|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.210.120.70
In Reply to: Huh? posted by Rick W on April 28, 2007 at 12:47:42:
No doubt about it in my mind. Print mags are much better that online rags almost hands down (maybe pos feed is the exception). And the reason does have to do with money to some extent...even if Stereophile doesn't pay some of their writers big bucks (or any bucks) they have the circulation and advertising to pull in equipment for review (even though I think this way of getting equipment sucks--but that's a different matter). Plus there is much expense in putting out a paper rag and so there is an investment there. The paper rags obviously were here first. Anybody can start a web site with very little cash and publish his ideas. This is good and bad. And I don't know about you, but if I was: (1) in a position to write for Stereophile or an onliner; and (2) if I could only read one mag--Stereophile--or one onliner, I would choose Stereophile in a heartbeat. I have noticed through the years that, aside from what I think of the content of Stereophile (and maybe The AS), these guys can write very well. Maybe it's all JA fixing up their prose, but even when they come on line here at AA, their ability with the written word is pretty outstanding...especially compared to some of the on line rags I've encountered. It may well be that the way the Internet serves the hobby is NOT through the proliferation of mags like 6moons etc, but rather, with the forums like this where ideas can be exchanged quickly and on whatever subjects are of interest at the moment.
Follow Ups:
I think in the coming years, you will see web-zines, at least with respect to product, become, at least, as much of a guiding force in the hobby. For example, the web-zines listened to the Gallo reference speakers first, wrote their glowing reviews, then Home Theater and TAS got into the act, and wrote glowing reviews. I suspect that Anthony Gallo is doing pretty well based largely on web-zine coverage.Art Dudley, I believe in his Stereophile review of the Yamamota tube amplifier, credited the web-zines with bringing the product to his attention first. I am sure there are other examples of product first covered by a web-zine, then finding its way to the print magazine.
Most companies start small. Most will have no choice but to go to web-zines first because the magazines will not cover them, for a variety of reasons.
I would agree that the better writers are writing for magazines, and they are generally more authoritative. But I think that in the coming years, web-zines will at least be as relevant as print magazines. And at the end of the day, that is whwat is important in terms of success and accessibility to product. I doubt Krell, Conrad-Johnson look at reviews in terms of proper use of the King's english, as opposed to how many readers are reading about the product.
I read about Gallo in Bound for Sound, which I tend to trust. Then I saw the 'glowing' review on line in a place I do not trust. Then, as you say, TAS (though not HP) raved. Then JA said here something to the effect that there was no point in stereophile reviewing them because anything less than a rave review would hurt Gallo's business. At that point I threw up my hands and decided to keep my Vandertseens (yet again) a little longer.
The point of my post was not whether you "trust" one reviewing source or another, or which writes the most trustworthy review of the Gallo reference. The point of my post was the online web-zines are becoming more relevant in the marketplace, and their relevance will only grow. I used the Gallo as an example of a product that the webzines covered, then the print magazines followed suit. I have no doubt that the glowing reviews Gallo received in the webzines caused the print magazines to take notice.6moons' first review of the Gallo Reference is in April, 2004, TAS in October, 2004, Positive Feedback in November/December, 2004. Home Theater Magazine in December, 2004. Bound for Sound in April, 2005. All positive reviews. The point, however, is that the webzines were the first on the scene. I used the Yamamota amplifier of another example where Art Dudley actually acknowledged the importance of the webzines in bringing the product to the attention of the audiophile community.
And let's not forget that Positive Feedback was a print magazine at one time, that Wes Philips, Arnis Balgalvis, Jon Sunier, Chip Stern, Ken Micallef, Stephen Harrell, I believe Myles Astor, Steve Rochlin, Dick Olsher, Alvin Gold, Steve Guttenberg, and I believe John Gatski, have all written, or write, reviews for print magazines. Did you trust their reviews when they appeared in your mailbox, then stop trusting their review when they were exclusively in cyberspace?
I suspect the chasm is closing between print and webzines. We cannot debate whether you prefer one to the other, but I think that the webzines influence is catching up to print, at least in terms of marketplace relevance, is not in dispute.
And since you brought up the Stereophile/Gallo issue, I am not sure the complete facts will ever come to light. According to Wes Philips, he was impressed enough with the Reference 3.1 at the January, 2006 CES to take a pair home for review. It would therefore appear that Anthony Gallo had no problems with Stereophile reviewing his pride and joy, at least at that point in time. What happened AFTER Wes Philips took them home for review is, in my opinion, still a mystery. Perhaps Gallo reconsidered, but thus far there has not been any answer to indicate that he did. And if he did, would not you think that we are entitled to know?
> let's not forget that...Wes Phillips...[has] all written, or write,
> reviews for print magazines.
Wes Phillips still does write for a print magazine.> since you brought up the Stereophile/Gallo issue, I am not sure the
> complete facts will ever come to light. According to Wes Philips,
> he was impressed enough with the Reference 3.1 at the January, 2006
> CES to take a pair home for review.
As I have told you before, Mr. Garvin, Wes never did receive a pair
of Reference 3.1s for review in Stereophile.
> What happened AFTER Wes Philips took them home for review is, in
> my opinion, still a mystery.
No mystery, as he never had the speakers. As I have now told you
several times.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"As I have told you before, Mr. Garvin, Wes never did receive a pair
of Reference 3.1s for review in Stereophile.""No mystery, as he never had the speakers. As I have now told you
several times."I admit that I had a sneaky feeling you would enter an appearance. First, feel free to call me Jim or James. No need to be formal. Here goes. Wes Philips says that he invites the Gallos home after the 2006 CES. Seems pretty clear to me. Then, in the Stereophile forum, Wes Philips, on May 6, 2006, in response to Florian Otel querying him on when the review would appear (he seemed to also be under the impression that when Wes Philips invites a product to his house, it accepts the invitation), writes that:
"Yes, I'll be taking a look at the Gallo Ref 3s as soon as I clear some previous commitments off the deck. Of course, if JA commissioned more than one review a month from me and stiffed all those other reviewers, I might get there faster.
But, given my inability to catch up with the the audio that's fit to print, maybe not. But the Ref 3s are in my "soon" queue."
Now, seems to me like they are at his humble abode. Or at least he thought they were. Wes Philips did not write that he would "try" to take a look at them soon. He did not write that the magazine was attempting to secure a pair for review. He did not write that he was attempting to get them into the queue. Did he make a mistake? Were they really not at his home, but he thought they were? Does his review queue include product not actually in his home?
Now, I know that you have written that Wes Philips did not take a pair of review samples, and that may be AN answer, and had Mr. Philips himself not stated that he had a pair in his review queue, it may actually be THE answer. The mystery to which I refer is why the reviewer is writing they are in his queue, and that he will be taking a look at them, and then the editor is writing that he never had them.
Who made the mistake? If you reply that Wes Philips made a mistake, that he thought he had a review pair, and was wrong, and that, in fact, he never had a pair at his home, it was all a figment of his imagination, then I guess there is nothing left to write. I presume you will respond. Please tell me why Wes Philips is writing that he has a product in his queue, that he WILL be taking a look at them, in light of the fact that there is nothing to take a look at, and if there is no review forthcoming. Or was "taking a look at them" meant to be literal.
You must admit that your explanation that he never had them for review and his affirmation that they were in his review queue are wholly inconsistent. Unless you think that I am currently in the queue to ride up the Eiffel tower, as I sit and type this in Ohio. Oops, gotta go, the elevator is here.
Philips isn't hard to contact; he publishes his email address on Stereophile's web site.
Wes sez: "What I said was I was impressed enough to request a pair
for review, which I did. Anthony is that rarest of audio
manufacturers, he understands that a single ill-considered word in a
review could be deadly. He told me at CES that he'd love to give me a
pair and he's terrified of giving me a pair, but since he's selling
all he can make right now, his disincentive is more compelling than
his need for the ink."
Anthony is dead right! I ignored this advice when I submitted my Vendetta Phono Preamp to 'The Absolute Sound' many years ago. I got criticized by HP and ultimately lost my business. And before the review, I was selling everything that I could make with lots of happy customers.
now you're an Audio Legend... and if you can just stay clear of CJ and GK you'll remain one :) ... and HP has to stand behind MF and hope he (MF) isn't interested in the odd item!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> > As I have told you before, Mr. Garvin, Wes never did receive a pair
> > of Reference 3.1s for review in Stereophile.
> >
> > No mystery, as he never had the speakers. As I have now told you
> > several times.
>
> The mystery to which I refer is why the reviewer is writing they are
> in his queue, and that he will be taking a look at them, and then the
> editor is writing that he never had them.
With respect, you seem hard of thinking, Mr. Garvin. By "queue," Wes
meant that they were on his list of components to request for review,
not that they were physically present in his home. If he _had_
eventually received the Gallos, he would have reviewed them, but he
didn't, as I have repeatedly and patiently explained to you.
By ignoring my explanations and continuing to insist that there was
something fishy going on, you appear to be calling me a liar, Mr.
Garvin, something that doesn't sit well with me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"By ignoring my explanations and continuing to insist that there was
something fishy going on, you appear to be calling me a liar, Mr.
Garvin, something that doesn't sit well with me."I never ignored your explanation. But you confuse a cursory statement with an explanation. You do not dispute that Wes wrote what he wrote, nor do you dispute that my interpretation of what he wrote is not a reasonable interpretation. I also note that at least one other reader on the Stereophile forum was under the same impression, so the implied characterization that my interpretation is somehow novel or unique is factually incorrect.
This is the first time that you have written that Wes Philip's review queue includes product he does not have on hand, and apparently does not include product for which he has any real commitment to review from the manufacturer. Perhaps if you had been more specific in your past writings in providing an explanation, as opposed to a simple cursory statement that "Wes never had a review pair", this issue would be laid to rest. Perhaps what Wes Philips meant was that he would try to review them, that he was trying to procure a review samlpe, but that is not what he wrote, which is hardly my fault. When someone writes or tells me they will do something, I generally assume they will do it. Not that they might do it. Not that they cannot do it. Your cursory "explanation" that Wes never had the product, in light of his relatively clear and unambiguous writings, was inadequate.
Wes said he was going to do something that he was apparently not capable of doing. I am not suggesting that he did so intentionally, but unless Mr. Philips is want to make representations that he cannot fulfill, I must presume that somebody led him to believe he would be able to fulfill his representation, which he made publically. I presume that he does not publish a representation unless he has, or believes he has, the means to fulfill the representation. I do not know about you, but I do not make representations that I will do something unless I know I will do it.
> > By ignoring my explanations and continuing to insist that there was
> > something fishy going on, you appear to be calling me a liar, Mr.
> > Garvin, something that doesn't sit well with me."
>
> I never ignored your explanation.
So why are you _still_ bringing this issue up, in an unrelated thread?
> But you confuse a cursory statement with an explanation.
It wasn't a cursory statement. It was a clear expression of the
_fact_ that Wes never received review samples of the Gallo speakers,
and _that_ was the reason Stereophile did not publish a review. Why
that wasn't the end of the matter when I first explained it you is
beyond my imagining.
> You do not dispute that Wes wrote what he wrote, nor do you dispute
> that my interpretation of what he wrote is not a reasonable
> interpretation.
It may not have been unreasonable but as I explained to you several
times now, your interpretation was wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous. Why
you continue to insist that you are right is rather sad, in my
opinion.
> Wes said he was going to do something that he was apparently not
> capable of doing.
Perhaps Wes didn't followup on his original request (he certainly has
written many reviews for Stereophile since that time and his schedule
is currently full until the end of the year); perhaps he did followup,
but Gallo felt a review in Stereophile would not be in their best
interest; why does it matter to you? Why does it matter enough, in
fact, that you keep bringing this matter up on multiple Internet
forums and implying that Stereophile has behaved in an underhanded
manner?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"So why are you _still_ bringing this issue up, in an unrelated thread?"Please refer above. I did not bring the issue of Gallo/Stereophile up in this thread. In addition, please note that I did not bring up the issue on the Stereophile cite either.
"It wasn't a cursory statement. It was a clear expression of the
_fact_ that Wes never received review samples of the Gallo speakers,
and _that_ was the reason Stereophile did not publish a review. Why
that wasn't the end of the matter when I first explained it you is
beyond my imagining"Then allow me to explain. I presume that people who make their livelihood using the written word use precisely the words they mean to use. Wes says that he WILL review the speakers. I presume that meant he either had them in house, or that he had a committment from Gallo. I initially object because you, and now Mr. Hansen, argue that this not a reasonable interpretation on my part. Be that as it may, you have explained that Wes never had the speakers in his possession. I accept that now, and did when you first wrote it. What I did not accept was that Wes Philips, which, based upon his writings, seems an honorable man who writes what he means, is honest, and would not intentionally mislead anyone to believe he would review the speakers, when, in fact, he had no such committment and authorization to do so. I earn a living in which people can take to the bank representations I make, and I presume Wes has the same principle.
I presume that Wes used precise terms for a reason. This naturally leads me to believe that someone informed Wes that he would have a pair to review. If he did not get a pair, then someone pulled the rug from under him, unfairly I'd say, in that he publically reported that he would review them. I've never met Mr. Philips, but he does not strike me at the type of person that would report he will do something, and then not. If Gallo initially told him they would supply him a sample, and then elected not to, fine. That is all I would like know. You claim that the review process is transparent. What I cannot figure out is why Wes would say it is coming, not I think it is coming, it may come, I am trying to get a review pair, nada. Therefore, I presume he was given some assurances.
If Gallo pulled a switcheroo, then I would think that they should be taken to task in light of the fact they use a floweringly positive quote from Mr. Philips on their website to sell their product. Maybe they got their quote, and decided not to risk a less than favorable full review. Who knows? But an explanation as to what happened, as opposed to a simple "he never got one", may shed some light here. Certainly, there are differences between "they got lost in transit", and "Gallo decided not to submit samples after they indicated they would" provides more information than simply "they never sent them."
"Why you continue to insist that you are right is rather sad, in my
opinion."Sorry to make you cry. I'll live. See above. I have no doubt that Gallo never sent samples. Why did Wes think he was getting them? Did Gallo tell him they would forward them? Did they then tell him, no dice?
"but Gallo felt a review in Stereophile would not be in their best
interest; why does it matter to you? Why does it matter enough, in
fact, that you keep bringing this matter up on multiple Internet
forums and implying that Stereophile has behaved in an underhanded
manner?"Underhanded manner? Hardly, and I apologize if I have given you that impression. I am asking for some wheat. I'll give you the chaff. Facts, with my supposition, and what I would tell a jury: Wes likes them at CES. Wes "invites" them to his residence. Someone from Gallo, maybe Anthony Gallo himself, tell Wes that they will accommodate his request for a review sample, having supplied, it seems, a sample to every reviewer under the sun. Wes, in May, 2006, tells an interested reader (not me, suprise) that he will be reviewing them when he gets time to do so, still under the impression that Gallo will accomodate his request. Time comes. Gallo, maybe Anthony himself, changes his mind, and decides not to send a sample to Wes. Wes, who has gone out on something of a limb by publically telling a reader that he will review them, now has the proverbial rug pulled from under his feet. Gallo does not send review samples.
Wes confirmed the first two sentences, you the third. Problem is, everything in the middle is the important stuff. Why does it matter to me? I don't know. Maybe as a long time subscriber, I give two shits what Wes thinks about the speakers. I presume that you think I should, since his reviews appear in your magazine. Maybe I think that if a company has misled a reviewer, I, the reader and consumer, should know about this, particularly if the company is using a great quote from the slighted reviewer in its advertising to sell its product.
I think there may be misunderstandings on both ends. For the record, I do not think you or the magazine did anything underhanded, lied, or any such thing. Based upon the cursory facts as I know them to be, it appears Wes was duped. All I want is some of the wheat.
> I initially object because you, and now Mr. Hansen, argue that this
> not a reasonable interpretation on my part.
I believe that part of your ongoing problem, Mr. Garvin, is that
you do not comprehend what others write. I did _not_ say that your
interpretation was unreasonable; instead, while I agreed that it was
reasonable, I repeatedly pointed out that it was wrong.
> Be that as it may, you have explained that Wes never had the
> speakers in his possession. I accept that now, and did when you
> first wrote it.
So has it been such a live issue for you since then? Why did you
write about the "mystery," with the negative connotations that
carries?
> What I did not accept was that Wes Philips, which, based upon his
> writings, seems an honorable man who writes what he means, is
> honest, and would not intentionally mislead anyone to believe he
> would review the speakers, when, in fact, he had no such committment
> and authorization to do so.
Because at the time he wrote, it seemed likely that review samples
would be forthcoming. For reasons unknown, that didn't happen. This
happens more often that you would think. As Charlie Hansen explained
to you, manufacturers can change their mind for any number of
reasons. Reviewers, too, change their mind, following new information.
It is riduculous for you to impugn people's integrity because not
everything they honestly believe is going to happen does happen.
> I earn a living in which people can take to the bank representations
> I make, and I presume Wes has the same principle.
Good for you. Magazine publishing is inevitably more untidy than
whatever field you work in, because of the large number of unrelated
things that all have to happen in a timely manner for an issue to be
published. As manufacturers with whom I deal will testify, they can't
be sure that a promised review will appear in the expected issue
until they see it in print. People get sick or get called on jury
duty. I have been sitting on a promised review of an Ayre
preamplifier for months now because we have been giving Ayre
significant coverage in recent issues and I want there to be some
space before the next Ayre review appears. I have been working on a
speaker review that was originally scheduled to appear in our June
issue. At the last minute I held it over to July so I could put the
product on that issue's cover because my original choice for the July
cover failed to materialize in time.
In addition, the fact that issue sizes must be quantized in
increments of 8 pages means that at least one review scheduled to
appear in a specific issue gets bounced back a month, which in turn
pushes back that writer's next review committment by a month.
As I said, "untidy." None of this means that we lack integrity, only
that in Donald Rumsfield's infamous phrase, "stuff happens."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"while I agreed that it was reasonable, I repeatedly pointed out that it was wrong."You wrote that Gallo never sent a sample. As I wrote below, that could be because Wes decided he did not want to review them, in which case they would not send a sample, or it could be because they themselves did not elect to send a sample. I simply attempting to determine the reason.
"So has it been such a live issue for you since then? Why did you
write about the "mystery," with the negative connotations that
carries?"The mystery was WHY, not WHAT. That Gallo did not send a review sample is clear. WHY that review sample was never sent was not. Had you first written that "Gallo informed Wes he would be forwarded a sample, and then, for whatever reason, they did not send the sample" instead of "They never sent one" would have avoided this.
The reason for my confusion was that Gallo seems to have provided review samples to every reviewer under the sun, uses a quote from Wes Philips on their cite, so I could not understand that they would not send a sample after they apparently informed Wes they would. I generally do not assume people break agreements. I usually like to be told that is the case before I jump to conclusions. Perhaps in your experience, and as Mr. Hansen itimated below, this is a common occurrence in the publishing world. In my world, it is common, but people usually pay the consequences. Realizing that I am not in the publishing world, a little more than "they did not send a review sample" would have been helpful.
"Because at the time he wrote, it seemed likely that review samples
would be forthcoming. For reasons unknown, that didn't happen. This
happens more often that you would think. As Charlie Hansen explained
to you, manufacturers can change their mind for any number of
reasons. Reviewers, too, change their mind, following new information.
It is riduculous for you to impugn people's integrity because not
everything they honestly believe is going to happen does happen."Up until the last sentence, had this been what you wrote, then this matter would have been resolved long ago. I did not "impugn" anyone's integrity. I simply asked for more information beyond "they did not send a review sample." Perhaps you interpreted my additional questions as a challenge, as though additional questions somehow demonstrates a questioning of you or Wes Philips. I never called you or Wes a liar. Had I thought so, I would have said so.
I think that you presumed I should be able to fill in the details. Well, I think when someone breaks an agreement, their integrity is questioned. I was not willing to presume it was Gallo's until I knew it was they that did not send the sample as opposed to Wes changing his mind, and why. Had I presumed it was yours, I would have stopped asking questions, and simply posted that you and Wes are liars, and cannot be trusted. Which I did not do.
There are many posters here who proclaim you are on the take because of advertising, etc., etc. They ask no questions, merely making declarative statements. You are rightfully indignant. I ask questions, make no statements and no accusations, and you apparently reserve for me the same indignation?
"Good for you. Magazine publishing is inevitably more untidy..."
I do not equate a manufacturer being called for jury duty, lightning striking their warehouse, or the printer dying, or the wicked witch hexing them as an issue. That may qualify as untidy. On the other hand, when a manufacturer, or a reviewer, makes a committment, then breaks that committment, and when it is physically possible for them to perform their obligation, then I do not call that "untidy."
> You wrote that Gallo never sent a sample. As I wrote below, that
> could be because Wes decided he did not want to review them, in
> which case they would not send a sample, or it could be because they
> themselves did not elect to send a sample. I simply attempting to
> determine the reason.
I don't know the reason, nor do I think it important enough to find
out. Things like this happen all the time. End of story, as far as
I am concerned.
> I think when someone breaks an agreement, their integrity is
> questioned.
There was no formal "agreement." Your point is moot. Again, end of
story as far as I am concerned.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
experience with disappointment. We need to lighten up.
Can anyone suggest why Gallo would not want their speakers reviewed in SF?
Try reading the post directly below yours.
......but for some strange reason I feel compelled to try and give you a meaningful reply. Maybe all those pain meds are going to my head...It sounds like you have finally realized that it was Gallo who changed their mind. You still seem to think that there is something evil here that needs to be exposed. As a manufacturer, let me give just a few examples of why Gallo may have changed their mind:
a) They are already back-ordered for three months and don't want to create any additional demand.
b) They are planning to make a change to the model in question sometime in the next year. Given the lead time to review a product, write the review, and publish the magazine, the review would be obsolete by the time it appeared.
c) They looked at all the reviews they have already and decided they had more to lose than to gain by having another review by Wes.
d) They have a policy of delivering the product in person and their travel budget for the year has already been used up.
e) They just had a large number of reviews in a short amount of time and want to wait a while before getting another one. In other words, spread out the good news.
f) Et cetera, et cetera. Use your imagination.
Nothing nefarious here. Like I said in another post, you could just call Gallo and ask them.
"It sounds like you have finally realized that it was Gallo who changed their mind."Finally. The initial response was a very cursory "They did not send a review sample", which, I think you would agree, does not provide much information. That statement could mean be they decided not to send one, or it could be that Wes decided he did not want to review them, in which case, they did not send a review sample. I guess you could flip a coin as to which one it was. But I wanted to know which it was, and, frankly, I did not think was too much to ask. When someone gives me a statement which is open to multiple interpretations, I generally ask additional questions to reduce the possible explanations. And, in my experience, if there is nothing to hide, the information generally flows.
"You still seem to think that there is something evil here that needs to be exposed. As a manufacturer, let me give just a few examples of why Gallo may have changed their mind:"
Something evil? You mean like Dr. Evil? No. But I have made committments to clients that I later wished I had not. What do I do? Do what I told the client was I would do, even though I may be able to avoid the committment. If Gallo, or any manufacturer, told Wes they would supply a sample, they should supply the sample if physically possible. While the reasons you gave why a manufacturer would change their minds may all be reasons, they do not excuse a company from breaking their word.
In another thread we read that generally when you purchase a high end audio component, you are also generally buying the one or two guys who own and run the company. If I, the consumer, would like to know that a company does not honor its committments to a reviewer, believing that such conduct may indicate its unwillingness to honor its committments to me, then I think I am within my rights to ask for that information, and to be provided that information, or at least a statement that the magazine will not provide me the full details.
I note, though, you did not answer the question as to whether you would tell a reviewer that a review sample is forthcoming, a representation that the reviewer relied upon in a public comment, and then tell the reviewer that you chose not to submit a sample, if the reason for not doing so was within your control. Would you?
Of course, this has nothing to do with a manufacturer deciding not to submit a sample in the first place. That is their prerogative. I am referring to the manufacturer that tells a reviewer a sample will be forthcoming.
"Nothing nefarious here."
I am not sure how you would describe not fulfilling an obligation you made, and for which another relied upon.
"Like I said in another post, you could just call Gallo and ask them."
I could. But they have an interest in not providing me all the facts -such as they may be afraid that such behavior may have me looking elsewhere. On the other hand, I am not sure the magazine's interest is in not providing me, the other other reader who initially asked the question, all the information, which it now has with Mr. Atkinson's latest post.
What would you do if a real problem came up? Someone needs to help you climb out of that mule costume.
Real problem? Sir, there are people here who agonize over moving their speaker 1/4 inch to the right, and you ask me that question?
Wes thought he might be doing a review. Manufacturer decides not to submit product for review. Wes does not do review. End of soap opera.Since no one else volunteered, let me help you out of that costume. For the life of me I cannot understand why gentlemen like John and Charles are even engaging you in this thread.
I think that your post sums up a lot of what is wrong in our society. Apparently, Gallo represents to Wes that he will have a review sample, which Wes relies upon, then tells readers that he will review the product, then Gallo apparently breaks their word to Wes. The way I see it, this is not a simple matter of a manufacturer electing not to submit a sample.You make committments? You decide not to live up to them when it suits your interest, financial or otherwise? You think it no big deal? End of soap opera? Problem is, too many people today break agreements, and many more simply shrug their shoulders. Maybe you are one. Remind me not to shop at your store.
IMHO, Gallo looked at their unfilled orders and decided they had nothing to gain from the review. I have spoken to Gallo reps a couple of times on these speakers, and they said they have been running a three to four month backlog. I would imagine that situation hasn't changed much.
I have personal knowledge the backlog was not that long, at approximately the same time frame as when this happened. But even if there was a backlog, then Gallo should not have told Wes Philips to expect a review sample, or they should have told him that a backlog prevented them providing him a sample when they did.
It reall is a vast audio conspiracy to agitate the dog feces out of you. ;~)
< < nor do you dispute that my interpretation of what he wrote is not a reasonable interpretation > >If JA won't dispute that this is a reasonable interpretation, then I will.
That is NOT a reasonable interpretation.
In fact if one knew more about the publishing business and schedules and timelines and deadlines and how magazines are put together, one would even say it is a ridiculous interpretation.
And even more ridiculous is the way you continue to harangue JA and Stereophile and Wes for your interpretation. It has been explained over and over and over again, each time in greater detail. And yet you continue to act like you have somehow been defrauded. If you are so concerned about it, why don't you call up Gallo and ask them why they didn't supply the speakers for review?
"Yes, I'll be taking a look at the Gallo Ref 3s as soon as I clear some previous commitments off the deck. Of course, if JA commissioned more than one review a month from me and stiffed all those other reviewers, I might get there faster."This is what Mr. Philips wrote. You honestly mean to suggest that from this statement that Wes WILL be taking a look at the Gallo speakers as soon as he gets previous commitments off the desk I was supposed to interpret that he really was "thinking" about it, and that it was unreasonable for me to interpret that he had them for review? You mean that when a reviewer says that he WILL review them I should assume he does not have them, and is "thinking" about it?
"If you are so concerned about it, why don't you call up Gallo and ask them why they didn't supply the speakers for review?"
I could care less whether Gallo wants to supply something for review, or whether Stereophile wants to review them. I do care that people do what they say they are going do. But then I generally give words their ordinary meanings. I guess in the publishing world, which I am not a part of, when someone says they are going to do something, that does not mean they are going to do it. Apparently, in the manufacturing world too.
Though in my world when you say you are going to do something, you do it, else you look for another line of work. But in my life, representations mean something. Apparently, they do not in the manufacturing or the publishing worlds.
And given that this dialog does not involve you or your company, and you apparently have no personal knowledge as to any of the pertinent facts, I am not sure why you felt the need to leap in, other than you like to feud. Talk about getting on with your life.
< < I am not sure why you felt the need to leap in > >Stereophile is not perfect. Nor is any other magazine, audio related or not. Nor is anything nor anybody.
But to slime them with innuendo and false accusations like you have done is inexcusable. You have completely misinterpreted a remark that Wes made off the cuff. And even after the facts have been explained (repeatedly!) by JA, you keep on making silly and baseless accusations. I am sticking up for what I believe is right.
There are a million and one legitimate reasons why a review might be canceled (or postponed) after it was planned. You keep implying that the reasons are nefarious and that Stereophile is hiding something that should be exposed.
< < you apparently have no personal knowledge as to any of the pertinent facts > >
That is correct, but I have known JA for nearly 20 years. We've had our share of disagreements. But I have never known him to be anything less than honest, hard working, and honorable. And when he plainly states what the facts are, I believe him. End of story.
"But to slime them with innuendo and false accusations like you have done is inexcusable. You have completely misinterpreted a remark that Wes made off the cuff."I never slimed them with "innuendo." See above. And I did not misinterpret anything - I merely gave words their ordinary meaning. Further, taking time to read a post, write a response, and presumably reviewing that response, is hardly "off the cuff." Particularly if you are a writer.
"Stereophile is not perfect. Nor is any other magazine, audio related or not."
No kidding. But neither JA or Wes Philips has alleged that Wes did not mean what he wrote, or meant something else. I doubt either you or I are qualified to look beyond the "four corners" of his writings.
"There are a million and one legitimate reasons why a review might be canceled (or postponed) after it was planned. You keep implying that the reasons are nefarious and that Stereophile is hiding something that should be exposed"
And there are a million illegitimate reasons why a review might be canceled, which may have nothing to do with the magazine. Do I, as a reader and consumer, have a right to know this? If the reason is legitimate, then what is the harm in telling me what the reason is, as opposed to that it merely did not happen.
If one of your products garnered a good quote from a reviewer, at which time you promised a review sample to that reviewer, afterwhich the reviewer publically informed a reader that a review was forthcoming, would you then tell the reviewer that, sorry, no samples? If a manufacturer did that, do we, the reader and consumer, have a right to know this happened? If the process is transparent?
Did Gallo do this? I do not know. What I do know is that Wes appears to be a person who would not tell a reader he will do something unless he had authorization to do it, and he told a reader that he would review the speakers. I know that Gallo never forwarded a pair for review. That fact alone does not tell us very much.
As you write, there many legitimate reasons why a review does not happen. There are also illegitimate reasons why a review does not happen. The mere statement that Gallo never sent a sample, even though true, does not tell us, the reader and consumer, anything. I am not sure how Stereophile did anything wrong, assuming these facts, and I never intended to imply that it did.
Wow.
Well, in my world, people break agreements, and expect someone else to pay or cover for their mistakes, then shrug their shoulders as though breaking their word is no big deal. Apparently, that is a world in which you are satisfied. Feel better?
What a waste of time & energy!!!
put on their trousers and headed out to run Stereophile.
Bruce, should it read, put their trousers on over their head??
< < Who made the mistake? > >Well it seems pretty clear to me that *you* made the mistake.
Wes said, "the Ref 3s are in my "soon" queue". And somehow you took that to mean "they are at his humble abode". Where in the world do you come up with that leap of "logic"?
Wes lives in an apartment in Brooklyn. If he had to put every piece of equipment that he was thinking about reviewing in there ahead of time, he wouldn't have room to live there. It's really pretty simple...
"Wes said, "the Ref 3s are in my "soon" queue". And somehow you took that to mean "they are at his humble abode". Where in the world do you come up with that leap of "logic"?"The answer is no. Please use Wes Philips' entire quote. He wrote that he would be be reviewing the speakers, and the review would appear sooner if JA would commission more than one review a month. From that entire statement, the dispositive portion you felt necessary to omit, I interpreted that Wes Philips would be reviewing the speakers, and the review would appear sooner if JA commissioned more than one review per month from Mr. Philips. I did not have to interpret anything. That is what Wes wrote.
Mr. Ayres, do you say you will do something if you cannot do it? If you are planning to install a spiffy new capacitor that a supplier says they will supply, and will revolutionize the amplifier world, but you do not have them actually on hand, have never seen one, and have no assurances that they will be delivered, do you publically state that the new super-duper amplifier is coming out soon?
Or do you wait until they are in hand and make sure you can deliver? Sure, my mistake. I do not know where Wes lives. I have never been to his apartment. I believe that Mr. Atkinson has a house in Brooklyn. I know that trees grow there, so it is reasonable for me to believe that Wes also has a house there as well. Perhaps if he told us where he lived, and his square footage, we could have avoided this.
You write that if every component that Wes "thought" about reviewing was in his teensy tiny apartment in Brooklyn I have never been to, he would not have room to live there. Funny, Wes never wrote that he was "thinking" about reviewing them, only that he was going to review them. You added that he was "thinking" about it. So not only do you "selectively" quote, you also add thoughts. But then, you have been to his apartment, so I guess that is okay.
the life of the review cycle....then its on to the mk2
Thanks for the detailed time line. It would be VERY interesting to know what happened at Stereophile re Gallo.
> It would be VERY interesting to know what happened at Stereophile re
> Gallo.
_Nothing_ happened, Mr. Larson. James Garvin misunderstood what he read
but has refused to accept that he was in error. Wes Phillips never
received review samples of the Gallo speaker, hence no review was
published in Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"....even if Stereophile doesn't pay some of their writers big bucks (or any bucks) they have the circulation and advertising to pull in equipment for review...."All you have to do to clearly see that e-zines like 6 Moons, Soundstage, Enjoy the Music, PF, even Stereo Times have no problem getting equipment in for review is to go to those sites. Not only have they already reviewed a lot of equipment and have an endless stream of gear coming in, they often review interesting components/spkrs which due to JA's policies (5 U.S. dealer rule) S'phile ignores. You may find some reviews of products like the Mini Max, vintage turntables, and various TVC's etc. in print mags a year or two *after* they were reviewed in established e-zines. But unless things change, your grand-children will never see reviews of relatively inexpensive high quality products (NOT just kits) from well established companies like DIY HiFi Supply or Vacuum State in S'phile.
"The paper rags obviously were here first. Anybody can start a web site with very little cash and publish his ideas."
What difference does it make who was here first? A number of hifi print mags have died. There is certainly no sign that the e-zines I mentioned above are in danger of going under. Comparing established on-line audio publications to Uncle Joe's blog is silly, as even a cursory look at their archives, the products in for review, coming "attractions" and their advertising displays.
I'm not looking for Faulkner-esque prose in audio mags. Other than Marks and Dudley, nobody writing for print hifi mags is a particularly good writer anyway. I gag on lame "prose" and/or inept reviewing procedure displayed in print as well as on-line. Neither has a monopoly.
"....if I could only read one mag--Stereophile--or one onliner...."
There is no need to choose one or the other. I'm a long-time subscriber to S'phile and TAS, and usually either read HiFi+ in B&N or buy it. But I'm happy to have a variety of sources for audio info, including the e-zines I mentioned and AA.
Oh, the onliners can certainly get equipment. I read the 6moon equipment policy as far as reviewers getting and selling equipment for review a few years ago. I couldn't pass a test on the details of it today, but it made my stomach turn. I see rave after rave everywhere but more on line than not. It's the manufacturers who seem to profit from almost every review published anywhere, not the readers. I would have thought Critics Corner would be just full of disgruntled readers...But, no, everyone seems happy, and they are especially happy with each and every review they read. What a wonderful world!
"Such purchases are always and only for personal use. They may not be resold during whatever time period the manufacturer specifies. If the reviewer wishes to sell such a component after that period has expired (usually 1 year), he or she may not sell industry accommodations at any personal profit. Disregard of proper conduct as it pertains to industry accommodations will result in a writer's immediate termination."That is 6 Moons stated policy, which is basically the same as S'phile's and other print mags.
As far as nearly 100% positive reviews go, I see no difference there either. You are mistaken if you think S'phile or other print mags publish more negative reviews than e-zines. I'm not crazy about this policy either and have voiced my objections, but print is no better than web.
No facts to check.. I was reporting my reaction to their policy as I recall reading it. It sounds like from the quote you gave that a 6moons reviewer is prohibited from selling any product he gets at accommodation any higher than that ever. That is laudible. And how does he get products in the future? Bad reviews are probably not the road to future acquisitions.... but look, if everybody is happy with the whole thing but me, that's great. It's your money you're spending and you are entitle to make decisions whatever way you want,, just as I am. Let's change the name of this forum to "Happy Campers" rather than Critics corner...
the money was 'made' when the piece was purchased.
I thought most reviewers only selected gear they liked for review, and then described in detail why they liked. Since most reviewers are at least experienced audiophiles, I see no problem with reading how an experienced audiophile used a particular piece of gear and why they like it. In fact it;s enjoyable to me to read about it.I think most gear that is not upto it sonically just never gets reviewed. That's a screening process in itself, no?
I think some readers have expectations of reviewers who will trash gear, or rate it consumer reports style, but such reviewers after a while will never get any gear sent for review.
Some magazines will say as much; that they avoid publishing reviews of products that really didn't meet expectations. They don't feel its helpful to anyone.
to point out a product's shortcomings as well as where it might work the best. That is one of the challenges of the reviewer's job. This isn't a one-size-fits-all hobby.What is it some of us expect? A total and complete thrashing of a product because it serves no purpose or application whatsoever? First point out the moron who would spend money to bring such a worthless item to market in the first place.
Mathew Polk, Amar Bose, uh....But seriously,Bruce, I just don't believe that all (ALL) audio products are good products, that everyone puts out a product worth buying or that, for a given person (system) there aren't products that are better than others in each category. I don't believe that all audio products offer the same value, are equally reliable etc etc. What is so special about audio that every product is above average?? How are we all so lucky to wind up in this hobby and not some other like photography or cars or wine or ... And how is it that such a small market compared to, say, computers, where real money is to be made these days (still), just does things so damn good ALL THE TIME? You've never bought or sold over-priced equipment? You've never carried lines that later you regretted? Look at the language and range of criticism found in Stereophile equipment reviews and compare it to what you find in their music reviews...If a cd is crap, they will call it crap, give it one star, say it's recorded terribly, say don't bother with this one etc. Why doesn't your argument apply equally to music product? Or to any of the other things I mention and don't mention. Is it a perfect world???? If we turn your argument on itself and apply it to Pioneer, Sansui, Technics, etc etc all the brands that you find at Best Buy....why isn't the argument valid there too, in your opinion???? Why doesn't stereophile compare a technics receiver to a Mark Levenson amp/preamp?? In virtue of what (do you think) is the group of audio mfgrs that are generally thought of as 'high end' any different than the group that BB sells? What moron would bring out a $99 Insignia receiver?? Why is there an answer to that question? Ok, end of tirade....
I can't remember any Bose reviews, and I certainly can't remember any $99 Insignia receiver reviews. The product you see reviewed in print or on the e-zines hardly fit that criteria.Sigh, maybe what I get at this end is different than what everyone else sees. That's it, I get special stuff.
My point about Bose etc was really a question to you: In virtue of WHAT are these kinds of brands routinely excluded from the review process of most if not all mags? My answer might be, well, there not worth the money, they aren't made well, they don't sound good, there's better stuff out there that is of better value etc. But why isn't that kind of answer ALSO true of at least a portion (25% say) of the equipment the mags DO review? You say, what moron would bring, etc. If moron = maker of crappy equipment in this context, then (certainly I would say) there are "morons" out there bringing their wares to BB. But it doesn't seem like much of an argument to say hey the equipment the mags review is all good and the stuff that BB sells is all bad. One answer from the mags is well, we don't have time/space for anything but good reviews. It is hard for me to believe that there aren't other economic factors that influence what gets reviewed, not the least of which is if you publish negative reviews I ain't giving you any more equipment to review. It may be that you have never encountered "bad" "high end" equipment. I'm sure you do your best never to sell such equipment. But doesn't that take an effort on your part? Don't you have to weed through stuff, make determinations as to what to carry and what not to--in the hopes of satisfying customers?? I'm pretty sure you aren't really Sound By Singer so I am betting you can't carry everything (I know, they don't either)....SO, forget the mags and the reviews for now (only for now) and maybe say something about your own selection process. I believe it when you say you get special stuff. But is it more accurate to say you END UP with special stuff because you know your business and know how to choose products? Should every dealer get or be getting the same generally favorable reviews of their business? Are there no "morons" who are dealers--people you see making terrible decisions? Huh? (Thanks for reading this far if you did).
I select products that I focus on based on my own personal "wow" factor coupled with identifying known customers who are likely to have a strong interest in them. Just in case, I have access to a number of lines that I don't emphasize.I select items based on personal experience, like at shows. How I get to that personal experience is either through recommendations from a handful of trusted "advisors", customer inquiries about something new and some reviews.
Other issues come into play as well. Minimum stocking levels, minimum order quantities and payment terms all play a role. I fund all of my activities out of my own pocket, and that keeps things under control by default. Dealers like Sound by Singer have flooring relationships with finance companies where they pay interest charges only on items they have in stock. Dealers like that have a store front to deal with. I don't. Dealers like that have to be ready to deal with whoever walks through the door. Most of my customers are effectively clients, and I have an opportunity to work more closely with them to identify solutions and handle installations.
Let's focus on shows for a minute, since your broader question is about the high end market overall. I have never heard a component or speakers that are truly high end that I would say sucked. Sure, I've heard speakers that were in desperate need of some hours on them, but I can usually hear past that. Not all products appeal to me, and if I am not absolutely sold on something I think I would have a hard time selling it to someone else. Read that to mean that if you are looking for horns, single driver speakers or any kind of gimmicky product, you'd be happier with another dealer.
Reviewers cannot do what I do. They have to appeal to a broad range of readers and have the ability to address where a given item might be best suited, and areas where they are not. Some of them are in a position to request certain products for review, and get what they want, while others review whatever they are assigned. Some manufacturers don't send product out for review. Going back to the $99 Insignia receiver, yeah, someone saw fit to bring that product to market and I am sure they sold a bundle of them. That doesn't mean the manufacturer would submit that item to Sterephile (or even Sound & Vision(!)) for review. They might be willing to sell someone a piece of crap product for a next to nothing price, but they certainly don't think it can compete in the high end arena.
All your points have been hashed and re-hashed on this forum several times already. In the end the mags are controlled by their owners and editors, and every hifi mag is a business whose first goal is to survive and prosper. S'phile and a few others have found a way to do that and are unlikely to make any risky changes unless confronted by evidence that the vast majority of their readership demands it.Others - including me - have complained about hifi mags' lack of emphasis on price/performance ratio, hyperbole to exaggerate differences, and calling a spade a spade instead of requiring reading between the lines. But a few complaints on Critics does not a readership rebellion make. In fact, the majority of the readership of the biggest on the block (S'phile) are apparently pretty happy with the mag, as it is either sustaining or growing its readership in a small niche market. Although I happen to agree with some of your points, I can understand that from JA's (or another editor's) point of view its more like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
the outcome is alreadys predictable
Very few points here are news. So maybe it's time to put it to rest, go back to reading my stereophile in isolation forget the rat race of critics corner and buy what Sam Tellig recommends. It does seem to me that most Stereophile readers are happy and even most such readers who post here are happy. Hence my suggestion to change the name of the forum to Happy Campers. Somewhere complacency figures into the equation. Thanks for your comments.
we did one.
Thanks for the link!!
to learn who the amateur reviewers are that are credible. as with you, i usually only trust professional reviewers. user reviews at AR usually dont impress me and i dont look there for guidance.extensive long term reviewing is what i believe in as i have found in my own listening experience, the real answers dont come quickly.
i used to be a lot faster when i was listening to lots of equipment but i have settled into my system and make changes slowly these days. bricks and mortar stores are now few and far between so the opportunities are fewer AND rooms are so different that even the best stuff can sound incomplete. i would love to hear wilson maxx2s in an ideal environment.
...regards...tr
As you say, the opportunities to actually hear stuff are fewer and further between all the time. And putting new equipment into my system is tricky (not just because of the $$$). I have gone back to equipment that I thought was permanently replaced two or more years past. So it makes it hard to sell equipment because I never know ... The feel of the hobby has changed significantly from what it was like when I started (I ain't saying when). Take care..
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: