Mainstream reviews-why so few?


I have a question as to why certain products, such as the Green Mountain Audio Europa speakers, raved about on audiogon, receive so little mainstream press exposure? Maybe there are several reasons, but I am just curious. Thanks in advance for any comments.
douglasmkatz

Showing 7 responses by macrojack

Twas always thus. One hand washes the other. It is convenient to rely on cliches as I have just done but it also disingenuous to dismiss any and all suggestions of misbehavior as conspiracy theory. There are systems of graft at play everywhere we look today and it certainly isn't difficult to draw certain conclusions about the way we see the review process plied.
Green Mountain Audio has been producing exceptional product for nearly 30 years under one name or another and has spent most of that time in the shadow of lesser products with better connections. His neighbor Jeff Rowland has been harder to overlook but he too has been largely ignored in the same way.
Some years ago I was affiliated with a small company that made one product only but it was one of the best engineered and packaged products available then. The Timbre Technology TT-1 Dac was submitted to the Absolute Sound for review. They assigned it to Jonathon Valin. He jumped ship and went to Stereophile taking the Timbre with him. He subsequently gave it a rave review in that magazine but, unfortunately, was trumped by Robert Harley when he was the resident expert. Harley at the time was promoting any and everything offered by Sonic Frontiers and Timbre became the victim of his overriding faint praise. That began the end for Timbre even though it was arguably one of the very best DACs on the market at that time. The company struggled for about 3 more years but ultimately had to give up the ghost. Many small manufacturers are aware of this or another similar tale and scrupulously avoid submitting themselves to that potential abuse.
It's a big gamble that can make or break you. Unless you have the money to encourage praise of your product, you will likely be relegated to obscurity or otherwise abused. Ad money works in audio like campaign contributions in politics.
I have a lot of respect for Roy Johnson but I am lost as to just what "sound molecules" might be.
Also find myself wondering about this new buzz about "time and phase coherent" being the result of first order crossovers. Aren't the many single-driver designs going to be perfectly time and phase coherent because they are point sources using no crossover?
Bartokfan,

If you avoid the audio mags like the plague, where do you get so much misinformation? Are there other sources?
" They assigned it to Jonathon Valin. He jumped ship and went to Stereophile taking the Timbre with him." Really? I doubt it.
Kal, You're right. It was Jonathan Scull. The rest can be found in Volume 17 #4. Sorry I got my Jonathans crossed.
Why isn't it good enough to just own and enjoy the products you like without professional endorsement?
I believe it is healthier for a company (or designer) to have to strive for acceptance. Once success is achieved, complacency sets in and the product suffers.
This free market system we hear touted is actually a good thing. I'd like to see it continue as is with less interference from the "experts" rather than more.
as others have stated, the combination of no advertising dollars and going direct decreases the odds of a review.
Mrtennis (Threads | Answers)

You would hope that same combination greatly reduces the cost to the consumer creating a much higher value than conventionally marketed mainstream alternatives. In other words, if I can allow myself to make purchases without reviewer endorsement, I may very well get a lot more for my money.
As the presence of audio dealers decreases and the proliferation of factory-direct marketing increases, it becomes more and more difficult for those of us who reside away from metropolis to audition the equipment we hear about. Further, many of us, restricted by the lower wages and lesser economies of the hinterlands, buy only used equipment. We simply cannot afford to buy this stuff new. My program is unable to absorb significant depreciation. I find that if I buy used equipment wisely, I can try it for little or no money by simply returning it to the used market if it fails to satisfy. This policy, of course, relies upon other people to make the initial purchase and then resell at some point. Factory-direct, free trial periods can also serve in this way and products purchased directly from the manufacturer typically maintain a higher resale value than those which are sourced through traditional dealer networks.
I do not read the audio mags any longer because I have developed my own alternate review process by personal contact and word of mouth. As a result I have no use for Michael Fremer's estimates and declarations nor do I care to read measurements and graphs. All that matters is my satisfaction with my chosen entertainment.
So if I own the product and I find that it fulfills my needs and wishes, I don't have a desire to know whether or not a skilled writer thinks I should like it. It doesn't matter if it deviates from an amorphous, arbitrary absolute sound. My interest lies with whether or not I want to keep it and whether or not I can recover my investment if I choose to sell.
Just imagine buying your food according to the "Absolute Flavor". Why isn't it enough to just like the taste without giving yourself indigestion and a possible ulcer over the possibility that something else may come slightly closer to the "Absolute Flavor"?
We are the lunatic fringe. We drive ourselves nuts over differences that may or may not exist and most certainly don't matter outside of our asylum. Everyone of us, including the newcomers, have a level of sound reproduction that vastly surpasses that which can be found in the other 99.99999% of American homes. I wish my health was as high on the continuum as my audio system is.