|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.226.126.8
Let's be reasonable.Assume at the beginning that every component is worthy of audition.
A magazine or an individual can only "evaluate" some small percentage of all available components.
When we publish a RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS LIST what information does that convey? I submit it conveys absolute NO information.
Now a NOT RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS LIST gives us real information.
These are components that someone has evaluated and determined to be not worthy of audition. This is significantly more useful to an end user than a recommended components list which just says some set of components is worthy of audition. How does this distinquish these recommended components from all non reviewed components? It doesn't it just means these are components one should consider - big deal any list of available products does exactly the same thing.
If the recommended components list issues are a magazines biggest selling issues what does that tell us about the people who are reading the magazine, ie. audiophiles and/or people who are interested in buying audio equipment?
It tells me that audiophiles in general crave snake oil and that the magazines are willing to deliver it in spades in make more money. Ie - to sell more magazines as well as a value added benefit for the
manufacturers who play ball (ie. use the magazine as a marketing vehicle).For years the audio press has been skillfully blurring the lines between being an audiophile resource and a marketing vehicle for industry insiders.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Follow Ups:
it exposes the publication to much less liability to say they like somethings (but not everything) than to say they DONT like something.
"eeh, we jsut forgot to mention your pile of shit preamp. sorry. maybe if it wasnt crap it would have sold" could be an acceptable arguement when asked why no mention of a pile of shit bit of gear was made in a magazine.
the sad thing is not what dosnt get slammed and bashed, but what doesnt get the acclaim it deserves.
Such black listing could put any fledgling audio company out of business. Based on the subjective judgments of a few people. I wouldn't advocate any platform in which a few people are able to inflict such irreparable damage.
This is a case of a solution being far worse than the problem it intends to solve. (I think the problem itself is way overblown to begin with.)
As if a bad review doesn't do what you are describing.
At least a non recommended components listing would tell the readers what equipment to avoid. Forget the damage to the manufacturers of avoidable equipment.
A recommended components list does the same thing to components whose manufacturers have decided not to use a magazine reviews as a promotional vehicle. Surely there are plenty (more than already on the list) of recommendable components that do not show up in reviews or lists for whatever reason.
So the way it is currently damages manufacturers of good equipment that don't get reviews. That's ok with you and you base that on the fact that a non recommended components list will damage manufacturers of bad equipment.
That makes no sense.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
> If the recommended components list issues are a magazines biggest selling issues what does that tell us about the people who are reading the magazine, ie. audiophiles and/or people who are interested in buying audio equipment?>
It tells you people like comprehensive 'best of' lists.
> It tells me that audiophiles in general crave snake oil...>
Name some specific Recommended Components from the list that you find to be 'snake oil'.
We're waiting...
> ...and that the magazines are willing to deliver it in spades in make more money. Ie - to sell more magazines as well as a value added benefit for the manufacturers who play ball (ie. use the magazine as a marketing vehicle). For years the audio press has been skillfully blurring the lines between being an audiophile resource and a marketing vehicle for industry insiders.>
For years idiots like you have been trying to cast aspersions on the equipment reviewing publications because they are supported by advertising so you can pay less than $1 an issue.
As JA will mention, there are many Recommended Components which have NEVER adverstised in the magazine.
If you know of any specific quid-pro-quos, please tell us about them.
Otherwise please go back into your cave....
"It tells you people like comprehensive 'best of' lists."Comprehensive??? ROTFLMAO!
Yea right as if the magazine has reviewed some significant percentage of any particular component.
It reviews a small sample and recommends some of those. Comprehensive? Not even close.
"Name some specific Recommended Components from the list that you find to be 'snake oil'."
Who is suggesting the components in the list are snake oil? I'm claiming it's the list itself is the snake oil.
"We're waiting... "
"For years idiots like you have been trying to cast aspersions on the equipment reviewing publications because they are supported by advertising so you can pay less than $1 an issue. "
"Another conspiracy theorist troll..."
More ROTFLMA off!
Obviously you didn't even read my post or attempt to understand my point.
"As JA will mention, there are many Recommended Components which have NEVER adverstised in the magazine."
If you know of any specific quid-pro-quos, please tell us about them.
Otherwise please go back into your cave....
Please I made no accusations whatsoever of impropriety on the part of any magazine.
Of course your knee jerk accusatory response is the normal one I hear from insiders when discussing our magazines as marketing vehicles for the audio sales and manufacturing industry. The fact is that it is funded by advertising - big deal. That is the value of the magazine, that's why it costs a dollar - NOT because it's funded directly by audiophiles.
That isn't my issue - nor is the review policy itself.
If I have an issue it's with the credibility they still maintain with the audio equipment buying community. I just don't understand it? It must be the audiophiles craving for snake oil - as was the point of my original post.
And BTW I don't read any audio magazine and haven't for more than a couple of years.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
I don't care if Stereophile or any other magazines publishes or advertises snake oil.
But the Recommended Components List is snake oil and in fact Stereophile even admits it's uselessness.
But obviously audiophiles ignore these facts and prefer to find the list useful.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
you've still got it bad!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
You gonna argue the recommended components list is more helpful than a bottle of colored pepples to the average audiophile?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
related to your RCL obsession arguing with you on the topic is not something I would recommend.
LOL
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
This kind of topic should be an important topic for audiophiles. However we can't discuss it openly on these forum without being accused of being conspiracy theorists or whatever not to mention getting moderated to whiners woad or even banned.
We all gotta be good ignorant little sheep if we want to talk.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Jesus that was stupid!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Give me rhythm or give me death!
.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
> > If the recommended components list issues are a magazines biggest selling issues what does that tell us about the people who are reading the magazine, ie. audiophiles and/or people who are interested in buying audio equipment? > >
That they find more use in broad based surveys of equipment than individual reviews.
> > It tells me that audiophiles in general crave snake oil and that the magazines are willing to deliver it in spades in make more money. Ie - to sell more magazines as well as a value added benefit for the
manufacturers who play ball (ie. use the magazine as a marketing vehicle).> >
A bizzarre interpretation. Given that major sections of such surveys include speakers does that make the belief that speakers make a difference a belief in snake oil?
"That they find more use in broad based surveys of equipment than individual reviews."Use?
"Given that major sections of such surveys include speakers does that make the belief that speakers make a difference a belief in snake oil?"
It's only a small sample that are being tested in the first place.
How can anyone make "use" of such results without realizing they being oiled?
"Using" the results of such a survey ignores the whole world of unreviewed components.
The lists are snake oil and as such those who "use" the lists are guilty as charged.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
> > "That they find more use in broad based surveys of equipment than individual reviews."> >> Use? >
Main Entry: 2use
Function: verb
Pronunciation: 'yüz
Inflected Form(s): used/'yüzd, in the phrase "used to" usually 'yüs(t)/ ; us·ing/'yü-zi[ng]/
transitive senses
1 archaic : ACCUSTOM , HABITUATE
2 : to put into action or service : avail oneself of : EMPLOY
> > "Given that major sections of such surveys include speakers does that make the belief that speakers make a difference a belief in snake oil?"> >
> It's only a small sample that are being tested in the first place.>
Compared to a review of a particular speaker system it is far more comprehensive.
> How can anyone make "use" of such results without realizing they being oiled?>
Oiled?
Main Entry: oiled
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'o i(&)ld
1 : lubricated, treated, or covered with or as if with oil
2 slang : DRUNKWhat are you trying to say?
> "Using" the results of such a survey ignores the whole world of unreviewed components.>
This is different from a review of a speaker system how? Other than the survey covers more products.
> The lists are snake oil and as such those who "use" the lists are guilty as charged.>
Do you know what words mean? the lists are "snake oil?"
All you can come up with is that surveys do not include every commercial product available to human kind? Well, no shit. I had no idea. I bet every reader thought Stereophile reviewed every product ever made in audio and either included them in their recomended components list or implied by ommission that they were crap. You are grasping at straws in defense of your original post.
"All you can come up with is that surveys do not include every commercial product available to human kind? Well, no shit. I had no idea."It doesn't even come close to even a small percentage of available commercial products. No shit? No shit and any reasonable person would know that alone make my point.
What wrong with you? You realize the obvious yet refuse to admit it's significance.
Get a clue!!!
Give me rhythm or give me death!
So your answer to not enough reviews In any survey is what? Single reviews? No reviews? Indeed it is obvious that no magazine will ever review every product available. The significance is also obvious or so I would have thought. You seem to think it somehow amounts to making surveys into snake oil. That doesn't even make sense. So what is the "solution." A personal auition of every loudspeaker ever made? Good luck....
You keep calling it a survey.Great it's a small survey of components whose manufacturers and marketing departments decided they would submit for reviews.
Wow that's a real useful survey.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Man, this whole list thing is a pox upon the hobby.
How many dumb ass audiophiles have you run into who buy only the April or October Stereophile and start shopping?
Add to that the fact that there are letter grades associated with the list and all of a sudden you have a bunch of "audio GPA" dolts who talk about their "all class A" gear and expect some sort of community acclaim for having been able to sign a check.
The "List" does drive the marketplace to some extent, which, to my jaundiced eye, puts too much emphasis on a letter grade and a five sentence blurb.
Similarly, the wine hobby is full of "number whores" who, instead of tasting for themselves, go out and buy based on a rating, too.
Audio and wine are hobbies that are full of people who claim to possess some level of connoisseurship, but then they go and blindly/deafly buy by the letter or the number. What rugged individualistic lemmings!
Pardon the rant.
;)
"How many dumb ass audiophiles have you run into who buy only the April or October Stereophile and start shopping?"
Can't say I know a single one.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
(nt)
are the source of much of this stereotype nonsense!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
for a prospective customer to ask if item "X" is on the RCL or not.
Howdy
I've heard it a lot just being in stores, some people really take them seriously.
-Ted
Wouldn't they be "number Johns"?
You might want to also include Art in your rant. I just love being a person the art snobs hate because: "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like". I'm convinced that without a program that they would prefer the paintings on box cars over most of the hangings in the modern art museum. Me too! But on the other hand, a cow by Cuyp, mmm.
Rick
would you now acknowledge a fault in that the recommendation conveyed "absolute NO information"?
That's a rethorical question of course, merely to demonstrate that your polemic is preposterous.
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
For something to be recommend I think all it takes is a good experience by one person in one system. The notion being if works for one, it may work for others. In other words you are correct, it's valueless.
For a Not Recommended judgement however it would need to shown ineffective across a wide spectra of listeners and systems. But if folks were willing to go to that much work, the recommended list would itself have value. A truly recommendable component would be one that demonstrably is a strong performer in a wide range of systems as system independence is a good indication of thoughtful engineering.
But I do disagree with you conclusion: "It tells me that audiophiles in general crave snake oil.."
What it tells me is that people (a superset of audiophiles) in general crave easy, canned answers. Sadly, they are becoming even more dependent upon them with every hour they spend watching TV.
Regards, Rick
For a Not Recommended judgement however it would need to shown ineffective across a wide spectra of listeners and systems.I'm assuming the reviews and conclusions themselves are credible as well as applicable to the majority of readers.
I should have stated that in my original post. You are completely correct and I'm not going to work to hard to defend these assumptions.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
z
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: