I'm starting this thread as an outgrowth of the thread around S&V's review of the Marantz SR7200. They pretty much trashed this new receiver, and there are questions around their testing procedures, their biases, and their lack of checking with Marantz about what might have been a dud unit being reviewed. In addition to this, the same issue of S&V reviewed "4" hi-end receivers: B&K Reference 30, Meridian 561, and Lexicon MC-1. Note that I put the 4 in quotes, because there are actually 3. In any case, you can read my post in this thread about my issues with this article. In so many words, I found it very deficient, biased, and even misleading at times. And there's another problem with this very same issue: on page 42, they refer to Terminator II in the caption of a screen shot, but the screen shot is actually taken from Terminator I. Now, is this the end of the world? No. But it does show their sloppiness as an editorial staff. This sloppiness can -- and probably does -- leak into reviews, bake-offs, and other articles. ------------------ Jon http://theopinion.com http://midi.com Coming Soon: http://toptentech.com http://prosumerreports.com
if you look on page 109 there is a small write up on the mc-12 from lexicon. perhaps this is the "fourth" unit they are referring to on the cover. i haven't read the marantz review so i can't comment on that and the t1 screen shot slipped past me as well. not to defend them but perhaps in the wake of the sept. 11 tragedy their minds weren't really on their work. just an idea. kevin t
In my opinion, S&V has a lot more credibility than some of the other magazines praising expensive snake-oil like magical cures for non-existant problems. I am glad they published that review.
I read and like S&V Mag but I do think they were seriously remiss in not contacting Marantz. I don't think a reviewer should feel he has to allow the manufacturer a rebuttal every time he takes issue with a spec or feature. On the other hand if a unit under performs expectations in a serious manner I think the reviewer owes it to the consumer and the manufacturer to make contact and look into it before going to press. Not contacting them will just encourage manufacturers to "test" or "prep" units for review in the future. I don't want that because I want to know the product reviewed is what I would buy on the shelf. Think about it. If YOU purchased this unit, and it performed that way leaving YOU disappointed, wouldn't YOU contact Marantz? ------------------ Luke
Their comments on the Marantz receiver were based on listening tests *and* measurements. Now how can you argue with that? If the unit is noisy, it's noisy. Now you could ask, gee, maybe they got a bad one. Maybe they should talk to the manufacturer. But then Joe Schmoe on the street who bought one might think that the noise is "normal" and never contact the manufacturer anyway. Shame on Marantz for either poor quality control, or a poor design. And I happen to like Marantz gear too! I'm waiting to see what the successor to the AV9000 is... Jon- I actually think if you wrote them at the magazine about this (or maybe the web site somehow), see what happens... ------------------
I'm dissappointed in S&V more so than marantz. A company that has the balls to send a unit untested is somewhat comforting to me. It means that they have faith in their product. When a magazine gets the results they did, and then immediately publishes the results, rather than contact the company and say that the product was unnaceptable is pretty low class. I've heard of reviewers in the past(in other review magazines) simply returning the product back to the dealer if it was not acceptable. Now, if they had contacted marantz and exchanged for a different one and still got the same results, I would commend S&V for being fair, and condem marantz for producing a unnaceptable product. To let one of their products that was clearly defective represent their entire lineup of products is unfair. Name one company that can put out millions of units to the public without a single one having a problem or being defective and I'll gladly jump to your side of the fence. Jon
And a First Production run of a new unit, none the less. I will wait to see what we hear from Marantz AND Sound & Vision. Just the fact that the report didn't say "We contacted Marantz to let them know how poorly the receiver performed and to see if it was a defect and it wasn't" is enough to say that Sound and Vision was acting poorly.
It seems to that the author of this thread has his own biases as well,like pretty much everyone has,however to connect Daniel Kumin's write up on 3 highend processors,with the typo of the Terminator photo with the David Ranada's review of the Marantz SR7200 review and conclude that somehow may tainted it,is absurd,and begs the question what is his correlation to all this. ------------------ "You Hungarians always disagree"
quote: It seems to that the author of this thread has his own biases as well,like pretty much everyone has,however to connect Daniel Kumin's write up on 3 highend processors,with the typo of the Terminator photo with the David Ranada's review of the Marantz SR7200 review and conclude that somehow may tainted it,is absurd,and begs the question what is his correlation to all this.[/quote] Well, of course I have my biases. I was pretty clear in my related post that my bias is that I think the B&K Ref 30 got shortchanged by the author's own biases -- biases that I think do a disservice to a majority of the readership. Between this, the lack of double-checking with Marantz on what may have been a faulty unit, the fact that there are 3 -- not 4 -- high-end preamps reviewed, and the fact that my friend pointed out the T2 screen shot mistake in the same issue just added up to making a pretty good case that S&V is not the kind of magazine that crosses all their T's and dots all of their I's. Which, of course, creates a bit of a credibility issue. Other than the above, I have no correlation to any A/V magazine outside of being a subscriber. I don't own any Marantz equipment, nor have I ever. I don't own T2 or T1 on DVD. So, you're out of correlations there. I am, however, the Editor-in-Chief of a magazine, The Opinion (http://TheOpinion.com), and do appreciate the value of quality embedded in the editorial process. ------------------ Jon http://theopinion.com http://midi.com Coming Soon: http://toptentech.com http://prosumerreports.com [Edited last by JonDeutsch on October 14, 2001 at 12:50 AM]
I've read S & V for many years even back when it was stereo review. It has always a helpful source of real world information on current hi fi equipment. I've found the magazine to be very helpful in making new technology understandable. As the owner of a 5200 Marantz receiver I'm bothered by the review, but not so much with the magazine as with results. I guess no one want to have their decision brought into question and cast doubt on the purchase. I was happy with the receiver before the artical and to be honest I'm still happy with it. I don't blame Sound & Vision for their findings and I'll continue reading the magazine for years to come. I do think they have totally destroyed the entire Marantz line of receivers weather deserved or not. So much for the power of the press to seal the fate of a company. Greg
