Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Return to Critic's Corner

Why is audio magazine photography so abstract?

216.70.8.194
Posted on October 22, 2009 at 09:30:51
joeychitwood
Audiophile

Posts: 453
Location: Way Up North
Joined: May 17, 2004
 I've made numerous buying decisions over the years after reading reviews in audio magazines I find the measurements and articles extremely useful in making purchase. However, I've noticed, especially for speakers featured on the cover, that accompanying photos are taken from such bizarre angles or with such distorted features that I have no idea what the item actually looks like.

Appearances are important in audio choices for the home. (Just ask my spouse.) Yet, frequently the photos of audio products in the print mags are almost worthless in evaluating how a speaker would look in my house. While I understand the need to exercise artistic license in print journalism, I'd appreciate more real-world pictures to go with the reviews.

Hi Fi News has always been the Vogue of audio magazines . . . it's too bad our guys . . ., posted on October 24, 2009 at 11:32:36
mr grits
Audiophile

Posts: 14127
Location: Gritsippi
Joined: March 11, 2008
 don't make an effort to put some glam into their usually great reviewing.


Share a bowl of grits with someone you love tonight.
Examples? Nt, posted on October 24, 2009 at 02:34:49
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 Nt
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Some recent examples:, posted on October 24, 2009 at 05:31:54
joeychitwood
Audiophile

Posts: 453
Location: Way Up North
Joined: May 17, 2004
 In the November, 2009 issue, the cover and page 73, Aerial Acoustics 20T V2 speaker. In the October, 2009 issue, the cover and page 121, the Zu Essence speaker. Page 143, the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 USB DAC.

It may not be Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 24, 2009 at 09:29:16
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4320
Joined: August 1, 2001
 Stereophile is constrained by their owners (SourceInterlink, currently) to minimize their operating costs. Therefore they only have their staff photographer shoot one product per issue, which is the cover feature. The rest of the images are supplied by each manufacturer.

I don't have the November issue, so I don't know what the cover product is. But in the October issue, all of the Zu images were shot by Stereophile, while all of the images of the Ayre QB-9 were supplied by us.

So now that you have the "cheat sheet", you know who to blame for which images...

Sorry you didn't like the QB-9 image. We thought it was kind of interesting. But I guess there is no accounting for taste! :-)

RE: It may not be Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 24, 2009 at 11:31:28
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 For the record, this is the ultimate time wasting post. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the photography in Sphile. If anything, I rarely take note That is the ultimate compliment. Like when they say if you don't notice the drummer, that means he is awesome.

Yes, it is Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 24, 2009 at 10:44:54
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 We have been using the same photographer, Eric Swanson, for 15 years. His brief is
to shoot the cover and the photo that goes with the first review. (Other than the first
review, the other reviews are illustrated with photos supplied by the manufacturers, or,
very rarely, with photos taken by Art Dudley or myself.) I very much like Eric's work, so
I guess you could say that it is my fault if someone doesn't like the photos! But we do
try, space permitting, to publish more informative photos within the body of the review.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RE: Yes, it is Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 24, 2009 at 13:46:46
joeychitwood
Audiophile

Posts: 453
Location: Way Up North
Joined: May 17, 2004
 Again, it's not a matter of "liking" the photos or not. I just don't think that the photos which accompany the feature articles give a very good idea of what the component actually looks like. What is the point of the photo if not to inform the reader?

RE: Yes, it is Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 25, 2009 at 07:21:51
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1900
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Again, it's not a matter of "liking" the photos or not. I just don't think that the photos
>which accompany the feature articles give a very good idea of what the component
>actually looks like.

Point noted. Thanks.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RE: Yes, it is Stereophile's photographer, posted on October 24, 2009 at 16:35:26
cdb
Audiophile

Posts: 1703
Joined: April 6, 2001
 Because you can go to the manufacturers' website for further info/photos.
Well then I suppose there's no reason for magazines anymore. We'll read reviews on the internet..., posted on October 25, 2009 at 02:09:08
jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000
 nt

Well then I suppose that's a non sequitur for you., posted on October 25, 2009 at 22:21:36
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4320
Joined: August 1, 2001
 Part of a magazine's raison d'etre is that it is attractive. It is something that grabs your attention and makes you want to pick it up (and hopefully buy it). The photos should be interesting.

A lot of hi-fi gear is pretty boring looking. Just a bunch of boxes. We've been making electronics boxes for over 50 years and speaker boxes for around 80. There are only so many variations on a theme.

I don't see anything wrong with some "artsy" photos in the magazines. If it's something that you want more information on, you will probably go to the manufacturer's website whether the pictures were "artsy" or plain-Jane. So why not make the magazine have some visual interest?

If you want to pick on Stereophile, I would pick on them for their overall graphics layout. They've changed it twice in the last ten years and both changes were virtually unnoticeable.

TAS made a bunch of changes in the last ten years. Some of them were disasters and were changed pronto, as they were confusing and the text looked like ads. It's OK now though. I love Hi-Fi+'s old look, but apparently the amount of white space was too expensive to maintain.

There are probably budget constraints, especially given the economy. But if I could wave a magic wand, I would re-do the graphic layout of Stereophile. Heck, I'd make *all* of the photos "artsy" looking. But there's no accounting for taste...

Hold on, posted on October 26, 2009 at 01:11:23
jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000
 Charles,

I do not particularly want to pick on Stereophile. I like reading it a lot. I joined this thread because the original poster raised a question I'd literally just happened to experience myself. It's the first time I look at an audio article and think "what the f***" does the product look like?".

And I think you're misunderstanding my point: I love the artsy pictures which make a boring floorstander look like a sculpture. Heck, I PREFER them too, by far. Actually I was a subscriber to Hifi+ partly because of their artsy pictures and classy lay-out (I don't like their new look). But if you look at Hifi+, however artsy all the picture were, there was always one showing you the full product. Not all of them were close-ups on a volume knob or a ribbon tweeter.

In Stereophile's case, if you look at the article on the Zu Essence, it's impossible to tell what the speaker really looks like. Is it deeper than large? Larger than deep? What does the bottom look like? I don't think it would cost more money to Stereophile to include an overall picture.

The other articles were fine and featured perfectly fine pics. And anyway, it seems John Atkinson got the point: keep bringing us nice stylish pics - even more if possible - just check you didn't forget conveying information in the process.

As far as I'm concerned, this is not a debate between artsy pictures vs traditional ones but between informative vs uninformative.


JB

Remember the old Road and Track?, posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:38:23
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 I loved how there were almost-technical drawings of the cars in the same section as the performance and spec numbers. Wheelbase, height, width, ground clearance, etc... Perhaps JA's measurements section could be accompanied by a couple of overall pics...(I doubt a manufacturer would give out a dimensioned section or plan of their speaker, for example, if the construction and interior configuration were proprietary).

RE: Hold on, posted on October 26, 2009 at 13:36:54
Alan Sircom
Reviewer

Posts: 57
Location: London
Joined: May 27, 2009
 Artsy pictures and classy layouts are economically unsustainable in the English-speaking audiophile world of 2009.

Whether that change in identity has a deleterious effect on sales long-term is too early to say, but short-term at least, the new look has increased - rather than decreased - our readership.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, from cold, windy and wet Englandshire
Alan, posted on October 26, 2009 at 14:14:08
jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000
 I understand and I can only hope Hifi+ will increase its readership whatever its look. As far as I'm concerned, I would rather have paid my subscription a bit more to keep the old look and format but I realize the world doesn't work that way... That's very unfortunate though. I like the fact the old Hifi+ didn't feel "disposable". I actually never disposed of them.
Anyway, best of luck with the new version and your new responsibilities.
JB, from sunny old London

Bingo! [nt], posted on October 24, 2009 at 19:08:00
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 4320
Joined: August 1, 2001
 nt

I have to agree with that: Zu Essence example, posted on October 24, 2009 at 13:57:56
jbcortes
Audiophile

Posts: 754
Joined: July 6, 2000
 First of all, I like Stereophile... But a bit of constructive criticism:

I was reading the issue with the Zu Essence on the cover and kept leafing through the magazine to see what the speaker looked like, other than the cover shot... I couldn't find anything. To the point where I started wondering if I'd skipped a page.

So yes the cover is stylish, but visually, it's rather uninformative. For all I know, the speaker could have lion's feet, or rest on little angels, or more prosaically spikes. No way to know.

I like stylish pics but we should also get some basic ones.

JB
It's not that I don't like the photos..., posted on October 24, 2009 at 09:33:58
joeychitwood
Audiophile

Posts: 453
Location: Way Up North
Joined: May 17, 2004
 ...it's just difficult to get an idea of what the product really looks like. When selling components in a very competitive business like high-end audio, I would think it would be very important to make every effort to give a potential buyer the best possible idea of what the item looked like.

That's something I have never understood that well, posted on October 24, 2009 at 13:22:01
Frihed89
Audiophile

Posts: 8435
Location: Copenhagen
Joined: March 21, 2005
 At RMAF, there are people who come into a room and spend the bulk of their time looking at the equipment from various angles; take pictures of everything and then disappear into the next room.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
RE: Why is audio magazine photography so abstract?, posted on October 23, 2009 at 11:44:09
Spendor Harbeth
Audiophile

Posts: 601
Location: Left Coast
Joined: May 15, 2009
 Simple. Audio Porn. Thrills for old men.

RE: Why is audio magazine photography so abstract?, posted on October 23, 2009 at 09:07:01
zako
Audiophile

Posts: 464
Location: Mo.
Joined: March 29, 2004
 Perhaps a fold out center photo would be better... But then youd complain the staple is in the way.

abstract photos, posted on October 22, 2009 at 15:59:12
hifitommy
Audiophile

Posts: 9503
Location: shaky sylmar calif, orig from buffalo ny
Joined: June 9, 2000
 and their inappropriate placement of them is why i dont buy hifi+. the angles are meant to befuddle you and their placement interrupts the flow of reading.

oh, a couple of those photos are slick in an article but YES, they should be accompanied by more representative ones. enough to elucidate the product being reviewed.

some products like rollerblocks should be illustrated in their intended usage positions. a mere photo doesnt make it and many times, the reviews of such products arent descriptive enough of their implementation.

...regards...tr

RE: Why is audio magazine photography so abstract?, posted on October 22, 2009 at 10:05:08
JustJoe
Audiophile

Posts: 128
Location: Essex
Joined: July 8, 2009
 maybe it's to make you salivate irrationally at the thought of the next bit of gear?

I suspect this goes on in the car industry as well, and for most rown-up toys (not be sexist, handbags and jewelry as well).
Just Joe
Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then it doesn't sound better!
To clarify..., posted on October 22, 2009 at 09:55:56
joeychitwood
Audiophile

Posts: 453
Location: Way Up North
Joined: May 17, 2004
 I obviously don't make a purchase decision based solely on a magazine article. But very often, my interest is piqued by the photographs of a component. I live 220 miles from the nearest high-end audio store, so I start my hunt for audio items in the magazines and reviews. I understand that photos of almost any component can be found online, but I think good photos in a review article are helpful.

RE: Why is audio magazine photography so abstract?, posted on October 22, 2009 at 09:38:26
TubeDriver
Audiophile

Posts: 65
Location: DC
Joined: February 16, 2007
 I would like to see more pictures of components undressed (ie with the top cover removed) so we can see what the part component and layout looks. I agree that a "artsy" closeup picture of a speakers tweeter is not as useful as a full profile shot. I would prefer both pics but if only one is to be used then make it the full profile shoot and not the closeup.

Page processed in 0.329 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]