Home Critic's Corner

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

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Another Inquisition begins :-(


Posted by John Atkinson (R) on March 21, 2007 at 10:37:33
In Reply to: Re: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 08:13:30:


- - John, my original note in this section discussed five or six areas in which I suggested possible improvements in SF. - You seem to be interested only in the blind testing issue, for some reason. What about the other suggestions? - -


>
>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."

Because your readers have been exposed to SF anti-blind-test propaganda over the years, I doubt that these discussions/letters/surveys are very significant. Sales figures (reflecting newstand purchases by non-subscribers unfamiliar with the issue) don't seem very significant. Regarding the poll, the results do seem to suggest a wide variety of opinions. In any event, I note that only 26% of those responding indicated that they didn't care about the subject. Also, many audiophiles seem to equate blind testing exclusively with ABX dbt methodology, with which is often smeared.

Some seem to think that because blind test results are sometimes ambiguous and don't produce a clear "winner" among several cadidates, the tests are meaningless and worthless. To the contrary, results that show differences of opinion or ambiguity amoung certain components can be quite valuable, in that they tell the reader something about the degree of audible improvement he might expect from a particular component, as well as the degree of audible improvement he may get per dollar spent on particular types of components. In other words, disclosing to the reader that the judement of a listening panel was substantially mixed about a particular component, as compared with others, would suggest that perhaps his budget would be better served by the purchase of another type of component about which the panel did discern significant, audible benefits, agreed to by most of the panel. - INCIDENTALLY, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FACTOR MENTIONED IN ANY STEREOPHILE ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT OR DISCUSSED ON THE WEB BY ANYONE OPPOSING BLIND TESTING.


"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."

Thanks. The poll results are interesting, if inconclusive.

> 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...,"

John, get a grip on yourself. - This happens to be an online discussion group, and, in fact, it's the "Critics Corner" secion of AA in which various opinions, questions, and viewpoints are supposedly welcomed. From the comments about my initial note, there does seem to be quite a lot of interest in these issues. Regarding blind testing, there obvioiusly are differences of opinion. But I'm certainly not the only one with such views.

--------------------------
"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 asked whether, in view of the obvious and continuing interest in the subject, Sterephile has ever conducted a scientifically based survey or poll of the opinons of its readers on the subject. - Clearly, you haven't.


"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, you have done a good job of keeping up the circulation of the mag over the years. ( Along with the editors of the Enquirer, Star, Sun, Playboy, etc.) Seriously, for a publication related to such a narrow interest group, SF has done very well, to your credit. Your staff is certainly doing a good job of selling advertising space. Incidentally, how does the revenue break down between subscription income, newstand sales, and advertising revenue. (Not asking for $$ figures, just interested in where most of the income comes from.)

As mentioned earlier, my comments are partially based on some general concerns about the audio and music industries as a whole, and not just the issues discussed above. - Per the discussion in today's Wall Street Journal, incidentally.

Jim




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]