNERS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DONE (have had bad service or
unacceptable excuses) BY THIEL???
Just like I have trouble in understanding why it should be necessary
to semmingly want to kill somebody for a wrong (happens quite
regularly on the NGs) I also can't for the life of me understand the
ease at which one assumption or other is raised to dogma, forming the
basis for on(and on)-going discussions.
I realize that approaches a meta-discussion again, but PLEASE.
We have now for days observed how people are fabulating about what,
how, where, if and when Thiel (the unfortunate victim of this
incident) might, could, would do or not for that matter any number of
things. All utter speculation while potentially doing real damage to
somebody's name.
I have no idea whether Thiel has ever done something not above board.
Has any of us?
Greetings from Brussels
Robert
John Atkinson
Richard Harding
Try Vol 20, No. 10 Oct 97
Vol 20, No 1 Jan 97 for starters
both ads featuring no less a luminary than Michael Tilson
Thomas with a pair of Eggy Andras bestriding his fireplace.
(Although how he gets any sound out of them without using
speaker cables is a mystery to me.)
Richard Harding
Steve Nugent
John Atkinson wrote:
> Believe me, when we choose a component to feature on our cover, we
> are looking for a visually attractive, good-sounding, newsworthy
> piece of equipment that will make for good design and will attract
> potential readers on the newsstand. Whether or not a company
> advertises in Stereophile is the furthest thing from our minds.
> I hope this response resolves this issue for at least some
> subscribers to rec.audio.high-end.
John - I appreciate and agree with your responses. I have enjoyed
many of your reviews, and even purchased equipment on your
recommendation with satisfying results, but I would like to take this
thread in another direction.
One thing about the typical Stereophile review is just that, that
they are not very typical or consistent, except in the measurement
techniques that are used, which I consider first-class. To be fair,
I believe that there is a desire by the subscribers to have a mix of
subjective reviewers, because people have differing tastes, but it
seems to me that there is not a level "playing-field" on which the
reviews are made. I am referring to the wide range of equipment and
environments that the equipment is put in for critical listening,
depending upon the reviewer. Each reviewer seems to have a favorite
preamp, power amp and cables etc.. Also, the range of music material
varies widely between reviewers.
I seems to me that Sterophile reviewers could arrive at a system of
"optimal" and "forgiving" equipment that all components could be
benchmarked against, no matter which reviewer does the review,
utilizing a set of "benchmark" recordings with which the reviewers
are intimately familiar. In theory, if the equipment to be reviewed
is worth its salt (tube-stuff aside), that it should not be
particularly sensitive to the cables and equipment that it is
connected-to. This way all components can be compared to a reference
standard. When a component exceeds the performance of the reference
standard, the old standard is replaced with the review item. A first
system comprising all solid-state equipment and a second system
comprising tube equipment could be defined for this purpose.
Likewise, a panel speaker arrangement and a box-type speaker
arrangement could be defined in optimized environments for each.
This strategy could prevent unnecessary bad reviews due to system
interactions, particularly with tube gear. The subscribers could
become familiar with the music standards as well and could use these
to aid in enhancing their systems.
I am particularly suspicious of several past reviews. In a couple of
instances, the conclusion was made that unbalanced operation sounded
as good or better than balanced. On one piece of equipment, which I
shall not mention, I found this to be just the opposite. This
particular piece of gear was designed entirely balanced in and out
and the designer intended it to be run balanced. These opposite
experiences can be caused by cables and other attached equipment if
care is not taken to define a proper reference system. I also
experienced some dissapointment with a piece of equipment (Classe'
DAC-1) until I realized that it only needed a power cord upgrade.
Now it is fabulous. These types of insights are invaluable to
subscribers. It is important not only to review the stock item, but
also use the reference power cord and report the result. I realize
that if you publicise the reference equipment list, those
manufacturers may have an unfair advantage, but probably not any more
than they do now. Primarily, this strategy is a means to achieve two
things: 1) more consistent, reliable conclusions, even for subjective
tests and 2) less apprehension on the part of manufacturers to have
their equipment reviewed, because of the fear of a bad review.
The flip-side of this coin is that many listeners prefer to listen to
colored sound and pursue mixes of non-optimal equipment in order to
achieve this goal. This strategy would not make them happy, but you
can't make all of the people happy all of the time anyway.
Steve Nugent
eth...@ibm.net
In <6f3ims$h...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>, on 03/22/98 at 05:45 PM,
John Atkinson <7447...@CompuServe.COM> said:
> I have been following this thread with interest.
One well could imagine that you would have.
> alan (anal...@aol.com) stated
>|that:
> >Believe you me no non-advertiser will ever appear on the cover no matter
> >how news or noteworthy.
> I looked
> back at the last 16 month's worth of the magazine. In that time, 27
> products have been featured on the cover of Stereophile:
> 10 were from companies that advertise in almost every issue of
> Stereophile; 7 were from companies that occasionally advertise in
> Stereophile; 10 were from companies that, to the best of my
> knowledge, have never advertised, the most recent of which was the
> Rega Planet CD player in February '98.
> I hope this response resolves this issue for at least some
> subscribers to rec.audio.high-end.
It should, but the editorial-content-is-based-on-advertising
allegation always was a bum rap, anyway.
However, now that we have you on-line, as it were, out from the
fortress of the Audiophile Network, where any *hint* of criticism of
Stereophile causes one's subscription to be revoked, allow me to
request you to address a much more indidious bias (I would call it
dishonesty, but feel free to disagree) of Stereophile.
You repeatedly chant the mantra that Stereophile is there to tell
listeners the "truth" about how audio components sound. as, for
instance, you did in the April 1998 "As I See It" column. Mr.
Atkinson, I seriously doubt that that is what you are interested in
doing. I would be pleased if you can show me that my doubts are
unjustified.
As a working hypothesis, I suggest that Stereophile has very little
interest in sound reproduction *per se*. You are selling *fantasies*,
genuine fetishism, which sells much more advertising than truth ever
could. To that end, you generate deliberate and intentional
*untruths*, all to aid the fantasies.
Certainly, I do not mean to suggest that Stereophile is alone in this
deception. Time was, I used to hang on every word of a road test in
Road & Track or Car and Driver, because the road testers could drive
cars that I would not have a chance to drive, under conditions I could
never hope to replicate, even if I could drive those cars. These
days, half the text of a so-called road test will be telling *me* what
to think of the *styling* of the car under test, something that I am
perfectly well am able to assess for myself, without ever having to
slip into the driver's seat. What the hidden text of such reviews
accomplishes is to create a clique of "Aryans" (to borrow a proper
noun famously misused by one clique this century) who can lord it over
what they suppose to be ignorant "non-Aryans" who do not subscribe to
the majority view imposed from above.
Stereophile, too, is in the business of selling group acceptance to
fantasy-seekers. The truth of accurate sound reproduction (it sounds
like what you would hear in the real world if you had no stereo) is
much too mundane for fantasy, so instead Stereophile elevates to the
status of sainthood obscure components like Hales loudspeakers, whom
no one (other than your reviewers) ever has heard. It entails much
less risk to praise a component your readers are unlikely to hear than
to praise one that is widely available, as some of those who have the
opportunity to hear the latter might break ranks and reveal that the
Emperor wears no clothes.
In private correspondence between us several years ago, I ridiculed
Jonathan Scull's allegation that a very limited number of very small
wooden disks applied unscientifically to the wall of an irregularly
shaped and highly reflective listening area significantly affected the
sound in his listening chair. I suggested that the glass of wine in
his hand affected the soundwaves reaching his eardrums much more than
a couple of square inches of wooden disk applied with stickum to the
far wall. Your answer, that you had heard Scull's system and it
sounded great, whereas, because I had not, therefore I was necessarily
wrong, was completely unresponsive to the question of whether the
Mpingos had *anything* to do with the system sounding great, which,
for sake of argument, I will assume it does. But your answer was
perfectly consistent with the snake oil that fantasy promotion must
sustain.
Does it matter whether the distributors of Mpingo disks advertise in
Stereophile? Of course not, nor does it matter whether Mpingo disks
make any difference to the sound at the listener's chair. What does
matter is whether you can sell to your readership that their sex life
will be better and their acne will clear up if only they enhance their
systems with snake oil. The wannabes that will eat that up, the
(almost always) male analogues of preteen girls who read romance
novels, are the core base of your circulation. Those readers need
their "fix" of fantasy and you must constantly write new fantasies to
satiate that appetite. If you write it, they buy the magazine to get
their "fix." The greater your circulation, the higher the rates you
can charge to those advertisers -- they need not be advertisers of the
products extolled editorially -- who *do* buy space in Stereophile.
Building circulation is your job. You obviously have done a superb
job of it. If it is not obvious from the above, I commend you for the
skill with which you have done it. It is only the (necessary?)
dishonesty when you piously say that what your job entails has
something to do with the "truth" that I find more than a bit
disquieting.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
eth...@ibm.net (T. Guilbert) sending e-mail to you from lovely Portland, OR, USofA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rothman
I, for one, have voiced a strong opinion on Stereophile and questioned
the ethics behind some of the interviews. While I have been told that
questionable practices exist in the industry, I am willing to take at
face value JA's comments and underlying claim that Stereophile operates
on the up and up. That said, I think Steve's comments are a suggestion
in the right direction. There does need to be a greater sense of
consistency with respect to equipment comparisons, and a set of reference
systems would fit the bill.
To modify that suggestion, how about a few sets at varying price points,
to make apples to apple comparisons more valid. Yes, I want to know how
a piece of equipment fares against the ultimate reference standard, but I
also want to know how it fares within a reference standard of similarly
priced equipment. For example, if an amp, let's say (for argument's
sake) a McCormack DNA 0.5 is considered a reference in the $2,000 and
below category, then how does something like the Classe CA-100 reviewed
recently compare in direct match up. And, of course, how far short does
it fall from the reference Levinson, Krell or whatever is the ultimate
standard selected. I would also want to see how a tube model compares to
other tube models, and solid-state against solid state.
Barry Rothman
PAUL MACCA
If a mid-fi guy is allowed to voice his opinion here,..=)
I find it quite interesting how some audiophiles here regard reviews
with which they have disagreements as being something "suspicious" or
"sinister." But regardless of how skilled a reviewer is, isn't the
bottom-line that whatever he thinks is just that, one person's
opinion? I mean, if Roger Ebert gave a bad review to next Star Trek
flick, you wouldn't have movie fans or industry insiders complaining
that Ebert has some kind of vendetta against Paramount Pictures,
right? His opinion, although highly regarded by many and widely
read, remain just one person's opinion. Ultimately, it is up to each
and every one of us as consumers to decide for ourselves in the
choices we make with our money, whether it be picking which movie we
want to see at the multi-plex, or selecting which pre-amplifier will
sound the best, given our unique systems, unique listening rooms, and
our unique tastes.
I would assume that most of us here (count me in with this group) are
beyond the point of where we would make actual purchasing decisions
based entirely on what Julian Hirsch, Sam Tellig, or your Uncle Joe
(asst. manager at the local Radio Shack) has to say on anything. I
agree with the poster who said that mag reviews should be used as a
guide in deciding what is the best in the marketplace at a particular
price range. For example, I was looking for speakers that sold for
under 2 grand. Favorable reviews of the Paradigm Studio Ref. 100s in
Stereophile, Audiophile Voice, and Audio Mag. made me curious and
search these speakers out. Note that these reviews only stimulated
my interest, they did not make me want to buy these speakers
immediately. After about 2 weeks of searching, auditioning, and
comparing Paradigm 100s, 80s, Def. Tech BP20s, Klipschs, PSBs, and
several others, I picked the P100s. And I'm glad I did. Thanks to
these reviews, I think they helped me to make a more educated
choice. =)
Steve Nugent
PAUL MACCA wrote:
> I would assume that most of us here (count me in with this group) are
> beyond the point of where we would make actual purchasing decisions
> based entirely on what Julian Hirsch, Sam Tellig, or your Uncle Joe
I wouldn't bet on that. In fact, with the advent of web and
mail-ordering of high-end gear combined with the waning availability of
high-end stores with large inventories, many of us shoppers are
motivated and/or forced to buy sight-unseen(unheard). I personally have
had significant success doing this. This is why I believe that the
reviews in Stereophile which include technical evaluations are critical
to these new market channels for high-end gear. Most of the time I
believe the reviews in Sterophile, depending upon the reviewer.
Steve N.
PAUL MACCA
From: Steve Nugent <steve_f...@ccm.jf.intel.com>
>PAUL MACCA wrote:
From the standpoint of not actually being able to audition equipment
because of mail-order constraints, I guess the importance of good,
comprehensive, and fair reviews are even more important.
Nonetheless, it's still you, the consumer, who has to actually listen
to the product on arrival and ultimately decide what to keep and what
to return. (I do hope that the mail-order guys from whom you buy
new gear do have a trial period/return policy.)
Unless you going to let the folks at Stereophile do all the thinking
for you.
Gregg Evans
We would like to address comments made in this newsgroup about the
reliability of THIEL loudspeakers, specifically with respect to
reviews of our CS7 and CS6 models in Stereophile.
In Stereophile's follow-up review of the CS7 (by Wes Phillips, January
1996) Editor John Atkinson commented that the original pair reviewed
by Tom Norton in October 1995 had an upper midrange driver that was
dead in one speaker and a distorting tweeter in the other speaker.
"We can only conjecture that this damage happened sometime during the
auditioning and measuring process," said John. These problems were
evident in the original review's measurements section, and this was
addressed by Jim Thiel in his manufacturer's comment. Unfortunately,
Stereophile's production schedule did not allow the matter to be
further investigated prior to publication.
Our tests on the returned CS7s verified these problems, and since we
test each and every speaker that is shipped from our factory,
regardless if it is for review or for a customer, the original test
showed that the speakers were shipped from THIEL without these
problems. These driver problems were probably caused by the
measurement process and would therefore not reflect a reliability
problem with music.
The subjective portion of the original Stereophile review was positive
and the follow-up review on a second pair was, in our opinion,
extremely positive. The CS7 was reviewed by a number of other
publications, including Audio, Audio Video Interiors, The Absolute
Sound, The New York Times, Widescreen Review, Stereo Sound (Japan),
Suono (Italy), Hi Fi Review (Hong Kong), and Stereo Hi Fi Exklusive
(Germany) without any problems. Stereo Sound, Suono and Hi Fi Review
all named the CS7 as a "Product of the Year." Reprints of most of
these reviews are available by contacting THIEL.
The CS7, introduced in January 1995, has had a successful life and is
only now being replaced by a new CS7.2 because the newer model CS6
retails for only $1000 less a pair and outperforms the CS7 in some
ways, not because of poor reliability or performance. Owners of CS7s
will be able to upgrade to the performance of the CS7.2 by replacing
the drivers and crossovers for a price that will be less than the
retail price difference between the two models.
Concerning Stereophile's recent CS6 review (March 1998), Jim Thiel did
think the original pair's bass performance was not as strong as it
should have been when he heard them at Stereophile. He asked if
another pair could be submitted for review and this was mentioned by
John Atkinson in his write-up. Upon testing and listening to this
pair back at THIEL, we found no problems with the speakers.
This particular pair had been shipped from stock to Stereophile with
little break-in time so as to meet Jim's travel schedule and visit to
Santa Fe. (No, we don't build special speakers for review.) THIEL
speakers, like most, do require extensive break-in to sound their best
and Jim attributed this lighter-than-usual bass to the lack of proper
break-in time.
After hearing the CS6s in the field, Jim also felt that the speaker
should have a bit more bass strength and made a small revision to the
speaker by reducing the mass of the passive radiator and removing some
internal damping material. This revision resulted in a one-third dB
increase between 30 and 80 Hz. After the revision, this same pair of
CS6s was returned to Stereophile and that was the pair reviewed in the
magazine. The differences heard between the review speakers when Jim
was in attendance and after they were shipped back to Stereophile for
the second time had nothing to do with reliability. (A replacement
radiator is available at no charge to customers of very early CS6s
with serial numbers 442 and below.)
We are very proud of the reliability of our products. Our confidence
is reflected in our ten year warranty; a warranty we have given on
every THIEL product for over 20 years. When problems do arise, we
pride ourselves on providing quick, competent, friendly service to
solve those problems. This is reflected in the hundreds of calls and
letters we receive from satisfied THIEL owners who have personally
dealt with our company. In Stereophile's Customer Satisfaction survey
done several years ago, THIEL was the only company that did not have a
single THIEL owner say they would not own a THIEL product again.
When it comes to discussing the reliability of THIEL speakers, we will
let the facts speak for themselves.
--
Gregg Evans
THIEL Sales Manager
Avalonav
>Stereophile, too, is in the business of selling group acceptance to
>fantasy-seekers. The truth of accurate sound reproduction (it sounds
>like what you would hear in the real world if you had no stereo) is
>much too mundane for fantasy, so instead Stereophile elevates to the
>status of sainthood obscure components like Hales loudspeakers, whom
>no one (other than your reviewers) ever has heard. It entails much
>less risk to praise a component your readers are unlikely to hear than
>to praise one that is widely available, as some of those who have the
>opportunity to hear the latter might break ranks and reveal that the
>Emperor wears no clothes.
>
who have been around awhile know Paul Hales and Hales Speakers. If memory
serves he early in his career had a Stereophile rated (shudder) Class A
speaker, and has made good speakers for years. Most people who are into better
equipment, not mass market, have heard of Hales. Also, a heck of alot of
people have heard them (see the thread in RAO) other than Stereophile. If you
go listen to them and examine their build quality, wood finishing and superb
clean, dynamic sound, you will see they are an excellent speaker by any measure
and deserve the praise they are getting. They also just got a good review in
Fi with a couple other good reviews pending, so I guess a few people have heard
them :-)
I understand your point, but this Emperor taint' naked........perhaps a better
example where the Emperor is in the buff??
Bob@Avalon Audio Video, Medford,NJ
Home trials Support locals 609-654-7752
Lexicon,Chiro,Aragon,Bryston,Sunfire,B&K,Velodyne,Hales,IEV
Angstrom,Acurus,Hologram,Parasound,Meadowlark,Tandberg
Mirage,Seleco,Toshiba,Vidikron,M&K,NEAR,Electrocompaniet+...