 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.23.87.153
In Reply to: Re: For what it's worth (don't answer that), my take on this nonsense... posted by jamesgarvin on May 3, 2006 at 13:02:12:
"'What has been expressed is that at the time that MF wrote the glowing review of the Crown Jewel he knew of the availability of the Shelter and held that back from his readers for reasons only he knows. He cannot feign ignorance of the Shelter as he was reading The Absolute Sound at the time and they mentioned the availabity of this cartridge, its quality, and even its equivalence to the Crown Jewel in two issues.'"I suspect Mr. Fremer fancies himself a reviewer, and not a reporter. I would expect him to offer an opinion on a product only after he has actually listened to the product. Whether it exists or not is not the issue. Whether it is "reported" to either be the same or sound the same as the Crown Jewel is not the issue. I am not sure how Mr. Fremer can comment on a product's sound as being comparable to another without actually having heard both products. Simply writing that he has heard of the existence (in TAS?) of another cartridge that appears to be the same as the Crown Jewel would not impart any meaningful buying information to the reader, unless the reader will purchase the cartridge without actually listening to it, something that Stereophile rationally suggests to their readers they should not do.
"We are then left with the question of why didn't Mr. Fremer review the Shelter before he did. And, again, we are left with multiple reasons, none of which infer shady practices. After all, doesn't Shelter provide perks?"
To respond to just a bit of what you wrote. A reviewer IS a reporter. During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned. No one suggested that Fremer report on the SOUND of the Shelter (certainly not without hearing it), just on its existence. Just as the reviewers of the Toyota Highlander reported on the existence of the Lexus version.Beyond that I cannot think of a reason why, but for the stated policy of Stereophile, JA could not have gotten a Shelter and have MF review it INSTEAD of the CJ. (Doesn't Tellig go to Europe and talk about a lot of stuff available there?) It certainly would have been a greater service to his readers who might have done the same. After all, Harry Pearson heard it and wrote about it. It is that sort of formalism that enhances the value of Stereophile's blog and forum competition.
Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition. I have done that and with, I think, fine results. Show and showroom auditions are often meaningless IMO. The Crown Jewel had a VERY limited distribution--perhaps only one dealer located in a remote New England town. I don't know if an audition was possible at the time. But, in any event I wasn't looking for a $2600 cartridge.
"Shelter" is a Japanese gentleman who provides no perks.
Mel
Follow Ups:
"During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned."Well, I would say that it is much more common for them not to. In reading reviews, I do not usually see laundry list of equipment not under review. I reviewer is not a reporter any more than a sports columnist offering opinions is a reporter. They both may relay
information, but a reporter should not be offering an opinion. And why is Mr. Fremer responsible for mentioning it's existence? Until he gets his hand on one, how does he know it is the same cartridge? Certainly it was reported to be the same, but it would not be responsible to say that it is reputed to be the same, but he cannot verify that it is the same. Then let's assume he reports that information, many send in their money for the cartridge, then, it turns out, it is not the same cartridge. Who get's blamed? Perhaps Shelter should have purchased advertising in U.S. magazines making the claim themselves, and advise the buying public. Perhaps they would explain why they did not. At the end of the day, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to place his product in the consumer's consciousness. Now, if he attemped to purchase advertising from Stereophile, and they refused to accept, then he has a legitimate complaint."Beyond that I cannot think of a reason why, but for the stated policy of Stereophile, JA could not have gotten a Shelter and have MF review it INSTEAD of the CJ."
I guess we would agree that Stereophile "could" have obtained Shelter for review when some think they should have. But then, there are many components I would like them to review that do not get ink. I do not chalk it up to ulterior motives. Did Shelter send them a model for review? If Shelter was not distributed in the United States at the time, preventing most readers from actually listening to the cartridge, it seems a valid reason. As long as the policy is applied across the board. And it appears that this is. If Stereophile relaxed the policy for Shelter, then many here would write claiming they made an accomodation for a manufacturer. They can't win either way.
"Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition."
I do know that. But that does not make the buying products unheard the proper way to purchase a product, and it does not then require Stereophile to recommend doing so.
"'During the course of a review it is common for a reviewer to mention related products, including products that he may not yet have auditioned.'Well, I would say that it is much more common for them not to. In reading reviews, I do not usually see laundry list of equipment not under review. I reviewer is not a reporter any more than a sports columnist offering opinions is a reporter."
I think you're quite wrong here, that is about reviewers not being reporters. When Paul Krugman, a columnist (not a reporter) in the NY Times goes to and writes about the Sudan, is he barred from reporting on AND commenting on things that he learns first hand, or by the reporting of others in the country? Of course not. It's an imaginary barrier. It's a blurry line. Look at what Tellig does.
Then have you never read something like, "I'm here reviewing the "Midbrow" speaker in the "Euphonious" line of speakers. It occupies a position midway between Euphonious' larger "Supercalifragislistic" system and its smaller "Budgetbeater" model. A reviewer could note these others without hearing them, indeed without even seeing them, to what might be the benefit of his readers. I guess you'd call that "reporting".
To say that it is "reputed" to be the same does not require verification. The word tells the listener that you haven't verified. But in fact, Harry Pearson was a very reputable source.
"'Whether you know it or not MANY products are bought without an audition."
"I do know that. But that does not make the buying products unheard the proper way to purchase a product, and it does not then require Stereophile to recommend doing so."
You're deluding yourself. The Stereophile policy permits a review when five stores (and sometimes fewer) around the North America sell the product. It's a BIG continent. How do you audition a tonearm anyway? How can you audition anything except in your own home? Hooray for dealers (and especially mail order dealers) that permit that. But a cartridge? Will they send you a new cartridge for audition? I couldn't even audition a loudspeaker that I wanted to consider, made by a company that usually takes out a color page in Stereophile each issue. I live in the NY metro area with 60-70 million others. The factory said I would have to go to Rochester to hear it. IMO if people did not buy on the basis of reviews Stereophile (and Audiogon) would be out of business.
Yes, the magazine MUST direct readers to advertising dealers. They must tell you how silly it is to buy without audition. That's part of its marketing.
And please, who are you to tell us what is a "proper way" to purchase a product. My system, most of it purchased without audition and some of it purchased used, is listed. Want to tell me how bad it must sound? I auditioned my speaker in two different places, at a show and at a dealer. All I learned from those auditions is that it is a very good looking speaker.
Regards,
Mel
"And please, who are you to tell us what is a "proper way" to purchase a product."Where in my post did I write that there is a "proper" way to purchase a product? I did not, and would not presume to tell you how to purhcase a component. The clear import of my post was that Stereophile has taken the position that auditioning a component is important in the purchase of a component. Whether you or I agree is not the point. The point is that Stereophile would then publish a magazine which is consistent with that point of view.
Sam Tellig may comment upon the existence of a product, as would a columnist discuss about conditions "heard" of in Sudan in expressing an opinion. But the columnist is not discussing something that a reader will purchase. The columnists role is only to inform, whereas the audio reviewer's role is not only to inform, but also to provide some information that you may find helpful in making a purchase.
I have no problem with Tellig mentioning the existence of a product. Mr. Fremer, on the other hand, is apparently not only expected to mention the existence of the Shelter cartridge, but also to apply a judgment to that product, to wit, it is the same as another cartridge, all without having seen the cartridge. You never answered my prior query - what if Mr. Fremer reports that the cartridges are the same, and they turn out not to be the same? Who gets blamed? If Crown Jewel then initiates legal action, I doubt you will be running to contribute to the Fremer legal defense fund. It is always easy to ask someone else to put their you-know-what on the line in print.
And if Mr. Fremer's motive was to prevent sales being taken from Crown Jewel, and if he lacks the ethics which many think he lacks, then why write about Shelter at all? Why not keep the green flowing into CJ's coffers? Part of the ruse, I guess.
So telling a purchaser to audition a product before purchase is silly? I thought that their allegiance was to the manufacturer? Why not just simply tell the reader to purchase the component, why bother listening? Why take the chance that someone will audition the product, then decide not to buy at all? Or another product?
Problem is that you can see the boogeyman in anything they write, which puts them in a no-win situation with some.
To those of us for whom English is our mother tongue, your statement, "But that does not make the buying [of] products unheard the proper way to purchase a product" is the logical equivalent of "But that does make the buying [of] products unheard the improper way to purchase a product"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
