[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
71.125.76.210
In Reply to: RE: Harry Pearson and new course of TAS... posted by galnat on February 01, 2008 at 12:19:09
As someone who has known Gordon for decades and has met Harry more than a few times and read every issue of both mags, the loss of Gordon's views is an unreplaceable chasm in audio reviewing and the diminuation of Harry's writing and perception is almost as serious. At least we get some of his insight a few times per year and those time TAS is far more interesting and useful.
Gordon and Harry were the real pioneers of a new, improved type of audio reviewing and they were also the best.
HP and JGH had a passion for the equipment and music that is sadly lacking, save for a few writers, in todays high end audio magazines. For instance, like Michael Fremer or not, there's no disputing his passion for high-end audio!Audio publishing is today unfortunately no longer a hobby but a business. It's all about trying to get a scoop on a product that the other mag can't get, and how fast can the review be published, not the quality of the review, that is the rule now, rather than the exception. Many of todays reviews don't hold a candle to the work done in the golden years of TAS where components were reviewed by several staff members (and the growing number of magazines competing for piece of equipment and the manufacturers ability to send out multiple piece of equipment for a year for review just about makes such a review impossible today)--or when HP undertook reviews where he compared several amps or cartridges in one article (IMHO, some of his best work). A lot of work goes into such a review (not to mention most reviewers hold down a full time job, plus support a family), but the ends really justified the means here. In addition, there's a lot of questions as to just what and how much equipment a reviewer has actually heard before they review. In the old day, a reviewer cut their teeth on lesser gear and gradually moved up. Nowadays, everyone wants to review the cost no object stuff--and what have they actually heard by comparison that's out there (not of course counting live music).
Myles Astor
Myles B. Astor
Except maybe for the elaborate cable roundtable once published by Sounds Like...
And which of those cables is available today? Which was available even two years after the reviews? Or a year?
clark
Not, however, to denigrate Listener.
clark
We did multi - reviewer surveys of groups of similar components at Listener all the time. They were very well received by the readers.
We do and have done many reviews by multiple reviewers and even came up with a new format for cable reviews. We also have done blind shootouts.
We are in the process of working with a large Audio Society to expand our ideal of multiple reviewers, rooms, and systems for one product. It can be done. Just takes some hard work and that passion for audio that some think does not exist these days.
James Darby
Publisher, Stereomojo.com
...the last equipment review I wrote for TAS was a comment on REG's Thiel 7.2 loudspeaker review in 2000.
Another writer (Tom Miiller?) also wrote a comment on that review.
Count me as one of ~ten people who agree with you. HP exuded his own brand of crazy but he was one of less than a handful striving to forge a language for audio perception more complex than thumbs up/thumbs down.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]