Originally Posted by BDP24
Reviewers over-stating sonic differences is common and widespread. Small differences are exaggerated, becoming "game changers". I hypothesize it is done because, if there isn't a major difference between an old and new model, or between two competing products, why review it? And why publish the review? It goes beyond just that however, to the personalities of professional reviewer's egos. I remember one former Absolute Sound reviewer stating, at the end of a review of his in the rag he went to after leaving TAS, that he had a vision of Hi-Fi reviewing using a new vocabulary (of his creation, of course), a vocabulary that would revolutionize the very nature of reviewing itself, making the old one (used by everyone but himself) obsolete (I paraphrase). I guess the English language just isn't up to the task of describing reproduced music. Geez, and I thought Pearson was an inflated windbag! Guess that new vocabulary is a work in progress, ay Tom?
Everyone depends upon professional reviews to a certain extent. I know I've read my fair share, and then some. Sometimes, after reading a review, I wonder why the reviewer gave this speaker such a high mark (say 4 out of 5 stars). I didn't get the impression that the reviewer liked the speakers all that much, more that there wasn't anything horrible about them and they had a few nice things going for them. Yet, bingo, 4 stars.
I think most reviewers try to be honest, but shoving a speaker under the bus isn't going to give them many speakers to audition and review. Manufacturers will see to that. I also believe most reviewers don't publish a review of a really bad speaker. So the reader must forget the star rating and read between the lines. I think most can tell when a reviewer is excited about a product and when the reviewer may be going through the motions. There's nothing wrong with this. As consumers, we probably feel the same way. We hear a speaker that is pretty good, but not impressive enough for the money to actually buy them.
I must have read almost a dozen reviews on the 3.6s. There wasn't one review that wasn't very positive, and most were glowing. Yet, I really hesitated on even auditioning the Maggies. You've read the reviews. They are not all that easy to setup. You need to assemble the feet (usually a 2-man job) and crossover box. They need to be away from the walls 4 to 6 feet. You need to try them out with the tweeters on the outside, then on the inside. You may need to add the provided resistors to attenuate the high end. They are spectacular for mainly voice and classical music, not as much for rock. They need a high-current amp. Add all that to the to many user comments stating they need different stands, they are better with the socks off, or better with a different crossover, and I wondered why anyone would bother to even audition them. And let's face it, unlike the Martin Logan ESLs, Maggies are very imposing speakers. They don't exactly disappear in a room. They dominate a room.
The day before going out on an appointment to audition the ML Summits, I happened across Andrew Robinson's review of the 3.6s. It cracked me up. I never read a review that had curse words. Not that everything was glowing, but he did put to rest a lot of my concerns, and it was his review alone that I decided to audition the Maggies on the same day of the ML audition. So yes, there are reviewers that can, and did, influence me greatly. After three, two hour auditions at each store over several weeks, I made my decision. Thank you, Andrew
For those that haven't read this rather unique 2007 review, and might be interested, here it is: http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-lo...dspeakers.html
Garman: Fortunately, the high-end stores I auditioned speakers were pretty good about leaving you alone and giving you time without comment -- although they seem to be enraptured with esoteric cables, elevators and connectors
. I have certainly been at stores where the sales staff tries their best to influence you with their B.S.