|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
159.121.203.1
In Reply to: Why do we care again? posted by Pjay on March 15, 2007 at 09:52:59:
While I am a good boy and I cooperate whenever I can, for the life of me this seemed to be much ado about very little.I think you need to know about my room, my equipment and what is or is not stock or tweeked, so you can evaluate my comments, but beyond that ... if I am going to be swayed by payola (and I keep begging for some, but they just giggle) you are never going to know anyway.
If it is mine, borrowed, or blue ... I am still going to write about it the same way.
For example, I waxed rhapsodic on more than one occasion about the Lindemann 820 SACD player ... but it is still on its way back to Germany ... they may send me an updated model for review, they may not. I really have no idea, and either way, it does not impact what I write.
See ... you all forget about this. Unless I am dumping this stuff on the used market, which would be easy to trace, MY interests are best served by manufacturers sending me their newest ... that way it is Christmas at the Doctor's house, all year long.
Like grandkids, I play with em, and if they stink, I send em home.
As to trusting the ethics of the reviewer ... well, I suppose you will each make that decision for yourself based on following someone over time.
Follow Ups:
Its to help your readers understand what your own biases/preferences are via knowing what you spent your $$ on. See link.
The POINT is about hidden biases. And apparently, the thrust of this is that you can uncover those hidden biases through knowing what I own outright and what I have on loan.I stopped short of saying that this is simplistic, but I will say it now. It is simplistic.
I HATE doing large speaker reviews, so as soon as I find one I can live with, I am settling in and that will be that ... infer WHAT from this decision? I got tired, I finally found nirvana? You still have read what I write about them.
Digital sources are changing so fast remaining at the leading edge will produce poverty.
I quit doing wire reviews as soon as I heard Jena Labs, almost ten years ago, and nothing I have heard since has caused me to rethink that decision for more than a nanosecond.
Point is, and Ms. Kraft adds too ... it is COMPLICATED and what I own I own for various reasons, and what I loan I loan for various reasons.
I am perfectly happy to go along with this, but I just really don't see the benefit.
Hum, maybe I am missing something ...
You sure you read that link?Hate reviewing big speakers? Fine, say so in PF next time you review a pair, exactly as you just did here, or just don't review 'em. Why should I have to "infer" anything? Don't want to spend your $$ on digital sources right now for the reason you stated? Say so in PF next time you review a cdp. Ditto for wire.
What makes you think your readers expect you to own the current "best, cost no object", or want to spend their own $$ trying to keep up with the "leading edge"? Do you really think your readers are such morons that they're incapable of understanding your "complicated" purchasing choices?
Rick Rick ... I am not claiming any unique circumstances.Big speakers are a pain, ask any reviewer. Most of us don't have the luxury of having the factory come set them up. And aging old backs don't mix well with 300 lb. speakers.
Does that effect what or how I write about them ... course not.
The rapid pace of computer (read digitial) change speaks for itself, and yes, I do think that readers expect reviewers who tend to focus on the leading edge, such as yours truly, have mostly current, and arguably commensurate ancillaries. And, I think this is a reasonable expectation. How can I evaluate a new megadollar CDP if the rest of my system is not up to the task? I don't think anyone is interested in reading about what a Boulder 2060 sounds like, driven by a Hafler 101 preamplifier.
I think I have articulated my position on wire a gerzillion times in the past. I don't plan on adding a "standard disclaimer box" to what I write.
It's not that I don't expect readers to understand ... that would be absurd, because these are the same things they face in their purchasing decisions. Well, that, and there isn't all that much to understand.
My point is simple; I just don't know what it has to do with "safeguarding" the review process.
That being said, I have no objection to doing it ... I just don't see the point.
I have a doctor and he has a failing, the inability to realize that patients see him very differently than he sees himself.The same as apparently a problem reviewers have. Some seem to be in complete denial with the notion that a reader can have interests (which are perfectly valid) that are different from those of the reviewer. I suppose it could be called reviewer-centric, but be assured as a reader I want to know what equipment a reviewer owns vs has on loan. (Parenthetically, Art Dudley's April collumn has no associated equiptment listed. Interesting contrast to his March column.)
> Art Dudley's April collumn has no associated equiptment listed.
> Interesting contrast to his March column.
No "gotcha!" Please note that our policy is only to list associated
equipment in full Stereophile reviews, not monthly columns.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"My point is simple; I just don't know what it has to do with "safeguarding" the review process."That's because it ain't the point. You continue to ignore what I actually said and go off on tangents. I outlined the point of listing owned/loaned in the link I included above. It has nothing to do with safeguarding the review process. Its simply a request for info which should help readers better understand reviewers' personal taste, equipment preferences that fit that taste, cost/performance assessments, and to what degree those coincide with our own.
Obviously reviewers - like your readers - have varied amounts of their own $$ to spend on hifi. Some reviewers may be able to purchase a $10,000 preamp, but Sue Kraft can't. Readers who have determined that reviewer X's purchasing power and tastes are similar to their own may well be interested in finding out what that reviewer chose to spend his/her $$ on.
Since you say you have no objection, I hope you'll just provide your editor with a list of your owned/loaned equipment. Leave the point to your readers.
wanting to know what is owned and what is borrowed, you have ignored the fact that your linked post and resultant thread was only one of the many ways to look at bjh's rather whiny initial post, which was in fact about safeguarding the review process...
more important then what a reviewer spends his own money on, is what factors influence recommendations....we just saw an explosion that involved plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc. how can this stuff, plus advertising and more, not effect reviews?
and you continue to miss my point ... causality in loan versus own, but since that point appears to be just annoying you, I will leave off.Of course I will comply with my Editor and dear friend, David Robinson's request ... but one of the things he adores about me is that I NEVER comply without thinking.
Now, you get to do something to show if you are just another nattering nabob, or if you are serious about your point.
After you review my system update, you tell me what specific "conclusions" you can draw from loaned/owned designations, vis a vis, those you draw from my writing.
You say it is useful, then you should very easily and willingly be able to explain what useful conclusions you drew.
I await your insights
So far David shows no bold-face components in your list, indicating no current loaners. Maybe you haven't yet provided him an update.CJ Art 2, Burmeister 011
Ayre V-5xe, Audiopax 88's
MF kW, Art Audio Vinyl Reference
Cary 306, Classe 202
Harbeth HL-5, Avant Garde UnoI've tried to exaggerate for purpose of discussion, but isn't it obvious that such a list of assoc. equip. that doesn't distinguish what you bought from what's on loan won't even tell me if you prefer tubes over solid state, horns over dynamic? Hey, maybe you own 'em all and like the different sound perspectives.
Within each category and price range there are a wide variety of choices. There are a variety of choices within Tubes/SS too. A Cary 98 is certainly a different sounding choice than an Aesthetix Calypso. A Krell sounds different than an Ayre etc. The more hifi products a particular reader has heard the better he/she will be able to judge your preferences relative to their own. I make no claims to be a highly informed expert, but I've heard a fair number of components. Something I read in your column -- if I think our tastes are similar -- may spur me to go hear a product I'm not familiar with. If I think your taste is very different than mine I probably won't bother.
BTW, Spiro, it ain't my job to impress you with my hifi insights. That's your unpaid-except-for-discounts-job. Happily your editor sees the sense in a list that distinguishes owned from loaned, even you don't.
NT
nt
nt
Don't dig insulting crap flung at you? Then don't initiate the flinging, Spiro.
I gave you a perfect opportunity for a substantive discussion ... you review my updated equipment list and tell me what conclusions can reasonably be drawn, because this is YOUR assertion. In other words, put up or shut up.Given that genuine opportunity, you retreated into "Spiro" insults and a snotty statement that you have no obligation to do anything, and my status as an unpaid reviewer (more snotty points).
So be it, but this bait and retreat makes you just another pot stirring cretin with a personality disorder and the net is full to overflowing with them.
You want an adult discussion ... a stand up fight? Then good for you. You want to go toe to toe, believe me ... I will enage in any reasonable discourse.
I will state this for the record. I don't believe anything useful can be discerned from the loan/own status of a piece of equipment in a reviewer's system.
Take the challenge, otherwise you are just another whiner.
"Now, you get to do something to show if you are just another nattering nabob, or if you are serious about your point."That was you in reply to a post of mine which contained no demands, no name calling. What'd you expect in response, a verbal rose with a thankyou note? Think spending time attempting to prove to the great Dr. S that I'm not a "nattering nabob" is a high priority for me?! You're so full of self-importance that you are still making demands as if you are the arbiter of truth/sense/logic, and failing to convince you is proof of idiocy and cretinism. Put up or shutup? Wedge it where the sun don't shine.
No, I didn't post my original suggestion -- which your editor obviously thought had merit and quickly implimented at PF in an even simpler form -- to get into "a stand up fight". The reasons why I think differentiation of owned/loan is helpful were explained in the link and in several other posts.
Loaners? Actually I'd be happy to just see a list of the equipment a reviewer chose to purchase. I'd just assume anything/everything else mentioned in a review was a loaner. I didn't ask for any detailed explanations for the buying choices a reviewer makes, though that'd be informative. If I don't already know, from continued reading of a reviewer hopefully I'll get some idea of things like: what dimensions the reviewer's room has & what's in it; taste in music; listening volume preference; preferences regarding soundstaging, frequency extremes etc. Do you think concepts that may have entered your buying decisions like -- "I need varied equipment to provide synergistic couplings with varied DUR's", "Reviewers need neutral components/spkrs. to properly assess DUR's" -- are beyond the grasp of your readers?
Some reviewers -- and I'm now thinking you may be one of them -- seem to think their idea of "accurate", "neutral", "overly lush", "transient speed", "bloated", "bloom" etc. are universal definitions. The reality is that readers have to get to know a reviewer's perception as it relates to their own, then translate the review. Knowing what a reviewer spent their own $$ on is one of several clues which can aid the translation.
There is nothing else I have to say that'll change your mind. Somehow I'll muddle through life knowing I may not have successfully proved to you that your lame-ass Agnewesque and CJ-ian insults were unwarranted. The last word is all yours.
NT
What the heck is wrong with you guys?? This is a hobby that's fun. How about trying to keep civility intact when debating about it?Rick, here's a quote from one of your early posts, quite a bit higher up from Dr.S's "nabob" comment. Have a read. What kind of tone do you think that puts on a reasonable differing of opinion...
"Do you really think your readers are such morons that they're incapable of understanding your "complicated" purchasing choices?
Price! Like most everyone else here, I can only buy what I can afford. No matter how much I may like a certain component, I can't buy it if I can't afford it. The only thing my loan vs own list would tell you is that I am poor. Not many of us have Mikey money.
Most people with advanced degrees, good careers and a little luck accumulate more wealth as time passes, equity grows, etc. Not me.
I was very wealthy and then nearly lost it all. I still have my hair.
Funny how I never really cared what something cost if I wanted it.
I never thought it would end.
Now I have to watch my cash.
It's made me a much better person than I was before. Now I give more than I take.
And I appreciate everything I have.
Most of the "thing" in everything is not material.
I see the issue as relating to good journalistic practice. Whenever a reporter receives something of value from an interested party, that should be disclosed to the reader.I imagine that a company leaves equipment with a reviewer to get what amounts to free advertising. The product will be included in the reviewer's equipment list and may be mentioned in the article itself as a comparison or benchmark -- if the company is lucky, it will be described as better than the equipment under test.
I understand there are good reasons for the reviewer to accept this "gift" of equipment -- it allows him or her to compare the equipment under review to others like it, and the reader benefits from that. But I believe it to be just good journalism to let the reader know that some of the equipment mentioned in the review was made available by a party with a financial interest in the outcome.
I want to emphasize that this is not a suggestion that you or anyone else would not review fairly -- I'm speaking about good editorial practice in the abstract.
Whuddya think, all your readers are loaded? How can you not get that its of interest to me and plenty of others to know what hifi gear -- within the price range you can afford -- you choose to spend your own $$ on. Fremers purchase (and review) of the Caliburn is of utterly no interest to me, but may well be interesting to somebody with deep pockets. Sue, since I ain't exactly makin' CEO money myself, I'm a lot more interested in your views of products I might actually be able to buy in real life than the latest mega-buck turntable.Assuming you're not a novice and have some familiarity with what's available in the price range you can afford, the IMO the ultimate expression of your opinion is what you choose to pay for. I doubt I'm alone.
I don't have "Mikey money" either. Which make his reviews almost irrelevant to me. We readers of modest means are better served by reviewers operating under similar cost constraints.I propose that abandoning long-term loaner equipment would make the reviews more relevant to the vast majority of readers. The few wealthy reviewers can focus on expensive, edge of the art, cost-no-object systems for wealthy readers. The rest can review value equipment in the more modest systems. Maybe not as fun for the reviewers but better for the average Joe audiophile.
Apparently you overlooked his numerous reviews of low-cost phono stages over the years, along with his periodic vinyl improvement/tweak and cleaning columns, loaded with inexpensive products and methodologies.Or Sam Tellig, who is a notorious "cheapskate", reviewing many other lower-cost amps, preamps, CD players, and speakers over the years.
Yes, they review expensive pieces, but they haven't forgotten good value, nor their readership. My 3 cents.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: