|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.52.250.214
In Reply to: RE: Will some of you guys PLEASE "yIn Suq"??? posted by Isaak J. Garvey on February 07, 2016 at 09:04:48
>Are you seeing what you want to see?
I suspect you are, Mr. Garvey. Perhaps it is time you gave up obsessing
about Stereophile and took up another hobby.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Follow Ups:
There should be a new classification in addition to Audiophile. Maybe "OCD Audio Douche" or..."TroglAudiodyte"
I'm stealing that with the intention of helping it become part of the lexicon.
I'd borrow it but it's too great NOT to steal!
Thanks!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
> There should be a new classification in addition to Audiophile. Maybe "OCD Audio Douche" or..."TroglAudiodyte"
Touché! Well done!
By and large the writers of reviews are writers first, and not engineers. A few (such as Mssr. Atkinson) have a good deal of technical understanding. Many do not and (at least in Stereophile) will couch their copy with disclaimers such as, "the manufacturer claims" or even "a claimed" attribute.
It simply is not realistic to expect skilled writers to also be skilled engineers and/or scientists. When one reads the magazines for a while, one quickly understands the strengths and limitations of each writer. None are gods descended from Mt. Olympus dispensing divine knowledge to the unwashed masses. They are simply people with experience and opinions. A good editor will choose them based on several important virtues:
1) Non corrupt.
2) Not wedded to one "right way" of doing things (eg, "if it is not tubes it cannot make real music").
3) More experience than most readers.
4) Writers who can string words together in a coherent fashion that tells a compelling and engaging story. This engenders readers who will keep buying the magazine for the quality of the writing.
In contrast just look at poorly edited magazines (we don't have to name names, they are obvious upon inspection), where most (if not all) of the above are untrue. At best their writers will meet criteria #4.
Unfortunately they mostly sell their product (the magazine) by employing what is essentially a fear tactic - "My ears are so much better than yours that I can hear things you cannot. My opinions are beyond reproach and above question. Anything I write cannot be disputed.) These writers typically review obscure equipment to which nobody else has access - either by way of poor distribution, or more often due to ridiculously outrageous costs.
If any of their readers actually heard the equipment they reviewed, they would immediately realize that the writers' opinions are simply that - one man's poorly informed opinion, often tainted by under-the-table quid-pro-quo shady dealings and money exchanges.
Perhaps #5 on your list should be something akin to: works hard himself and encourages staff to avoid long standing industry relationships with manufacturers to avoid inevitable subjective bias.
Your opinion regarding the audio press means less than that of a hobbyist for very obvious reasons.
You are painting with a ridiculously broad brush. Name some names and provide specific examples.I subscribe to S'phile and check out a number of e-zines (6 Moons, Stereotimes, PF, Enjoy The Music, Soundstage, Tone Audio, 10 Audio, Hifi+, The Audio Beat, TNT, Dagogo, Stereo Mojo) and never feel any reviewer projects an attitude of "My ears are so much better than yours that I can hear things you cannot. My opinions are beyond reproach and above question. Anything I write cannot be disputed." Exactly who are you talking about?
Damn near every audio manufacturer was obscure at some point, including Ayre. Plenty of equipment reviewed on-line is of European or Asian origin and is available for purchase in those markets.
"Not wedded to one "right way" of doing things (eg, "if it is not tubes it cannot make real music").
What mag/e-zine projects that? None that I'm aware of. Like AA inmates, many reviewers have a somewhat strong personal preference for either tubes or ss. What's wrong with that? JA is one example. His system's been all ss for a long time IIRC, and the overwhelming majority of his reviews concern ss gear.
"....often tainted by under-the-table quid-pro-quo shady dealings and money exchanges."
IMO if you're gonna say things like that you should provide specific proven examples. But the entire hifi "press" has a totally symbiotic relationship with manufacturers/distributors/dealers (like Ayre, for instance). Unlike, say, newspapers (including on-line editions) that have ads from companies/stores etc. producing/selling a wide variety of products (clothes, tooth paste, furniture, cars, appliances etc.), hifi mags depend on ads from ONE industry - the one industry whose products they review.
Yes, I do agree that too many hifi reviewers need remedial writing courses, and some reviewers have very limited experience. But I don't look to hifi publications for good writing, and IMO lottsa "experienced" reviewers are lucky if they can tell an oboe from an English horn.
Edits: 02/11/16 02/11/16
Chris is not letting out "secrets" many webzines allow self promotion, many articles and reviews are akin to infomercials , now you want him to out a quid pro quo by naming the players.
LOL tsk tsk
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: