 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.40.104.66
In Reply to: RE: Stereophile skating close to the edge. posted by viridian on May 07, 2014 at 20:44:55
As far as I am concerned, Stereophile told me all I need to know about that company!
Precisely what do you think you need to know about that company, that Stereophile failed to tell you, swept under the rug, or otherwise hid from you in the Vast No-Center-Channel Conspiracy against you and you wallet and all you hold holy?
I was not halfway through that painful read (and was a long way from the test results) when I said to myself two things.
One, "I bet that that manufacturer rues the day he asked to have his product reviewed."
From Hero to Zero in the amount of time it takes to fail to do meaningful Quality Control.
Two, "I hope that this is a lesson to small manufacturers and also to the carping naysaying readers and haters, that small manufacturers should wait until they have OBJECTIVE reasons to KNOW that they are "ready for prime time," and are not just whistling past the Graveyard of Over-Ambitious Audio Companies.
I myself, believing that "human nature has no history (an no future, either)" fear that on more than one occasion, JA's trusting nature has been taken advantage of, with respect to the much-decried five-dealer rule.
What does it take to "become a dealer"? There is the phenomenon of the "non-stocking dealer"--which I think is legitimate, at least in the CEDIA world where nearly all jobs are custom jobs and therefore a dealer who is an approved dealer with credit terms in place and literature and often times color and trim samples on hand is, in that world, a "real dealer."
But what about an audio dealer who had stock, sold it out, and now can't get stock? Should that count for Stereophile's rule? I think not.
More troubling is the case of a manufacturer or importer with a wide range of price points.
Let's say that their entry-level loudspeaker has an MSRP of $8000/pr. and their "statement" speaker costs $50,000 a pair. A canny conniving importer can create five dealers by shipping pairs of their entry-level $8000/pr. speakers to five compliant dealers, all of whom know that they will not have to pay for them until they sell them. Which may happen, if Stereophile creates a buzz.
The importer then informs Stereophile that he does indeed have five dealers. He can even provide a list.
HOWEVER, of the $50,000 speaker he wants a full review of, his audio-show pair is the only pair in North America. What that guy is trying to do is to make Stereophile the fulcrum of his marketing for a product he is unwilling to put his own money and effort behind... .
Does it not stand to reason that if Raven had five fully-stocking dealers, that Raven could have phoned one and shipped a dealer's pair of monoblocks to Art at its own expense? That NONE of Raven's dealers could help in that scenario made me question. Worst case, they could have begged a customer to lend his amps and provide a stereo unit as a loaner.
(The same question arises when a loudspeaker importer tells me not to form opinions until 500 hours of playing music. That's three months of 8 hours a day, five days a week. Forget it, Charlie. If that is so important to you, swap stock with a dealer whose showroom pair is broken in. Oh? No dealers have this model? Call me back in five years, if you are still in business.)
In the end, if you try that product and you love it, and whether there are real dealers or nominal dealers makes little difference to you, you can be happy. But apart from the unavoidable and I think enlightening fact that the inflammatory monoblocks were the only pair to be had, I found nothing to fault in Art's writeup.
But the ultimate fault for this imbroglio lies with naysayers and haters like the original poster. We at Stereophile often get upbraided for "Oh, yeah, another review product from frequent-flyer Audio Research (or Wilson Audio)." News flash, guys. Those companies are ready for prime time and have real stocking dealers, all the way up the line, and all over the round earth's imagined four corners... .
So when Stereophile takes on a review from a company (which I must note, in its ManCom ruefully admitted that it had not been ready for prime time) whose eligibility for a full review arguably comported with the letter of the law but I think not its spirit, and the product blows up or at least wants to grill some shrimp, somehow it is all our fault, and further evidence of our depravity and bad manners.
The manufacturer got a free pass from the OP. Why? Was that because "Scorpions gotta sting"?
I myself turn to the Good Book:
"They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept." Lk 7:32.
On alternating days, we have demons or are gluttons. Or at least the naysayers and haters so say.
To me, it was the manufacturer who skated close to the edge, and Stereophile had to make the best of it, because the print space was already allocated.
I have a suggestion for the OP and his ilk, ith, kin, and minions:
This has gone far past the point of a Bad Marriage. If you are stuck in, "Everything You Do Is Wrong and You Will Never Be Able to Make Me Happy Again," FILE FOR DIVORCE.
In other words, stop reading, tune out, and shut up.
And in this case, realize where the fault really lies.
Speaking only for myself of course. And influenced by the fact that an importer has been pressuring me for a writeup and I then asked not how many dealers he had but rather, how many of those things are really in the US? He never answered, and so it seems that that was another case of, take advantage of Stereophile's good nature, and if they love it, I can always really import the thing.
Speaking only for myself--again.
JM
Follow Ups:
to customer opinions ie they are mostly wrong.
I wonder why JA keeps reviewers like him.
Geez what a mess! Are you certain that JA wants your help in these instances?
I offer an explanation:
Re my initial post: my main point was that the OP received a thrashing far in excess than was merited; and this thrashing is typical of how the magazine of record responds to any level of criticism.
Second, as a non Christian, I hope you can understand why I might be so very tired of being assaulted by scriptural references, under whatever guise. Perhaps I am overly sensitive in that respect, but there is nothing 'wrong' or wild eyed with noting my discomfort.
Truth be told, with an unblinking eye and aware of my own short comings, I find JM (outside of his first rate equipment reviews) to have an affected, pompous style of writing, which is notable even for a graduate of Brown with a law degree.
So, enough is enough. obviously, my several postings were distractions, and for that I offer my apology to the forum.
ja
...John, better check your blood pressure...
You sure kicked the crap out of THAT straw man.
Not sure what that rant has to do with the original post, but what the heck?
You also seem to be accusing Raven of somehow gaming S-Phile review 'system' by setting up faux dealers in order to qualify for a S-Phile review of a product not normally stocked by said 'faux' dealers?
Not sure Jesus would approve of THAT, but I could be wrong.
I did not ACCUSE Raven of fudging the dealer rule.
I merely noted that in my experience, it has been an occasional problem. In some Zen way, perhaps a "non-stocking" dealer is more immanent or transcendent than a dealer who can actually, well, demo the gear for you. But not in my world.
The fact that there was not a replacement available from ANY source may simply reflect a lack of thinking outside the box. It's not Art Dudley's job to try to get a manufacturer out of a hole he himself has dug.
But the fact that there was not a replacement available might also mean that most sales have been direct sales, which might make a cynic wonder about the reality of the dealer base that must have been claimed in order to get a review.
"We have five dealers but none of them have stock" does not TO ME sound like the inner workings of a company that is ready for prime time.
If anything comes of this, I can hope for:
1. A more cautious approach on the part of startup companies who should consider the worst case as well as a best case outcome from a Stereophile review.
2. Perhaps less carping about how Stereophile favors established companies.
When I gave column coverage to darTZeel's first product (IIRC 2004) I did my own Due Diligence, because the product at the time had no US POP and therefore was available only direct from Switzerland.
I in due course learned that darTZeel had on hand and intended to have on hand at all times a reserve supply of all the electronic parts required for future repairs, and that that reserve would be recalibrated as needed based on product sales so that if a part was suddenly discontinued by its manifacturer, the customer was protected. I also learned that the boxing with an amp inside had been certified by a third-party agency as good against a drop from a 30-inch high conveyor belt. And, in the event, darTZeel has gone from strength to strength.
All I could say was, "Continuez."
We are not always so fortunate.
BTW, a friend had a problem with a professionally-built kit with the name of a rather well-known esoteric set of companies on it, and I recommended that he send it to a third party for investigation. Some of it was the owner's fault but there also was a fuse-blowing problem that was the subject of a later factory modification, etc. Class-A, IIRC single tube, perhaps 845. Not at all cheap.
Just for fun, the EE tech put it on test equipment. At 4 watts there was 1% distortion. At full power, 10% distortion.
I myself have no interest in writing about such gear, regardless how long the company has been in business. You can get 10% distortion for a lot less money than that.
The five-dealer rule is more of a picket fence than a Maginot line. So please stop bitching about it.
JM
So the dealer rule really is outdated. It is a leftover of 'preinternet days. And NOT a good rule for modern decisions IMO.
There are direct to customer companies with far more in sales than some so called company with five nebulous dealers with no stock...
(I am always amazed at 'dealers' who are dealing out of thier garage... or apartment)
"I did not ACCUSE Raven of fudging the dealer rule."
Uh huh!
"But the fact that there was not a replacement available might also mean that most sales have been direct sales, which might make a cynic wonder about the reality of the dealer base that must have been claimed in order to get a review."
The implication that Raven MIGHT have been gaming the S-Phile review system is pretty hard to miss!
"The five-dealer rule is more of a picket fence than a Maginot line. So please stop bitching about it."
To be honest, I could give a crap who S-Phile favors as it's not MY magazine and I don't subscribe anyway.
My issue does lie with Stereophile as Artie used up space in the magazine outlining your reviewing policies and then it was decided to chart a course contrary to those policies, IMHO.I did not give the manufacturer a "free pass" any more than Stereophile did. If anything, I was unfairly hard on the manufacturer for implying that not supplying a second sample of the monoblocks was related to the issues with the first pair when I have no knowledge of this. I also summarized the reliablility issues outlined in the review. I am not sure how you get to "free pass" from that. But I believe that you are reading what you want to rather than what was written.
I'm not sure how you decided to paint this as a religious issue but, being an atheist, my perspective is that this type of rambling just creates more heat than light.
My suggestion to John Marks is that if you find criticism of the excellent magazine that you write for to be so problematic, perhaps you should divorce yourself from Critics Corner.
Edits: 05/08/14
Stereophile has along history of unleashing its dogs of war at the first whiff of criticism. JM, as AD's 'second', is merely doing what has become 'natural'.
The OP was, at best, a mid level complaint, a 'bitch', from a poster who may have a long term bone to pick with the audiophile magazine of record. Was his post vicious and an attempt at character assassination? Hardly. So, JM take your fangs out of the OPs neck: you over reacted. Your over reactions implies more about your character than that of the OP.
With all due respect to your religious beliefs, there is no need to wear them on your posting sleeve. There are actually posters who do not subscribe to your religious beliefs. Show us a little respect.
My Scripture quote had NOTHING to do with "Religious" beliefs.
BTW, with your monicker, you should realize that regardless of one's own opinion, large swaths of the King James Version, along with Shakespeare, are the bedrock of Cultural Literacy for English speakers. You don't have to be an actor to be moved by Shakespeare.
In that passage, Jesus was in totally human common-sense terms wryly commenting about people who have already made up their minds and so nothing you can do will shut them up.
John the Baptist lived in the desert and ate locusts and honey, so, to the haters, he was deranged.
Jesus reclined at table with his friends and ate bread and drank wine and we can presume enjoyed roast lamb every now and then, and so to the haters, He was a glutton. (Don't choke on the capital "H.")
In the same way, when Stereophile reviews something from Audio Research, the crowd of children yells in unison "Payola! Friendship! Cronyism! Old Goy Network!" etc.
But when we have a problem totally not of our own creation with a company whose business plan seems to be to not have amps on hand, the children shout "Apples and Oranges! You bent your own rules! Demon! Glutton! Trans Fats! etc.
The notion that a stereo amp and mono amps from the same company are apples and oranges is rather amusing.
Haters just gotta hate, I guess. Even if it involves grasping at straws while assuming the Yoga pose "The Ostrich."
JM
Come , now, JM, at least take ownership for your belief system, rather than play an intellectual shell game citing "cultural literacy". Your scriptural exegesis speaks for itself: gratuitous and foisted on readers.
When confronted by children chanting in unison two such incompatible statements in rapid succession.
I also quote the Buddha, and totally without a shred of irony. His last words, in fact.
Just as I often quote Oscar Wilde's last words.
JM
What I fear is that you believe that people might be quoting YOU at present or in the near future.
JM, You can rest on your laurels as a prime example of the self satisfied, guy, who is to be feared because he thinks so highly of himself and his worldliness that he is incapable engaging a pov that is in conflict with his own.
ja
just isn't worth engaging with, especially when it is driven by rancor held by people who don't read the magazine and therefore have no stake to claim.
Neither JA nor AD ever claimed that the stereo amp was the functional equivalent of the mono amps. Nobody invited the reader to draw conclusions about anything other than the stereo amp.
Except the naysayers and haters act like we pulled off The Great Train Robbery.
JM
nt
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John
You or Stereophile should put a stop to this ranting from JM. It just puts the magazine whose views he presumably seeks to represent, in disrepute.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
