 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.162.12.180
In Reply to: Re: "The bottom line is that good hifi stores don't sell crap." posted by Grant on November 27, 2005 at 20:21:23:
>>Please clarify. Point to the review or reviews where this
>>happened?
Every review in Stereophile for starters. Don't you understand their published review policies?>>Can you legitimately say that a crap component got a good review?
I never said such a thing. I said it appears that 90% of all equipment reviewed gets a positive review and probably 1/2 of them end up in the recommended components list.
>>Which? When? Oh, it's your subjective opinion regarding the nature
>>of a review or events?What's "its"? If all or most of the reviews I read are positive how does that, a positive review, in anyway distinquish any reviewed component as being exceptional? My point is that it doesn't - but it does clearly effect what components many audiophiles consider worthy of purchase and it does effect dealer stock lists. This obviously means, to anyone who is capable of understanding, that mediocre equipment ends up in the recommended components list and on dealer shelves.
>> I travel and visit the country's top dealers _weekly_. Where have
>>you derived your experinece from? A fair question, no? Be specific.Great I don't deny there might be a dozen, maybe two dozen, really good audio dealers in the country. However there are hundreds of audio shops around the country - most of them are pretty lame and IMO many of them are lame because in order to make sales they have to craft their inventory to satisfy buyers who read the magazines.
Do you think there are more than a couple of dozen good audio dealers in this country? Do you deny that most audio dealers stock components recommended by the major magazines? Do you realize that in order for a component to be reviewed a manufacturer has to agree and actively participate?
>>You seem to decry mags as mere marketing tools for Mfgrs.
LOL! Clearly they are and they openly admit it!
>>That we'd all be better off without them and their insipid,
>>conniving ways? I couldn't disagree more.I never said their was anything unhanded or conniving about what they do and how they do it. They have published policies and apparently audiophiles don't read them.
>>Well run magazines keep our hobby active and informed, and allow
>>Manufacturers a venue to advertise (or is that evil?).They allow manufactures alot more than that. They allow certain manufacturers the option and the oppurtunity to use the review process to market their goods. Stereophile's process is skewed to almost insure a positive review (read it and weep) and participation in the process has good potential for a component to end up in the RCL or some other special feature.
>>The more venues for information, discussion, argument and derision
>>the better. A great print or net magazine can keep the hobby going
>>and the dialogue up to date.You mean they provide an oppurtunity for any paricipating manufacturers product to qualify as the hype of the month.
>>They offer informed opinion with historical background, stated
>>bias, preferences and past opinions and reviews. Let's weigh that
>>with a internet review opinion from someone named, um, "Gunther".
>>No context, no system description, no idea whether he's the second
>>cousin of the manufacturer, but because it's --net-- it's more
>>credible? I _know_ this self-marketing nonsense goes on daily on
>>the net.Yada yada! I'm not complaining about the review per se - a competent dealer working with astute audiophiles (laugh) can overcome a bad review. I'm talking about the review policies/process, recommended listings and other special features available to manufacturers playing ball with the magazines.
>>That is patently ridiculous based on my expereience and _requires_
>>you to state specifics- stores, salesman etc. There are extremely
>>few top HE shops in the US I haven't been to, so I am interested
>>in comparing notes?Again I don't disagree that there might be a couple of dozen good audio stores in this country. Do you think there are this many or more or less? Or are you telling me that the top audio shops in the country aren't much different than the average mom and pop brick and mortar audio shop? Or don't you make such a distinction?
Most audio shops I visit don't stock or display anything other than whats advertised or marketed through the major US magazines and far and away most of the equipment stocked is lines that show up in the Stereophile recommended components list.
It's ludicrious for you to base your objection to my comments because you travel to the top audio shops in the country on a regular basis. BFD - I'm not talking about the top audio shops I'm talking about the average shop and the average shop is stocked full of Stereophile recommended components.
Or have you been so busy travelling to the top stores in the country that you are actually so out of touch don't realize what's going on in the average audio shop?
>>Given thee breadth of the RC list, it's hard to be a dealer and
>>represent _none_ of those products, which dilutes your opinions
>>and conspiracy theories to their element--IMO.Please there's nothing about my comments that hints at or suggests a conspiracy. The magazines openly publish their review policies - apparently audiophiles, yourself included, have failed to read them and understand what they mean.
>>What great products missed a review for lack of ads? You offer
>>tons of opinion, but no specifics? Name names and we can get to"Ads"? What are you talking about "Ads"? I never said anything about ads.
Why don't you read Stereophiles and other magazines equipment review policies, the disclaimers on their Recommended Components lists.
THEN REALIZE THAT SOME MANUFACTURERS BUY ADVERTISING AND/OR SUBMIT COMPONENTS FOR REVIEW NOT ONLY TO SELL TO INDIVIDUALS BUT TO SELL THEIR LINES TO DEALERS.
Yes the magazines are a vehicle for equipment manufacturers - this is clear and obvious based soley upon the how the magazines chose equipment for reviews, who does the review and how the manufactures are in the drivers seat.
There is nothing covert or unhanded about it - the magazines publish their policies. You and other audiophiles simply chose to deny the implications and then go so far as to charge those who question or note the reality as conspiracy theorists.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Follow Ups:
I'll ignore the personal shots.> > > "This obviously means, to anyone who is capable of understanding, that mediocre equipment ends up in the recommended components list and on dealer shelves. < < <"
I simply disagree, and asked you for specific descriptions of dealers that are lead by the list, or of inferior components that get good reviews or are on the list and don't belong?
> > > "However there are hundreds of audio shops around the country - most of them are pretty lame and IMO many of them are lame because in order to make sales they have to craft their inventory to satisfy buyers who read the magazines." < < <
Name the stores, any. I can agree that some struggling Mom-Pop stores may try to cherry pick what is sellable, and that they may--wrongly--try to try to stock only SP RC products for inventory. That sales paradigm gives your business a 3-6 month shelf life. My opinion based on experience, is that these stores are gone or so far compromised that no legit company will touch them.
My opinion is, that among the 2-3 dozen top A/V salons in the country, lines are chosen because of value, performance, reliability, delivery and customer satisfaction. Once a preponderance of these dealers have a line and support it, well, the line is more likely to come to the attention of reveiwers, who after all are not so different from the rest of us.
in terms of hobby interest.IMO, great dealers have more of an impact on what gets reviewed than SP does on what the country's best dealers stock--JMHO.
All I asked was for some-any concrete or anecdtodal experience to be shared that can establish shared experience.
You are right, small B/M dealers and start-ups are largely struggling, but it has far less to do with RC's and the like, than it does the internet (Agon) and the shifting nature of the commercial market--HT, IPod's etc.
YMMV.
Regards.
> > I simply disagree, and asked you for specific descriptions of
> > dealers that are lead by the list, or of inferior components that
> > get good reviews or are on the list and don't belong?The list at best is a list of mediocre components. Simply put just participating in the review process has a good chance of resulting in inclusion in the list. As if a manufacturer should consider inclusion in such a list as some kind of honor.
But alas we do have a difference of opinion as can clearly be seen by your display of honor on your website.
> > Name the stores, any. I can agree that some struggling Mom-Pop
> > stores may try to cherry pick what is sellable, and that they may--
> > wrongly--try to try to stock only SP RC products for inventory.
> > That sales paradigm gives your business a 3-6 month shelf life. My
> > opinion based on experience, is that these stores are gone or so
> > far compromised that no legit company will touch them.I already named them all - every high end audio shop in the country except for the top couple of dozen. I have no confidence in any dealer in my area to be able to deliver a good high end solution for either of my two systems. Theres one dealer I trust enough for delivering good value for the dollar systems and affordable real world solutions for audio related issues - but his shop is small and his inventory is very limited. Everyone else just impress me as salesmen not audiophiles.
> > IMO, great dealers have more of an impact on what gets reviewed
> > than SP does on what the country's best dealers stock--JMHO.How far does a manufacturers commitment to taking a full page ad in Stereophile (or a front or back cover) go towards getting a dealer to take on a line?
How easy is it for one of the countries top dealers, a manufacturer or distributor to get a magazine to review a component once the product in a few top shops?
How much easier does it get a line into the smaller mom and pop outlets once a component in a few of the top shops has recieved a favorable review in a major magazine?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
many will notice that the bulk of content and the final paragraph have nothing in common. Over and over again there are performance concerns voiced within the review (but you have to read hard and sometimes between the lines)which are completely ignored in the summary with a glowing recommendation. Some reviewers glow over absolutely everything they listen to and "the best they've heard in this price range" is a cut n' paste phrase. Some companies make exceptional products at a certain cost level which are worthy of review accolades, but it seems that everything under that level is, somehow, off limits to performance crtitcisms (B&W comes to mind). In many reviews all the information is there, it's just not clear. What's clear is that often reviewers hedge their critical bets. I read almost all of the major audio magazines and subscribe to Stereophile (and Home Theater & S&V for video info), just please don't try to convince me their value is anything more than entertainment. Don's right about seeing copies of reviews on a table next to the product in some salons...they're being used to sell the products, magazines know this is done. Anything positve that's said about any product is used for sales, look at the websites, most have a heading "Reviews" to click on. It's unrealistic to believe in magazine neutrality.
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
it's absurd to expect "magazine neutrality." The enthusiast magazines and webzines exist to promote and stimulate enthusiasm for high end audio. But whether anything in high end audio is worth its price (i.e., higher than a Sony Walkman, and usually a lot higher), like all questions of worth, is a matter of subjective taste. That eliminates the possibility of objectivity and neutrality right there.Of course, being an advocate or a promoter does not automatically make one a liar or con artist, especially when the advocacy is fully disclosed. HiFi+, Stereophile and TAS cater to sophisticated readers who demand hard information. But that information will generally be presented in a way that (they believe) is supportive of the industry that butters their bread. I don't have any problem with that, but in any event there is no sense in complaining about it.
> > HiFi+, Stereophile and TAS cater to sophisticated readers who
> > demand hard information. But that information will generally be
> > presented in a way that (they believe) is supportive of the > industry that butters their bread. I don't have any problem with > > that, but in any event there is no sense in complaining about it.Exactly - but there is sense in complaining about it. The fact is that a segment of the industry, ie. the manufacturers who chose the magazines as their marketing vehicles, are the ones paying to have the magazines delivered to our doors practically for free.
The manufacturers wouldn't pay for the magazine and participate with it unless there was something in it for them. If someone thinks that these magazines come to your door essentially for free out of the goodness of the manufacturers heart, or the magazines heart, they've got to be out of their minds. There is a cost and a tradeoff for getting these magazines for free - and it's borne by the selection of components on our dealers shelves.
I used to share your opinion.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
even if there is some truth to it, is that you can always make it in any industry where there is advertising or marketing of any kind. Is Krell overpriced? What about a $400 bottle of 2000 Chateau Lafite? Yes, it's a great wine, but part of that price will always be due to status-seekers, snobs and lemmings who know or care nothing about wine and just want a famous prestige brand (and one that is highly rated by magazines).Are there lesser-known wines that are great but cost far less? No doubt, but once they are discovered by a few cogniscenti, and written up by Robert Parker or Wine Spectator with a 99 rating, Hollywood producers and Wall Street bankers will want to be seen drinking them, and their price will go up. Such are the ways of high end retail.
Why do you suppose John Atkinson wants to know about those supposedly great components you've found that Stereophile has never reviewed? If they really are that good, don't you think he would love to write those up, too, at least if the manufacturers provide review samples?
It isn't a conspiracy or a con game, Don, it's just a competitive business, and there are many that are far worse.
And what it, the major magazines, are is far less than the ideal reference for the cost concerned audiophiles looking for the best sound values for their dollars. In fact their, the magazines in general, very nature makes them a rather poor reference for such audiophiles.I'm not making any claims of lack of sincerity or lack of ethics on the part of any magazine or anyone involved with them and surely I'd never argue that maximize profits is not a worthy pursuit. But sincerity and ethics alone aren't enough to make these magazines useful. They are clearly crafted as marketing vehicles for the manufacturers with nary lip service being paid to the cost is an object audiophile concerned with getting the best value for the dollar. In fact I would and am arguing that these kinds of magazines provide a great disservice to the kind of audiophile I mention above.
> > Are there lesser-known wines that are great but cost far less? No
> > doubt, but once they are discovered by a few cogniscenti, and
> > written up by Robert Parker or Wine Spectator with a 99 rating,
> > Hollywood producers and Wall Street bankers will want to be seen
> > drinking them, and their price will go up. Such are the ways of
> > high end retail.I disagree. There are IMO several low cost components, NAD BEE CDP and the Arcam Arum Beta phono cartridge that are as good or better than many much more expensive components yet they do not or have not experienced dramatic price increases. Why? Simply because they do not cost enough to be taken seriously no matter what anyone says about them.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
I assume you mean the Clearaudio Aurum Beta cartridge, which was in fact reviewed by Stereophile, given a big rave and ultimately a Class B rating in RC, IIRC.I know because I bought one on the strength of the review. (And, please don't anybody tell me that one can go around "auditioning" phono cartridges without just buying them and taking a chance.)
And I was not disappointed, BTW, although at 4x the price my Dynavector Te Kaitora that I replaced it with sounds better. Not "hugely better" but "better."
You're a trip, Don.
I bought one too. It's a very fine cartridge indeed for little money. The fact that I agree with you and we both agree with the list isn't the norm - most of the stuff on the list that I've heard IMO shouldn't be there* and there's a bunch of stuff I've heard that should be there that's not. I can't imagine other audiophiles being so under the Stereophile umbrella as to feel much differently than I do.*Even more so if I was to consider the relative "quality" of the ClearAudio Arum Beta as entry level benchmark into the list.
I've now got a Dynavector XX2 (4 x the Arum price - you must have got a super deal) and for me it's a great cartridge - but if someone else told me they preferred the Arum Beta it wouldn't surprise me.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Actually, I got the Dynavector used from inmate John C.-Aussie for US$1K after he had been trying to sell it for a while. In a fit of trade-up itis, he had replaced it after very little use with something else (I forget what), which, he told me, really didn't sound all that different. I wouldn't ordinarily make a practice of buying a used cartridge, but I know John personally and trust him to have been honest with me about the extent of the use.The Beta S (the version I owned) has a midrange to die for (acoustic piano reproduction is heaven!), and the rest ain't too shabby, either. The Dynavector has a little more bass extension and that "refinement" that seems to go with MCs. However, I could see some people prefering the Beta S because it has a little "punchier" sound than the Dynavector, a quality which is particularly attractive on rock music.
Hi Bruce,
If you want to try a Dynavector that is the real giant killer then try the 17D2MkII. From an engineering and sonic POV it is nearly perfect. Unlike nearly every other MC, it actually has a flat frequency response (no rising top end and no presence dip). Its main claim to fame is that it is simply more accurate and tracks better than just about anything else out there. The only area where it seems to be a bit weak is in channel separation and a low output. However, your speakers likely offer much less channel separation anyway. The fact that it costs "only" $850 is still for me a bit amazing (I think that it is proabably not hand built and that is a large reason why).
Well, I'm happy with what I have and if I find some extra money lying around for the stereo, I'm more likely to spend it somewhere else such as, perhaps, on VPI's SDS power supply.IIRC, my Dynavector came with its own measured response curve, which was ruler-flat. I'll keep your suggestion in mind should I ever have to replace the Te Kaitora. The new price is out of my budget.
That Te Kaitora sure looks like a nicely built machine. I wondered about the frequency response of the higher up models from Dynavector. Based on the way they are constructed, ie. with a longer boron cantilever, I kind of thought that they might measure more like a typical high end MC cartridge with a dip between 2-5Khz and then a big rising top end from the resonance of the cantilever. One of the benefits of using a very short very stiff cantilever is that the resonance is at 100Khz.Obviously most cantilevers have their resonance just outside the audio band. It can give a false sense of air and detail and the dip in the presence region is the same kind of effect you see designed into some "high end" speakers to create a false sense of depth. However, this is not what is on the recording and I find that good recordings have plenty of space and air as it is.
I am glad to hear that the higher up models from Dynavector don't have these falsehoods in them. Perhaps that is why they are so highly regarded?
for "cost concerned audiophiles", believe me. But those glossy color magazines will always focus mainly on the expensive "high end" products, whether its audio, wine, sports cars, watches, sail boats, or any other leisure good. That is the only segment of these industries with the profit margins needed to justify the glossy color ads that support the magazines. Sure, they may feature some bargains (including that NAD CD player you mentioned), but that isn't going to be their main focus.As I said before, no sense complaining. At least you have the internet, which does a lot to level the playing field.
> There is a cost and a tradeoff for getting these magazines for
> free - and it's borne by the selection of components on our dealers
> shelves.
I have been following your argument with interest, Don. However,
you have been avoiding mentioning specific instances where a worthy
product has been ignored by magazines, due to their review
policies, hence not stocked by dealers. Please give an example.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
And I'm just a casual hobbyist!Where were your reviews of the Exposure XVI mono amps or the XIII phono section? How about Neat and Living Voice loudspeakers? How about Origin Live Tonearms? Where are the reviews? Off the top of my head this is some of the stuff I am or was interested in that's not in my local shops. What do we get? We get tons of that recommmended stuff imported/manufactured by everyone's drinking buddy Roy Hall, we get those god-awful and enthusiastically recommended imported Canadian speakers by Totem, PSB and Paridigm backed by Canadian governments advertising dollars (Energy must have a lower mark up cause it unfortunately is no longer around), we get those really quite bad low priced TTs recommended by MF, we get those upscale overpriced gems (often easily equalled or bested by good components costing half as much) produced by Krell, AR, Levinson, Rowland and Wilson. We get the mid priced stuff from Parasound, Adcom that's often on your recommended list but doesn't sound as good as a decent british integrated (of which not surprisingly the pretty half-assed Creeks and the fully assed Rotels are the only one that's been consistently available here).
But why bother asking ME for examples - at least two maybe three times in the last few months I've read reviewers complain how they have a hard time getting manufacturers to send them in components for review.
Why try to put me on the spot? I'm sure if other audiophiles chimed in we could come up with a very large list of great components that were or won't ever be reviewed by your magazine. Why would you try to deny this fact?
1.) Stereophile does not review equipment no one is interested in reviewing.
2.) Stereophile does not review equipment that has too small of a market presence.
3.) Stereophile requires active participation on the part of the manufacturer before it will review a component.
A.) 90% of all reviews reach at least a satisfactory or favorable conclusion.
B.) A large percent, 50%?, of all component reviews, result in inclusion in the recommended components list.
Conclusion -
a.) Considering the Stereophile only reviews a small % of all components manufactured and most of the reviews result in favorable conclusion and a large % of components reviewed result in inclusion in the recommended components list it has to be clear that the average component in the list is mediocre in quality. So a manufacturer of a mediocre components best route for credibility is to advertise and submit components for review in Stereophile.
b.) A casual observer has to realize that far and away most components in the average or normal shop are from manufacturers who participate in Stereophile or TAS marketing plan in one way or another. And since many, if not most, audiophiles rely on magazines or reviews for help in chosing audio components, either for fear of being ripped by a dealer (unscrupulous dealers are often referred to in the magazines) or because they don't yet trust their own ears (reviewers often are claimed to have golden ears or adequete experiences to justify the audiophiles reliance), it's easier for a dealer to rely on the magazine and the reviews to make the sale for them. And since it's easier, and probably more profitable, for the dealer to convince the audiophile that the review is correct, than it is to show them what actually sounds better (and often dealers are just as or more clueless than the audiophile), the better sounding components are shown the door.
Stereophile/TAS making the most mediocre audio equipment appear worthwhile.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
> Where were your reviews of the Exposure XVI mono amps or the XIII
> phono section? How about Neat and Living Voice loudspeakers? How
> about Origin Live Tonearms? Where are the reviews?
We have reviewed a number of Exposure products over the years, just
not the ones you mention. We reviewed the Origin Live turntable with
its tonearm. We haven't reviewed Neat or Living Voice speakers.
Listing just 2 examples hardly seems the "gotcha" you seem to think
it is.
Regarding your examples of brands that have been reviewed in
Stereophile that you don't care for, unless you believe your opinions
should be placed on a higher plane than my reviewers', surely such
disagreement is inevitable in a pastime that arouses passion?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Not to mention those provided by your own reviewers - and I also said if other audiophiles chimed in we could build a substantial list of great equipment that never got a review or a recommendation. Surely I could list other equipment that other audiophiles have complained about not getting deserved reviews but I don't have to rely on the experiences of others to make my point.
> > Regarding your examples of brands that have been reviewed in
> > Stereophile that you don't care for, unless you believe your
> > opinions should be placed on a higher plane than my reviewers',
> > surely such disagreement is inevitable in a pastime that arouses
> > passion?That comment is actually hilarious. Yes my opinion and the opinions of dealers I trust are much more important and on a higher plane than the opinions expressed in your magazine by your reviewers. I'm not surprised you expected me to feel differently because as the guy running the show that publishes a recommended components list stuffed full of mostly mediocre audio equipment it's par for the course.
Wow! Shame on me for not bowing at the Stereophile alter and realizing that my own opinion is what matters. What's next you gonna prove me wrong by having someone give a component I like a negative review?
Give me rhythm or give me death!
arranged for his own premature demise shortly after recognizing in his 6th Symphony, Op.29 "Pathétique", a profound level artistic perfection that he could never again obtain.I couldn't but help recall this morbid, yet also somehow charming, little romantic legend as I read your post. For surely in your own artistic realm, the Moronic Rant, you're outdone yourself, and there is little doubt that the form will never again witness a more perfect expression.
Thus, as in the case of the Polonaise which was effective exhausted by Chopin's inimitable expressions of near perfection, I suspect we may now consider the Moronic Rant to be an item of historic interest.
Mind you I'm not suggesting you necessarily follow Tchaikovsky's model, but no doubt your fame, and the inevitable romantic tales that will accompany it, can only be assisted by your immediate departure. No doubt also your family members and associates would appreciate the gesture.
Don T. bus as an agreeing passenger, I will say that I find some reviews of small company products in Sam's and Art's columns. I'll agree that the full-fledged reviews are for better known brands generally. I thought I was one of the very few that thought Canadian speakers were mediocre. PSB's are ugly too.
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
