http://www.whathifi.com/review/bo-beosound-8

From that review:

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

[...]while it was running in.

I get so bored reading reviews like this I rarely get to the end of the first paragraph.  I once heard the term 'intense sonic elasticity' somewhere and confess to having a look on my face as blank as a plain sheet of A4 when trying to work out what that meant.

They'd increase their readership numbers tenfold if they spoke in understandable terms..  Still - "bullsh*t baffles brains" and the author will have the respect of his readers purely by sounding like he really knows his stuff, even if his readers have no idea what the hell he's talking about.  

Whenever I start to read read drivel like this, i just look straight for the 'star ratings' at the end, then move on.

Lee

Seldom has more rubbish been spoken in a single paragraph than here:

http://www.furutech.com/news/e-TP%20609(News)-2006.htm

"The 2-Step Alpha Cryogenic and Demagnetizing Process works in tandem with other designed-in features to create the most optimized AC power transfer possible. Furutech’s scientific outlook, total awareness and devotion to detail results in a greater sense of power, dynamics, and resolution, with cleaner, blacker backgrounds and a larger, more stable soundstage, vivid tonal colors and deeper extension at both ends of the frequency range. The e-TP 609 will allow the delicacy, refinement and nuance of a performance through, along with micro- and macro-dynamics that will leave you breathlessly engaged. Displays of all types will exhibit greater, sharper resolution with less ghosting, color shift, “snow”, or vertical and horizontal lines."

Simon

"The e-TP609 is a sophisticated, luxuriously made single-chassis power distributor that eliminates many common problems found in audio and video components caused by massively contaminated electrical power lines."

So - unless you have a "massively contaminated electrical power line" this is as much use as a handbrake on a canoe ?   I therefore assume this product was aimed at high end home running on a 1973 Perkins Diesel Generator.. or a luxury condo in downtown Nairobi.

Yes - that's some crap there..  This thread could turn out quite funny! 

Lee

Electrified:

From that review:

 

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

 

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

 

[...]while it was running in.

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

For the record, burn in is definitely not a myth! We've just got a new pair of Focal Twins in the studio as midfields, and being the person who set them up, and used them over the last week or two, they have definitely changed quite significantly, even people that didn't hear them that much have commented.

Not that I'm supporting What HiFi, most of their reviews are so full of bulls••t it's unbelievable, and like most publications, their views are often tainted in favour of those companies who advertise through them.

Alex:

Electrified:

From that review:

 

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

 

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

 

[...]while it was running in.

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

 

Sorry, but I'm in the Stanley Unwin camp here!

While I appreciate that trying to describe the way a system sounds in words is very difficult, it can only be helped by specifiying somewhere in the publication how they define terms like "Timing" & "Integration". If they can define them then, in all likelyhood they are capable of being measured. I would worry if they can't produce a definition. Without a base reference or scale any measurement is useless. If this is true then what are we to make of subjective claims on the quailty of, or changes/improvements/reductions to, ill-defined parameters?

Puncher:

Sorry, but I'm in the Stanley Unwin camp here!

While I appreciate that trying to describe the way a system sounds in words is very difficult, it can only be helped by specifiying somewhere in the publication how they define terms like "Timing" & "Integration". If they can define them then, in all likelyhood they are capable of being measured. I would worry if they can't produce a definition. Without a base reference or scale any measurement is useless. If this is true then what are we to make of subjective claims on the quailty of, or changes/improvements/reductions to, ill-defined parameters?

Not quite sure I see what you mean. For example, integration refers to phase response and frequency response around the crossover point. If a dip or peak is clearly audible around the crossover point due to phasing issues then this will manifest itself as badly-integrated drivers and being able to hear two distinct speaker drivers.

Now this could be measured, and can be measured really quite easily (so long as you've got the money to do it). What would be the point though? Most people aren't going to have a clue about how to read the phase-plot of a speaker, let alone know how it's going to affect the sound of the system. Why should they even publish details?

Hearing these things is not difficult. For example, try flipping the polarity of the tweeters in your speakers and see what happens at the crossover point - now that is an extreme example of bad integration (assuming the speakers are okay to start off with)!

Alex:

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

No they're not.

Alex:

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

No, in audiophilic terms that is certainly not what is meant when talking about "timing". It is usually referring to what would be wow and flutter in the analogue world (i.e. that it doesn't fluctuate a lot in speed).

If they wanted to talk decay times, they should have talked decay times, not a general "timing".

[edit: By the way, "decay times" are called "decay periods" for obvious reasons]

And since the reviewer"tested" it at his desk apparently, information on "decay" is utterly useless. He obviously didn't measure anything at all.

Alex:

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Again, that's just ridiculous. Yes, they may very well mean that, but it's still nonsensical. If they were meaning that the crossover was well put, that is what they should have focused on. Instead they claim "integration throughout the frequency range".

Alex:

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

What, you mean they clip?  Headroom when it comes to reproduction of audio is by its very nature dynamic.  If you don't have the headroom, you don't have dynamics.

Alex:

For the record, burn in is definitely not a myth! We've just got a new pair of Focal Twins in the studio as midfields, and being the person who set them up, and used them over the last week or two, they have definitely changed quite significantly, even people that didn't hear them that much have commented.

No. Just no. Two weeks running-in?  Seriously, play the speakers for five minutes louder andlouder when you first open the box - you can call that "running-in" if you want to - and everything should work and measure exactly like they will two weeks down the line.

As for running-in in general, they also have other stuff doing that on Whathifi, you know, stuff like cables, cd-players and on and on.

I used to love the stuff Alvin Gold spouted in the 80's in a flat earth hi fi mag , stuff about scratching marks on plugs to improve teh sound and wrapping bits of red plastic round the mains lead.

WHF is a joke , I don't quite understand how a product is 5 stars one month then ends up on 4stars 3 months later just because it's 3 months older.

'There's more competition' they say , yeah , for advertising , maybe.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Audiophile

My brother, an audio engineering whiz kid has proven to me what is real and what is not. We gathered up 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent.

OUCH

I don't quite understand how a product is 5 stars one month then ends up on 4stars 3 months later just because it's 3 months older.

Probably for the same reason that the Ford Anglia was voted 'best family car' in 1961!

When half wits really don't have a clue as to what they are talking about, they usually resort to bullshit.

Estate Agents, Insurance Salesmen, Politicians, my Physics teacher(class of 84), Taxi drivers(not Black Cab London)and anybody from the Council.

Electrified:

As for running-in in general, they also have other stuff doing that on Whathifi, you know, stuff like cables, cd-players and on and on.

Agreed that it's a load of nonsense when it comes to cables, CD players and other electronics, but I completely disagree with you when it comes to speakers! I've heard it, I know it in side-by-side comparisons, it is definitely there.

This comment mirrors exactly what I found with the Twins - lacking in low-end to start off with, and harshness at the top end which subsides after a week or so of use.

There is no mention of where the BS8 was located (freestanding?, against a wall?, in a corner?), no mention of what it was stood on (hard surface?), no mention of the listening position (a sofa across the room?, nearfield like pc monitors?), the room itself etc etc.

All of which render the conclusion, which seemed to condense to "It sounds OK although I prefer it loud rather than quiet", rather meaningless.

Alex:

Agreed that it's a load of nonsense when it comes to cables, CD players and other electronics, but I completely disagree with you when it comes to speakers! I've heard it, I know it in side-by-side comparisons, it is definitely there.

Yes, and despite remembering what you hear is ridiculously difficult and fickle, you claim that not only can you hear a difference, but people who have heard them only shortly, can come back and they to hear a difference.

Seriously, that's utter bollocks no matter which way you look at it. Our hearing, and especially our memory of it are extremely fickle and imprecise.

Alex:

This comment mirrors exactly what I found with the Twins - lacking in low-end to start off with, and harshness at the top end which subsides after a week or so of use.

That doesn't change anything. You can find loads of audiophilic comments everywhere.

-------------

Puncher:

There is no mention of where the BS8 was located (freestanding?, against a wall?, in a corner?), no mention of what it was stood on (hard surface?), no mention of the listening position (a sofa across the room?, nearfield like pc monitors?), the room itself etc etc.

All of which render the conclusion, which seemed to condense to "It sounds OK although I prefer it loud rather than quiet", rather meaningless.

I agree. There's absolutely nothing there except the opinion of an ignorant "reviewer" that seemed to have had it next to his desk for a little while.

Electrified:

I agree. There's absolutely nothing there except the opinion of an ignorant "reviewer" that seemed to have had it next to his desk for a little while.

I'm not sure that I could deduce that the reviewer is ignorant, rather that it is at very best a single person's very subjective view - with no data to back up his conclusions, nor any information on the "test" conditions or setup for comparison.

I would consider it as light-weight "Sunday Supplement" reading rather than an exhaustive, objective review - which, in fairness, is probably not a million miles away from the target audience.

Puncher:

I'm not sure that I could deduce that the reviewer is ignorant, rather that it is at very best a single person's very subjective view - with no data to back up his conclusions, nor any information on the "test" conditions or setup for comparison.

I still conclude he's ignorant based on the words and terms he's using.  It makes it obvious he doesn't know the first thing of audio.

A bit of light reading!!

Peter :

A bit of light reading!!

 

And another:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/

Interesting links indeed!!

There can't be another industry filled with as much bullS*it as the HiFi/HighEnd industry....?

Great thread.  A review of a review.

Alex:

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

 

Alex, you are a knowledgeable and very likeable member of Beoworld, so I do not wish to be unfairly critical of your viewpoints, however as a recovering audiophile of the Naim faith, I have to opinion that others views here of the Audiophile subjective terminology and viewpoint being mostly BS is pretty much on the mark really.

To a Naim believer, timing is all about PRaT aka Pace, Rythmn and Timing.  Apparently whilst this 'phenomena' (LOL....) does exist in music, only flat earth systems can do full justice to it, instantly rendering them the most musical systems on earth so the flat earth Naim devotees would have us believe.  "You're nobody without a Naim" don't you know, as the advertising slogan goes.

As a trained musician in piano, trumpet and voice, I can assure you this flat earth/Naim mantra is BS of the highest order and typical of Audiophool utter nonsense spouted by fervent fanboys who lack any sort of tertiary training or qualifications, touting subjective pseudo science as objective fact.

Alex:

For the record, burn in is definitely not a myth! We've just got a new pair of Focal Twins in the studio as midfields, and being the person who set them up, and used them over the last week or two, they have definitely changed quite significantly, even people that didn't hear them that much have commented.

Well unfortunately again, science pretty much comes down on the side of expectation bias and psychoacoustics re the way we hear and the fallibility of our audio memory here as being the actual causation of the results you report, rather than any change beyond a nominal one at best, occurring in the loudspeaker per se.  Not that is impossible for the speaker sound to change slightly from new as regards temperature and mechanical effects, but these are likely to be significant over only a few hours it would appear from manufacturers who have investigated such issues.

From the owners manual of a pair of B&W 683's

"Running-in Period

The performance of the speaker will change subtly during the initial listening period. If the speaker has been stored in a cold environment, the damping compounds and suspension materials of the drive units will take some time to recover their correct mechanical properties. The drive unit suspensions will also loosen up during the first hours of use. The time taken for the speaker to achieve its intended performance will vary depending on previous storage conditions and how it is used. As a guide, allow up to a week for the temperature effects to stabilise and 15 hours of average use for the mechanical parts to attain their intended design characteristics.

However, longer run-in periods (as long as a month) have been reported and there is evidence to suggest that this has little to do with the speaker changing and more to do with the listener getting used to the new sound. This is especially so with highly revealing speakers such as these where there may be a significant increase in the amount of detail compared with what the listener has previously been used to; the sound may at first appear too “up front” and perhaps a little hard. After an extended period of time the sound will seem to mellow, but without losing clarity and detail."

So, yes, there may be some initial change, dependant upon storage conditions according to B&W, but not the protracted and 'night and day' differences that audiophiles commonly claim.  I'd suggest these sorts of claims have more to do with psychoacoustics and psychology generally rather than any 'night and day' difference occurring in the sound of the speaker due to and slight mechanical or thermal changes.

HTH

With respect and Best Wishes

John.... 

Well said, John

Electrified:

Alex:

Agreed that it's a load of nonsense when it comes to cables, CD players and other electronics, but I completely disagree with you when it comes to speakers! I've heard it, I know it in side-by-side comparisons, it is definitely there.

Yes, and despite remembering what you hear is ridiculously difficult and fickle, you claim that not only can you hear a difference, but people who have heard them only shortly, can come back and they to hear a difference.

Seriously, that's utter bollocks no matter which way you look at it. Our hearing, and especially our memory of it are extremely fickle and imprecise.

Steady on, not quite sure what I said to wind you up. "utter bollocks" is 1) mildly offensive and 2) a bit extreme IMHO.

As it happens, there are measurable differences in the TS parameters between drivers pre and post burn in. Link Link. Now just how much this affects the real-world performance of the speaker is up for debate. Most of the tests I've seen orientate around sealed speaker enclosures, which will show less variation in performance than say, a sealed or transmission line box as the Fs of the driver changes. I also haven't yet seen a single test which measures a speaker's performance in the time domain, only with a solid sine-wave. Start passing time-dependant signals with variations in frequency and amplitude in similar tests, and I'd put money on a speaker's step response changing throughout the 'burn in period'.

For everybody that says it's 'utter bollocks', there is somebody else who says it isn't, and data to back up both sides. Dynaudio for instance insist that all of their speakers should be allowed to burn-in before they perform correctly.

Even if you don't want to accept that it's a physical change in the speaker itself, then the argument that it's all down to the reviewer's ears is just as valid. We don't buy speakers because they measure properly, we buy them because of how we perceive their sound, and if we need a period of 'burn-in' to get used to the sound of the speaker, then let it be.

If it really bothers you that some people might think there is such a thing as driver burn in, then just ignore it.