Yes Stereophile and other "golden ear" mags reviews are mostly purely subjective, emotional responses to a given product. Each reviewer has his own priorities, and uses his own goup of "associated equip" to test new products. Every reviewer uses different "assoc.equip" so you can get different results depending who is reviewer. God forbid you ever give a bad review because there goes advertising account and any chance of future reviews! Internet is great for getting reports from the field, from real users, to get a consensus on the performance of products. I don't see any change for "gold ear" mags, but internet consumer review sites are very helpful.....regards Sam
Challenge Audio Magazines
This thread comes from comments here, other web threads, talk on the street and print media regarding Stereophile's Audio/Video "Classification System" and more generally the wishy washy, inconsistent nature of Audio Reviewer Magazine (electronic or print)Magazines. I have been involved in high end audio since the 1970's (when there were reportedly about 10 hi-end stores in the country (this according to an interview with founder of CAL and Theta) and have heard almost everything out there. I have driven hundreds of miles to hear specific pieces of equipment. I am passionate about this hobby but I am also realistic. I know that much of the problem with high end audio is the HYPE. Magazines not only create the Hype they are also victum of it. If deciding on the best piece of equipment is likened to a trip on the road then Hi-End Magazines don't have a road map. They don't know where they are going but they don't have a consistent measure of where they have been. They tend to create new roads and abandon them a few reviews later. This is just on the basis of an individual reviewer. This gets multiplied orders of magnitude between reviewers. Reviewers being inconsistent in their approaches and what they communicate to their readers. I suggest we challenge Stereophile and other "golden ear" pubs on several fronts: 1.) They are outrageously inconsistent in their methodologies of evaluation. Imagine telling your boss or yourself, if are the boss, that you just changed your mind how you are going to do your work today and will likely change tomorrow and the next day. Follow up by stating that this will not be a problem come job evaluation time because using these flip flop methods you will always being doing your job the best because you define how it is done day to day. In effect say "Come to me when you need to evaluate my job performance and I will decide the criteria". The reviewer's job is to REVIEW, not confuse. We are essentially their boss but they can never be pinned down for the reasons given above.......Why the heck does not "60-Minutes" have a hay day with this nonsense. 2.) Have reviewers post their hearing tests in a color graphic so we call can see what they can or can not hear. 3.) Provide information on warranties for every review (how do decide when to post this and other information?) Audio pubs should post readers responses (they preassumes they would ask readers to comment on the full component experience, very very similar to what consumer reports asks annually about far less expensive things like microwave ovens and such)on Component Quality and Customer Service. We need to help those companies that are not owned by multinational corporations (many of which own several high end name plates) who could not give a rats a___ about your 10 year old component. Lets show case these poor customer service SOBs. If you have been around a while in this business you will recognize the profound change in support at many companies. For example, Audio Research has only 3 year warranties but their customer service is better than any life service plan around (they stock parts back to their first unit made in 1970, ask Sony about their policy). So while warranties are not the end all for support they are a starting point. Lets make these companies accountable and the aging golden ears at the pubs. 4.) Why not use a color graphic to report subjective reportings when they are necessary (subjective reports, many things can not be quantified yet but lets use a consistent reporting schema that is quick and easy to grasp and makes the writer responsible to bridging the gap between reviews). 5.) This may all seem like I hate Stereophile. I don't. I am a multiyear subscriber. Just that things could be a whole lot better and more accountable. In the end the Class A Class B etc nonsense is just jello artsy talk until you can make linkages to other reviews that are consistent and easy to follow. Far too often a Class A recommendation is too easy to follow back to the advertizing budget of groups like Harmon Kardon (opps Madrigal) etc in Stereophile than the threads of logic between reviews. More on this when I have time!
9 responses Add your response