|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.208.31.161
In Reply to: You've missed the point. posted by Rick W on March 15, 2007 at 18:51:42:
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.
Follow Ups:
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: