|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.244.120.219
In Reply to: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 20, 2007 at 09:37:07:
"I find that many reviews consist of multiple pages of personal "meanderings", seeming attempts to write a novella or other literary work, expressions of personal philosophical views on various subjects, etc. This requires the reader to wade through several pages before he or she gets the gist of the report."I like these meanderings, since they tell me what the reviewer thinks, and what frame of mind he/she is in, and what particular philosophy they are bringing to bear when revieweing a component. Unlike reviewing one mixer/grinder with another, where differences are crude and can be objectively measured, high end audio is a very subjective business, and reading a subjective review without understanding the reviewer may not tell us very much. Consumer Report style, matter-of-fact reviews are useful for products where criteria are more objective and in a sense, more clear cut. THis is true for most consumer items. But not for the more subjective items, of which high end audio is a prime example. Another is wine/whiskey tasting...i really would like to understand where the reviewer is coming from when I read a subjective evaluation.
Follow Ups:
You apparently didn't read my note carefully. - I ACKNOWLEDGED that some readers may enjoy reading such long, meandering discussions. But for others of us who have priorities and limits on our time, a summary of the article would be helpful. - I'm not suggesting an "either or" approach (I wouldn't suggest eliminating the long, philisophical discussion), but rather, a "both and" approach using both formats. For example, if I see from the summary that we are talking about a $50K amp, which I'm not going to consider, I may wish to skim through the article quickly rather than perusing it in detail. If, on the other hand, I determine that it relates to a component that might be of interest, or, an expensive one that incorporates particular technical advances of interest, I have the option of reading the long article slowly and carefully.
Would it offend you in some way for there to be a summary of the reviewer's conclusions, written by the reviewer, in addition to the long, meandering discussion? Does that "cheapen" the publication in some way? You could, of course, skip the summary altogether and go directly to the long discussion.Jim
-------------------------------------------------------
(excerpt from original note)
I find that many reviews consist of multiple pages of personal "meanderings", seeming attempts to write a novella or other literary work, expressions of personal philosophical views on various subjects, etc. This requires the reader to wade through several pages before he or she gets the gist of the report. While some readers may enjoy such articles, for those of us who have some priorities and limits on our time, it would be helpful if there were a clear summary of the review at the beginning of such long-winded discussions
no matter how hard you try....In matters of art, - there is no right and wrong, - and no two people will agree on what makes a "good" component, or a "right" component.
There are far two many variables in tastes, environments, budgets, and preferences to ever come to any kind of "consensus," - ever.This is why blind testing remains relatively useless. More often, we can here differences without a blind test. "Goodness" and "badness" qualities that result from those tests will remain within a unique idiosyncratic, experiential, interpretation...
And finally, - the cost of high end audio equipment has only DECREASED! If you adjust for inflation, and "quality" of gear, - high quality, bang for the buck, gear has gotten cheaper. In the late 60s, - a really good High Fi costs as much as a really good family sedan....
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
In Reply to: Re: Understanding the reviewer posted by Avocat on March 20, 2007 at 11:24:20:
"no matter how hard you try....
In matters of art, - there is no right and wrong, - and no two people will agree on what makes a "good" component, or a "right" component. There are far two many variables in tastes, environments, budgets, and preferences to ever come to any kind of "consensus," - ever."
-- You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. - I didn't ask for a "right" or "wrong" decision, and I don't expect consensus. Instead, I'm merely asking that the reviewer give his honest opinion of the relative merits and cost/benefits of a reviewed component as it compares with others in the same category. - I'm not asking for or expecting an official SF judgement as to what's "best." I also suggested that reviews would be more helpful if they compared several components in the same category, rather than being devoted only to individual components as the are introduced. Incidentally, it's interesting that, as stated earlier, the music reviewers in SF manage to provide rather clear comparisons of the merits of several recordings of the same work, along with their opinions of how the recording under review compares with others. It's also interesting that most of the wine reviews I read manage to come up with comparative, even numerical ratings, wine tasting being at least as subjective as reviews of audio components. Also interesting that judges of beauty contests, dancers, skaters, and even dogs and cattle manage to come up with comparative ratings. In other words, you're repeating the usual mantra, but you're blowing smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------"This is why blind testing remains relatively useless. More often, we can here differences without a blind test. "Goodness" and "badness" qualities that result from those tests will remain within a unique idiosyncratic, experiential, interpretation..."
What you are missing regarding my comments on blind testing is the fact that if the results from a particular test procedure are mixed, vague, or indecisive, that in itself is information that can be of significance to a potential purchaser. - For example, even if one learns that a majority (55%)of experienced listeners (selected by SF of course) preferred component A, but a minority (45%) favored component B, that information would be of interest to audiophiles considering A and B. Further, if and component A sells for $20,000 whereas component B sells for $2,000, that information would be of interest to an audiophile with a limited budget. You are also conveniently ignoring my suggestion that there should be a combination of several forms of evaluation and testing, including blind testing in some form.
----------------------------------------------------
"And finally, - the cost of high end audio equipment has only DECREASED! If you adjust for inflation, and "quality" of gear, - high quality, bang for the buck, gear has gotten cheaper. In the late 60s, - a really good High Fi costs as much as a really good family sedan...."It't true that some modern components selling at reasonable prices can provide good response. But I consider most moderately priced systems to be lacking in either dynamic range, presence, accuracy, or the abilit to produce extended, flat bass at realistic volume levels. IMO, such "entry level" systems, for the most part, don't really provide the sense of excitement and satisfaction that one should expect from a truly "high fidelity" system.
Further, although some smaller systems are available at moderate prices, consider how a novice learns about the subject. For example, a novice picking up Sterephile, TAS, or the like would be shocked at the complexity and the prices. He picks up a copy of this month's Stereophile and learns that to purchase a stereo or surround system he has to choose six or seven components, and select speakers, amps, preamps, decks, even cables from any number of manufacturers. Further, he learns that decent (to him, "Class B or Class C") amps, speakers, decks, etc. sell for thousands of dollars, - (From a novice's perspective, who would want to waste his time and energy buying Class C or D components.) He then glances at the reviews, and again sees various esoteric components most offered at amazingly high prices. Finally, he learns that he can't listen to most of the recommended components at Best Buy or CC.
Again, my suggestion is that if SF or TAS were truly consumer-oriented, they could make some significant improvements.
(nt)
You suggest, in the last line of your post, that *if* SPh or TAS were truly consumer oriented, then there's room for significant improvements.I haven't seen an issue of TAS in a while... so I'll just comment on SPh. It's an audio enthusiasts' journal. They publish their recommended components list twice a year. The writing is top-notch. It's (usually) entertaining and informative. Their record reviews are right on the money.
I think that what you're asking for is Consumer Audio Reports... I don't think TAS or SPh will satisfy that need, but Consumer Reports does review audio equipment, don't they?
I don't try to change the format of Cosmopolitan magazine... I just don't read it!
Maybe he didn't have time to read your long meandering post and was skimming?Anyway SF reviews typically have a Conclusion section, and Soundstage reviews have a Review Summary sidebar, in both casaes what you're looking for it seems.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Nice try, but the post you refer to is anything but meandering.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: