June 1996

Mike Fenech and Todd Warnke plan to do many of their reviews jointly. A team effort if you will. Collaboration of the highest order right here on the Soundstage!. So first they felt it appropriate to explain their philosophy behind why they want to work together, and their vision for their music reviews.

FIRST UP, MIKE....

I learned the hard way that building a stereo system based on the opinions of others, including those of reviewers, will usually get you nowhere. What usually happens is someone will gather all the opinions they can on various components and then piece together a system based on critic's 'recommended' lists. Under this scenario, little or no listening is done to the equipment, except for perhaps the speakers, and even that listening is usually done in a showroom. In this situation it doesn't matter if the reviewers opinions are biased, or are arrived at by listening to only one certain type of music (which, in all likelihood, is different from what you listen to). Only one thing matters, a recommendation (I always know that the latest Stereophile is out when an unusual amount of questions about certain components appear on the Internet newsgroups - recommendation syndrome!).

Eventually this 'recommended' system is purchased and installed. Next, the initial euphoria a new system or component brings, dies down. And then our poor Audiophile realizes he doesn't really like what he is hearing. D'oh!

This problem has several motivating factors. One is the retail industry itself. Most stores will not carry a product or line *unless* there is a rave review to back it up. I suppose this is so a customer can sit and listen to a said component while reading a review to help seal the deal. Many (most?) retailers are content to let a review take the place of educating their customers on how to evaluate equipment. However, this is only one part of the problem, and in fact it may not be the biggest. I think it's more the fault of the buyer, and until buyers change and discard their reliance on reviewer's words these industry practices will continue.

To this end Todd and I are going to try a different approach to reviewing equipment. We are both (very) different people with different tastes in music. And, more importantly, we own very different stereo systems. Todd's system is mostly solid state electronics mated with electrostatic speakers, while mine has all tube components and dynamic speakers. By reviewing components jointly our purpose is to report our findings to you, while along the way demonstrating the importance of system interaction and compatibility (as well as listener variability).

Thanks...Mike Fenech

AND NOW, TODD....

There is certainly more than one way to review equipment, just as there is more than one way to judge the value of equipment under review. A review is, many times, more illuminating of the reviewer's system, musical tastes, writing style and biases than it is of the component it is supposed to describe. I understand this, and that's why I try to qualify my opinions as just that, opinions, in each review that I write. But ... I also know that when I set out to buy a new component, I look to reviews to help narrow the field. Without that help I'd still be looking for my first pair of speakers!

That said, Mike points out what can happen when someone relies too much on reviews. Since Mike and I are of a like mind on this topic (this may be the *only* area we agree on) we want to bring you a different approach in our reviews. Well, perhaps not so different since TAS has used it to great advantage. We want to "tag-team" our reviews where ever possible. What this means is that one of us will write the main body of a review and the other will use their experience with the same component (in an entirely different system) to comment on the review as a whole. We hope this will even out any system dependencies, reviewer biases, musical tastes, etc.

I think (as does Mike) that this will result in a review that will have a broader base than the "it worked well in *my* system playing *my* music" commentary that we get elsewhere. While we still want to emphasize that what we are offering is still just our opinions, I think that having the chance to hear Mike and I debate a component's worth may help a little more than just reading either one of our opinions alone.

Usually I'll take up the main portion of the review (I tend to be wordier than Mike anyway), and he will proceed to trash everything I say (oops, I mean he'll add discriminating commentary). Unless I think he's way off base I won't add to his comments. We actually have a healthy respect for each other's system and ears, so the exchange should be fun. And as always, your comments on our commentary will be greatly appreciated.

...Todd Warnke

One last item, to help you keep them separate Mike and Todd have compiled a little list of differences and similarities. Enjoy!

Differences between Todd and Mike:

• Mike weighs twice as much as Todd (While Todd maintains a one inch height advantage).
• Todd listens to NPR. Mike listens to Rush.
• Mike lives in Austin, TX, where 90 degrees is an overnight low temperature. Todd lives in Denver where snow is possible 8 months of the year.
• Todd listens to Miles, Joni Mitchell, SRV, and Mahler. Mike listens to The Outlaws, The Who, Renaissance, Lorenna McKinnett, and Vaughn Williams.
• Mike has moved his system from warm to approaching neutral. Todd has moved his system from dry to approaching neutral.
• Mike likes the Cowboys. Todd, most emphatically, doesn't.

Similarities between Todd and Mike:

• We each have worn-down cars we desperately need to replace.
• We both think our respective wives are the sweetest persons we ever met.
• We each spend too much time working on and with computers.
• We have both owned Lineaum LFX's. (Mike still does.)
• ...and we each like the music more than the sound.