Another "Oh So True!" Story

R

Recording Engineer

Moderator
In the past, I've been known to post a few "Oh So True" stories every once in awhile. Sometimes they're about microphones, sometimes they're not. This particular one I read in the past and just recently, it came to mind. It's not about microphones persy, BUT the same thing could be said about ALL types of audio gear and ESPECIALLY in todays microphone and recording world! So, I thought I'd ask the author to post it again. Luckily, he was more than willing.

So, if you're interested in a good "Oh So True" story, please follow the link below and get ready to read a good long one... It has a bit of ALL of us in it!:)

http://members.aol.com/lhd521/myhomepage/news.html
 
I can dig it R.E.
I stopped buying equipment based on magazine reviews long ago. I admit that I do pay close attention to end user comments on gear that they actually use. It pains me to no end when I read someone touting the virtues or pitfalls of gear they've never even been in the same room with let alone had hands on experience with based on "what I've heard". Holy shit. That drives me nuts.
 
It doesn't just happen to newbies either, RE. I bought a pair of Tannoy Studio Two monitor speakers based on a magazine review, and they were the worst POS I've ever had in my studio. The high end was great, but they had a honking peak at around 400Hz that made them totally useless for serious listening.

I now read every magazine review very carefully and try to figure out exactly what the reviewer is really saying.

Sometimes, a "slight rise in the upper bass" means "these babies put out the most flabby bottom end you'll ever hear", and "a very detailed and crisp top end" means" these suckers are so shrill and peaky, they'll fry your brain in about 5 minutes".

And if I'm talking about something I've listened to, I try to be very careful in what I say about it, so that people don't hafta be subjected to hype or worse, flat-out raves, based on very limited experience - which is perhaps the most dangerous form of review ("Hey, I just bought this and it's the only thing like it that I've ever owned, but it sounds great to me").

There are some great reviewers out there (Ty Ford, David Martin, Mike Rivers, Scott Dorsey), but I don't always agree with their assessments on everything, simply because I know some of their biases.

I guess a good review from a competent reviewer should be used as something to check out and decide for myself when I go looking for equipment. I won't buy it on their say so, but at least, I'll add it to a list of things to check out for myself.
 
Hey R.E.
Damn, this doesn't really relate to the thread, but I noticed that Davisound is located in Newberry, SC! Man! I went to Newberry College - I mean, who the hell has ever heard of Newberry? That rocks! You need to ask Hayne when the last time he had a "Dopey Burger" was. If I buy some gear from him, (and I plan to in the future) I'll have to drive up and buy him one!! (As long as he can hold prices down a little longer.) :D
 
I don't like professional reviews or end user reviews. For me, and I bet for a lot of newbies, it's all about justification, validation, rationalization, and a bunch of other 'tions. I've got a very limited amount of money, and audio gear cannot be my top priority. In fact, when i spend money I feel very very guilty (seriously, I *literally* have one pair of pants that I wear every single day. I have one pair of boots that I wear every single day. I've had the same winter coat since I was 16. etc)

So what do reviews do for somebody like me? If I blow my money on something and think it sucks, then I simply will not feel as bad. At least I just didn't pick it randomly. At least I can say, "well, so and so said it was a great such and such, and I needed a such & such so I chose it."

For instance, I recently bought that SX202 preamp that was recommended by lots of people on RAP as a decent sounding entry level preamp. Well, honestly it is a usable preamp, but it sounds not so good...just not very musical at all. So do I feel bad? Nah...I'm smart enough to know that a $100 preamp isn't going to sound great, and at least I did some research and tracked down a unit that was recommended by my superiors. Now if I had just gone out and picked something at random in my low price range, I would have felt guilty. Weird? :)

Reviews can at times be useful to learn whether or not something will even work at all....so I do scan reviews for key phrases. For instance harvey just said "they had a honking peak at around 400Hz that made them totally useless." Now *that* is a specific statement. He didn't use the word muddy, or veiled, or brittle, or harsh, or blah blah blah. Therefore, I would not by those particular monitors because they simply would not work well, for a very specific reason. (It's interesting to wonder, as an aside, if the same would be true for similar but positive statements?)

You know what I really like? I like it when I've heard a lot of the work by a particular pro or even amature, and then I can ask them what kinds of equipment they used to get their sounds. THAT is helpful. Whether they personally like or dislike it is of no concern to me. If I know that a particular mic/preamp combo was able to produce results similar to what I'm looking for, then I'm more inclined to try it...might not work, but it's better than basing decisions on "it had brittle highs, but warm punchy lows." (unfortunately when I ask what they used, they usually start naming off $2000 pieces of gear....ah well, all in due time)

Slackmaster 2000
 
We newbies have to start somewhere, and while reviews can certainly lead us astray, I'd rather have SOMEONE's impression based on experience with a certain piece of equipment, rather than try to go by pictures, specs and advertising copy, which are often completely meaningless.

Nothing beats listening to a piece of equipment in our own systems, of course, but for those of us who live 5 hours from anywhere, we at least need to narrow the field by reading, listening to recorded samples, watching for complaints and comparisons, and learning everything we can BEFORE plunking down our dough or making a trip to the City.

It also teaches us to take today's "wonder-products" with a grain of salt, especially when they're bumped 3 months later by other "wonder-products." It is useful and interesting to note what equipment pros use year in and year out -- what has survived the test of time?

I don't get to test drive my cars very much before I buy them either, but Consumer Reports at least saves me from buying some POS that's going to run OK for about 24 months and then cost me a fortune in repairs. There are plenty of Yugos in the world of pro audio as well, and reviews are one way to learn about them.

It's interesting that you chose to link to the Davisound site, since I was thinking about their site this morning as the almost perfect example of a web site that truly sucks.

Perhaps Davisound is the sole exception, but in most businesses, a well organized, customer-oriented website that doesn't waste visitors' time with pointless "entry" pages, unnecessary graphics and hard-to-read fonts, rambling, irrelevant, unedited pages of personal opinion and poor excuses for production inefficiency, etc. also suggests that the company might make a good, reliable product in a timely manner and provide quality customer service to back it up.

If they can't put together a simple, clean, straightforward web page, why would anyone think they could competently solder point-to-point or achieve any consistency in unit-to-unit quality? The wood used to make a mic preamp is far less interesting to me than how it will sound. Perhaps the Davisound products are wonderful -- but how would anyone know? Even their semi-humorous ramblings about "naysayers" and reviewers demonstrate a disdain for potential customers that is just plain rude, while disguised in the excuse of having enough customers already. If that's the case, why say it?

I suspect their slow-loading, disorganized, hard-to-navigate, overly fussy web site pretty well reflects their business philosophy. Unfortunately, I'm so turned off by their web site that I may never know how "wonderful" their equipment is.

Have you ever looked under the hood of a Grace Design preamp? It's as elegant and efficient as it is good sounding. It's a jewel of precision and good taste. There is a correlation between how one thinks and what one produces. Their web site, although not perfect, at least points you quickly to the information you need to know and presents it in a logical, clear, straightforward manner.

Given that I can't afford to try every product I hear about, who do you think is more likely to get my hard-earned dollars?

Thanks for your consideration,

Mark H.
 
The above post seems far too harsh this morning, much more negative than I intended. I'm past the 333 minute limit, so I can't edit it, so let me add the following instead:

1.) Reviews: we all have to start somewhere. Over time, with luck, we find reviewers (including end users) whose tastes and preferences correspond to our own, and their opinions become useful in helping us narrow the field.

2.) Davisound has an excellent reputation on this board and a devoted following. I have little doubt that their products are top quality.

3.) It's too bad, therefore (just in my opinion), that their website doesn't open with a simple, plain, half-page of text that states:

This is who we are; this is where we are; this is how we prefer you get in touch with us; this is what we offer, this is how much it costs; this is how many units we make a year; this is how long our waiting list is at the present time -- with hyperlinks to other pages of interest, photos of products, interesting stories, etc.

4.) My distaste for certain websites is based on trying to improve several websites with which I was tangentially connected that I felt failed to serve their visitors. Nevertheless, Davisound didn't ask my opinion, and they don't deserve my baggage on the issue.

For anyone interested in clean web design, I recommend Phil Greenspun's published writings on the subject as a baseline. Phil's book-length treatise is available on line for free through his photo.net cluster of sites.

Mark H.
 
Lot's of small business owners put together really bad websites. I've got a lot of experience with this phenomenon.

1) They honestly don't KNOW that their websites are bad looking. I've seen so many people just whip something horrid up in MS Word and think it just looks spectacular. I think this has to do a lack of heavy exposure to the web. They're used to printed materials, and don't spend a whole lot of time on the web. A single page 10 miles long with animated horizontal rules is often what they'll produce because of this.

2) I think a lot of older business owners really have the DIY attitude. I can definately see a guy who's been building amplifiers for 20 years wanting to take the DIY approach. "I don't need to pay no whippersnapper to do this, I'll just use Word!" In fact I've SEEN this first hand.

3) Cost. A very simple web page without anything fancy will run at about $1000-2000, with $500 & up per year maintenance.

4) A lot of people don't immediately recognize the power of the web because they've been doing business for a long time the "old fashioned" way. I work for a place now that manufactures a specific type of medical device used in sterilization facilities. On the global scale, it's a pretty small, pretty select market. So initially my bosses didn't think that a web page was really all that necessary. Well, a few years after I put the sucker up they can't live without it, and it generates a lot of business that they didn't know existed. Sometimes it's hard to realize the unbelievably wide scope of the web, especially when you've been doing business with telephones and fax machines and face to face contact for 20-50 years!

Therefore, the only time I really dog a company because of their website is if they're in the website design business, or in any computer-related field. I've seen so many web designer sites that were sooooooooooo fucking bad, I just don't get it!

I do feel bad for them though, because I know a LOT of people will judge a company based on their web site. And I suppose why not; if company A's website is super professional and easy to use, and company B's website is one giant long page with 45 extra large fonts and animated horizontal rules....why not pick company A? On the flipside, however, you know that company A is smaller, and you can probably call the president of the company directly if you put a little effort into it.

Sometimes I just blab on and on and on until I forget what my original point was.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Man, Davis is long-winded! Basically, he's saying that you can't trust reviewers. He put a reviewer to the test once, and the guy failed miserably, and so he doesn't submit Davisound gear to reviews anymore. Davis' argument reminds me of people who got burned in love once so they don't want to take the chance again.

Okay, I agree you have to take reviewers and reviews with a grain of salt (well, okay, with a few grains of salt). But I think reviews can be useful sometimes. I bought both the NTK and the Envoice because of my reading of a number of reviews which I thought I could trust because of:

1 the particular people who were reviewing those items
2 the overall number of positive reviews the items got from just about everyone

I'm really glad I did buy those items, because they've been really good for me.

Having said all that, that mp3 RE posted in the clinic using a Neumann and a Davisound pre is my personal high water mark for sound. Really really really really good. I lost my download of it when my computer died, and I went back to download it again but it had disappeared from the site. Aiya! Anyway, my point is that is was a review (RE's) that encouraged me to give it a listen.

So, I disagree with Davis about reviews, although the story he told about the reviewer he fooled is really instructive. (I agree with Davis about his gear, though. I wish I could afford it.)
 
I Was Expecting Some Negativity Anyhow

The truth of the matter is that THAT write-up has a bit of ALL of us in it; EVERYONE! I recently just replied in some thread here that I'd HATE to tell you all how many times I've bought something thinking it was going to be great (because TONS of people I put a lot of faith into what they say recommend it) and sold it for sometimes half than what I paid just a month or two before; simply because it was not good enough for my standards.

But it's like Harvey said, you take the opinions of a FEW people you HIGHLY regard as "good ears" and let them help you narrow-down the TONS of gear for you! BUT, you STILL have a significant chance of something NOT being all that great to YOU!

Though, the TRUTH of the matter is that there are TONS of people out there making TONS of blind buys based on the TONS of people out there in all these newsgroups saying "cable is cable" and "an Oktava is an Oktava" and the AKG C3000 and MXL 2001 are great mic! THOSE are the people I'd imagine the author is speaking of! Then you have the people trying to helping inform the masses on all these newsgroups who have to deal with all the shit (such as being accused for working for a company or MUST receive some sort of financial benefit from somewhere) coming from all those "an Oktava is an Oktava" and so-on believers!

Of course, most of these people thinking the AKG C3000 and MXL 2001 are God's gift to the world are coming from owning a few 57s and this is their first or one of their first condensers! No doubt a C3000 is going to sound like heaven on most vocals when coming from a 57! But that is where the comparision ends. Compare them to a Studio Projects C1 and you know what's going on. Compare a C1 to a U87, and you find-out the C1 is not going to replace the U87. Compare a U87 to most mics out now days, anywhere from $600 to $2000, and you'll more than likely realize the U87 isn't worth the money! And if you DO want an 87, you'd be better off buying an old one and having it cleaned-up and possibly modded.

Not ONLY that, but PLEASE rest assured that MOST gear from "small companies" is A LOT of times used in major studios all-around the world for years before ever being known what so ever, publically; if it is EVER is known! And I'm sure we could list some gear VERY popluar gear now-days as a result "the inside" leaking-out. And I'm SURE we could ALL name quite a few products from companies (large AND small) out there being used in studios world-wide who just about NONE of us have ever heard of before! My gosh, I remember about a year ago Stephen Paul came by here and hardly ANYONE here knew who he was! Talk about SAD!!!

The point above being that in this business, those not following the main stream stay ahead in this business! That goes for engineering music, producing music, and making music; as well as gear designers and gear manufacturers! It's funny, speaking of Stephen Paul, those in the main stream of microphones don't like to give credit where credit is due and is WHY the name "Stephen Paul" is not just as commonly known as the name "Neumann"! Harvey, you know what I'm talking about.

So, I feel in connection with DaviSound, for those who have their doubts based on...

1. They have never heard of them.

2. They can't design a website so they might not be able to design gear.

3. They need a website that follows the main stream.

4. They need a website easily laid-out for them because they're too lazy to read and to put in the time reading about gear and the company they might invest their money into.

... Then DaviSound is NOT for them anyhow. It's cool and no one gets hurt.
 
I have not heard any Davisound products but what has always concerned me about them is the fact that parts of their circuitry are hidden or as they say protected by coating sections with some kind of silicon or epoxy.

As most audio equipment is fairly straight forward and there isn't anything all that new about something like a micpreamp it sends up red warning flags and bells in my mind. What is it that they are hiding? is there really something so amazing here that needs to be protected or are they just covering up IC chips or other cheap parts?

Secondly even if the units are quality why would anyone want to invest in a unit that can only be repaired by Davisound or by someone with access to these circuits encased in epoxy. Anything from a Midiman preamp to a Neve can be repaired by any competent tech if need be with standard parts but what do you do with a Davisound product if it needs one of their "proprietary" parts and they are no longer around to provide them?

Anyway here is the statement from the Davisound website:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We finally realized that many of our original audio circuits, now perfected after many years of evolved research and fine tuning, would need to be "potted" (embedded in silicon) for proprietary purposes. This was because, in at least one verifiable instance, a major manufacturer had "borrowed" one of our original treasures and was attempting to manufacture it almost component for component! For many reasons in the real world of competitive circuit design, patents simply do not work well in these areas nowadays. Therefore, we now "pot" many of our most exclusive, hand-laid circuits into building-block modules with the contents secure and protected, in more ways than one!
 
"What is it that they are hiding? is there really something so amazing here that needs to be protected or are they just covering up IC chips or other cheap parts? "

Just an FYI. This is done a lot in boutique guitar effects pedals for the same reason as Davisound explained. It is cheaper than getting a patent and then forcing the removal of clones from the market.
 
Yes, I am aware of this practice. Some boutique guitar pedals are guilty of this as well and I myself am hesitant to buy these too. I mean if you like the Klon maybe you take your chances with this kind of thing but I wouldn't want to own a whole rack of micpreamps and compressors built like that.

I think this is a bad pratice and is certainly not one that I want to encourage so I spend my money on equipment that does not have potted circuitry. You may feel that this is no big deal but I think it would be quite unfortunate if potting becomes more common. I want equipment that is repairable and I want to know what it is exactly that I am getting for my money, maybe you don't.
 
If that practice among small individual boutique manufacturers (one guy) continues to inspire innovation that's fine with me. Larger companies should not do it, I agree.
 
"What is it that they are hiding? is there really something so amazing here that needs to be protected or are they just covering up IC chips or other cheap parts?"

Well, maybe it's just a bullshit marketing ploy covering them up like that, or maybe it's a valid way to prevent other people from ripping off their designs, but what essential difference does it make if the gear sounds great, and as I said above, the mp3 (mp3 mind you!) I heard of a Davisound pre was phenomenal.

As for your point about the difficulty of getting proprietary stuff repaired or replaced - I have to get my Envoice pre repaired soon, and that means sending it overseas to a certified repair facility. Probably Germany. Nothing new or special in that - standard pain in the ass.

The one downside you mentioned that I agree with is that if the company dies, you're out of luck. That's valid. But having heard some Davisound gear, it's a risk I'd be willing to take if I had the money to invest.
 
What I read about reviews seems always positive. I have never read a review about some music equipment that was said to be total junk. Especially with some free magazines, who are claerly afraid of the reaction of their sponsorsn it is just disgusting: every pedal, every mic, every amp is said to be 'the greatest ever' and great value for money.

I read reviews for the specs of the equipment. And hey, even it is maybe not worth a thing, I like the harmony central approach of user comments. After a while you seem to notice who knows his equipment and who's just bluffing.

greetingz

brett
 
RE,

Quote:

"4. They need a website easily laid-out for them because they're too lazy to read and to put in the time reading about gear and the company they might invest their money into. "

That, of course, is the same argument made on the Davisound site. In logic, it is known as a "specious" argument. In fact, it is a false (and extremely arrogant, rude and foolish) assumption about visitors to Davisound or to this site.

Do you really think that I and other readers here "need a website easily laid-out for them," implying, of course, that we're too stupid to find our way around the Davisound site?

Do you really think we're "lazy" and unwilling or uninterested in putting time into reading about gear and the companies that make them??

If you don't recognize the rudeness and implications of such arguments, that's one thing. But if you do and you still repeat them here, then you are WAY out of line.

Mark H.
 
Yeah, maybe, but this thread was originally about the questionable utility of gear reviews, which arose out of a story about one reviewer who clearly didn't know what he was talking about. Entertaining story, and valuable too.

The thread isn't really about the Davisound website, it's about reviewers and the value of reviews.

But maybe you find my comment rude? In your first post in this thread you mentioned the rudeness of aspects of Davis' site, and your response to RE's post also mentioned the rudeness of his comments.
 
No, Dobro, I don't think your comments were rude at all.

The two items I considered to be rude were one and the same: the assumption of Davisound, echoed by RE in his follow-up post, that anyone who does not wish to take the time to wade through the Davisound web pages must be either stupid or lazy.

As for the usefulness of reviewers and making life-decisions based on one bad experience, I thought your earlier comments addressed that perfectly.

RE is of the stated opinion that a completely unverified story on the Davisound site is not only "oh so true" but applies to "everyone" here. That quality of thinking is called prejudice, regardless of the "type" of people to whom it is applied.

Kindly do not infer that I'm on some sort of "rude" hunt; I'm not.

I would not even take the time to comment if I didn't think that Davisound might have something good to offer behind their web site.

Peace, Dobro!

Mark H.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top