|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
159.121.203.1
In Reply to: Hidden? posted by Rick W on March 15, 2007 at 23:01:30:
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.
Follow Ups:
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?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: