No mater how ridicules the title of this article sounds on my site but I was quite glad to see the in the May’s issues of Stereophile the Robert J. Reina review of Advent loudspeakers. I do not think that Advent’s review is a sign of some kind of sincerity from the Stereophile publishers. It rather an accidental even of perhaps some kind of Mr. Reina’s friend have signed-in the inflames 5-year advertising package with Stereophile. Nevertheless, the fact that the Stereophile have published a review of a vintage, no-agenda product is very pleasant. Ironically, and probably because of no-agenda, the review had complete different “look and feel” then the typical Stereophile foolishness, not to mention that the review was quite accurate, objective and almost free of the idiocy, wish which the Stereophile doodle-writers love to shine.
Really, what we could expect form a person who write for Stereophile. We all’re accustomed to see John Marks pimping around gathering audio-Morons ™ under his flag and impressing them with his residue of spirituacity, or we’re accustomed to see the John Atkinson running across the pages and screaming: “What did I do?”, or we are accustomed to see the Michael Fremer’s attempts do not crack his neck in his everlasting desire to suck his own penis. An owner of one of the leading today’s publication (not the Stereophile) told me once in his email: “My job isn’t provide an objective public service but do not piss anybody in industry”. Great, forget the interest of consummates and the idealistic contempt of pure audio! Lets do not piss anybody: Hitler was a nice guy who loved dogs and appreciated Beethoven, Fremer a nice guy with good hair and pleasantly smile when he talk, Mussolini was Caruso admirer and helped to the homeless… Or perhaps it is not about avoiding pissing anybody and about recognizing the sane reasons and following it?
Whatever the reason what but the Robert J. Reina article was unexpected treat from Stereophile. Not that the speakers are worth anything, in fact the fact of selection of this particular brand was quite unreasonable but the intentions where there. Along with the intentions came the objectively and Robert was spot on in many of his observations. Even his comments that in the David Chesky’s Violin Concerto he was able to follow each instrument was a great compliment to the Advent as the Chesky’s Violin Concerto is nothing then juts an array of individual notes of different instilments, combined by the David’s desires to compose “something” that would be transmittable via loudspeakers and would push a VU-meter on the right.
I would like still to make 3 comments.
First. Robert does a mistake comparing the $139 vintage loudspeakers with contemporary loudspeakers of similar price. Leaving aside the fact the no equipment should be compare in a review
Robert is committing a mistake attributing to prices any value. If he insist to “compare” (and the average Stereophile reading Moron won’t understand otherwise) then he should compare his $139 Advent loudspeakers with the cotemporary speakers of the same topology. The Advents were 2-ways acoustic suspension. No one do today the properly done acoustic suspension; so, take any contemporary 2-ways loudspeakers (for instance the Karhma 3.2 for $23.000) and to “compare”. Perhaps after the “comparing” would come to the observation that the idiots who make and sell this $23.000 peace of loud-speaking-crap should not charge for this speakers more then the Advents? But it would contradict the “do not piss anyone rule”, would it?
Second. If the Stereophile would decide to review the best products (not the Advent-level) form the past and to enrich the reviews with the in-depth technical analyses of the reasons and methods (here is where the Atkinsons people might be handy but they would need some injection of brains who not only collected knowledge but also smart and can interpret what they know), then the Stereophile might develop a quite interesting ritual.
Third. This would be a direct derivation from the comment #2. If the Stereophile objectively and honestly look into the past then they might come up with some observation that would violate the “do not piss anyone” law. If the Robert Reina suddenly discover then Altec from 50s was way more superior then Altec from 90x, that Lamm from 20 century (become vintage nowadays) was way more superior then Lamm from 21 century, that SME from 70 is way better then SME 30-40 year later, that Tanoy of 21 century is nothing like the Tanoy of 1960s, that Mark Levinson 25 years ago did make some more or less musically sounding amplifiers, and that Ed Meitner 15 years ago did something that was heads and shoulders was more superior then whatever he makes today and …. many many other examples…
I ma not a vintage equipment freak, in fact I do not like the people who preoccupied with the vintage paranoia. However, I do admit that there were in the past some very very good solution and decision. Was the Stereophile’s review of the Advent as their premature move toward exploring audio from the times when audio designers were not the today’s losers who can not find jobs in the Real industry of electronic design? The time will show...
Romy the Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche