 
|
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 |
68.193.127.25
I'm curious as to what prompted Art to write a column about the so-called perks of being an audio reviewer. Seemed like a confessional in the interest of full disclosure. Usually, these come about because someone has questioned someone's ethics. Did I miss something here? Moreover, Art fires a shot at another magazine when he writes:"I can't help but contrast that with my earlier experience on the staff of one of this magazine's would-be competitors, where dinners at three-star restaurants were routinely and overtly demanded--not to mention rare wines, ancient Armagnacs, and the occasional shipment of other consumables, delievered to my desk only because the magazine's owner felt that signing for and opening cartons was beneath him."
Can we assume that he is referencing his experience at TAS and the owner in question has the initials HP? Having been an intermittent subscriber to Stereophile over the years, as I jumped in and out of this audiophoolery, because of other interests and responsibilities, I have always found the writers and reviews to be interesting, informative and fair. Art gives us a laundry list of equipment he owns, has borrowed for reviews and has bought at industry accomodations. Who cares? Unless, someone is questioning his credibility.
Someone in a different post here talks about Stereophile's review policy and the symbiotic relationship between audio mag and manufacturer. Frankly, while on its face, the practice of selective reviewing and reviews that seem to gush over every component, might appear to break the trust, as readers, we have in the magazine's credibility, I actually believe that it is necessary, if we are to get information about this expensive hobby. I'm glad that Art has access to all kinds of equipment, regardless of whether he bought it at a discount, kept it for five months, or get's a watch from Musical Fidelity. (BTW, I'd like one of those.)
It's admirable that Art tells us his equipment experience history. I find Art's column's to be refreshing, outspoken and very literate and I want him to continue to tell it straight for us readers that respect his opinion. So Art, if your credibility is in question, from say, the competition, this one reader says keep doing what you are doing.
In the interest of full-disclosure, I read TAS regularly, as well as other audio magazines. I believe that in this complicated and often subjective hobby especially, it's good to get varying points of view.
Al W.
February 18, 2007
Follow Ups:
At CES a few years ago, I witnessed a well known reviewer for a British publication throwing a hysterical fit at one of the booths of a record vendor. He was going on and on about how that vendor (Classic Records?) had not sent him his "review" copies of records and that he and his publication would stop doing any reviews of their records. The young man at the booth did not miss a beat in "offering" the reviewer a copy of very single record they had at the booth, including stuff that would have been "reviewed" years ago. The reviewer greedily clutched his booty to his chest (about 40 albums or so) in what I thought was a comical display of utter crassness.But, I suppose it was more than that. It was nothing less than extortion. Moreover, the reviewer apparently did not think such a display was craven enough that being discrete was called for. Is such behavior common?
"OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!"There. That should satisfy some of the loathing, torch-carrying, hair-shirted individuals that inhabit these forums.
Oh....my own disclaimer. I've never slept with any reviewer.
Worried about the evaluation? ;-)
So....how do like that lingerie I gave you? You're dashing in lavender.:--]
But thanks for the nice walk around Las Vegas.Kal (dashing as fast as he can)
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. ;~)
nt
Perhaps someone would care to tell me how this post differs from the typical cheap shots (e.g. unsubstantiated claims of corruption, etc.) that are rightly answered with calls of "Put up or Shut Up!"; Srajan Ebaen's reasoned response appears to me a proper admonition yet a good spanking would probably be more fitting!And how does this contribution , from what appears a deranged strutting peacock, that reeks of opportunism bear on the matter at hand?
Sadly I would say that the manner in which certain industry insiders have acted in response to this case of alleged impropriety demonstrates a woeful lack of good sense.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
"Perhaps someone would care to tell me how this post differs from the typical cheap shots (e.g. unsubstantiated claims of corruption, etc.) that are rightly answered with calls of "Put up or Shut Up!"'Agreed. After reading the thread I was reminded of Uma Thurman's comment to John Travolta, from PULP FICTION. "When you little scamps get together you're worse than a sewing circle.” :)
seen it before
OK, you want full disclosure, I'll give you full disclosure. Now, are you any happier?The fact that Art made it readible too, proves again what we all know about him.
clark
"What we all know about him"--he can write? Or some insider thing that not all of us (at least not me) know about him?
s
nt
x
The reason for both Art's editorial and John's "As We See It" is to draw a contrast to the reprehensible behavior at another US magazine.One of the top reviewers at that magazine took a pile of cables worth tens of thousands of dollars that were on loan for review and sold them on Audiogon.
This is the action of someone that is either a crook or someone that expects bribes.
Either way, it is a shitty way to run a magazine. Further, in my opinion it makes the reviewing at that magazine completely untrustworthy.
Neither the editor or publisher of the other magazine seem to care that they have a corrupt reviewer working for them. And apparently nobody on this forum does either.
I do, so I have pulled all of our advertising from that other magazine.
I don't know. I have not been in this biz very long, but I have already heard literally hundreds of horror stories from just about every manufacturer and distriubtor to whom I've had the priveledge of conversing. And it's not ancient history; it seems to be endemic and ongoing.From CES 2007: A publisher brings a reference quality table he'd had for over 6 months with no review back to the distributor, with heavy platter, arm and cartridge in place and sits it down in front of the distributor - AT CES. No boxes, no manuals, no nothing. "Here's your turntable back", he says.
Another distributor sweats because the expensive, custom monoblocs had been with a reviewer for over 6 months with no review in sight. The distributor needs them for display at CES. He gets them back at the last minute, one of them malfunctioning. He can't play them in the room he'd spent thousands on.
Other stories include the "big name" reviewer who sent back a $20k+ table in one box that had originally been packed in thee. The table was utterly destroyed..
A speaker designer tells me his$20k+ speakers got a good review, but when he asked about getting the speakes back, he was put off by excuse after excuse for many onhts more until he gave up, AFRAID he was going "piss off" the reviewer - his words. So he never got them back and the speakers have never again been mentioned in subsequent reviews. What do you think happened to them?
Another very high end amp maker told me he has had 5 pairs of his monoblocks out for over a year - after the reviews were published. He's never gotten them back and is sure they are being used in "someone's" surround system. We are talking 6 figures here.
I have heard similar stories from several others. One designer went so far as to tell me he thought it was an "unwritten rule" that if you got a rave review, you can "say goodbye" to the product.
Hi-end cable manufacturers have had to go to serial numbers because so many of their "loaners" were ending up on Ebay. There is also some counterfeiting going on, too, and that's an additional factor, though counterfeiters can print bogus serials.
There are industry persons who refuse to submit anything for review because of bad experiences they've had with reviewers who wrote reviews based on their own arbitrary expectations rather than a review based on the designer's actual design goals. Designers resent that they are never asked what their design goal is. That is the first question I now ask, based entirely what I have been told. Sure, I have to sometimes dig a little deeper when I get an oblique reply like "To make the best sound for the least money". But the amazing thing I've found is, if I just ask a couple of questions that suggest I am truly interested in what they have to say, audio people will enthusiastically talk your ears off like they are talking about their children.
Now, all these anecdotes are not about TAS, though I have heard plenty of those. I might interject here, that to this day I have still not heard anyone in the industry say anything personally negative about JA. His mag, yeah, but JA, no. In fact, I have heard a lot of very complimentary things about him. My limited interaction with him would lead me to believe it is a well earned reputation. It grieves me to see all the unwarranted slag he endures here, but that's just me. I admire him for how he handles it - much better than I ever could. I have learned a lot from him just reading his posts. JM, too. Two of my audio journalism "heroes".
I said some negative things. I added some positive things for balance. There are many, many GREAT things about and great people in the audio press. They are not all scoudrels.
And...it's not as easy as it looks.
z
That was an excellent well-written summary of high-end audio industry.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
(nt)
I think it is a summary of the bad apples.Or the negligent or self-absorbed.
I have been around the audio business for more than 20 years, and for most of that time been a journalist of some sort or other. I really wish that I could claim that such behavior is representative of only a tiny minority, but while I remain confident that it is a minority, I can't claim that it is a tiny minority. And, BTW, God Bless Matt Lauer for smelling out Corey Greenburg live on national TV before people knew he was in the tank.
Here's a case in point, and I will name names. A few years ago Z-Systems had a hot digital preamp/EQ that could be used in recording, mastering, or in room correction. $12,000, IIRC. When they decided to make a splash in consumer electronics, they lent out six units. I spoke with the president of the company, who told me that many months after the last review had run, the only magazine that had settled up was Stereophile--JA asked if he could buy the unit for his recording and mastering activities, and JA promptly paid the asking price. The other magazines' writers or staffers either did not respond to calls and emails, or promised action that did not happen.
I am sure that eventually, most of the units made it back. I am sure that the TAS unit eventually made it back. But even one not getting back is just plain wrong.
And on the subject of "my friend sold the cables on AUdiogon."
OK, that's beyond stupid, but: what did the "friend" do with the money? Even if it was only $2500 on $10000 worth of cables, that would be a start on restitution.
Oh yeah--here's the insult to injury kicker. The reason the cable manufacturer knows stone cold which cables they were is--wait for it--the manufacturer was the winning Audiogon bidder.
I bet our critic never in a million years would have imagined that the winning bidder was the manufacturer.
I am told that certain manufacturers buy their own stuff at auction both to police dealers selling through sock puppets, and to shore up resale values.
But hell, as long as I am being prolix: How about the boutique classical music label that sent out 14 requested review CDs to classical critics, but then had to reprint the covers due to a typo or a legal glitch, so the "street date" was delayed? That means, no record store or online source had product, the only CDs in the US were the advance critic copies.
ALL 14 REVIEW CDS WENT UP ON EBAY. NOT ONE REVIEW.
"The fraud of men was ever so, since summer first was leafy."
JM
I know of a manufacturer that considered buying back something on Audiogon, not to support the resale value, but to take it off the market to support sales of new equipment. If something is selling cheap on Audiogon, it is hard for the manufacturer and its retail outlets to get people to buy the product anywhere near the listed retail price. This is particularly the case with very pricey and specialized products which only sell a few units a year.
sock puppets....". True.
that, upon being identified as the green thumb big time reviewer wannabe, that manufacturers haven't loaded you up with a bunch of talltales in the hope of having a good laugh when you later make a complete damn fool of yourself?Ever heard the expression "Put Up or Shut Up"?
You're all alone on the big stage now, the audience eagerly waits, now's the time for you to ... Sing Sing Sing!
(ya' got 15 minutes baby, make it count!)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Charles,If someone associated with your company was guilty of misconduct, you'd reprimand that individual or sack him and then do what was in your power to rectify the damage, because it's the right thing to do and because your company's reputation hinges on it.
What suggests to you that this instance elsewhere is condoned, supported, tolerated or otherwise improperly dealt with? I'd think it a bit farfetched to condemn an entire organization for the misbehavior of one employee. Errors of judgment and behavior do happen, unfortunately. You'd expect a suitable response from the company then, of course.
I have no insights into this case except that your strong feelings on it suggest that rather than being the case of an erring individual who should be promptly fired, an entire organization (its editor or publisher in your words) are at fault to properly handle the matter and distance themselves from the wrong doing.
Could it not be that this matter is being dealt with appropriately but internally? Or is it because that individual continues to get published there that it appears to you this misconduct was tolerated without proper consequences?
I'm merely asking this because it seems a bit hard to believe that an established company would be so lax in their response and just 'let it ride'. And unless there was solid evidence that the company at large was indeed neglicent in their response, it would be premature to condemn an entire organization for what one of its -- hopefully now ex -- employees did.
> If someone associated with your company was guilty of misconduct,
> you'd reprimand that individual or sack him and then do what was in
> your power to rectify the damage, because it's the right thing to
> do and because your company's reputation hinges on it.
You addressed this to Charlie, Srajan, but I have a relevant comment
to make. Many years ago, I found out quite by accident that one of my
reviewers had worked out a deal with a manufacturer whose product he
had reviewed so that he could purchase that product. He would
demonstrate the product in his home and for every sale that resulted,
he would receive a commission that would go against the money he still
owed on the purchase.
This behavior didn't affect the review or the magazine, as it occurred
after the event. Nevertheless, the next day, I terminated that
reviewer's relationship with Stereophile, and that is what I would
have done had the reviewer in question in the cable case worked for
me -- if he did what he has been accused of. He has gone on record as
saying that it wasn't him who sold the cables but a friend to whom he
had loaned them. I was also told at the recent CES that the publisher
has since reimbursed the cable manufacturer for the cost of the cables.
A magazine relies on mutual trust between editor and writers and
between itself and its readers. Questionable behavior puts both those
relationships at risk.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"A magazine relies on mutual trust between editor and writers and between itself and its readers. Questionable behavior puts both those relationships at risk."Well said, John. Anything which undermines the integrity of the review process must be avoided. Any member of a magazine staff or editorial group who knowingly violates that integrity, and who is proven to do so beyond reasonable doubt, must be terminated from the publication immediately.
Otherwise, readers are helpless to sort wheat from chaff...a critical function that the free press was founded to help them do.
David W. Robinson
Editor, Positive Feedback Online
I concur wholeheartedly, John. Trust is the commodity necessary to even run a publication where contributors don't work out of a common office in plain sight of the boss. With trust comes the potential for abuse, either deliberately or because of misunderstandings or lower standards by the person thinking (or pretending) he's still on the straight and narrow.The only issue -- or question, really -- I had with Charles' stance was that, *without further information*, it sounded as though the organization was negligent to follow up when the story broke. Your information now suggests that the publisher has made repairs from his end. That at least is encouraging.
Truly, all of us in this field are open to this potential type of abuse. The only thing we can do is to install a no-tolerance policy, make sure our staff is informed to the letter and all its implications and terminate offenders when we find out about transgressions. That's the most troublesome aspect - finding out about it when ill-meaning individuals will work through 3rd or fourth parties and other means to disguise their actions and hide their involvement.
Thanks for throwing this bit of additional info into this thread, John. It dissolves a bit the very uneasy feeling that even the management of a high profile outfit was confused about what the right thing was to do in the wake of the event. Shit, unfortunately, happens from time to time. How quickly and comprehensively one cleans it up then becomes the operative challenge.
< < it sounded as though the organization was negligent to follow up when the story broke. Your information now suggests that the publisher has made repairs from his end. > >I suppose there is some room for interpretation here, but in my opinion not much.
Let's suppose for a moment that we swallow the reviewer's far-fetched story about "saying that it wasn't him who sold the cables but a friend to whom he had loaned them". As a manufacturer, I for one, would not be happy if the gear I loaned for review was loaned to a reviewer's "friend". Especially without my permission. And especially if that "friend" sold the gear. But as I said, that story seems far-fetched to me. I can't imagine that I would loan a "friend" some hi-fi equipment and he would sell it on Audiogon without my knowledge. But maybe I just have higher standards for friendship than do some.
As far as I have been able to determine, there has been no action taken against the reviewer. I don't work at the magazine, so I'm not privy to all of the internal goings-on. But he certainly has not been fired which is what JA correctly did in a somewhat similar situation over a decade ago.
As far as "repairs", I am told that the publisher (not the reviewer) has repaid the manufacturer for the cables. So in some sense, the situation has been "repaired". However, in my opinion there has been a large violation of trust between the magazine and the manufacturer, as well as the magazine and the readers, that has not been repaired. YMMV.
flogging and humiliation off of the table. I agree with Srajan, in that it will no doubt be dealt with and there is no reason to take an entire organization to task over what one person has done.
...that's a pretty flimsy excuse - "a friend I loaned them to sold them" - sorta like the dog ate my homework.The reviewer should be fired, IMO, since his actions resulted in damage to the magazine's reputation and credibility - really the only thing it has.
Back in the mid-1980s, a TAS reviewer who was a professional photographer traded some photography work to a manufacturer for some equipment. The policy was that any equipment purchases had to go through the magazine. The reviewer was publicly fired.
< < Back in the mid-1980s, a TAS reviewer who was a professional photographer traded some photography work to a manufacturer for some equipment. The policy was that any equipment purchases had to go through the magazine. The reviewer was publicly fired. > >Steven Stone, as I recall. I seem to recall HP also firing some other employees for infractions of the rules.
s
...didn't Stone live in Boulder or move there after his incident?Actually I was back in Boulder on the 10th and thought of you as we drove west on Canyon toward the mountains - told my wife your story.
(nt)
With respect to the topic here in general and not your particular post, it's nice to know that there are some publications in this country (none of them, apparently audio publications) who will publish the truth (verified, second sources etc) regardless of having to then face messy legal battles (as a poster above says), regardless of how it affects their "position" in the community, etc. Lots of lofty words in these current posts, but not much follow up in print, in my opinion. Glad that JA fired the guy. Not so glad no one will just lay the facts out. I don't think Im atypical of readers outside the "in group" who would sure like to avoid reading or believing anything said accused reviewer wrote in the future, and who would like to make their own decision as to whether to read or continue to read the mag in question (bleep 'um to paraphrase Hansen, or embrace 'um to paraphrase you).
I really don't get it either. I agree with you. As I said below, the level of indignation and outrage does not calibrate with the whispers and secrecy that follow it. It kind of dulls the senses to the point where one is forced not to care one way or the other.
Unlike some civilian inmates here who say they're gonna abruptly cancel their subscriptions, I see no reason to come to any conclusion at all. No names, no rebuttal or statement from the other "U.S. magazine", no statement from the cable maker. Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for? IMO this should have been kept "inside" until ALL the facts could be ascertained and stated publicly without claiming "legal issues" prevent doing so.
> No names, no rebuttal or statement from the other "U.S. magazine",
> no statement from the cable maker.
Actually, the cable "maker" was telling all and sundry about what had
happened at the recent CES.
> Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no
> action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken
> by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for?
At CES, the reviewer concerned told anyone who would listen that it
was his friend who had sold the cables, not him. The manufacturer
concerned is the one who is telling people that he was reimbursed by
the publisher. But whether or not the reviewer is still working for
the magazine in question, that remains to be seen.
Regarding the anonymity, I regret that this is necessary. I wait to
see if the magazine's editor is going to publicly address this matter.
My point is that according to the tale told by the aggrieved
manufacturer, there appears to be a possible breach of ethics by a
writer for a magazine not Stereophile. Yet contrary to the endless
accusations of improper behavor that are leveled at Stereophile on
a continuous basis without any basis in fact, all you people are
bending over backward not to accuse this other magazine of anything
amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...all you people are bending over backward not to accuse this magazine of anything amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here."
I don't think you were speaking of my posts, as I have never accused Stereophile or any other magazine of any sort of wrongdoing, here or elsewhere. In fact the generous way you and your writers make yourself available here has always pleased and amazed me. I was merely wondering why no one, while raising the hue and cry, will name mames, and, while I appreciate that you say you "regret" that you cannot do so, it will remain a mystery to me why not.
Regards,
I, too, know the names of the cable company and the reviewer. However, I was not party to the transaction, nor was anyone else here. It would be morally and legally inappropriate, if not irresponsible, to comment on what attorneys refer to as "facts not in evidence". Some of what we say on a public forum could turn out to be, at the very least, partially incorrect. Such misinformation could further damage reputations. Rumor and innuendo are rampant, the townspeople are carrying pitchforks and torches, and one magazine is already suffering financially to some degree. Right or wrong, it's their legal and ethical problem to deal with.Regarding disclosure, it is clearly the responsibility and right of the participants to shed light upon these matters, if they choose to do so. We may all be holding our breath for a very long time. Again, we were not direct parties to the transaction.
what color is the "audio wall"?
"If it ain't music, it might as well be a barkin' dog"
I don't believe I have ever posted anything remotely resembling an accusation of unethical or dishonest behavior at S'phile. I disagree with some of your policies but I've never claimed you were dishonest or shady.I asked "Can Charles or anyone from S'phile even state with certainty that no action -- other than reimbursing the cable manufacturer -- was taken by the mag the reviewer works(ed) for?"
So far neither you, Charles, nor anyone else seems to know. If the guy has already been fired then what reason is there to besmurch the mag? If he isn't fired I'd like to hear the rationale for that before I conclude the mag's ethics are egregiously lacking -- which may *be* my conclusion in the end. Do you know that in fact no action will be taken by the mag the reviewer works for?
I would have said the same things were it S'phile, and fail to see a double standard.
< < If the guy has already been fired then what reason is there to besmurch the mag? > >This issue first came to light four or five months ago. (Sorry I can't be more precise, I was in the hospital under heavy medication and don't recall the exact dates.) Yet the latest issue still has articles by the reviewer and still lists his name on the masthead.
In the meantime, there has been enough time for Stereophile to hear about the events (obviously well after the other magazine found out) and write and publish editorials pertaining to this type of behavior. There has also been enough time for the cable manufacturer to be reimbursed.
I suppose that it's possible that there has been some "double-secret probation" type of punishment that has occurred. But as JA pointed out, the cable manufacturer has been open with other industry members about the happenings and he hasn't been given any indication that any other action has taken place.
I personally expect that things will be rectified eventually, but am also disappointed that it is taking this long. However, I understand that there are practical considerations at work as well. To give an example (and not trying to start a fire here, so don't be offended if you support Bush), there are those who believe that Bush 43 has committed several impeachable offenses. However, they are reluctant to make formal charges because (if successful) the successor would be equally guilty. So sometimes a different strategy is called for. Perhaps some similar strategizing is taking place at the other magazine, I don't really know.
z
nt
...is dead.Jim
some might say that the precipitous offing of Saddam Hussein freed him (his legacy) from the stain of far greater crimes against humanity, he *and* his accomplices that is.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Unless the mag's readership is somehow kept in the dark about this episode, I don't know how they could avoid getting rid of the guy. Even if they succeeded in keeping the subscribers ignorant, aren't manufacturers gonna shy away from giving them review samples and ad $$, as have you?BTW -- no danger of offending me with that example of impeachment.
Well, not me re double standard. I would dump the other mag in a moment if I knew for sure what mag it was. I have to guess it's TAS but that could be a bad guess. What I object to is the lack of knowledge on it. I dont go to ces I dont go to your hifi show (although it's a goal) but I do do what? Subscribe (faithfully and long term) to your mag. So I rely on it in some sense for info. What I get on the current topic is that it aint you babe...ok. Who is it? That's the unanswered question. There aren't too many print rags out there...no one here (I gather) reads sensible sound. Like someone above said, hifi+ and TAS are the same. Inner Ear is from Canada and we know Canadians are honest! Positive Feedback isn't print and its editor chimes in, so it's not him. If it were sound and vision no one would care. I dont see Hansen ads in TAS the last couple of months I looked at. So I conclude it's TAS. Other readers of these posts are making their own conclusions and maybe acting on them--ie canceling subscriptions etc. (And even if I had gone to ces, no one would have spoken to me, let alone confided in me!).
"My point is that according to the tale told by the aggrieved
manufacturer, there appears to be a possible breach of ethics by a
writer for a magazine not Stereophile. Yet contrary to the endless
accusations of improper behavor that are leveled at Stereophile on
a continuous basis without any basis in fact, all you people are
bending over backward not to accuse this other magazine of anything
amiss. It seems that a double standard is in operation here."My Gawd!
A "possible breach of ethics by a writer for a magazine not Stereophile" occurs and, if the accounts here are reliable, Stereophile responds with *two* articles in the March edition, and at least one of its reviewers is ranting, albeit speaking for himself only, like Don Quixote ready to take on the ills of the world!
Wow! And if one were to interpret this as grand standing and opportunism, what?, you'll find you whining doubly about a "double standard"?
What a spectacle!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
From the tenor of the 'insider' posts, it seems to me like the facts are clear. But you are right...it's all inuendo and hearsay and gossip at this point AND will lead some (see post above re strategy for figuring it out--which I think is an 'ok' strategy) to cancel subscriptions "in error". But it also seems to me like the fun of being 'in the know' is just too irresistable for those in that position to either keep quiet or proclaim their fact finding finished and publish the results.
Yes, and this 'insider' mentality, when broadened to include various types of players in and around the industry, is a sign of how sick the industry really is.
.. that until the "appropriate" parties involved disclose what actually occurred we are unable to form an accurate opinion.I would think that the publication, supposedly involved, that relys on the largess of its readers, manufacturers of equipment and advertisers as well as stock holders would want to have the sordid mess cleaned up.
Until that is done we are left to personal conjecture and will respond in a variety of ways. Such as pull advertising, cancel subscriptions, no longer submit equipment for review, sell their stock et. al.
While it is true that you should not judge an organization, by the act of one indivdual, that organization will be so judged if it refuses to clear up the matter.
if I only knew which magazine and reviewer. I also would want to have more facts about the "alleged" misbehaviour before making a definitive decision but assure you that if what you state is true, I would never purchase that magazine again.I welcome emails from inmates who can enlighten me, particularly which magazine this is. An email to state that the magazine is mentioned below, is sufficient (and I know it obviously is not Stereophile). My routine monthly purchases include:
1. Stereophile
2. The Absolute Sound
3. HiFi+Many thanks,
DDM
...in print, there's $en$ible $ound.In the early 1980's under John Horan, they were pretty sleazy. I don't much about them currently except that Howard Ferstler writes for them and he's one of the most clueless audio people I know.
And then there are all of the webzines.
< < And then there are all of the webzines. > >I suppose that there are some bad webzines out there, but I've had fine experiences with most of the webzines. The one I've had the most dealings with has been SoundStage, and they have been nothing but honorable. The worst experience I've personally had was with a print magazine.
A video-oriented magazine that had scheduled one of our products for review. We were then informed that there was a change in policy, and only manufacturers that advertised would have their products reviewed. We were mulling this over when the advertising rep called us to pressure us into placing the ad. He assured us that, as an advertiser, we were assured of getting a "good" review. We politely told him no, thanks.
To their everlasting credit, two of their top audio reviewers promptly quit when the new policy was announced.
Apropos of nothing, TAS and HiFi+ are now one, in terms of ownership.
- This signature is two channel only -
And for all the non-yacht buying posters here (which I would assume are the majority, but you never know), your 'headline' is that 'in the know' kind of statement that does no good except to identify you as a yachter.
.
- This signature is two channel only -
I only began purchasing either magazine just a few months ago after a long drought. I do not recall them announcing this in the magazine in the last few months. Is this recent or some time back? Regardless, I was getting ready to be a paid subscriber but not now.
"I do not recall them announcing this in the magazine in the last few months. Is this recent or some time back?"In the above statement, I am referencing the prior post's statement that TAS and HiFi+ are one and the same.
And, I did just cancel my subscription. So, Charlie, there are those who care. I trust your statements enough and assume you would not post about this situation if this infraction had been dealt with by the Magazine owner's or editor(s). If it has been dealt with, the magazine's editor needs to step forth, acknowledge the incident, and what was done to resolve the matter, including if the reviewer is still employed with the magazine, and if allowed to remain, why?
DDM
NT
Might I respectfully ask why the industry insiders who have mentioned the ( jive and improper) actions of the "top reviewer" at the other "US magazine" are so coy about naming that reviewer and that magazine? Not naming names seems incongruous with the outrage and soul- searching this act has provoked. Again, I put the question without malice or irony. It just seems that this would be something a reader/ consumer would find helpful to know.
Regards,
P
s
SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELFA certain so-called editor has previously filed at least two lawsuits which I, in my opinion, which it is both expert and sincere, believe to be frivolous, in bad faith, and abuses of process.
I don't care if the sniveling little psycho excretory bodypart sues me, I'll counterclaim against his ilk and ith and kin and popish minions and do discovery to find out who is making good on all the losses and lots of other good stuff, but, I don't want to draw a lawsuit that drags Primedia into what I say on my own nickel and time. That's all.
The people who need to make business decisions on that bit of data probably know already.
Character is destiny.
Cheerio,
JM
Nice set of posts for those 'in the know'. But clearly not the place to be for 'the rest of us'.
Just check where Charles Hansen (Ayre) ISN'T advertising. :-)
Yeah, I thought of that...but your post now inspires me to at least check the mags I get at home...!
I don't want to start a fight, but I think you are wrong.I think that it is fair to say that from time to time, every writer finds something that really tickles his fancy. I can't deny that I was mightily impressed by the darTZeel amp, the Esoteric X-01, and the Grace m902.
But it is not fair to say that all coverage gushes.
JA measured certain cables MF loved, and found them peculiar if not wanting. The Zanden CD player's QC problems were run up the flagpole with a lantern on them--nothing was swept under the rug.
I loved the ESP Concert Grands, but, if you had read my coverage, you would see that I gave extra attention to the room set-up and bass-loading-design issues. I knew that the CGs' bass performance was going to be controversial, so JA valiantly drove for hours in holiday traffic to measure them in my room. We both worked hard on that, and if there are two words that either of us wrote that aren't fair and balanced, we'd love to hear what you think they are.
Indeed, JA received a 4,000+ word Jeremiad LTE from a member of ESP's Amen Corner, taking me to task for, well, just about everything. As in I totally did not get the speaker and I was unsuited to review it.
Look up my coverage of the J-M Reynaud Arpeggiones. A respectable speaker. Best of the best, regardless of price or practicality? No. So they are not Class A. The next best thing? No. So they are not class B. That leaves Class C. Ouch. I am sure that hurt the importer. I am sorry. But if something is not clearly the best of the best, and not clearly the next best thing, calling it Class C while pointing out what might make it attractive to some people is the only thing that is fair to the readers.
I know that calling somebody's baby less than perfect and adorable does not endear one to the proud parents.
But I strive never to let thoughts of the impact on the manufacturer impinge upon my responsibilities to the readers whose trust I have earned over the past 20+ years.
Cordially,
JM
Re classes in Stereophile. I don't know the price of the speakers you are talking about. But to me (and only to me, I guess) it makes (more) sense that if a component costs more than at least one component (of same type) in a higher class, there is no reason to list in as recommended at all. Why, I ask only myself, would someone (would I) buy a Class B component that is more expensive than a Class A component? If the Class rankings mean anything, they mean that (to me). Reasons I can think of include discounts on price not reflected in list price, local availability, decor, and that's about it. Thanks.
An NHRA drag race is won by the car with the lowest elapsed time. That is a one-dimensional decision matrix.Whether this loudspeaker is preferable to that loudspeaker must involve at least six factors and perhaps a dozen. Most of those factors are subjective--at least in the sense that even though one can measure efficiency, bass extension etc. objectively, where each factor fits in tradeoffs is a subjective personal decision. E.g., the person who pays about $2000 for LS3/5As or clones has made the subjective decision to pass over speakers costing less that go deeper in the bass.
So, as far as I am concerned, that a Class B component costs more than a Class A component does not mean that someone might not prefer the component that ended up in Class B for whatever reason.
And NB, JA has never claimed that all writers have heard and vote on all components eligible for RCL. It is possible I take the cake for covering the greatest number of "off the beaten path" components, and because of that, I often ask JA to follow up on something I think is really really good, or which I think is on the cusp of two categories. I think that the fine print does a good job of letting people know, for example, if a component has only received column coverage and only from one person, versus a full review and more than one other voice.
But the piece only ST or I have heard might be just the ticket for you, while something that has had a full review and in addition WP, MF, and AD have weighed in on, might strike you as a nothingburger.
From that perspective, I agree with JA's inclusive policy.
Cheerio,
JM
> > An NHRA drag race is won by the car with the lowest elapsed time < <Sorry John but that's not correct. A drag race is won by the car that gets to the finish line first. It's quite possible for a slower car to beat a faster car if the slower car leaves the starting line quicker than the faster car and the slower car arrives at the finish line first. The subtlety here is that the timers don't start when the cars are given the green "go" light, the timer in a lane starts when the car in that lane breaks an infrared beam shining across the start. The interval between the green light flashing and when the car moves enough to break the starting beam is called the "reaction time." For example, if car A breaks the start beam .14 seconds after the green light and runs a 6.80 elapsed time while car B sits on the starting line for a tenth of a second longer (.24 seconds reaction time) before moving but runs a 6.72 ET, slower car A wins the race by .02 seconds. Slower cars beating faster cars by virtue of a quicker "leave" is so common in drag racing that the situation has a name. It's called a "holeshot."
Now you can explain how "brackets" work. I nver got those.Second thought, don't bother.
Thanks!
And the same holds true for the recommended components list! (Thanks for the clear explanation of drag racing. It's been a long time since I've thought about it).
I doubt if the majority of readers look at the recommended components list with all these caveats and disclaimers...but I suppose we should,,, and this makes the list much less useful than it used to be or might be. So be it. But in reality, in the reality of people purchasing equipment, not reviewers reviewing it or editors musing on the philosophy of the whole thing, a high rating and a low price almost guarantee a best seller. "Waffle" is the word that comes to mind for me in these kinds of discussions.
I certainly don't believe that Stereophile reviewers gush over all the components it reviews. I hope you read that I give the mag high praise calling it informative, interesting and fair. That would hardly suggest that the reviews are disengenuous. To be fair, however, when was the last time the magazine truly panned a component. I understand that in reading the reviews one must read between the lines to what isn't said to determine whether the component is not favorably reviewed. Incidentally, the post was about Art's column, not your reviews.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
