AVI DM5

[Escapism]

Shadders, who are these newcomers you keep talking of?

edit - what I mean by that is, if new people join this forum it does not necessarily mean they're 'noobs' Some of us, believe it or not, have owned much willy waving hi-fi goodness before commenting on this forum.

 

[shadders]

Shadders, who are these newcomers you keep talking of?

Hi,

Luckylion ??? was one - which is where i picked up on the statements of how bad passive speakers are. I will have to defer to comments by others after contributing to the Genelec thread about AVI owners - but on the Genelec thread - broken (re - passives) and power sapping crossovers - was misinforming the person looking to purchase speakers. From here - i picked up on the negativity of AVI owners to passive systems - misleading statements, and the promotion of measurements to support the AVI product positively, but rude behaviour when these measurements were challenged.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

Much as I enjoy the rigor of your arguments they are, to my mind, based on a deeply flawed premise.

Your "industry standard" measure of continuous/rms power into 8 ohms is in itself a complete joke, as anyone who has compared the similarly rated (by the "industry standard" rating) Yamaha AS501 with a Abrahamsen V2.0 (any version) will tell you. The "industry standard" just isn't.

There has to be a nominal standard to work to - to gauge the performance as specified by the manufacturer. The industry standard does not specify how the amplifier will perform, but is the yardstick to test an amplifier to see how it will perform. Hifi News is great for their testing, very rigourous and informative.

You insist on comparing the amplifiers used in integrated active designs with those designed for 'universal' use, they are just not the same at all. A regular hi-fi amplifier may have to drive any load and amplifiers that can really do that are going to be expensive.

Compare that to an amplifier in an active design which has to drive a known, specific driver with known parameters, bandwidth limited often with forced air cooling and we are dealing with very different devices indeed.

The design of an amplifier for an active system is in general very similar to a separate amplifier. I do not think amplifiers are band limited - this will affect their slew rate - so the bandwidth limitation is in the active filter which feeds the amplifier. No forced air cooling on ATC, Event or Genelec - all convection based.

That said you are undoubtably correct that the AVI amplifier is in no way a 250 watt continuous amplifier, by any rational standards, no argument there, but in the real world that is irrelevant.

I think I understand the reasons AVI give the power ratings they do, they are not accurate in a technical sense but they give an idea, to non technical hi-fi users, of the capabilities of the amp and speakers.

HI,

As above for the answers - but there is no need to state 250watts for an amplifier that is not 250watts. They could use the terms such as high current capable amplifier, or high dynamic range - but cetainly not a false statement of the actual power - which is not based against the industry standard. (whether yo ulike the industry standard or not i suppose).

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

Thanks for the reply.

I can only speak personally, but the same may follow suit with other owners. I have purchased very expensive passive speakers in the past (eg top of range PMC etc) and felt slightly ripped off when I heard the AVI active offerings at a fraction of the cost.

I'm guessing, but I wonder if this if perhaps where Avi owners negative comments come from? ie bad experiences with passive speakers? I've never (as far as I know) said ALL passive systems are inferior as I could not possibly say that. I can only go by what I know and what I have listened to.....listened to, listened to.

 

[luckylion100]

Shadders, I am not a newcomer to speakers or hifi in general. Yes active were new to me, as are AVI actives now. I'm happy with my purchase, that doesn't qualify me as a delusional fool.

If you look back at the Genelec thread I had already decided to go the active route, hence the threads creation. I was not influenced by comments that were anti passive, nor by arguments re the technical merits. Like I've said much of it goes way over my head. It's the performance in my listening space that's important. The reasons for my ultimate decision are outlined within that thread. I doubt 'newcomers' will be so easily influenced by these threads one way or the other, they're helpful as a general guide and reference.

And can I just add, I may have AVI speakers now but I get fed up being pigeon holed, it's disrespectful. If anyone on here has a serious issue they should perhaps take it up with that person, name and shame if need be or seek clarification, we should all stop this them and us business. I don't come on here for arguments. It used to be a pleasure, now I'm not so sure...

 

[Native_bon]

Seems the AVI DM10's are something special. I wonder if these has been reviewed by sound on sound, & why are the AVI's not in every music studio if they do sound as clear as many say. If so, these should be the ultimate in accurate monitoring in the studio Just a thought.

 

[Escapism]

Completely irrelevant, but good effort. Next.

 

[shadders]

Thanks for the reply.

I can only speak personally, but the same may follow suit with other owners. I have purchased very expensive passive speakers in the past (eg top of range PMC etc) and felt slightly ripped off when I heard the AVI active offerings at a fraction of the cost.

I'm guessing, but I wonder if this if perhaps where Avi owners negative comments come from? ie bad experiences with passive speakers? I've never (as far as I know) said ALL passive systems are inferior as I could not possibly say that. I can only go by what I know and what I have listened to.....listened to, listened to.

Hi,

No - the stating of negative comments were not aimed at you - only those in the threads making those negative comments.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

Shadders, I am not a newcomer to speakers or hifi in general. Yes active were new to me, as are AVI actives now. I'm happy with my purchase, that doesn't qualify me as a delusional fool.

If you look back at the Genelec thread I had already decided to go the active route, hence the threads creation. I was not influenced by comments that were anti passive, nor by arguments re the technical merits. Like I've said much of it goes way over my head. It's the performance in my listening space that's important. The reasons for my ultimate decision are outlined within that thread. I doubt 'newcomers' will be so easily influenced by these threads one way or the other, they're helpful as a general guide and reference.

And can I just add, I may have AVI speakers now but I get fed up being pigeon holed, it's disrespectful. If anyone on here has a serious issue they should perhaps take it up with that person, name and shame if need be or seek clarification, we should all stop this them and us business. I don't come on here for arguments. It used to be a pleasure, now I'm not so sure...

Hi,

I was not infering you were a newcomer to hifi - but newcomers to actives. I don't think you are delusional - nor were my comments indicating you were. Whatever your capabilities, i will not be aware, but the comments made regarding passives and active speakers will mislead people.

I don't think you are pidgeon holed - i stated AVI owners or others who have made rude statements etc., and not adhered to the stated issue. Not all AVI owners. I think the attitude of those AVI owners does need to be addressed or challenged. I have not seen that behaviour with people who recommend the Abrahamsen amplifier.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Escapism]

From an observers point of view, I see more rude comments from non-owners than the owners themselves (believers/followers/the duped)

to be sure though, we need measurements.. *biggrin*

ps I notice Shadders and I joined on the same day in 2009, what are the odds!

 

[steve_1979]

Could someone please sum up this thread in one succinct sentence?

"Those who have heard or own AVI speakers invariably speak well of them and aren't bothered by the specs; those who haven't think the manufacturers are conning the customers with misleading specs and want them to 'come clean'."

Pretty standard stuff then. *dance4*

Thanks for answering my question and saving me from wasting an hour of my life by reading through the rest of the thread.

 

[davedotco]

Much as I enjoy the rigor of your arguments they are, to my mind, based on a deeply flawed premise.

Your "industry standard" measure of continuous/rms power into 8 ohms is in itself a complete joke, as anyone who has compared the similarly rated (by the "industry standard" rating) Yamaha AS501 with a Abrahamsen V2.0 (any version) will tell you. The "industry standard" just isn't.

There has to be a nominal standard to work to - to gauge the performance as specified by the manufacturer. The industry standard does not specify how the amplifier will perform, but is the yardstick to test an amplifier to see how it will perform. Hifi News is great for their testing, very rigourous and informative.

You insist on comparing the amplifiers used in integrated active designs with those designed for 'universal' use, they are just not the same at all. A regular hi-fi amplifier may have to drive any load and amplifiers that can really do that are going to be expensive.

Compare that to an amplifier in an active design which has to drive a known, specific driver with known parameters, bandwidth limited often with forced air cooling and we are dealing with very different devices indeed.

The design of an amplifier for an active system is in general very similar to a separate amplifier. I do not think amplifiers are band limited - this will affect their slew rate - so the bandwidth limitation is in the active filter which feeds the amplifier. No forced air cooling on ATC, Event or Genelec - all convection based.

That said you are undoubtably correct that the AVI amplifier is in no way a 250 watt continuous amplifier, by any rational standards, no argument there, but in the real world that is irrelevant.

I think I understand the reasons AVI give the power ratings they do, they are not accurate in a technical sense but they give an idea, to non technical hi-fi users, of the capabilities of the amp and speakers.

HI,

As above for the answers - but there is no need to state 250watts for an amplifier that is not 250watts. They could use the terms such as high current capable amplifier, or high dynamic range - but cetainly not a false statement of the actual power - which is not based against the industry standard. (whether yo ulike the industry standard or not i suppose).

Regards,

Shadders.

"Nominal" or "industry standard" makes no sense when applied to amplifiers designed for different purposes. A standard for component hi-fi amplifiers? No problem, but comparing such amplifiers to those designed for active use is meaningless, there is no standard.

In active designs the amplifier receives a band limited signal, this is fundamental, the load is precisely known too, even the loading on the bass driver is known, this simplefies things immensely. Why design an amplifier to deliver massive power into 4 ohms if the impedance never drops that low? (general example, I do not know the design criteria for AVI speakers).

The forced air cooling I refer to is the effect of air movement within a reflex cabinet by the movement of the bass driver, this does have a substantial effect, though some manufacturers, Genelec for example, make more use of it than others.

It is unfortunate but the industry is obsessed by power ratings but, in the main does not understand spl or dynamic range or many of the other specifications that give real information regarding the performance of the amp/speaker combination. The reality is that ADM10s deliver real world spls, virtually no dynamic compression at hi-fi levels, and a performance that can only be matched (in mainstream hi-fi) by very powerful setups. The 250 + 75 watt rating is an attempt to convey the capabilities of these speakers in terms that many non technical enthusiasts understand.

To be fair, as I said in my first post, the claims are technically incorrect, if that is all that matters then you are right. The alternative suggestions you make to describe the amplifier ratings will be meaningless to many and my own suggestion "they go bl**dy loud" is a bit crass.

Given that they are, in hi-fi at least, a pretty unusual product, I genuinely do not know how I would write the sales blurb without resorting to similar oversimplification.

 

[oivavoi10]

Shadders, you make many valid points regarding amplifiers and specs. But you've stated that people are giving "misleading statements" (sorry if that wasn't your exact phrase) concerning passives, and the merits of actives. This is not that controversial, however. There are many speaker designers and speaker companies who are well aware of the problems with passive crossovers.

I'll give you a short list:

- Siegfried Linkwitz - perhaps THE speaker designer of our time. I've heard a couple of his designs, and they are amazing. There's just very little that can compete. I've never ever - and I mean never - heard of a owner of a linkwitz speaker who's not extremely happy. Linkwitz is one of the few speaker designers who don't design speaker based on a commercial logic (it's just plans for speakers that people must assemble themselves). The man is over 80 years old, and he still strives to make his designs even better, simply because he's passionate about audio and music. Linkwitz states is a follows: "The only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal".

- Andrew Jones, the closest there is to a speaker design rock star I think: He recently designed a pair of active speakers for Elac. In description of Sabrina, on of their top of the line speakers: "When designing the Sabrina crossover, proprietary measures were taken to reduce distortion along with its deleterious audible effects. (...) The engineers at Wilson Audio employ proprietary modeling software, developed largely in-house, which considers and helps identify time-domain variables within the crossover other designers simply ignore. (...) Reducing time-domain distortion with it decreases deleterious grain structure and improves settling time—a salient strength of Sabrina. Sabrina’s remarkable bass performance, a canny combination of speed and authority, were some of the dividends...". Allright, this is clearly marketing hype, like all speaker makers engage in. But still? Wilson Audio is highly regarded. I think they know a thing or two about what they do. And they obviously seem to think that passive crossovers really can mess up a speaker. They still do it passive, though... But it would obviously have been easier to implement what seems like an extremely complicated crossover by just doing them active.

-----

And there are more people in the industry who'll tell you the same thing. Most of the producers of monitors for the pro market, for one. It is simply not a very controversial opinion that passive crossovers are inferior to actives, methinks .

That being said, passive speakers can still sound very good. I currently own passive speakers, and think they are excellent. All else being equal, however, I don't think there's any doubt that active crossovers are better.

 

[shadders]

From an observers point of view, I see more rude comments from non-owners than the owners themselves (believers/followers/the duped)

to be sure though, we need measurements.. *biggrin*

ps I notice Shadders and I joined on the same day in 2009, what are the odds!

Hi,

Thanks would be the birthday paradox - it is a lot more common that a group of people will have the same birthday than expected.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Craig M.]

For active speakers - look at Event Electronics, ATC and Genelec - all state the continuous power into a known load, some with THD measurement too.

Regards,

Shadders.

Genuinely, the 1st three manufacturers I looked at (Kef, PMC, Kii) just quote a power output and nothing else. I don't think there is an industry standard for power outputs of the amps in active speakers, it seems to me that they quote in whichever way they see fit.

 

[Craig M.]

Seems the AVI DM10's are something special. I wonder if these has been reviewed by sound on sound, & why are the AVI's not in every music studio if they do sound as clear as many say. If so, these should be the ultimate in accurate monitoring in the studio Just a thought.

I believe that S.O.S. reviewed the adm9. As to why they aren't in more studios - no idea, but having owned some well regarded studio monitors I would say they are good enough. It might be because they don't hype the bass and treble, it might be because most studio types are not aware of them. Or were you just being facetious?

 

[radiorog]

Could someone please sum up this thread in one succinct sentence?

"Those who have heard or own AVI speakers invariably speak well of them and aren't bothered by the specs; those who haven't think the manufacturers are conning the customers with misleading specs and want them to 'come clean'."

Pretty standard stuff then. *dance4*

Thanks for answering my question and saving me from wasting an hour of my life by reading through the rest of the thread.

A cherry picked answer.

How about shining a light on possible misinformation and deceitfulness? (For the last half of the thread anyway).

 

[shadders]

"Nominal" or "industry standard" makes no sense when applied to amplifiers designed for different purposes. A standard for component hi-fi amplifiers? No problem, but comparing such amplifiers to those designed for active use is meaningless, there is no standard.

The amplifiers for a passive system are generally - exactly the same as an active system amplifier. Nothing really changes.

In active designs the amplifier receives a band limited signal, this is fundamental, the load is precisely known too, even the loading on the bass driver is known, this simplefies things immensely. Why design an amplifier to deliver massive power into 4 ohms if the impedance never drops that low? (general example, I do not know the design criteria for AVI speakers).

Given that the bass loading is known - minimum impedance etc., the amplifier design is still the same, except some components are removed. The rating of the amplifier may change depending on the driver choice - so all you save is components - ratings of components - can be reduced, and reduced number of components such as less output stage transistors.

The forced air cooling I refer to is the effect of air movement within a reflex cabinet by the movement of the bass driver, this does have a substantial effect, though some manufacturers, Genelec for example, make more use of it than others.

I am not sure forced air cooling is a sound cooling mechanism for an active. An amplifier will dissipate more heat when running at approx 30% load - this means less air from the bass driver - so not a good mechanism. Are the Genelecs class D amp based ?? If so - then less heatsinking required. Look at the Event and ATC - the have signifant heatinks.

It is unfortunate but the industry is obsessed by power ratings but, in the main does not understand spl or dynamic range or many of the other specifications that give real information regarding the performance of the amp/speaker combination. The reality is that ADM10s deliver real world spls, virtually no dynamic compression at hi-fi levels, and a performance that can only be matched (in mainstream hi-fi) by very powerful setups. The 250 + 75 watt rating is an attempt to convey the capabilities of these speakers in terms that many non technical enthusiasts understand.

OK - power ratings are important. It gives a very good indication of the ability to drive a loudspeaker, but testing is required to see how it performs under load. I think the industry does understand SPL - given a speaker sensitivity, and amplifier gain - you just add up the dB's. All systems deliver real world SPL's. Why do you think that a separate amplifier and speaker doesn't ? If the speaker uses poor quality components - such as non linear inductors - or capacitors - then yes - compression may occur. For air cored inductors - this should not be an issue. What makes you think there is dynamic compression in the separates world ? Which components generate this compression ? Compression is caused by non -linearities - so why is a powerful setup required ?. You can have very linear low powered amplifiers (op-amps for instance) or very linear drivers which are very sensitive. No need for powerful systems if the sensitivity of the driver is high.

How is the purchaser to know which specifications are virtual (convey the capability). Is the 8th order really a 6th order - but sounds like an 8th order. Is the Optical S/P DIF really 18bit instead of 24bits, but sounds like a 24bit input ?

To be fair, as I said in my first post, the claims are technically incorrect, if that is all that matters then you are right. The alternative suggestions you make to describe the amplifier ratings will be meaningless to many and my own suggestion "they go bl**dy loud" is a bit crass.

Given that they are, in hi-fi at least, a pretty unusual product, I genuinely do not know how I would write the sales blurb without resorting to similar oversimplification.

Hi,

All specifications must be accurate - else they cease to be specifications. That is what specifications mean.

Can you imagine NASA asking for a rocket with a specific thrust capability - and the manufacturer says - well, it sounds like it has the thrust you want, but really, can only carry 20% of the payload you require. Is that ok with you ???

And NASA will reply.......

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Native_bon]

Seems the AVI DM10's are something special. I wonder if these has been reviewed by sound on sound, & why are the AVI's not in every music studio if they do sound as clear as many say. If so, these should be the ultimate in accurate monitoring in the studio Just a thought.

I believe that S.O.S. reviewed the adm9. As to why they aren't in more studios - no idea, but having owned some well regarded studio monitors I would say they are good enough. It might be because they don't hype the bass and treble, it might be because most studio types are not aware of them. Or were you just being facetious?

Am kind of on the fence on this one. I have not heard any AVI's myself so am in no position to say how well a pair sounds. Surely the AVI team has done enough marketing for their speakers to be noticed by professional recording studios. No?. It may well be Avi has done something special as regards designing speakers & every other manufactuer is running scared.

Also it could be a case of very good marketing. Which ever way, sounds like the avi's are extremely good value for money.

 

[shadders]

Shadders, you make many valid points regarding amplifiers and specs. But you've stated that people are giving "misleading statements" (sorry if that wasn't your exact phrase) concerning passives, and the merits of actives. This is not that controversial, however. There are many speaker designers and speaker companies who are well aware of the problems with passive crossovers.

I'll give you a short list:

- Siegfried Linkwitz - perhaps THE speaker designer of our time. I've heard a couple of his designs, and they are amazing. There's just very little that can compete. I've never ever - and I mean never - heard of a owner of a linkwitz speaker who's not extremely happy. Linkwitz is one of the few speaker designers who don't design speaker based on a commercial logic (it's just plans for speakers that people must assemble themselves). The man is over 80 years old, and he still strives to make his designs even better, simply because he's passionate about audio and music. Linkwitz states is a follows: "The only excuse for passive crossovers is their low cost. Their behavior changes with the signal level dependent dynamics of the drivers. They block the power amplifier from taking maximum control over the voice coil motion. They are a waste of time, if accuracy of reproduction is the goal".

- Andrew Jones, the closest there is to a speaker design rock star I think: He recently designed a pair of active speakers for Elac. In description of Sabrina, on of their top of the line speakers: "When designing the Sabrina crossover, proprietary measures were taken to reduce distortion along with its deleterious audible effects. (...) The engineers at Wilson Audio employ proprietary modeling software, developed largely in-house, which considers and helps identify time-domain variables within the crossover other designers simply ignore. (...) Reducing time-domain distortion with it decreases deleterious grain structure and improves settling time—a salient strength of Sabrina. Sabrina’s remarkable bass performance, a canny combination of speed and authority, were some of the dividends...". Allright, this is clearly marketing hype, like all speaker makers engage in. But still? Wilson Audio is highly regarded. I think they know a thing or two about what they do. And they obviously seem to think that passive crossovers really can mess up a speaker. They still do it passive, though... But it would obviously have been easier to implement what seems like an extremely complicated crossover by just doing them active.

-----

And there are more people in the industry who'll tell you the same thing. Most of the producers of monitors for the pro market, for one. It is simply not a very controversial opinion that passive crossovers are inferior to actives, methinks .

That being said, passive speakers can still sound very good. I currently own passive speakers, and think they are excellent. All else being equal, however, I don't think there's any doubt that active crossovers are better.

Hi,

I have NEVER stated that passive systems are better than active systems. I agree that active systems as a design are superior to passive systems. This has NEVER been disagreed with.

I have stated that, the statements that passive systems are [broken or handicapped] or the cross over filter is power sapping - is misleading. The statements used to support the AVI speakers with regards to power are in error, and when challenging the stated power, then either rude responses are received, or that these parameters don't really matter - just listen to them. If the parameters do not matter - why quote them or embellish them ?

All i have done is challenge the specifications and bad statements regarding passives - that is all.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[shadders]

For active speakers - look at Event Electronics, ATC and Genelec - all state the continuous power into a known load, some with THD measurement too.

Regards,

Shadders.

Genuinely, the 1st three manufacturers I looked at (Kef, PMC, Kii) just quote a power output and nothing else. I don't think there is an industry standard for power outputs of the amps in active speakers, it seems to me that they quote in whichever way they see fit.

Hi,

I examined the Kef X300 - and it seems probable that 50watts for the LF is a contiinuous rating - which is realistic fo rthe size of speaker and the class of amplifier. For PMC (2.2.5) states 150w RMS for LF etc. So they do provide them.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ID.]

I know the smaller Genelecs like mine now use class D. Not sure what is used further up the range.

My Adams use class d for the mid/woofer and a/b for the tweeter.

so, more efficient, less heat sinking. I haven't looked at the bigger Genelecs, but I'd imagine that the fact that the speakers are cases in metal rather than MDF means the case also acts as a heat sink to a degree.

 

[oivavoi10]

Hi,

I have NEVER stated that passive systems are better than active systems. I agree that active systems as a design are superior to passive systems. This has NEVER been disagreed with.

I have stated that, the statements that passive systems are [broken or handicapped] or the cross over filter is power sapping - is misleading. The statements used to support the AVI speakers with regards to power are in error, and when challenging the stated power, then either rude responses are received, or that these parameters don't really matter - just listen to them. If the parameters do not matter - why quote them or embellish them ?

All i have done is challenge the specifications and bad statements regarding passives - that is all.

Regards,

Shadders.

Ok, my bad! Then I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that.

Do you have any good sources on the power consumption of passive vs active speakers, btw? I've been trying to read up on this, since I'm thinking of having a go at "activating" my passive speakers (using two external amps and an external electronic crossover). It would be relevant for me to get more input into this, in order to decide how much power I need - whether I can make do with less total power than now. I've read AVI's claims on this, but I don't think I've come across much material about it other places.

regards, oivavoi

 

[shadders]

Hi,

I have NEVER stated that passive systems are better than active systems. I agree that active systems as a design are superior to passive systems. This has NEVER been disagreed with.

I have stated that, the statements that passive systems are [broken or handicapped] or the cross over filter is power sapping - is misleading. The statements used to support the AVI speakers with regards to power are in error, and when challenging the stated power, then either rude responses are received, or that these parameters don't really matter - just listen to them. If the parameters do not matter - why quote them or embellish them ?

All i have done is challenge the specifications and bad statements regarding passives - that is all.

Regards,

Shadders.

Ok, my bad! Then I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that.

Do you have any good sources on the power consumption of passive vs active speakers, btw? I've been trying to read up on this, since I'm thinking of having a go at "activating" my passive speakers (using two external amps and an external electronic crossover). It would be relevant for me to get more input into this, in order to decide how much power I need - whether I can make do with less total power than now. I've read AVI's claims on this, but I don't think I've come across much material about it other places.

regards, oivavoi

Hi,

No - no information on this - i examined a crossover - but not simulated it yet. The crossover will insert an impedance between the power amplifier and driver - but, if the components are good quality - then there will be minimal losses (power absorption) - what they are - i have not been able to locate. Only the coil designer will be able to tell you what the series resistance is etc. Same for capacitors with regards to their losses too.

The insertion of the impedance will reduce the power delivered to the driver - again, not simulated that yet. For the tweeter - which is usually more sensisitve than the woofer etc., has a series resistor to reduce the power to match the speaker response across the frequency - this resistor will dissipate power.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[lindsayt]

Review in the latest edition of hifi choice

I read the DM5 review in Hi-fi Choice today.

In the context of it being a Hi-fi Choice magazine review I thought it was a reasonably well written one.

I do miss the more critical, A/B bake-off style of reviews from the early 1980's (although I don't miss the ridiculous Linn Naim bias from that era).