Feedback/Ideas for New Magazine?

Jules- I read your piece last night and I must say I was very impressed. Excellent writing and a very calm and impartial view of the industry. I'd recommend anyone interested in this hobby who takes the time to look at reviews give his article a read. That said, I don't know if I agree regarding the narrow margin of excellence you cite as one of the reasons for universally "positive" reviews. Perhaps reviewers have cultivated objectivity far beyond my capacity for same, but I tend to be pretty picky about what sounds good to my ears, and what I don't like. That is not to say that what I don't luck is necessarily a bad component, but more likely doesn't combine well in my system, or simply does not suit my tastes. I don't think I have the vocabulary nor the discernment to write a review like the more "informed" ones I read in the rags and online. It all comes down to what the component does to the sound for me, and I tend to speed-read the technical stuff (which may be another man's desert) and go right for the listening impressions and try to get an overall sense of those. Blah, blah, blah.....anyway, I enjoyed the piece Jules. Some of the insight into the review process you offer was eye-opening and your suggestion of disclosure was refreshing, though I doubt that would ever happen. Hope you at least get some pizza out of it...heck, I'd take you out for a slice if you're ever in Seattle and I have nothing to peddle....well, my Muse rig is up for sale...perhaps you could say a few good words about that and I'll throw in a beer! I look forward to reading more from you.

Best,

Marco

For those A'goners wishing to read Jules' article here is the link:
http://www.ultraaudio.com/opinion/20031001.htm

Jules: well written & does convey our collective concerns of the audio industry today. Indeed we are plagued by much skepticism that is hardening into cynicism & butt of much of our cynicism is directed at those 2 magazines we can find at our local bookstore. I also agree that fully disclosing the reviewer's/magazine's ties with the manuf. will go a long way in removing some of our skepticism.

However, what I don't understand is how will a subscription-only magazine solve this problem?
S'phile is a subscription based magazine. It's cheap but still subscription based.
TAS is also a subscription based magazine.
Richard Hardestry's Audio Perfectionist is also an (expensive) subscription e-magazine.
J. Peter Moncrief's IAR is also a subscription e-magazine of sorts - it's free on the web but costs you if you want his archives.
The last 2 magazines do *not* accept any advertising whatsoever & so their views should be neutral/call-a-spade-a-spade.
Do the Audiogon members here put any more faith in the reviews printed therein??
Have all or many Audiogon members of both types - those that have slammed S'phile & TAS & those who haven't - gone running with their money & subscribed to Audio Perf. & IAR??
If not, why would they subscribe to one published by Plato?

On a related note: I personally find more even-handed reviews on soundstage.com esp. when one component is reviewed by 4 reviewers. I also find that Soundstage reviews more price-wise diverse equipment. However, I do find some co-relation between their advertisers & that manuf's equip. getting a good review but it *appears* to be less blatant. Maybe this website is the better of the worse?

A friend & myself were discussing this issue some time back & we likened the evolution of the audio industry to maturation of an economy. When a country is poor & trying to bring itself out of the dumps (think Germany & South Korea) all the workers are earnest & put in their best. Goods from such countries are hailed to be excellent unanimously. As that economy matures, these same goods now become commodities. Manuf. is mechanized & millions are belted out en-masse. What started out as being built for the cause is now built for commercialization & revenues dictate the strategy more than anything else.

Audio too started out this way in the 1950s & 1960s. There was virtually no hype & even tho' the equipment wasn't that good, it was built be craftsmen & designers who were true to the cause of audio: accurate reproduction of music in the home environment. As this industry has matured, has it become a commodity item where marketing hype over-rules (by a long margin) the true reason of building audio gear? is this a natural cycle for this industry as it is for many other industries? If so, we are those unfortunate souls who will witness the "corruption" of this industry & the audio industry will never return to its former glory. Those among us for older vintage will remember those hay-days with much fondness & with good reason.
Seems like a fatalistic attitude on my part. Not so! I'm merely posing some questions for this forum at large. And, asking whether we are seeing a natural progression of an industry to which we seem to be the unfortunate witnesses.

I want to thank those of you who took a look at my piece for your feedback. It is all very welcome. I continue to worry about the cynicism that too many within our community have settled into, however understandable it may be. I am open to all suggestions.

In my 'other life' I am a University Professor and one of the skills we all learn is how to write critical or negative letters of evaluation without being 'directly' critical. There is a 'code' that everyone (or nearly everyone) employs and understands, and the same is true of audio reviews. More of them are more critical than you might at first think. If I were to see a review of speaker X in which the reviewer claimed that it favored neither tubes nor solid state -- that it was equally good with both -- I would read (without more) as damning with faint praise. After all, the reviewer never said that it was good with either. Perhaps, people want to see more directly critical remarks, but some of that may just be to see real criticism that anyone could recognize as such. Believe me, the manufacturers know such a review is not favorable.

I think what readers want is to develop a 'relationship' with a reviewer or two. They want to get know them through their writing, to learn what they like and why. They want to trust them and to follow their work. No one wants to get close to people they can't trust. It is our burden to make ourselves trustworthy. If we are trustworthy, then it is not going to matter whether we disagree with one another's ultimate judgments, tastes and so on. People will read what we have to say and find it credible. Our goal is to provide meaningful and helpful information and our ability to do that depends on all of you seeing us as persons of integrity. Don't give up on us, but demand of us that we earn it.
Tell me what you need from us to earn your trust. This is the topic of my next two opinion pieces and this is meant to be an interactive process. I'll let you know about me through my writing and you'll tell me -- and others -- what you need to be comfortable with us and willing to put your trust in us. We need that do a useful job, and from my experience, my sense is that with a few exceptions of some who may be in this to feed their egos, reviewers want to contribute to the success of the community and to the enjoyment of music. To do that we need not only to be informative and judgmental; we need to be able to construct a narrative, to tell a story, to make it interesting and to give you a reason for caring about what we think. And you wont care if we aren't worthy of your care and interest.

Needless to say, I was pleased to read that some of you have found the reviews on Soundstage to be particularly honest and helpful.