|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.220.25.80
In Reply to: RE: Excellent post... posted by mkuller on February 25, 2015 at 08:17:47
Pretty much a win by default.
This thread?
Priceless!
What can not be argued is that Stereophile exists to serve the industry because ads, not subscriptions, pay the bills. We need no further proof of this when JA explains "it is widely known in the audio industry" that his wife is in charge of ad sales.
He did NOT say that it was widely known to his readers.
Not that I find anything wrong with with the fact that he's married to the person in charge of ad sales.
The larger problem, and it's not MY problem, is that the 'audio industry' to which he refers is very small and magazines like Stereophile are dependent on that industry for their economic survival. To deny that this dependency does not, in some small way, influence editorial tone is to deny reality.
Follow Ups:
Is the ridiculuously bloated Recommended Components list.
Virtually everything that gets reviewed gets on the list at some level of recommendation. Are all these components really capable of making a good sounding system?? I think not...
If this isn't pandering to the industry I am not sure what is. Nearly every advertiser can claim that they are a Stereophile "recommended component". Well, all it took was actually getting a component to them for review. Failing that I guess you don't get a recommendation.
The issue of the recommended components even touts the number of components that are recommended...as if the number of recommended components is somehow a relevant factor in any way, shape or form.
The dilution of the importance of the recommended component list is so severe that I don't even bother with it anymore and I suspect many other readers also don't bother but to give it a quick glance. A way needs to be found to sort the wheat from the chaff or the list is nothing more than a, "this is what STereophile has reviewed in the last few years" list.
This doesn't make any sense Cab, Stereophile has to rate the equipment they review, if you are critiquing their class-a category as being overblown and full of Hyperbole, then something can be said of that, everything cant be class-A and actually there are not, but JA may want to reconsider their class-A list, expanding Class-B and C and being a bit more stringent on their Class-A rating.
Personally i find most of the monthly stuff boring , from everyone really! there is so much new and unknown in the market place for eg, is a 20.7 better than sound lab, analysis, et al, who makes the best panel speaker or are they all a lateral move, what about the very overpriced, are the new comers better than the original over priced, The Gen1.1, Are magico ,rockport, wilson on that level or Better? what about all the new comers only show goer's get to hear..?
Sad how boring this has become .....
Any serious article entertaining this type of conversation would drive more readership than current blah, blah ,blah, I had 2 yrs of sub to Stereophile and cant recall more than a glance at one, Fremer being the exception.
C'mon John, is a dartzeel up against Boulder, Is the JC-1 as much for less, where's the worth... ?
Regards...
It makes perfect sense...the system is called "Recommended Components" not, "Here is a rating system from A++ to F". By putting a component in a category you are RECOMMENDING this component or else the name is false advertising.
A component that is not recommended would therefore not show up on the list.
I agree though that much more head to head of what is perceived to be the best might reveal more than a few "Emperor's new Clothes" components.
For my own part, when I was reviewing for Positive Feedback, I tried to get groups of gear together for head to head shootouts. I was really only successful for preamps, being logistically easier to deal with, but would have loved to get all the great amps I have heard together for a massive shootout.
Preamps were easier as well because I didn't have to worry about speaker matching. My amp at the time had a sufficiently high input impedance (over 20Kohm) so matching was theoretically not an issue. I managed to get several top end preamps for two shootouts. You can look it up in the archives.
I like how Hifi Choice still does the six-way shootouts but they do it usually with boring mid-fi gear. Even the winner I couldn't care less about. The top high end companies don't really want to be critically reviewed (I had darTZeel refuse to give me an amp to review...even after I went to visit them near Geneva. I told them that I cannot guarantee a positive review and they got scared I think).
The thing is there doesnt have to be a "winner" , there never is with Audio, the best and IMO the most accurate way to describe the Best, is through their capabilities, which is what "recommended components" try to do in some sort of way.With current upgrades and changes, the CLass-A list has to reflect this, yet it does not, there is not even a discussion as to the best of the best.
An article on the collective class-A equipment would go along way in removing the smoke and mirrors, a kind of synapsis on the list so to speak and actually something to read.
No technical articles anymore, Bascom too Bizzy ?
As to Dartzeel , you may have to take the method favored by the original Audio Critic, buy , test and sell or Borrow test and run.I'm sure one of your soon to be not friends after the review could lend you one ..:)
Edits: 03/18/15
Yeah, a shootout amongst the Class A, king wannabes, would be enlightening...with the clear mandate that all but the top 3 lose their Class A mandate and fall to B or worse upon review.
There doesn't have to be one best but only a very few would be appropriate from what I have heard out there.
Don't have the money to follow the catch and release policy...would probably take too big a hit these days in the resale.
As you know, my friends and I do fairly often informal testing sessions where we bring our high end gear together. Sometimes its preamps, sometimes DACs, sometimes amps (more complicated due to the size and weight of some of our beasts).
We still stay friends, although sometimes I am sure some people leave a bit dissatisfied.
I know what you mean, I think Class-A would have a bit more than 3 contenders thou. Heard a WA X1 /Krell with sub and upgrades last week, It still have the shouty middle, haven't heard the XLF to see if it is still there thou.
A pity none of the mags even hint at giving the public something, but since you are already doing shootouts, you have material .
Edits: 03/18/15
I have a friend who used to have the WA X1 (series 1) and it sounded GREAT with a 30 watt KR audio VA350i. I mean really amazing and up to that point I hadn't heard WA sound anything like I would want to own. Keep in mind the original was 95db/watt and a pretty easy load as well. We were playing Kodo drums loud enough to feel it in the gut!
There is a good reason WA demos a lot with LAMM...tubes and WA big speakers work. Only the Watt/Puppy was not such a good match because it has a wonky and low impedance that made it tough on some tube amps (stil the best I heard from that speakers was a W/P 7 with Lamm ML1.1 90 watt push/pull triode amps).
Did a bit of a shootout today. A fried of mine came over with his KR VA350i (was mine...sold it to protect the baby) and we compared it to my NAT Symbiosis on my Odeons. Well, the KR is the superior of the two amps on that we both agreed. More low level resolution, more space between instruments and more 3d imaging. Nicer highs and nicer bass too. Breathed more. However, listening in isolation we agreed that both amps sound excellent and do most things right...just the KR was more right. Put the two amps on a more difficult speaker it might reverse...but I doubt it as I put that KR on everything and it just delivers. Then NAT also needs like 2 hours of playing to "get there" and the KR is full on by 30 minutes. Sigh...
Nat get good reviews so does KR, well from Owners and shows. As to the WA, i was going to say i can understand them working with toobs, the upper mid shout would be tamed by softer tooby output in the top end. Those Krells dont sound like that on the ribbons, so i know its not the amplifiers, that metal dome tweeter really need taming, i can see such a symbiotic relationship with X1's and tubes working ...If you have them in a small to mid size room you can get them up pretty loud i bet..
Stereophile did test the KR, but i cant recall seeing any NATAUDIO ...
Edits: 03/19/15
NAT was reviewed a couple of times in Hifi News and Record Review. They looked at the NAT SE1 MK2 and the NAT Transmitter. Both by Ken Kessler I think. The same mag also reviewed KR Audio Kronzilla SXi and said it was one of the best they had heard.
THat stereophile review is for an old, no longer made amp that predates the current Kronzilla models. However, these older models, which still go used for quite a bit of money, are supposed to sound extremely good as well (particularly the VT800 Mk).
NAT's biggest problems seems to be long term reliability. They run very hot and at very high voltages (like 1200V for their 211 based amps) and seem to have parts failures after some years. Since mine is a hybrid with SS output it doesn't get as hot nor have all that high voltage running around. So, I HOPE it lasts longer without issues.
The KRs are very reliable in my experience.
Other than good old head to head stuff
Edits: 03/18/15
Once upon a time they were not afraid to declare a winner. I know that there are simply a LOT more components out there nowadays (especially now coming from the Far East and Eastern Europe) so it is harder to declare the best of the best...but someone should step up and try.
I am particularly impressed with what is coming out of Eastern Europe at the moment. Their tube amps and hybrid amps are just damned good. There are a lot of old tube engineers who really know this stuff and did truly innovative things with tubes after a 40 year break from tube innovation. Many of my current and previous amps were from Czech, Slovakia or Serbia.
I wanted to suggest that Stereophile's obligation to manufacturers is at least as important as its obligation to readers -- maybe more so.
This did not accord with JA's view and he cut me off.
I was not suggesting there is anything WRONG with putting manufacturers first. I find this "dependency" neither compromising nor corrupting.
The baloney that Stereophile exists primarily for readers is just that -- baloney.
Manufacturers come first -- and SHOULD. It's they who keep "the industry" alive. Not the magazines and the critics. The true heroes of hi-fi are the likes of Bill Conrad, Lew Johnson, Mike Sanders, John DeVore, and so on -- not Sam Tellig, not John Atkinson.
Now ... making craven excuses when manufacturers or importers send defective review samples is quite another matter.
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
"The baloney that Stereophile exists primarily for readers is just that -- baloney."
Baloney!
"Manufacturers come first -- and SHOULD. It's they who keep "the industry" alive."
No what keeps the industry alive is the consumer. Without consumers there is no industry, no need for heroes and certainly no need for magazines or reviewers.
It is clear many in this thread have no idea how markets work. Many of them cannot see the forest because of all those trees.
I guess you have missed supply and demand. To make things no one wants is not a good business model...i.e the Edsel. People want and need things and the market exists and is filled by manufacturers. Without audiophiles the high end would not exist, thus no manufacturers. The magazines exist to let those interested know what is out there so you might be enticed to buy their product over something else. it is now about choice, not about creating a market. Edison created a new demand and over time learning to play an instrument for music entertainment was replaced by turning the radio on.
The markets shifts in terms of portability has certainly changed and will continue to. Audio over USB was a game changer, as before, digital outs from our computers was mostly an afterthought. Not any more.
If there was no us, there would be no Stereophile. Just think of how many brick and motar stores there would be if there was no internet.
Jim Tavegia
...readers have to come first.
The duty an audio review publication has to a manufacturer is to be thorough, ethical and fair in their assessment and treatment.
flatfooted.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
It seems to this reader that Mr Atkinson is coming out of all this quite nicely, actually. It seems that the worst that can be said of him is not all that bad.
Daniel
was referring to his comment tied with Sam's statement.
While John Atkinson was more personable through his writings 20 years ago {and the magazine was far more fresh}, the magazine has changed greatly.
There can be do doubt that it WAS patently impossible for Stereophile to grow and maintain the integrity of JGH's standard of NO advertisements... even Audio tried 30 years ago in striving to attract advertisers NOT in the Audio business... the business model IS dead... sadly, print IS dying.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
> There can be do doubt that it WAS patently impossible for Stereophile to
> grow and maintain the integrity of JGH's standard of NO advertisements...
J. Gordon Holt started publishing adverts in Vol.3 No.3, published in 1972
(see the article linked below). The ads in this issue were all from dealers;
the first issue to publish ads from manufacturer was Vol.4 No.1, published
in December 1977. This was long before I joined Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Audio was the best "Audio mag" heeeevar, they took ads and they are gone, errr just saying.
Really? And how about when manufacturers supply a complete turn key mega buck reference system to your editor and senior reviewer...like at TAS..can they serve two masters...lol
...Harley and Valin since HP is not here to defend himself as you have been reminded before.
If you don't like what the magazines do then don't read them.
Which is probably the case - the ones who complain the loudest usually have no skin in the game.
Naysayers...
What are you talking about?
Manufacturers/Advertisers are CLIENTS of both publications. Any firm that does not serve their clients goes bankrupt.
Subscribers and readers are NOT customers. As John Atkinson has pointed out, subscription revenue is a pittance. It does not even cover the cost of producing one issue.
So logic ensues. You server your CLIENTS first.
The assertion that readers come first is comical.
And specifics? HP was furnished with systems he did not pay a nickel for for decades, and Harley and Valin have followed suit.
Are you playing dumb or in a bubble?
Magazines serve their clients (mfg'ers and advertisers) best, by properly serving the needs of everybody's client, their readers..
Without readers, there is no publication.
How does a publication best serve its readers? Well, that's a whole nuther topic.
But it starts with intellectual honesty and leadership. Leadership as in having enough expertise to lead a good percentage of its readers to superior levels of musicality. Not the type of leadership that tries to dazzle the masses with their intellect or get down in the gutter practicing mental masturbation with the masses when they themselves cannot produce a system that sounds any better than the majority.
IMO, that's been the biggest problem and performance-limiting governor since day one.
Nothing to disagree with here stehno.
In a perfect world, you would be right on the money.
But Stereophile writers and editors don't socialize and attend parties with readers. They don't personal relationships with readers. Case in point. Stereophile writers regularly attended social functions at the Devore factory, and yet still write about the speakers. There is no separation, and we know damn well who butters the bread.
Not just stereophile, the whole hi-end industry and their little lunchBox closed circle, Easy to spot , no one gets in unless you pay or get invited, so dont take it personal, The public is just that, the internet is prying away alot of the control they had in the past, Hey Tellig may spill everything.
Brrrrewwwwhaaaa
Edits: 03/04/15
Every industry has its inner circle and cliquey relationships. I have no issues with that.
Just don't feed me a line of horseshit that the readers come first. No company ever survived intact for long not servicing its customers first.
You can read Stereophile for free, but you can't advertise in Stereophile for free.
> Just don't feed me a line of horseshit that the readers come first.
"Horseshit?" Why is it that people like you, who know nothing of the
publishing industry, always claim to have valid opinions? This is what my
mentor, the late John Crabbe, editor of Hi-Fi News from 1965 to 1982,
had to say on this subject, extracted from the essay at the link below:"If you tell the truth about components you review, there will always be
a small percentage of companies at any one time who are not advertising
in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will have a good
magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have readers. And as
long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will eventually return.
But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good magazine. And if
you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers, at least not for
long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have advertisers."> No company ever survived intact for long not servicing its customers first.
An editor's customers are the magazine's readers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/06/15
"An editor's customers are the magazine's readers."This is the only place we would disagree. You yourself have state that subscriptions won't even pay the electricity bill. Advertising revenues fund your payroll, rent, and production costs.
Now WHO are you are customers again?
And let me clarify this. I have never made any claims here that reviews in Stereophile are in ANY way inaccurate, misleading, or intentionally slanted. I do have issues with methodology and format which I personally consider antiquated. But that is just me.
What we do have, is human nature, which is to be just a bit kinder to our friends. The clients we socialize with. The clients that write us checks.
Before you think I am going in a certain direction..UNLIKE some of the posters here, I don't think you are doing ANYTHING the least bit unethical, or inappropriate. There, I said it.
The magazine is run like any other business, as it SHOULD BE, and it is ultimately well done entertainment with some product information thrown in. Your writers, and NO audio writers a really journalists, they are not uncovering NSA spying or are on fact finding missions to Syria. All good. They are columnists by definition.
I have gone on record with my position, if anyone actually cares.
Edits: 03/06/15 03/06/15
"This is the only place we would disagree. You yourself have state that subscriptions won't even pay the electricity bill. Advertising revenues fund your payroll, rent, and production costs.
Now WHO are you are customers again?"
If an editor says that their readers come first, there is no reason to surmise that they're being disingenuous or naive. There is no challenging, dismantling, or putting a fresh spin on longstanding ethics.
It's either black or white and grey is not good.
> If an editor says that their readers come first, there is no reason to
> surmise that they're being disingenuous or naive.It's also easier for me to say than to practice. Over the years, I have been
pressured by a succession of publishers to abandon my commitment to
putting readers first. Those publishers make much the same arguments that
Sprezza Tura has expressed in this thread. I have successfully resisted that
pressure, but not without stress and conflict.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/07/15
I want to commend you on your post. Nobody who lives in the real world would ever think it was an easy task to hold steady under intense pressure.
You said in one response I don't understand publishing. Actually I do. I spent ten years in publishing. There basically two models, high subscription and low volume, or ad supported and high volume/distribution.
I stand by what I said, your customers are the ones that keep the lights on, and those are manufacturers. That does NOT mean, or imply you can't produce a good product.
I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their fantasy of the review journal locked away from all outside influences, that refuses to accept advertising, and yet is widely available for a low price. As I said, Stereophile is a business, and it is run like one, and that is exactly what should be.
Posters here seem to think it is some sacred journal that will expose all those crappy sounding "over priced" components and speakers and uncover every "giant killer" bargain.
When compared to the financial, political, and scientific press, who have totally abdicated their responsibility to the public, stereo mags are downright golden. :)
"I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their fantasy of the review journal..."
This is wrong thinking.
> You said in one response I don't understand publishing. Actually I do. I
> spent ten years in publishing.In which case I apologize for saying you didn't know what you were
talking about.> I stand by what I said, your customers are the ones that keep the lights
> on, and those are manufacturers.And as I said, some of the publishers for whom I have reported to over
the years have agreed with you and have tried to force me to put those
manufacturers' interests ahead of those of my readers. I have always
resisted that pressure, sometimes to the point of job-threatening
insubordination.> That does NOT mean, or imply you can't produce a good product.
And as I said, if an ad-supported magazine puts the interests of its
advertisers before those of its readers, it will ultimately fail. The
audio publishing landscape is littered with their corpses while Stereophile
remains in rude good health.> I think audiophiles need to have a bucket of cold water poured on their
> fantasy of the review journal locked away from all outside influences,
> that refuses to accept advertising, and yet is widely available for a
> low price. As I said, Stereophile is a business, and it is run like one,
> and that is exactly what should be.And we are back to someone who has no connection with how Stereophile
is run refusing to accept that he is incorrect. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/08/15 03/08/15 03/08/15 03/08/15
The rest of this thread has been deleted by the moderators. But there was
something I had written in a now-deleted posting that had elaborated on
what I wrote in the posting above. I hope that it is okay for me to repost
it. Sprezza Tura had asked:> how am I incorrect that stereophile is run like business? Is it a
> charity or a non profit?Of course Stereophile is run as a business. But I strongly believe that
though some ad revenue is inevitably left on the table (which is why I
have had some conflicts with various publishers over the years), putting
the interests of a publication's readers over those of its advertisers is
the only business strategy that is successful in the long term. And as
someone who will be celebrating 40 years in the magazine business next
year and has been editor-in-chief of 2 very successful audio magazines in
those 4 decades - HiFi News and Stereophile - the long term is what
concerns me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/10/15
Thanks for reposting.
Which begs the question..why were posts deleted? I saw nothing offensive or inappropriate, simply on going discussions.
Unacceptable moderating.
> Thanks for reposting.
You're welcome.> Which begs the question...why were posts deleted?
I have no idea, but the moderators have every right to delete posts that
they feel are in appropriate.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/11/15
I did not imply you knew why..
Yes, the moderaters have the "right" to what ever the hell they want.
And I have the right to call them spineless.
You don't seem to be too unhappy about it either.
> You don't seem to be too unhappy about it either.
There's no point in fighting battles you can't win. :-)
I reposted the text I felt important to keep in circulation, which I assume
was not the text that had led to the moderators taking action.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Can't argue with that.
As stated, but to quote Jack White, it bears repeating, this is a private forum, and mods can do what ever pleases them, but if preventing open and honest discussions from evolving is one of their manifestos, that is rather sad.
synergistic relationships , you cant have ying without yang , readership is the product, reviews are the product ...
Key to note, there's no product without readership ..........
Edits: 03/06/15
...if the magazine does not serve its readers, it will have no subscribers - then no one will place ads, so no revenue.Serve the manufacturers first and it becomes a big infomercial with no critical content.
Every single review now is critical.
Get a clue.
Edits: 02/25/15
.....and reality.
From chicken/egg to circle jerk perspectives. I've come to learn that 'reality' is not the last word in 'Reality Shows'.
Ouch. How rude of you, as a fellow former TAS writer to burst his bubble. POP!As someone who was there I am sure you can tell us the pecking order.
Edits: 02/25/15
My apologies to Mike if my comment came across as being rude. I have always enjoyed his posts and respected his opinions.
While I had nothing to do with advertising at TAS, it always made me wonder when I heard complaints from small manufacturers about preferential treatment for larger manufacturers with megabuck advertising budgets. No proof of anything I suppose, but maybe I'm just suspicious in nature.
As for the readers, I've always felt the reviewer should be responsible for their loyally by being honest.
I think Mike is a great poster, and I agree with him most things, including politics. But his HP Halo is so over the top.
He also has a different perspective since he did not make a "career" out of reviewing like Harley, Valin, et al.
What color are the skies on your planet? here on earth they are blue..for now.
Tell us about the selection process, how does one get a review, how are the products selected...
Regards ..
"Tell us about the selection process, how does one get a review, how are the products selected..."
This is just mechanics. The necessary activities of ANY magazine.
Bottom line is any magazine that wishes to survive caters to the needs of its readers. Without readers there is no need for the magazine and how or if they do anything becomes irrelevant.
> The larger problem, and it's not MY problem, is that the 'audio industry' to which he refers is very small and magazines like Stereophile are dependent on that industry for their economic survival. To deny that this dependency does not, in some small way, influence editorial tone is to deny reality.>
Having actually written for an audio magazine rather than speculating from the sidelines, I can tell you that we were all audiophiles before we became reviewers.
As hobbyists, we find it exciting when a new product is innovative or does a better job of reproducing music - that creates the tone more than any conscious effort by the editors.
But never was I influenced by the editor or a manufacturer to slant a review one way or another.
Many well reviewed manufacturers don't advertise.
I would say the relationship, which you call dependency, works both ways so its more of a blind co-operative - where would the manufactures be without the magazines?
I saw HP ban manufacturers from the magazine for trying to influence a review.
The only thing Stereophile has to sell its magazines is its integrity, as JA points out.
Why would he want to compromise it?
Wholly smokes, using HP as some model of ethics is an utter joke.
This is guy who stole equipment from manufacturers. He was a thief. How much gear was shipped to him at great expense for a promised "review" which never appeared? How much gear did actually review where he outright refused to return it.
How many times did he threaten manufacturers?
Puhleaze.
"This is guy who stole equipment from manufacturers. He was a thief. How much gear was shipped to him at great expense for a promised "review" which never appeared? How much gear did actually review where he outright refused to return it."
That pretty much corroborates what a high-profile reviewer (who once worked for the guy), told me two years ago in a private email exchange. (I was curious about HP at the time.) And, yes, I take your point that it is more than a little ironic for MKULLER to suggest HP was a paragon of virtue. But let's give it a rest where HP is concerned. It's unseemly to beat up on a dead man who can't defend himself.
Mkuller has posted abut HP here for years through rose colored glasses.
Sorry, but kicking the bucket does not preclude the whole story being told.
...through my 15 years of personal experience and the experiences of other writers I know.
As I said, he was not perfect by any means but in my dealings with him he was always ethical and fair.
I live on the West Coast and was removed from the daily workings of the magazine.
I believe the whole story has been told here numerous times before and it all depends on who is telling it.
Like blind men describing an elephant - you appear to be on the tail end.
You don't know the man and can only repeat hearsay about someone who can't defend himself so you pick and chose what to repeat.
Glad you couldn't care less. Please try to.
...HP had his faults (I'm not sure about your claims, though) but letting manufacturers influence the reviews was not one of them.
"He had a large garage full of unreviewed equipment that was never returned. Or equipment would be returned having been seriously damaged by his cats. I was at the house more than once when Harry couldn't be bothered coming down from the home's upper level to greet manufacturers who sometimes traveled from overseas to bring and set up equipment for review.
I remember going upstairs and pleading with him to just come downstairs and say "hello" but for reasons known only to him he wouldn't, though in the evening he'd be happy to be taken out by that same manufacturer for an expensive meal where he'd order embarrassingly expensive wine regardless of the manufacturer's ability to afford it.
The once flush magazine's finances became dire over time as revenue dried up and Harry continued to feel entitled to live large and lavish while those in his employ were late getting paid."
Sounds like a pretty despicable human being to me. Actually sounds like the definition of a scumbag.
(nt)
I could not care less, but enough of the myth of HP. He was a miserable human being.
Guess you never spoke to a manufacturer who did not get there gear back. Or those that were threatened that if he did not get a premier or exclusive review he would "destroy" their reputation.
Yeh. Ok.
Thanks for finally saying exactly what I have heard from numerous manufacturers and others in this industry. I didnt know him personally but have never heard a good thing about him as a human being.
...never one he threatened.
Sounds to me like you care a lot more than you admit - you had to look up those comments you pasted.
You seem pretty angry about something - maybe somebody dumped in your cereal this morning.
In 15 years of working for him he never treated me poorly so I have the utmost respect for what the man accomplished.
Many of us would not be audiophiles if it weren't for him and TAS.
> > maybe somebody dumped in your cereal this morning.
LOL. He's like this every day!
FWIW, during my time at TAS (99-06), I also was never influenced by
any editor or a manufacturer to slant a review one way or another.
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
Why get involved? Unless the grumpy inmate violated some rule why pipe in? You shouldnt take sides nor should you poke fun at an inmate. Why even mention your time at TAS? As if there exists some sort of reviewers fraternity. The fact that reviewers spend so much time earning so little money makes me think they are pretty thick. There are easier ways than becoming a reviewer if you want to smoke for a discount.
> > nor should you poke fun at an inmate.
Says the guy who has had 20% of his posts deleted over his first six weeks at AA.
Also, I wasn't poking fun. I was making a valid assessment, which is easy to support based on specific observable behaviors.
BTW, you might be johns dad, but you're not mine.
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick every day.
—Leonard Cohen
...he has personal experience to discuss relevant to the thread.
Now you are being absurd. My father was purchasing tube amps, reel to reels, and Quad speakers in the 60s ten years before TAS ever exsisted and I can tell you he never read a single issue of TAS period. I became an audiophile through direct exposure.
To credit Pearson with spreading the gospel is a false halo.
Live in your fantasy world.
No anger here. I am on assignment where it is 75 degrees and sunny without a care in the world and I don't eat cereal. lol.
I live in your assignment ........ :)
"What can not be argued is that Stereophile exists to serve the industry because ads, not subscriptions, pay the bills."
I would argue that point. It puts the cart before the horse.
No one would advertise in Stereophile, or any magazine for that matter, if no one was reading, looking at thing.
Subscriptions whether they cover the costs or not is the driving force for ANY magazine. No readers no advertisers it is that simple.
JA does a great job serving his readers.
nt
nt
OK, I guess I don't remember any French restaurants in Peoria.
But there is now!
Link below:
nt
Lucky dog!
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: