|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: TAS Editor's comments defending the review process posted by uw312@aol.com on May 22, 2004 at 13:08:44:
... to put all rumors the "puff piece" review stories to bed:I would like to see a list of all the items submitted for review in each issue.
My guess is that many pieces are submitted, but few are chosen for a written review (for whatever reason). If the reviewer has a sub-optimal piece of gear to review, it's much easier (and less likely for lawsuits) to decline to review it rather than write a bad review.
Hence the mostly positive reviews we see. The exception may be equipment for which review is demanded by its popularity on other forums and the review just doesn't like.
I would also like to see a "second opinion" on each piece of gear. I find it hard to believe that these magazines don't have the resources to let someone else listen to something for a week or two.
And no, I really don't buy that it takes months to review a piece, unless the reviewer has another full-time job/family/etc.
I don't know how many review for a 'living.' or as a primary pasttime
Follow Ups:
Of course the reviewers had other jobs. Do you think this is a fulltime thing? Only for some of the reviewers is this full-time and certainly not for the majority of the TAS reviewers.
I was the Equipment Manager for Fi Magazine - before Bob Harley was. And I can assure you, very few writers were full time. Fred Kaplan is a reporter/writer who ends up overseas sometimes (well, at least he did back then).
And yes, it does sometimes take "months" to reivew a component, especially if one is going to allow it time to break in, rather than review it when it is possibly still in the process of breaking in. Besides all that, there can be component interactions to think about, too. And they do happen.It's fine if you have an opinion, but how can you go on about a process if you have nothing concrete to go by?
As for the baloney stuff about how components are selected, I think I'd know about that better than most of the people on this site. Components are sometimes selected by: manufacturer contacting magazine; magazine hearing thru grapevine or other manufacturers about a product; company having great track record (i.e. Audio Research or CJ, etc) or just dumb luck. Sometimes reviewers hearing something they want to review becaue they're struck by some trait it evinces.
However, in some cases, if a component is so flawed that to review it would be suicide for the company, the loan is declined (or isn't requested by the magazine). What, you think it would be fun to destroy someone's livelihood by taking the component, writing a scathing review and holding that up as some sort of integrity??? Only a fool would suggest that that be done (and I'm not saying you did). It would be cruel and irresponsible. Especially if someone is just starting out. Didn't Lincoln get rejected numerous times when he ran for office? Not every new product is successful, especially those by small designers who have a vision. Sometimes a designer makes a mistake and he then goes back to the drawing board. It's not unusual for a company to try something and then realize it just won't work. That's how life works. And so, components get sent back. That's irrelevant, because nothing made by man is ever going to be perfect, anyway. So, the "good" reviews are a matter of finding the small imperfections and pointing them out. But the rest of the component's virtues might be -- and especially for a particular price point -- worth bringing to the audiophile community's attention.
I will say that TAS' older writers were much more astute in their assessments of components than the stuff out now. No wonder people think the reviews are 'nice.' I think the same thing. Somebody suggested in another thread that the intercommentary system was great . It was. Look at the interconnect survey in TAS last year. One reviewer loved Nordost Bue Heaven. Then, the other reviewer stepped in and said, yes, it sounds like he said, but it is VERY lean sounding. Now, if there hadn't beeen an intercommentary, that would have gone unnoticed by a great many (potential) buyers. So, now, people with lean systems know not to insert this into their system.
The reviews seems nice because they're short and not very involving and you still don't get much a feel for how it sounds. Nobody has a common language anymore, so 'smooth' can mean anything. It can also mean "smoothed over' as in, the upper midrange is smooth, but it's also dull (and it shouldn't be!).
This is why the whole review process needs a facelift.
I have criticisms , just as many of you do, but I see stuff written here that is nothing more then someone's projection of their own dark side onto the mags and reviewers. I've been associated with a couple of the publications and most of the "guesses" on this forum are completely off the mark, as to how reviews are written. The stuff about Harley is just plain drivel, and I've never met Harley. From what I've heard about Harley from people in the business, he's an upright type. Goes 'by the book' as it were. I did know reviewers who got equipment when they were supposed to go thru me to get it (and I remember the names clearly). And they'd get something and have it for months before I even knew they had it. They were in the majority, however.
The business might have changed since I was in it, but when I was in it, it was pretty honest and direct. Although I do remember some instances...
That line should have read, "...and they'd get something and have it for months before I even knew they had it. They were in the MINORITY, however."
unruljulie wrote:
"I would like to see a list of all the items submitted for review in each issue. My guess is that many pieces are submitted, but few are chosen for a written review (for whatever reason). If the reviewer has a sub-optimal piece of gear to review, it's much easier (and less likely for lawsuits) to decline to review it rather than write a bad review."Unfortunately, it doesn't work quite that way. Products are offered or requested, then a reviewer is usually assigned, and the component is sent to him. He takes a couple of months working with it, is either given a deadline for the review or just submits it - it may or may not be included in a particular issue.
"I would also like to see a "second opinion" on each piece of gear. I find it hard to believe that these magazines don't have the resources to let someone else listen to something for a week or two."
TAS used to do this and it was an important part of the magazine until it changed ownership and was discontinued, most likely for logistical and time reasons.
"And no, I really don't buy that it takes months to review a piece, unless the reviewer has another full-time job/family/etc. I don't know how many review for a 'living.' or as a primary pasttime"
Very few reviewers do this as a full-time job. My guess would be two or three people at TAS and Stereophile are full-time (including the editors who read and edit all the copy) and the rest have other full-time jobs, families, friends and lives.
Here's an exercise - try taking your newest audio component and write a review of it. Be sure to use it with numerous other components and cables to insure you're getting the most performance out of it. Be sure to use musical examples anytime you describe a positive or negative aspect of it's musical reproduction. Write, say, 1500 words and let me know how long it takes.
Regards,
Mike
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: