|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.217.206.2
In Reply to: Re: I disagree, ... posted by TomLarson on April 16, 2007 at 20:50:44:
I don't understand why reviewers are not required to be responsible for there own reference system... any other "business person" has to make their investment in their business... actually, a reviewer does not have that much of an investement to make... if I were to go into business for myself (electrician), the Service truck alone would cost $60,000.00.. and that is not including any tools, instruments, etc.
Reviews/reviewers equipment is the way it is for the benefit of the Companies selling their equipment.
Of course, only the companies that get "the best" reviews will have their equipment in the reference system...
Totally obvious to me that this is a huge confict of interest.
Follow Ups:
I think you make a brilliant point with the following:"actually, a reviewer does not have that much of an investement to make... if I were to go into business for myself (electrician), the Service truck alone would cost $60,000.00.. and that is not including any tools, instruments, etc."
Well, with all the money I'm making from reviewing, I'll stop accommodation purchases, but only after I return from my three month around the world vacation, courtesy of the largesse from my reviewing gig.
BTW, please don't tell Dave and David that I'm spilling the beans, just a secret between you and me, okay? They'd be pissed if the world knew how much we were raking in.
Larry Cox
(nt)
Right...huge conflict of interest ...and even that's an understatement. Somebody is making pretty good money publishing mags that publish reviews...maybe it's just prime media that makes I profit, I don't know. But that the mags "can't afford" to buy equipment, especially the big one(s), is a sham. Cut the editor's salary... And if the reviewer is writing for a tiny mag or a ezine thing then it is so obvious to me that the only way they can get equipment to review is to write basically rave reviews. And so what good are the reviews (except to the reviewer, the company and the guilable)? Ive seen people here claim that reviews are supposed to be "entertainment". Insofar as that is their sole purpose, they shouldn't be called reviews. Compare the reviews of (non-audiophile) cds with the reviews of equipment. Few punches pulled in the cd reviews....
Yes.. and earlier when I mentioned "Mobile Fidelity" that was a typo (I just got done making an order for Mobile Fidelity SACD)I meant to type "Musical Fidelity" as in Stereophile magazine... I let my last subscription run out, as, I got sick of almost every issue either a review of one of their products, or Sam Tellig writting an article on it... they were being flooded with letters about the same thing, and Sam Tellig just shoved it in everyones face...
...maybe Martin would sell you TAS. You could become rich...> Somebody is making pretty good money publishing mags that publish reviews...>
Word is TAS hasn't yet made a profit in the 7 or so years he's owned it.
Look at all the good magazines that failed - 'Sounds Like', 'Fi', 'Listener' and many others. The Audio Critic and IAR went web since they couldn't afford to publish.
> ...maybe it's just prime media that makes I profit, I don't know.>
Maybe.
> But that the mags "can't afford" to buy equipment, especially the big one(s), is a sham. Cut the editor's salary...>
I would certainly omit Fi from the list of "good magazines". If you don't think cutting JA's salary would buy much equipment, how is that a justification for the current system of mfg loan, accomodation price, buddies-in-audio? Plus if you did take the reported $1 million he made at the sale of SP, then that would buy a bunch of equipment. And the "somebody" making money that I was referring to, and mentioned in my post, was Primemedia. I guess I should add Sound and Vision because they are probably making money too. The little rags complain they have no money to buy equipment. The big rags complain about the same thing. The intrusion of loaned equipment into the review process cannot help but alter it. (I would say corrupt it). From the mag's point of view--no. From many rag defenders here--no. For the average reader, not looking for just entertainment, but for advice on stereo purchases--yes. And if reviews really are just entertainment, why not relable them as "Information on equipment that has been lent to us"? The claim to impartial reviewing is what sells many many mags. But such reviewing is simply not very often found. You can't have it both ways. Someone says, hey, I see a $300 phono preamp in Class B of Stereophile and I see a $2,500 phono preamp in the same Class. Why should I spend the extra money? Oh,,, well,,,,just because they are in the same class, doesn't mean they are comperable....
(nt)
money changes everything, if its not worth purchasing, its not worth purchasing.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: