Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Stereophile Reaches a New Nadir (Stupidly, Painfully Long)

Posted by Charles Hansen (M) on October 29, 2017 at 10:56:36

In Reply to: RE: Stereophile Reaches a New Nadir posted by John Atkinson on October 29, 2017 at 07:17:38:

> > I deleted two sentences that, in my opinion as the moderator of the Stereophile website, were nothing more than flames. < <

That is certainly your right as moderator of your own website. You have posted your terms of service, and I no doubt violated them. My post was written in great anger, as when I read it I was stunned it the ridiculousness of it, and equally appalled by the glee exhibited by every single previous commenter - they were all unanimous in their praise for "Dr. Jim" to expose the "fraudulent high end manufacturers".

It's like I've been saying for the last few weeks in this forum. Is Stereophile helping or hurting the high end? When you only give Levinson gear to Larry Greenhill for review because you know in advance that he will do nothing but heap praise upon it, does that help or hurt the high end? There were 3 historical products that gave Levinson its reputation:

1) The Dick Burwen designed original Levinson preamp that sounded like shit, but had dozens of switches (and meters as well) and measured perfectly (just like the far less expensive Crown IC-150). Why did this put Levinson on the map? Simply because it sold for $2000, when the second-most expensive preamp made was 1/5 the price (Audio Research SP-3 - they didn't even make the "a" version yet.) As the magazines (and other media) have tried to brainwash us, "It must be good or they couldn't charge so much for it!"

2) The John Curl-designed products, the JC-1 head amp, the JC-2 preamp (first one ever without tone controls!), and the JC-3 25 wpc pure class A power amp. These were the first truly musical sounding solid-state products the world had ever seen.

3) A quarter century later, Levinson made the No 31 transport and No. 32 DAC. For five years straight, this was acclaimed by all of the magazines to be the "best sounding" CD player available - surpassing even the Thetas and Wadias. I never heard one, so I don't know how much of this was just the magazines praising them simply because the combination was nearly $20,000 when first introduced (nearly triple its closest competitor - see #1), and how much was actual sound quality, but I do know this. The first Theta I could even stand to listen to for more than a few minutes was the Gen V that finally got rid of the cheesy op-amps in the analog circuit and replaced them with a fully discrete output stage. And that had been severely trounced several years earlier by a modified Magnavox made by a "garage operation" called Analog Research that basically just replaced the analog stage with a JFET input,zero-feedback analog stage. In other words, besting the Theta and Wadia wasn't a very high bar, even back in the mid- to late-'90s.

So did the magazines help or hurt the high-end by this kind of coverage?

Or how about when Levinson came out with the $4000 No.38 preamp, which used the same cheap op-amps as the $700 Adcom of the day, but with a really stupid (and really cheap) volume control based on an M-DAC (Multiplying DAC) chip that sounded terrible. Robert Harley gave it a decidedly mediocre review in August 1994, so an embarrassed Levinson had to redesign it as the "S" version, with higher quality PCB material with 4 layers, upgrading 14 resistors to metal foil, and 2 capacitors to Teflon (which contrary to popular opinion are NOT the best sounding capacitors and don't sound as good as their cost might indicate). Less than a year later, in July 1995, you gave it a rave review. Your rave is still up on the Stereophile website, but Harley's dismissal of the original version is MIA - all that is linked are photos of it. Is that deliberate or accidental?

And did your rush to do damage control on behalf of Levinson help or hurt the high-end industry? Everybody in the industry knows that after the high-water mark products of the John-Curl designed products, that the only Levinson products that were even competitive in the market place were the No 20 class A 100 watt monoblock power amps and the No. 26 fully discrete preamp. All of the 30 seres products were a large step backwards - except for the digital products, which had never existed in the 20 series. But not according Larry Greenhill who was duly assigned to review the later Levinson products and never met one he didn't fall in love with.

Did Stereophile help or hurt the high-end industry with this type of coverage of the Levinson 30 (and later) series?

NB: ) just re-read Stereophile's review of the No.26 preamp/No.20 power amp - done by none other than JA. I urge everyone here to read it - and weep:

https://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/606/index.html

Weep for the incredibly great reviews that JA was capable of when he could afford to spend 8 full weeks with a product - when his staff wans't cut to the bone by the predatory capitalist overlords whom (the not nearly as predatory but still NO angel) LA sold the magazine to.

JA will likely literally weep when he reads this and remembers the days when he didn't have to work 80 hours a week, spending no more than a week with a component, could focus on what something really sounded like, when first Harley, and later Tom Norton did many of the measurements - and now JA has to do them all, farming out the "Editor's Page" (AWSI) to long-gone former staff members.

Or how about the truth-telling JA does in this follow-up of the revised Krell KSA-50S compared to the original KSA-50:

https://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/985krell/index.html

That's exactly what has been missing for well over a decade - some good old truth telling.

While perhaps Stereophile after LA never reached the heights of TAS under HP, at least JA has kept it from plunging to the depths of TAS under the corrupt TM and RH. Yet both magazines are largely responsible for the decline of the high-end. Not solely - other factors at work as well, but especially the demands of a monthly publishing schedule, forcing both magazines to fill their pages with something - anything! to justify the ad pages.

> > I let stand your actual criticisms, of course. < <

That is extremely honorable of you, and more than I would expect. Thank you.

> > I am becoming increasingly concerned that you are significantly
muddying the waters. < <

I would suggest if that hadn't been so many blatantly obvious examples of favoritism (and NOT to advertisers necessarily, as so many idiots on the internet (including some on this forum) accuse Stereophile of - if they actually think that, they are clearly confusing you with a different US print magazine that covers audio), then this would likely not be an issue at all. But I can't imagine that most of your readers haven't noticed your bias for UK (or UK-designed) products. Nor Larry Greenhill's bias for Levinson products. Nor MF's bias for:

a) The more expensive the product, the better it must be.
b) Wilson loudspeakers are the best on the planet, presumably because they play really loud, have super spectacular bass thump created by the +10dB bump they all exhibit at 70Hz, and are ungodly expensive (see (a) above).
c) Turntables that follow the exact design principles of his current favorite super-expensive turntable that nobody else has ever heard, as they are so expensive that they aren't even in dealer's showrooms.
d) Hyper-detailed phono cartridges that are spectacular for one song, fatiguing to listen to in the long term.
e) Anything that he currently "owns". It's especially obvious when he concedes that something sounds pretty much as good as what he owns, but since the retail price is much higher for what he owns (or has on long-term loan), he's going to stick with it. (Any normal person would sell the expensive product, buy the cheaper product and buy music with the savings. But MF must either enjoy the prestige of the "Rolex factor" or be bound by accommodation purchase agreements, or afraid to piss off the guys who gave him the long-term loans.

Is that good or bad for the high-end industry?

When people have unfairly attacked you, I have jumped in to defend - and not mildly. I don't suffer fools gladly. (See link below).

> > If my review is positive, readers who are aware of your
Asylum postings may well assume that I am trying to placate you. < <

Then put me in the camp with all of the people who voted for Jill Stein for president and was able to cause the defeat of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. If I have that kind of power, I am damned dangerous man! Able to swing national elections! Able to intimidate the 40-year editor-in-chief to give my employer a good review because I insulted him on an online forum! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Damn, I knew I was good, I just didn't know how good... :-)

> > On the other hand, if I make any negative comments in the review, readers might then assume that I am trying to punish you for your unbridled comments on this forum. < <

If somebody is that stupid, then I say "fuck 'em". Let them think that. I not only have this forum to complain in, I have my employers website. But I don't even need that - Stereophile provides me with space for a manufacturers response where you will print any rebuttal a manufacturer wants to make. I was somewhat shocked by the recent review by Herb Reichert of the LTA ZOTL40 power amp. I've never heard it, so I can't say, but I can say that Herb listens to a HIGHLY colored system that is likely to only sound good with other components that are also HIGHLY colored in complementary ways. After reading that review I couldn't help feeling that it said more about Herb and his idiosyncrasies than it did about the amplifier.

Is that god or bad for the high-end industry?

I couldn't help but notice that TAS gave the same amp a rave review - which is more or less what they are paid to do - except that particular review was done by Dick Olsher. DO used to work for Stereophile for many years, but has diverged down his own weird path. I don't think he is part of the "main team" that is bought off by their advertisers. Instead, I think he is likely retired and only writes an article when he finds something he truly loves. (TAS likely keeps him around as "evidence" that they are not completely corrupt, the same way they keep "independently wealthy" Steven Stone around to review things that he buys (instead of borrows) from non-advertisers. REG fits into the same category - retired math professor, I think from UCLA, who has many preconceptions about what should be good, and seeks it out independently and confirms his own biases. TAS also keeps him around to provide "evidence" that they will review products from non-advertisers.) And I'm guessing that the colorations of the ZOTL40 were just the perfect complement to the system that DO listens to, possibly combined with his predisposition to like tubes - especially OTL tubes because he has already determined in his own mind that is "the best" way to do things.

Is that good or bad for the high-end audio industry?

And even though the ZOTL40 manufacturer was allowed to defend himself in the "Manufacturer's Comment" section, all we got was some mealy-mouth, "Thank you for the review. We've heard our amplifier sound really good before. We urge your readers to listen and decide for themselves." So who holds the power here? Clearly the vast majority of manufacturers believe that Stereophile does - that if they try to defend their product or attack the reviewer, that they will just appear defensive and not credible. Better to just reprint the rave from TAS and stick to the old maxim "Any publicity is good publicity" - the reader will recognize the name of the product but probably not the specific content of the review. I really don't know what they think.

Is that good or bad for the high-end audio industry.

The only person I've seen fight back has been US importer of UK products, Roy Hall. Over a decade ago he started responding to even positive reviews with insults, especially aimed at Sam Tellig. I was never sure if it was a put, or if he was actually serious and had zero respect for Stereophile any longer. (He didn't always used to make responses like that.) But whatever the case, it didn't stop him from submitting products for review and getting good reviews from Stereophile. In fact on his website he boasts that many of his products are in the Stereophile "Recommended Components" list!

It seems to me that the thing that the whole world is demanding today, more than anything else is for people to stand up and tell the truth. Unfortunately for high-end audio, it seems to me that less and less of that comes from the US print press. I gave up on TAS over a decade ago, when it became common knowledge that they let, no *encouraged*, their reviewers to act unethically if they could profit from it, as the magazine apparently can't pay the reviewers what they think they are worth.

Sterophile lost Stephen Mejias to AudioQuest because they paid him far more than Stereophile. But now Stephen is back contributing to Stereophile. It would be interesting to learn what Stephen has to say about his experience. I would assume that he decided even double or triple his previous salary wasn't worth whatever it was he had to give up at his new job. Will he tell the truth about that story?

Would that be good or bad for high-end audio?

• Hansen defends Atkinson   (Open in New Window)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---