Critic's Corner

RE: Inaccurate numbers

96.224.189.71

In Reply to: RE: Inaccurate numbers posted by Charles Hansen on May 10, 2008 at 13:18:12

>Part of the deal was that you had to use their printer. In other words, you
>didn't buy the rights to reprint it, you bought actually printed pieces of
>paper. I believe the main reason this was done was so that the magazine
>could make sure that the title and date of the magazine were prominently
>displayed. This ensured that the magazine got some exposure, and also that
>an unscrupulous manufacturer couldn't use an ancient review forever.

This was partly the case. But back in the day when we used to supply
camera-ready artwork (told you it was "back in the day") so that
manufacturers could use their preferred printer, we had a number of
unfortunate instances where the manufacturer altered the film to delete
measurements, graphs, and paragraphs they didn't like. That led us to
a system where we controlled the printing. The usual story of a small
number of "bad apples" messing the system up for everyone else, as the
vast majority of manufacturers do behave honorably.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Follow Ups:

RE: Inaccurate numbers - Charles Hansen 13:37:44 05/10/08 (0)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.