From that review:

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

[...]while it was running in.

I get so bored reading reviews like this I rarely get to the end of the first paragraph.  I once heard the term 'intense sonic elasticity' somewhere and confess to having a look on my face as blank as a plain sheet of A4 when trying to work out what that meant.

They'd increase their readership numbers tenfold if they spoke in understandable terms..  Still - "bullsh*t baffles brains" and the author will have the respect of his readers purely by sounding like he really knows his stuff, even if his readers have no idea what the hell he's talking about.  

Whenever I start to read read drivel like this, i just look straight for the 'star ratings' at the end, then move on.

Lee

Seldom has more rubbish been spoken in a single paragraph than here:

link

"The 2-Step Alpha Cryogenic and Demagnetizing Process works in tandem with other designed-in features to create the most optimized AC power transfer possible. Furutech’s scientific outlook, total awareness and devotion to detail results in a greater sense of power, dynamics, and resolution, with cleaner, blacker backgrounds and a larger, more stable soundstage, vivid tonal colors and deeper extension at both ends of the frequency range. The e-TP 609 will allow the delicacy, refinement and nuance of a performance through, along with micro- and macro-dynamics that will leave you breathlessly engaged. Displays of all types will exhibit greater, sharper resolution with less ghosting, color shift, “snow”, or vertical and horizontal lines."

Simon

"The e-TP609 is a sophisticated, luxuriously made single-chassis power distributor that eliminates many common problems found in audio and video components caused by massively contaminated electrical power lines."

So - unless you have a "massively contaminated electrical power line" this is as much use as a handbrake on a canoe ?   I therefore assume this product was aimed at high end home running on a 1973 Perkins Diesel Generator.. or a luxury condo in downtown Nairobi.

Yes - that's some crap there..  This thread could turn out quite funny! 

Lee

Electrified wrote:

From that review:

 

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

 

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

 

[...]while it was running in.

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

For the record, burn in is definitely not a myth! We've just got a new pair of Focal Twins in the studio as midfields, and being the person who set them up, and used them over the last week or two, they have definitely changed quite significantly, even people that didn't hear them that much have commented.

Not that I'm supporting What HiFi, most of their reviews are so full of bulls••t it's unbelievable, and like most publications, their views are often tainted in favour of those companies who advertise through them.

Alex wrote:

Electrified wrote:

From that review:

 

Timing is acceptable, integration throughout the frequency range is smooth, and there’s good dynamic headroom on tap, too.

What a load of nonsensical audiophilic non-terms. "Timing" - oh,  really? "Integration through the frequency range" -  Come again? "dynamic headroom" what other sort of headroom exist in the audio world?

Anyway, the product may well be fine, but that "review" is pretty much worthless.

 

Edit: And while we're speaking of audiophilic myths:

 

[...]while it was running in.

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

 

Sorry, but I'm in the Stanley Unwin camp here!

While I appreciate that trying to describe the way a system sounds in words is very difficult, it can only be helped by specifiying somewhere in the publication how they define terms like "Timing" & "Integration". If they can define them then, in all likelyhood they are capable of being measured. I would worry if they can't produce a definition. Without a base reference or scale any measurement is useless. If this is true then what are we to make of subjective claims on the quailty of, or changes/improvements/reductions to, ill-defined parameters?🤔

Puncher wrote:

Sorry, but I'm in the Stanley Unwin camp here!

While I appreciate that trying to describe the way a system sounds in words is very difficult, it can only be helped by specifiying somewhere in the publication how they define terms like "Timing" & "Integration". If they can define them then, in all likelyhood they are capable of being measured. I would worry if they can't produce a definition. Without a base reference or scale any measurement is useless. If this is true then what are we to make of subjective claims on the quailty of, or changes/improvements/reductions to, ill-defined parameters?🤔

Not quite sure I see what you mean. For example, integration refers to phase response and frequency response around the crossover point. If a dip or peak is clearly audible around the crossover point due to phasing issues then this will manifest itself as badly-integrated drivers and being able to hear two distinct speaker drivers.

Now this could be measured, and can be measured really quite easily (so long as you've got the money to do it). What would be the point though? Most people aren't going to have a clue about how to read the phase-plot of a speaker, let alone know how it's going to affect the sound of the system. Why should they even publish details?

Hearing these things is not difficult. For example, try flipping the polarity of the tweeters in your speakers and see what happens at the crossover point - now that is an extreme example of bad integration (assuming the speakers are okay to start off with)!

Alex wrote:

Hang on now, in all fairness to What's HiFi? those are all fairly standard terms which have a lot of grounding in things which can be measured and assessed.

No they're not.

Alex wrote:

Timing refers to the transient response of a speaker, plus it's decay slope at various frequencies/waterfall plots.

No, in audiophilic terms that is certainly not what is meant when talking about "timing". It is usually referring to what would be wow and flutter in the analogue world (i.e. that it doesn't fluctuate a lot in speed).

If they wanted to talk decay times, they should have talked decay times, not a general "timing".

[edit: By the way, "decay times" are called "decay periods" for obvious reasons]

And since the reviewer"tested" it at his desk apparently, information on "decay" is utterly useless. He obviously didn't measure anything at all.

Alex wrote:

Integration throughout the frequency range refers to the phase response of the speaker, which is often really poor around the crossover point and around any port tunings.

Again, that's just ridiculous. Yes, they may very well mean that, but it's still nonsensical. If they were meaning that the crossover was well put, that is what they should have focused on. Instead they claim "integration throughout the frequency range".

Alex wrote:

Dynamic headroom, now that may be a tautology, but they're still right there - there are systems which dynamically compress, and systems which don't.

What, you mean they clip?  Headroom when it comes to reproduction of audio is by its very nature dynamic.  If you don't have the headroom, you don't have dynamics.

Alex wrote:

For the record, burn in is definitely not a myth! We've just got a new pair of Focal Twins in the studio as midfields, and being the person who set them up, and used them over the last week or two, they have definitely changed quite significantly, even people that didn't hear them that much have commented.

No. Just no. Two weeks running-in?  Seriously, play the speakers for five minutes louder andlouder when you first open the box - you can call that "running-in" if you want to - and everything should work and measure exactly like they will two weeks down the line.

As for running-in in general, they also have other stuff doing that on Whathifi, you know, stuff like cables, cd-players and on and on.

I used to love the stuff Alvin Gold spouted in the 80's in a flat earth hi fi mag , stuff about scratching marks on plugs to improve teh sound and wrapping bits of red plastic round the mains lead.

WHF is a joke , I don't quite understand how a product is 5 stars one month then ends up on 4stars 3 months later just because it's 3 months older.

'There's more competition' they say , yeah , for advertising , maybe.