viren bakhshi
Well-Known Member
Hi,
Here's a quote from Jonathan Valin covering the CES in AVGuide:
"Of course, the excellence of Andrew Jones' $65k TAD Reference One is scarcely a surprise. Like the Anats, these speakers are, to me, the quintessence of great hi-fi. They have absolutely killer dynamics, sensational low-level resolution, wonderful soundstaging, and gorgeous timbre. All they don't have (or at least haven't in the past to my ear) is the breath of life.
"I'm going to be writing about this in the future because it is an interesting subject, but in a nutshell here's the conundrum: The way we review things--bass, midrange, treble, dynamics, resolution, soundstaging, etc.--you would think that more of everything in each of these categories would add up to greater realism. However, that isn't the case. Although bits and pieces of these things are necessary for a lifelike sound, those bits and pieces are highly select. In other words, achieving a convincing semblance of the absolute sound isn't simply an additive process; otherwise, the most detailed amp or speaker would always be the most realistic--and it ain't.
"Now, i'm saying these things about the Reference One, but I could be saying them about virtually every speaker I heard at CES. Almost all of the best of them sounded overly dark, almost all of the best of them were audiophile-laundry-list champeens. But very very very few of them sounded "real" rather than hi-fi."
What surprises me is not the content, which I have known for a long time, but that a prominent reviewer admits to the fact!
Regards,
Viren
Here's a quote from Jonathan Valin covering the CES in AVGuide:
"Of course, the excellence of Andrew Jones' $65k TAD Reference One is scarcely a surprise. Like the Anats, these speakers are, to me, the quintessence of great hi-fi. They have absolutely killer dynamics, sensational low-level resolution, wonderful soundstaging, and gorgeous timbre. All they don't have (or at least haven't in the past to my ear) is the breath of life.
"I'm going to be writing about this in the future because it is an interesting subject, but in a nutshell here's the conundrum: The way we review things--bass, midrange, treble, dynamics, resolution, soundstaging, etc.--you would think that more of everything in each of these categories would add up to greater realism. However, that isn't the case. Although bits and pieces of these things are necessary for a lifelike sound, those bits and pieces are highly select. In other words, achieving a convincing semblance of the absolute sound isn't simply an additive process; otherwise, the most detailed amp or speaker would always be the most realistic--and it ain't.
"Now, i'm saying these things about the Reference One, but I could be saying them about virtually every speaker I heard at CES. Almost all of the best of them sounded overly dark, almost all of the best of them were audiophile-laundry-list champeens. But very very very few of them sounded "real" rather than hi-fi."
What surprises me is not the content, which I have known for a long time, but that a prominent reviewer admits to the fact!
Regards,
Viren
