SOUNDSTAGE
Soundstage was the first audio webzine that I am aware of, starting in 1995. It has always been "free", and it has become quite successful, with assorted web offshoots.
It now has an incredible amount of advertising permeating the entire site. I recently counted 12 "flashers" (and 65 total advertisers in an alphabetical listing) on the home page alone. I have never seen another website, including non-audio, with an equivalent amount of concentrated advertising. It is, without a doubt, the "Las Vegas" of websites.
Advertising becomes a relevant concern only when the "magazine" has a noticeable reluctance in directly criticizing an advertiser's products, or uses any other method to protect and/or promote the advertiser at the expense of the reader/consumer.
The question we must ask is simple:
Does Soundstage's advertising revenue, its only source of income, have any adverse (compromising) effect on the critical nature of the reviews posted on its website?
The Soliloquy 6.3 speaker is reviewed by Marc Mickelson, the number two man at Soundstage and Editor-In-Chief. It can now be found within their "archives" section.
The 6.3 is their top of the line. It is a floor standing, two-way design with an extra 6.5" woofer tuned to the bass. The sensitivity is stated to be 90dB, and its impedance is claimed to be 8 ohms. There were no measurements in the review. The cabinet appears to be well made, weighing 100 lbs., though some of that is from a thick metal plate at the bottom. The retail cost is $ 2,995 a pair.
Soliloquy is one of Soundstage's main advertisers, with a flashing banner ad that costs $ 300 a month. (All U.S. dollars.)
The review is pretty straightforward, with the reviewer playing a variety of CDs only, and all of them are pop/rock. He also uses a variety of amplifiers, from Single Ended Triode (SET), the LAMM ML2, to a high-power, transistor integrated, the Levinson 383. He also compares the 6.3 to the Silverline Sonatas (a non-advertiser?), which are $ 6,000 a pair.
This review is very typical of what you see today. There are no blatant problems that generate obvious questions like the ET review did above. However, there are still important "issues" with this particular review, and numerous others like it, that must be discussed.
Mr. Mickelson, from the first paragraph, states that this is a loudspeaker that was designed to work with tubes, including SET. He even describes it as "tube friendly" in his "Review Summary". However, his actual listening experiences belie that description and beg some questions to be asked.
1. How is the Soliloquy 6.3 "tube friendly" when they "sound their best" when played by transistor amplifiers? Is not that the definition of "transistor friendly"?
In fact, Mr. Mickelson writes that he actually wishes he could listen to the speakers with the even more powerful Simaudio W-5 amplifier that he had previously reviewed. He states, "The W-5's combination of immense power and bass control might make for an ideal match" with the 6.3's.
2. How can a speaker that requires "immense power and bass control" still be described as "tube friendly", including ultra-low power SETs?
Isn't it a design flaw when a speaker requires "immense power and bass control" just to sound natural? Isn't it very strange that a "tube friendly" speaker doesn't sound better in even one way with a tube amp?
3. Why didn't Mr. Mickelson just state the obvious and advise his readers that the manufacturer's hype about the speaker (that it's designed to sound its best with tubes) is just plain wrong and misleading?
4. Why didn't he just tell his readers that there are competing speakers that actually will work better with tube amplifiers, and then name them? (There must be some!) If not, why would anyone ever purchase a tube amplifier in the first place?
Finally, wouldn't you be "real happy" if you were the Soliloquy manufacturer? Check out Secret Rule No. 2. There are other issues we can't overlook.
The Soliloquy 6.3 was compared to the Silverline Sonatas, "and both speakers are easy to drive" (??!! See Issue 1). So how do they compare?
Well, according to Mr. Mickelson, the main difference was in the "vocal region", where the 6.3 is "more chesty" and has a "resonant quality". He feels there is a small difference in the bass and highs also. It is never directly stated, but the 6.3 seems to be slightly preferred, even though it is half the price. Of course that must mean that the 6.3 is either a relative bargain, or the Sonatas are poorly designed and also way overpriced. Does Mr. Mickelson bring up this obvious conclusion? No.
In fact, Mr. Mickelson concludes that "both of these are fine speakers", and choosing between them will mainly depend on the amplifier that is used. (The fact that the Sonatas are twice the price, at $6,000, appears now to be totally irrelevant.)
No serious problem is even once brought up with either one of them. Amazingly, Mr. Mickelson resisted seriously criticizing the Soliloquy even when he had "the excuse" that the competitor was twice the price, Secret Rule No. 3B.
The last "Issue" is more subtle and already alluded to, but still must be directly addressed, because it is a growing problem.
All audiophiles know that no component is "perfect", especially loudspeakers, and that certainly includes all those models at the medium and lower price points, where even more serious problems are unavoidable, no matter how brilliant the design is. It is sadly true that even spending a lot of money is no guarantee of ending up with fewer serious problems.
Meanwhile, ironically, most of the audio press will no longer seriously criticize advertised loudspeakers at any price, even though they know that their readers know there must be some real problems with them. Even poor measurements are fluffed off.
The press are still easiest, by far, on the ultra-expensive models, but the trend now is to also "go easy" on the less expensive models. The 6.3 review is a perfect example of this new direction, as the competition heats up for scarcer advertising dollars.
Only one example is required to make this point. Mr. Mickelson continually refers to the speakers as either "very mellow", "too ripe", "warm", "full and round", "fleshy", etc. (You get the picture.) The fact that this is the strong, pervasive tonal "character" of the speaker, and that all tonal characteristics are imperfections by definition (no matter how pleasant), is never once stated by Mr. Mickelson, even indirectly or by inference.
This leads to the final question:
Marc Mickelson and his associates know the answer to that question. I don't.
Further- Please check out Secret Rules No. 3D & 3E.
Yes, I realize SoundStage is "free", at least if all the unavoidable flashing banners don't give you a headache, but it should still be more than an exercise in promoting advertisers, audio diplomacy and maximizing advertising revenues. At this stage (no pun intended), Soundstage is even more timid than Stereophile and all the other commercial magazines.
This timidity is very understandable when you consider Soundstage's perspective, which is...
It must be extremely difficult to run a business, for profit, which is totally dependent on your advertisers, and then to find and display the courage to compromise those same advertisers' interests in favor of your totally non-paying readers.
This financial perspective should never be forgotten by the readers of Soundstage's website, who can make their own determination as to how much courage Soundstage displays. I've made mine.
Well, Soundstage is free, but don't forget the old, wise saying; "you get what you pay for", which appears particularly applicable in this situation.
For those readers who would enjoy seeing a different approach to an audio webzine. I advise going to TNT-Audio. The link in is the Links section.
Top
Click here to go toTHE RECENT FILE
Arthur Salvatore
COPYRIGHT 2000-2008 ARTHUR SALVATORE AND HIGH-END AUDIO LTD.