In Reply to: Re: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 08:13:30:
>What did you discover about the listening abilites of the magazine's
>review team?
That their abilities to characterize small differences under blind
conditions was no different from their abilities to do so
sighted, once interfering factors such as the order of presentation
of the speakers and the effect of the listening position had been
compensated for. In fact, I continue to listen with my writers when
possible, to see if I hear what they describe, though this is
invariably under sighted conditions. I do.
>what was the basis for your conclusion that blind testing reports
>were "unpopular" with your readership?
The usual data: newsstand sales figures, reader's letters, live
feedback from readers at Stereophile shows, surveys on our website.
> since the blind testing issue has been the subject of heated debate
> and ongoing discussion (despite determined efforts to make it go
> away), to what extent have surveys been made of your readers'
> opinins on the subject.
You can find the most recent poll at http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?427. Interesting results, I am sure you will agree.
> Were they worded by independent professionals in the polling field,
> or by your own staff?
Our own staff. But shouldn't you be the one answering these
questions? For example, when you stated that you "think that most
readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing...,"
what research have you done to be able to say that? What polls can
you cite? What market research can you refer me to that shows
that "most" magazine readers would like to see blind tests performed?
So far, all you have done is offer unsupported opinion. Not that I
have any objection to that but it seems curious that you appear to be
doubting my own experience in this matter while not feeling the need
to offer any data of your own.
I should also point out that if I am wrong in my editorial decisions,
the marketplace is quite efficient at conferring the usual
consequence, vide the ongoing failures of editors and magazines who
fail to offer readers what those readers value: the editors of Audio,
High Fidelity, The Audio Critic, etc, all got it wrong, for example.
If I am wrong about this, then ultimately my ability to pay my
mortgage will be compromised :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Another Inquisition begins :-( - John Atkinson 10:37:33 03/21/07 (40)
- Re:discussion continues : Good suggestions seconded - Avocat 10:21:29 03/24/07 (0)
- Re: Another Inquisition begins :-( - Avocat 09:27:45 03/24/07 (1)
- Why so much personal rancor, Avocat?? - robert young 10:09:11 03/25/07 (0)
- Thanks for responding John... - Arvind Kohli 09:42:12 03/22/07 (0)
- Re: Another Inquisition begins :-( - Avocat 12:33:46 03/21/07 (35)
- The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 08:03:58 03/22/07 (32)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - imispgh@yahoo.com 11:06:26 03/22/07 (31)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:15:49 03/23/07 (30)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 18:31:54 03/24/07 (29)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:31:07 03/25/07 (28)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 10:43:35 03/25/07 (27)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 15:56:20 03/25/07 (26)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 01:34:45 03/26/07 (25)
- So, what conclusion can you draw - E-Stat 05:07:26 03/26/07 (24)
- Re: That question has been answered. - theaudiohobby 05:28:15 03/26/07 (23)
- What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - E-Stat 05:41:22 03/26/07 (22)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - theaudiohobby 07:35:55 03/26/07 (21)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - John Atkinson 11:14:34 03/26/07 (13)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 03:35:12 03/27/07 (12)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 03:55:56 03/27/07 (11)
- C'mon, John - E-Stat 07:16:27 03/27/07 (7)
- Re: C'mon, John - theaudiohobby 11:39:05 03/27/07 (5)
- I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - E-Stat 17:35:12 03/27/07 (4)
- Re: I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - theaudiohobby 18:59:11 03/27/07 (3)
- I would say facetious, not malicious. - robert young 15:51:36 03/29/07 (2)
- Thank you - E-Stat 16:21:49 03/29/07 (1)
- You're welcome. - robert young 18:54:40 03/29/07 (0)
- Re: C'mon, John - kerr 07:36:55 03/27/07 (0)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 04:42:55 03/27/07 (2)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 13:14:34 03/27/07 (1)
- Re: It does not work that way... - Avocat 15:18:43 04/01/07 (0)
- The answer being - E-Stat 07:40:54 03/26/07 (6)
- Re: The answer being - theaudiohobby 09:07:46 03/26/07 (5)
- So which is it - answer the question... - mkuller 14:14:02 03/26/07 (4)
- On a related topic... - E-Stat 16:12:37 03/26/07 (3)
- Re: On a related topic... - kerr 04:52:15 03/27/07 (2)
- Yes, Ms. Loken is a fine example - E-Stat 06:04:57 03/27/07 (1)
- A. Slim and None - kerr 06:35:17 03/27/07 (0)
- Inquisin me this - JTimothyA 19:47:59 03/21/07 (0)
- And it continues.... - robert young 14:04:01 03/21/07 (0)