6Moons.com vs. Stereo Times


I was looking for RMAF 2012 reviews today and my search led me to the Synergistic Research site. I noticed their Home Page announcement that "6 Moons.com just reviewed our Tranquility Base." When I clicked to read more I found that the review in question is of Ed Meitner's EMM Labs XDS1 SE SACD Player with the Tranquility Base being used in the context of the EMM product. Let's have a look at how 6Moons.com reviews this audio equipment.

On the first page of the review there are two page-wide views of the Tranquility Base but there is only a single brief paraqraph about the Tranquility Base, highlighted by this statement, "The Meitner was tested in tandem with an anti-vibration/noise-reduction platform." The reviewer then defers to a lengthy explanation from Synergistic Research on page two of the review, accompanied by one more page-wide view of the Tranquility Base. So far, the only "review" here consists of quotes from Synergistic Research literature and prominent photos of the Tranquility Base. I used to be in the advertising business. So far, this looks more like advertising to me than a review.

But wait. On page 3 of the review the comments about the Tranquility Base finally appear. But, as is typical of many 6Moons.com reviews, where twists and turns and tangents abound, couched in florid prose and convoluted phrasing, the review introduces a third product to compare with the Tranquility Base. This third product is a Japanese platform called the RAF-48. At this point things become muddied:

"The Meitner atop the RAF-48 platform was more austere. It was perfectly audible that the Synergistic created a golden glow which clarified but also saturated the top end. This lacked with the AR. Meanwhile the bass seemed better articulated and differentiated with the Japanese platform. The difference was not significant but repeatable and audible with each record ..."

Until we arrive at the very end of the review where we read, "This platform [the Tranquility Base] is manufactured with unique attention to detail. It is not very high and its outer edges are trimmed out with aluminum banding ...", along with more information taken from the Synergistic Research site about the physical features of the Tranquility Base.

The most important thing that the review had to say about the Tranquility Base was found on page 3 of the review smothered by the accompanying prose:

"The Synergistic Research Tranquility Base is a very interesting product. It clearly influences the sound in a good way. It is prohibitively expensive but worthy at least a listen just to be aware of what’s possible. I think it will be very versatile and improve the sound for any type of component sitting atop it."

In other words, the Tranquility Base does something good but it is way overpriced for what it does. On 6Moons.com you often have to wade through the mire to get to the point. What took them so long to get to the point?

This review confirms why I am not a fan of 6Moons.com reviews. In my opinion, their reviews are characterized by florid prose that is ostentatiously literary. And their convoluted comments are pockmarked by comparisons, digressions and tangents that twist and turn, ending by often obscuring more than they reveal.

In comparison, I find Stereo Times' reviews a breath of fresh air. 6Moons.com reviews make me feel like I am trying to unravel a puzzle wrapped in a mystery couched in an enigma. How do you feel about 6Moons.com and Stereo Times?
sabai
I find all this ado about the style of writing about as valid (and dismisssive) as the arguments denegrating them, namely, not worth much. Either you like their style or don't. To go on about it probably elicits a smile from the masthead of 6moons.com.

The staff all have their own style, some I like and some I don't, but as a whole, I find them funny (when intended) and informative to a degree lacking in most review sites.

To complain about Srajans style of prose reminds me of Hans Grubers response to Mr. Takagis blank look, in 'Die Hard' when he said, "Benefits of a Classical Education".

Just as music is varied and complex, so can a review be so as to dissect it just so, provided you follow the analysis.

When I need to cut to the chase, needing clarification, I simply email Sraran and he distills it down for me quite nicely. His style is nothing more than an embodiment of his enjoying his craft, and I find that refreshing. His style reminds me of the better car reviewers that came out of England in the late 80s-90s, among them L.J.K. Setrtight, of CAR magazine, who had a similar way of conveying his thoughts on things automotive.

You can say it bluntly or with a bit of flourish. I'll take mine with the garnish.

All the best,
Nonoise
Mountainsong and Podeshi,
"Too lofty and obtuse" are accurate descriptions from my point of view, as well.
Nonoise,
You stated, "When I need to cut to the chase, needing clarification, I simply email Sraran and he distills it down for me quite nicely." I have two questions:

1. If his reviews were clear why would you need clarification?

2. If he can clarify things in an email why can't he do that in a review?