|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.88.232.48
In Reply to: One or two things. posted by Kal Rubinson on March 20, 2007 at 12:06:54:
"We should be able to determine conveniently what's being reviewed, what's different or distinct about the component, the price (E.g., I may not want to spend lots of time wading through a review of a $50K amplifier.), and the gist of what the reviewer thought about the component. Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available.
.........................................Rather than disregarding its readers, Stereophile's reviews generally include a labeled conclusory paragraph (from which you can easily get a quickie insight), comparisons with other components in the paragraphs just before that, a box on the first review page defining the physical details including price and another box listing the equipment used in the review for support and comparison.
As for your other issues, those are editorial policies that I do not determine (although I do not necessarily disagree with those policies).
Kal
There are summary paragraphs and conclusionary paragraphs in the SF equipment reviews. - I was wrong to state otherwise, and was basing my comments on some of the other types of articles. However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. Such information would include the reviewers comments as to other choices available in the same category, and whether the reader could obtain a better value, e.g., with components A and B. - Again, this is a generalization, and I have seen exceptions to the above.I would add that my comments about "meandering" reviews doesn't really apply to yours. I have been impressed with the clarity and informative nature of nearly all of them. (Another exception to the above was the excellent review of the Wagner Ring recording that appeared several months ago. As others have commented, that was an impressive, informative, scholarly article.)
Follow Ups:
"However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component." That's what the rest of the review is for. ;-)
"However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. - That's what the rest of the review is for"
Again, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions and the REST OF THE REVIEW don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. Such information would include the reviewers comments as to other choices available in the same category, and whether, in the reviewer's opinion, the reader could obtain a better value with equivalent performance with components A and B rather than with the component reviewed. - (Again, this is a generalization, and I have seen some
rare exceptions.)I suppose that the concept of providing comparisons and clear recommendations among several candidate components is so foreign to the usual politically correct approach that it somehow sounds heretical, unpatriotic, even treasonable. But, again, I'm speaking of a truly consumer-oriented publication.
True you are, but you have to acknowledge they do making some interesting comparisons. Have you ever noted how often the only comparison is to the earlier model? The new model cures all that that ailed there previous version. The highs are now extended, the mid-range enriched and lean bass is lean no more. However, when one goes back and finds the reviewer's article on the earlier model, none of these "known" weaknesses are even hinted at much less mentions.Then there are the comparisons which go: "the best I have heard . . . in my house", "in this system."
When you think about it, perhaps we are better off without their comparisons.
And that's a field where comparisons are NOT odious, but required to make sense of it all.
Many of the CD reviews are much more forthright than the equipment reviews, IMO.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: