|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.203.74.142
In Reply to: Art Dudley, Listening, Stereophile, March 2007 posted by bjh on February 24, 2007 at 20:53:55:
Tell us how they got every component/accessory in their possession. Its quite possible that long lists of "associated equipment" include many items the reviewer didn't buy and may not even normally use. I want to see a list of what the reviewer thought enough of to spend his/her $$ on and regularly use in their system(s). Want to mention more? Fine, then be forthright and list it as a gift, "manufacturer-abandoned" leftover, "bought-but-no-longer-used" etc.One of the keys to getting a handle on reviewers' tastes is knowing what aural and financial choices they made in putting together their own system. Long lists which include gifts, unclaimed left-overs ("loaners") and old purchases not normally used anymore make it much harder to judge a reviewer's taste relative to our own, and therefore harder to "translate" his/her reviews.
Follow Ups:
...what is it about them that you want to hold them to a higher standard than:Politicians - have you asked all of your Congressional represenatives to provide a list of all of the gifts they have recieved of any value?
How about your local politicians?
Local newspaper journalists?
Businesspeople you deal with?
And then maybe you can list all of the luches, dinners, trips and trinkets you've received from YOUR business contacts.
I expect all those you mention, and many more besides, to carry out their business without accepting bribes.The kind of behavior mentioned in these threads would get you fired in many, many professions, businesses, crafts, etc. My wife works in the securities industry; not only is her on-the-job behavior heavily regulated by the government, but those regs ain't nothing compared to the far more comprehensive and restrictive policies of the company she works for.
The error lies in thinking that reviewers are being held to a higher standard. Nonsense. They're being held to a standard, period, and the bar isn't all that high. I think disclosure would put 99% of the issue to rest.
The juicy stories may reinforce some folks' biases, but I'm guessing that there are as many perfectly ethical reviewers as you would expect to see in the general population. And some bad apples, too.
Why you'd surmise that I haven't written my political representatives complaining about what I view as out&out bribery is beyond me. Hillary, Schumer, Pataki, Bloomberg have received multiple e-mails from me in the past. Ditto for the NY Times. If I suspect or know a biz I deal with is dishonest I stop giving them my $$, tell my friends about it, and if warranted call the BBB.I'm a jazz musician, and I'm lucky if they fed me on the few wedding/Bar Mitzvah gigs I've done in the last 20 years, let alone actual jazz gigs. I've never even received a gift worth more than $25 (bottles of Scotch, which I don't drink) from some big name/big $$ artists I've worked with/for. Trinkets and trips? I was also a NYC cab driver in hard times. Gee, Mike, I don't remember my garage or passengers giving me gifts. Nor did I get gifts when I re-finished furniture at an "antique" store on Columbus Ave. When I taught private music lessons I neither asked for nor received gifts. I ain't giving gifts to Amazon, CD Baby, Jazzloft for listing/selling my cd, and they sure as hell aren't giving any trinkets or trips to me, nor did the recording studio or cd pressing/graphics facility I used. The only gift I give to people/mags/e-zines who've reviewed my cd is the cd itself -- without which there'd be nothing to review -- and a "thankyou".
In case you haven't noticed, this ain't a journalism/business/political forum. Just as it would be inappropriate (and stupid) to write to Hillary suggesting TAS alter its review policies, it would be inappropriate to post here requesting my doctor, local hardware store, or the NY Post to be more open and helpful.
Besides all that.....what the hell is your point? Because corruption and dishonesty is rampant we shouldn't ask audio magazines to be honest, trustworthy, helpful? Somehow I doubt JA would agree with that concept.
What a concept!
Off with their heads!!
Dear Rick,I am not accusing you of bad faith, but, can't you see the Catch-22 or "gotcha" potential in this? "We piped and you would not dance, we wailed and you would not mourn!"
I have returned every bit of all cables with three exceptions. Apogee Digital sent me some raw experimental cable, I paid to have it terminated, they told me to keep it. DH Labs told me to keep some under-$100 retail digital as a reference, and Stereovox told me to keep some under-$50 digital cable as a reference. I returned even the cheapest Nordost stuff-ask Joe Reynolds. All the CPCC power stuff went back. What I have for speaker cables and interconnects is stuff I bought, in some cases at retail.
Preparatory to moving and downsizing radically, I sold or gave away a lot of stereo equipment that had been in boxes forever, I was not going to listen to it again, why pay to store it? The only thing I stored was a Nak 680ZX cassette deck, too cool to sell for $25 or put out with the recycling.
So now, the criticism is not that I can build a suspension bridge with loaner cables, or that I can outfit the Playboy Mansion with stuff on "permaloan" (I am told one European mfr was told my a writer that they should not expect their spiffy new subwoofers back anytime soon), the criticism would be that John Marks does not have a longterm reference system, and therefore his judgments are inherently suspect.
Gotcha!
Again, I am not implying you would act this way, but... .
Cordially,
"I have returned every bit of all cables with three exceptions. Apogee Digital sent me some raw experimental cable, I paid to have it terminated, they told me to keep it. DH Labs told me to keep some under-$100 retail digital as a reference, and Stereovox told me to keep some under-$50 digital cable as a reference. I returned even the cheapest Nordost stuff-ask Joe Reynolds. All the CPCC power stuff went back. What I have for speaker cables and interconnects is stuff I bought, in some cases at retail."Great. But let's be perfectly clear that this says absolutely nothing about the usage of loaner cables (just sticking with the category in question). Let's take Art's disclosure as an example.
In the article he tells us he returned Nordost Valhalla speaker cables last year after a lengthy stay in his system. In the October, 2006 review of the Nordost Heimdall he mentions the Valhalla being in his system for some number of years (3 I believe), and the Heimdall stuff is still currently in his system on loan. So since around 2003 he has had the usage of some very pricey Nordost cable in his system.
Permaloan seems a fit description. However is there a problem with permaloan?... more on this below.
"Preparatory to moving and downsizing radically, I sold or gave away a lot of stereo equipment that had been in boxes forever, I was not going to listen to it again, why pay to store it? The only thing I stored was a Nak 680ZX cassette deck, too cool to sell for $25 or put out with the recycling."
I don't see that what people, you or anyone else, do with their personal property is of much interest. However if you sold stuff that wasn't yours then that would be the end of your SF reviewing career according to John Atkinson's entirely non-ambiguous statement on this topic (in a thread below).
"So now, the criticism is not that I can build a suspension bridge with loaner cables, or that I can outfit the Playboy Mansion with stuff on "permaloan" (I am told one European mfr was told my a writer that they should not expect their spiffy new subwoofers back anytime soon), the criticism would be that John Marks does not have a longterm reference system, and therefore his judgments are inherently suspect."
There is an assumption here that the publication does not have the means to maintain a stock of "reference" items. Let's just assume that is the case, and further let's assume the utility of "permaloan" items to allow for "longterm reference system"(s).
OK, fine, is there a problem? Well it ain't perfect that's self-evident but with disclosure of loaner items the situation is considerably less flawed, i.e. it is then up to the informed reader to make his own judgements (about possible bias, etc.)
Can this be reasonably denied?
I have no interest in criticising a reviewer's system. You do have something you'd call your own system (that you paid for), don't you? Well, I'd just like to know what it is. In your case it'd be interesting to hear about what you chose to keep after downsizing.I'm also not interested in giving anybody a hard time regarding keeping "loaners" or gifts. But listing "long-term loans" and gifts under one big associated equipment list is misleading. Could they afford the loaner/gift -- even with insider discount -- and would they choose something else if they had to spend their own money?
In the real world, whether they have $1,500 or $15,000 to spend, cost/performance ratio is a crucial issue for the majority of your readers. Without distinguishing items *bought* from "loaners" and gifts in associated components lists the reader has no way to know what cost/performance judgements the reviewer has made. How could anyone know if the "loaner" or gift would be a reviewer's first choice if they had to actually pay for it?
If I can get 96 + % out of a 2 K $ amp versus an 8 K $ amp and have the other 6 Gs to upgrade elsewhere, for example to get an extra 5 % in the total sound somehow, I'd give that suggestion some thought. Since most, if not all of us readers are in the 10 - 30 K buck stereo grouping, this prioritization would make some sense. Heck, do enough people actually buy those 30 - 80 K amps to even cover the cost of design. Forget trickle down, the el biggie amps are but the components of several amps operating in parallel or bridged.
Hi-I sold, gave away, or threw out just about everything of mine as part of a decks-clearing exercise. All of it I legally and rightfully owned. The stuff I owned had so long ago been eclipsed by review loaners, there was not much point in hanging on to stuff that had not been out of boxes in years.
The longest loan I ever had was for a continuing series in TAS called "A Stereo for Mr. Stevens," which went about two years, and I had Shahinian Obelisks for about 18 months.
I had the Sound Devices 722 hard disk recorder for about 6 months, and felt bad at having had it so long and not being able to buy it.
All the loaner stuff I have here now is less than 60 days old.
And I needed some XLR to XLR cables, so I went to Guitar Center and paid retail.
However, my friend Bob Saglio has a years-old pair of ASA Babys that I borrowed from him after the ESP Concert Grands went back, and I do consider those if not a "reference" in the way many people think of the term, certainly a benchmark for value for money.
And, if the occasion arose when I wanted to hear the Magnum Dynalab receiver again, I am confident they would oblige me.
In the past week, I attended a rehearsal of the St. Cecilia Choir at Thomas More College, and recorded a 1912/1955/2006 Austin organ using a microphone that was new to me. I think that that adds more value to my writing than having two dozen pairs of cables lying around.
After I get back on track financially, I will buy some stuff, and let people know what it is. But honestly, at this point in my life, were I to win the lottery tomorrow, I'd more likely buy a domestic, house, or chamber organ (4-7 ranks) or a harpsichord, and use the leisure to take lessons and practice, than go crazy with a monster stereo. To paraphrase Clark Johnsen, the more you spend, the more there is to go wrong.
Later,
"And I needed some XLR to XLR cables, so I went to Guitar Center and paid retail."
Hi-My choices were something that looked like a house brand at reasonable money, Monster Cable at a modest premium, Planet Wires at a premium and Mogami at a lot more than one would pay from Markertek. So, largely comparing the XLR connectors, I chose Monster Cable as the best price/looks ratio. Had I not been on a budget I would have gone for Planet Wires. Or rather had I not needed the cables the next day, I would have ordered from Markertek.
I had never used the Pearl TL-44 mic before, so I have no idea of what if anything the balanced cable added or subtracted.
What would a 15-foot pair of Stereovox interconnects cost, I wonder? $10,000? Doubtless a diminishing return!
Later,
Hi John,You may be delighted to know that our Studio line of interconnects offer better value for money than the $10,000 fantasy-pair from your example. A "mere" $1,250.00 retail would buy a 4.5m pair of our Colibri XLR interconnects terminated with Xhadow XLRs.
Should you care to borrow a pair to find out if they work well, we would be happy to lend them.
Chris
P.S. Reference BAL-600 interconnects would only set you back $5,000.00 ... ;-)
%22In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.%22 - Yogi Berra
But I hope you keep writing your columns anyway. Yes, there sure are many other things more important to spend money on -- if you have it to spend -- but I'll be interested to read what hifi products you end up getting later on. Meantime, I hope you do start (or re-start) playing organ. Listening to a good system is certainly enjoyable, but *making* music beats the hell outta hifi.
you know what I mean?
I know a lot of people use reviews to influence their buying decisions. But reviews in many ways are still someone's opinion and they will probably have biases which slightly skew their perceptions. Now with local dealers almost gone, it's even harder to audition and compare gear than it was years ago, when audio dealers were everywhere and there were fewer choices.
Everything I've bought in the last few years has been from distant dealers. I try to be as sure as possible before I order because I hate to return stuff. I was once a commisioned sales guy.
> I'd like to see EVERY reviewer do part of what Art did...Tell us
> how they got every component/accessory in their possession.
I posted my list on the Asylum a few years back. I will do so again.
> It's quite possible that long lists of "associated equipment"
> include many items the reviewer didn't buy...
Of course.
> ...and may not even normally use.
No. We try to ensure that everything a Stereophile reviewer lists
in the sidebar accompanying the review is in active use.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> I posted my list on the Asylum a few years back. I will do so again.
I have only listed equipment that is in current use, either in my
listening room or elsewhere in my home. I own other items that are in
storage and haven't been used in a long time. I also haven't listed
samples that I have on loan and are currently under review or
equipment connected with Stereophile's recording activities, all of
which I own. Nor have I listed the small number of "distressed"
review samples that we have in storage but can't be returned to the
manufacturer because they are no longer in business:
Items Purchased:
Linn Sondek LP12 turntable (x2)
Linn Linto turntable power supply
Linn Ekos tonearm
Linn Arkiv B phono cartridge
B&W Silver Signature loudspeakers
Celestion SL6 loudspeakers
Rogers LS3/5a loudspeakers
Mark Levinson No.33 monoblocks
Musical Fidelity M250 monoblock (1, used for speaker measurements)
Mark Levinson No.380S preamplifier
NHT PVC passive preamplifier
Linn Linto phono preamplifier
Mark Levinson No.31.5 CD transport
Ayre C-5xe universal player
Technics DVD-AX10 DVD player
Pioneer 578 universal player
Toshiba DV79 DVD player
Musical Fidelity Nuvista 3D CD player
Mark Levinson No.30.6 D/A processor
Benchmark DAC 1 D/A headphone amplifier
dCS 972 digital-digital converter
Z-Systems rdp-1 digital equalizer
Slim Devices Squeezebox WiFi D/A processor
Apple 30GB iPod
HeadRoom Blockhead headphone amplifier
Sennheiser HD580, HD600, HD650 headphones
Sony MDR-7506 headphones
Power Wedge AC conditioner (x3)
Target and Sound Organization racks
Cables from Canare, Madrigal, Apogee, Power Wedge, Linn
Room Treatments from ASC and RPG
Items on manufacturer-sanctioned long-term loan:
Benchmark ADC 1 A/D converter
Revel Ultima Studio loudspeakers
Mark Levinson No.326 preamp
Mark Levinson No.32 preamp
Classe cdp-202 DVD/CD player
(all of the above are scheduled to be returned in March 2007)
Musical Fidelity X-24K D/A processor
APC S-15 power conditioner (x2)
Ray Samuels Emmeline SR71 headphone amplifier
Ultimate Audio UE5 and UE10 headphones
(I have offered to return these, but they are custom-molded to the
shape of my inner ear, making them useless to anyone else)
Shure E3 headphones
Celestion SL speaker stands (3 pairs)
Cables from AudioQuest, Cardas, Crystal Cable, Ayre, Kimber,
Madrigal, DH Labs, DiMarzio, Stereovox, PS Audio, SynergisticItems on loan that I have asked to pay for but for which an invoice
has not been forthcoming:
Ultimate Audio UE5 and UE10 headphones (see above)
PS Audio P300 Power Plant
Linn Classik receiver
Ray Samuels Emmeline Hornet headphone amplifier
Yamaha @PET receiver
RME & Digital Audio Labs soundcardsI hope this disclosure is found illuminating, and I am sure that all
reviewers can produce similar lists. Note that I don't list
all this equipment in my reviews, only that which was used during the
preparation of any specific review.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Forgot to mention that I have several Shunyata AC cords on loan and a
Hydra conditioner. I also have 20 Ayre Myrtle Blocks that have been
paid for. The Benchmark ADC1 and the Classe CD player have since been
returned.
Just crossing Is and dotting Ts.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi John,< < Mark Levinson No.33 monoblocks > >
Don't you mean No.33H? I think the 33's weigh something like 450 pounds each and require a 230 VAC connection.
< < Cables from AudioQuest, Cardas, Crystal Cable, Ayre > >
Those Ayre cables are actually prototypes that don't sound as good as the production version. If you still use them from time-to-time, we'll be glad to trade them out for you. If they are just gathering dust, I can give them to a friend.
that's fine, it's not like a hand outs of "... trinkets or gifts (screwdrivers, watches, or whatever)" after all!Make certain you throw in a few myrtle blocks, one can never have enough myrtle blocks!
LOL
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> Make certain you throw in a few myrtle blocks, one can never have
> enough myrtle blocks!
Thanks for the reminder. I forgot to mention in my post above that
I have about 20 Myrtle Blocks in my possession that came with various
Ayre review samples. I would be happy to pay Ayre for these, of
course.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> I forgot to mention in my post above that I have about 20 Myrtle
> Blocks in my possession that came with various Ayre review samples.
> I would be happy to pay Ayre for these, of course.
As this seemed such an important issue to you, bjh, you should note
that I have sent Ayre Acoustics a check for these Blocks. I assume
you will now acknowledge that the ethical books are balanced.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> Don't you mean No.33H? I think the 33's weigh something like 450
> pounds each and require a 230 VAC connection.
Yes, No.33H. My error.
> Those Ayre cables are actually prototypes that don't sound as good
> as the production version. If you still use them from time-to-time,
> we'll be glad to trade them out for you. If they are just gathering
> dust, I can give them to a friend.
Sure. I will get them back to Ayre Central. Whose attention do I
need to mark the package for?
I have two generations, BTW, both terminated with XLRs. One very
early pair (0.5m), then a later pair (1m). I had assumed the later
pair are current. If not, then yes, I would appreciate a trade-out.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thanks, John. In your case its a very long list, probably in part because you are both editor and reviewer, and you've been in your position a long time. It'd be informative to see such lists from all your reviewers, particularly a list indicating which components -- of the ones they bought -- they prefer to set up as a system for non-professional listening. That's what your readers do.....make choices based on sound preference and cost.Just telling you what info I feel would be honest, open, and helpful. I'm not trying to rake S'phile (or other mags) over the coals, nor am I canceling my sub.
Hi-I currently have out on loan:
Pearl DS-60 stereo microphone etc.
Pearl TL-44 dual-capsule microphone etc.
Sound Devices 722 hard-disk reorder (new loan of different unit from before)
All going back within 30 daysUltrasone Edition 9 headphones
Ultrasone Pro 2500 headphones
Rudistor RPX-33 headphone amp
Edition 9 + Rudistor going back this week
Pro 2500 going back or to be bought within 90 daysGrace Design m902 DAC/linestage/headphone amp
Lent with the understanding it was to be a major source for the interim, and if the loan goes on for more than several months, I will buy it.Oppo DV970HD universal player
Going back within 30 days# # #
What I wish I'd kept:
Spendor SP-1s
Fried C-3Ls
Fried D2/C2s
Quad 402.5/44/tuner
Denon TOTL TT with massive mahogany base and "PhD" illuminated buttonsLater,
I would appreciate you thoughts some of the other things the poster said, in particular:> I want to see a list of what the reviewer thought enough of to
> spend his/her $$ on and regularly use in their system(s). Want to
> mention more? Fine, then be forthright and list it as a > gift, "manufacturer-abandoned" leftover, "bought-but-no-longer-
> used" etc.Personally I would think it would be very useful to have this information routinely provided in the "Associated Equipment" section of each review.
Perhaps to avoid making this a life's work something as simple as subsections for Owned and Loaned in each category of the "Associated Equipment" list; gifts could go with Owned, such an item prefixed with "(gift)" for example.
True there would be some work gathering the revisions from each reviewer but after that I imagine ongoing changes would be no more onerous that what is required today for the current format.
Once or twice a year, Stereophile could have a special issue, "Equipment to Diet For," in which the writers list all the they were willing to forgo dinner in order to buy.:-)
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> Personally I would think it would be very useful to have this
> information routinely provided in the "Associated Equipment" section
> of each review.
I have listed my own components in another response. Speaking
personally, why I don't mind providing such information, I believe
other reviewers, particularly for other magazines, will not be as
forthcoming. But to do so in the magazine is cumbersome given the
churn in components used and, I believe, unnecessary. Either you
trust a magazine and read it or you don't trust it and you don't
read it.
I also wonder what your agenda is? Art Dudley and Michael Fremer have
mentioned in the magazine what they own, John Marks and I have done
so in this thread, yet you (and others) don't seem able to leave this
subject alone with respect to Stereophile. Why don't you put the
question to the reviewers and editors of other magzines that frequent
this forum before continuing your inquisition of Stereophile's
writers?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If you would prefer to avoid disccusion of certain topics then don't publish thought provoking articles on same in your magazine.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: