|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.196
In Reply to: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 20, 2007 at 09:37:07:
>...good system, should be conveniently available at affordable prices to all.>They are affordable much more today than ever before because of the 'trickle-down' of technology and computer-modeling.
You can buy a decent 2 channel starter system for say, $3000 today. People pay more than that for flat screen TVs.
>...a truly consumer-oriented audio publication would, in my view take a very different approach.>
Unless it was entertaining, it would not survive just covering audio equipment, regardless of its approach. There isn't a big enough market. Which is why Consumer Reports covers so many different items.
>A. ...I suggest including at least some reviews (and frank comparisons) of components of the same general type or "family.">
I agree - that's very useful and I don't know why it isn't done more often. Probably the closest is Bob Reina's inexpensive speaker reviews in Stereophile where he does extensive comparisons.
>C. As in wine reviews (which are as subjective and difficult as audio, or more so) information regarding the availability of a particular component and the history and reputation of the manufacturer would be helpful.>You get this info about the audio manufacturers by reading reviews over the period of a few years.
I don't know where you read wine reviews that contain this info but my Wine Spectator only lists the number of cases produced.
>D. ...it would be helpful if there were a clear summary of the review at the beginning of such long-winded discussions.>
Just skip to the end - 'conclusions' section.
>E. If the mag were truly "consumer oriented", I think that more articles suggesting ways to improve and upgrade our audio systems would be appreciated.>
Some of these thing are interesting to a limited number of audiophiles which is why they appear in the magazines from time to time but not on a regular basis.
>F. Lastly, get off the "either or" - "you're for us or against us" syndrome regarding blind testing.>
Blind ABX-type testing is useless for equipment reviews. Its purpose is to determine if there is a 'difference' between two components - not to determine what the difference is. And many think they are unvalidated and useless for even that purpose.
One feature I would like to see is comments on a review by other reviewers. TAS used to do that and both magazine do it on a limited basis or in a follow-up, but reading a second opinion would really be useful for the consumer.
Follow Ups:
You are not the only one who thinks reviews have more weight when there is more than one reviewer involved. Most speakers and some amps are being reviewed by up to 4 reviewers. Several manufacturers and distributors have expressed the same sentiment. The aspect that is very appealing to me is that it takes, to a large extent, the politics out of reviewing. It is pretty hard for 3 or more independent people to have the same influences cast upon them that one individual might. I will confess that it is easier to say something good about a product that is represented by a person I like than it is about product from a person I do not personally care for. It's something I have to watch carefully and not succomb to. And that has nothing to do with ad revenue or anything else of the sort. That is much easier for me to ignore. That is just something I have developed over the past 50 years.The panel review also removes another important aspect, imho, and that is that it gets around the "reviewer as diva" syndrome. Panel reviews seem to focus more on the product than on the reviewer.
I agree than blind testing is not perfect, but niether is any other method of reviewing. We just completed a shootout of 14 different class D, T and gaincard amps. We used blind testing with a panel to accomplish that. Otherwise the logistics would have been horrendous. They already were. And our results will indicate not only that there was a difference, but what the difference was. I do not think such a comparison is worthless. Like any other review, it is just one snapshot, one morsel of info to help people decide.
when one actually buys the piece under test, that is the ultimate compliment that a reviewer can have about a component. Even though some have debated on this, I could care less if the guy (gal) gets a good deal in order to save return shipping, scratch and dent, at cost, whatever. Their buying the product is a statement that it is not only an excellent value, but that it made such a difference in their system that they had to keep it.
that reviewers cannot buy every product they review. I have a pair of speakers I'm reviewing right now that I would love to buy, but I can't.
First off they weigh about 400 lbs each - they are encased in granite. With the large stands filled with lead shot that makes them about 400 lbs per side. Do I want to move those around every time I review another speaker? No...also, they cost about $7k. But that means I could buy them for a lot less, right? No again. They are sold directly so they do not have a distributor's and retail markup. I MIGHT get 10% off. Same with the Halcros I just finished. Should I buy those, too? How about the 2 $10k tables I'm evaluating right now? Ouch. Bill Gates I am not.THe fact is, there are not many components that have been here that I would NOT love to buy, but I have not purchased one. THe funny thing is, the one thing I have purchased is cables - you know, the things that everyone has tons of laying around.
> Their buying the product is a statement that it is not only an
> excellent value, but that it made such a difference in their system
> that they had to keep it.Or they think the product is rubbish but will be able to sell it on at a profit if they give it a glowing review.
How can a consumer determine where a reviewer sits between these two extremes?
Yes, I know some publications have their own extra rules to tone down the extreme I put forward. Just substitute whatever the rules are and the question will still stand until the reviewer plays by the same rules as the consumer. Then your point would indeed be a very persuasive one.
The industry policy is that even if we do buy something, assuming there IS a significant discount which is not always the case (read my post above, we are require to hold onto it for a full year before we think about selling it. The average component depreciates about 40 to 50% in a year, so where is the killing? Ads on Ebay and Agon are not free, either.The time it takes to advertise it, answer questions, negotiate if on Agon or not selling on Ebay, pack it, ship it....all that takes time. Not worth a hundred bucks to me to do on regular basis. I own I financial advisory firm. I can think of many ways to tie up money for a year that will give me much better returns....
(nt)
OK. I take it back. Apparently all you are interested in is needless personal attacks and unwarranted criticism - even when someone agrees with you. And it's not even witty. It's hard to agree with someone who is terminally disagreeable.Have fun. I won't waste my time reading your posts in the future. Too many great people here who are actually involved in writing and publishing whose opinion actually matters.
"Blind ABX-type testing is useless for equipment reviews. Its purpose is to determine if there is a 'difference' between two components - not to determine what the difference is. And many think they are unvalidated and useless for even that purpose."I addressed most of your points in other notes. I would point out that I never suggested (or even mentioned) the use of ABX-type testing. What I am recommended is some form of blind testing, knowing that any will be a compromise. (I'm willing to leave the choice to Stereophile, since any other selection would be immediately attacked.) In any event, please don't put words in my mouth.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: