I completely agree with Mofimadness, Nonoise and Chayro. The thing with reviews is that you have to learn to read between the lines. So to me, the good reviewers are better at conveying what they hear and through experience in reading reviews the reader learns to discern what they are communicating. Most reviews to me are for entertainment value.
As for any reviewer, they are no different than us, they have their listening preferences and biases. The good ones communicate the characteristics of a component under review regardless of whether you agree or not, it's up to the individual reader to review the reviewer and determine whether or not to value his judgements. The decline of HiFi, if it is happening, never did, is or will have a thing to do with reviewers. Your premis seems a real stretch and you give the reviewers much to much credit. As long as people listen to music there will be a fringe group that will want to hear it well reproduced regardless of the new technologies on the horizon.
|
"A failure to relate and be genuinely critical will lead to the continuous demise of Hi End hifi."
Hi Lohanimal
The above is what you said so I guess it is what you mean and completely in line with the responses to your query as far as I understand, am I missing another point somewhere? First off there are reviewers that are entertaining writers at best who's judgement I don't hold in any higher regard than anyone else's. Then there are reviewer's who by the consistency of their descriptions of products lend more credibility to what they describe. Another thing to consider is that most reviewer's review products that they think they will like. Why waste time on products of little interest? This idea about being "genuinely critical" is a bit vague, what exactly do you mean? There are usually clues in the review that let you know the plus and minus points of the product. There is no need to openly bash a product in a publication unless there is some type of consistent objective method involved, certainly not subjective, that would be totally unfair to the manufacturer of the product and would go back to biases and preferences. Measurements are one of those objective tools upon which the reader can draw his own conclusions but as most experienced audiophiles know, they don't always tell the whole story.
I don't completely understand your point about Breitling and how this relates in any way to Hi-end audio sales, could you explain, I am curious. |
Ah come on Buconero117, reviewers are for the most part regular audiophiles like the rest of us. Corrupt? Come on, that is a real stretch. Has it gotten to the point in the world we live in that we find it necessary to view ourselves as victims and dupes for seemingly everything? It seems a real trend. Mind you there are real victims and in the context of this discussion your comments diminish the importance of people that are so legitimately. We're talking about Cavaet Emptor here. I say, get educated, be smart, take responsibility for your decisions and STOP blaming and accusing. It's what the hell's wrong in the world we live in. I just HAD to vent this, I am so tired of people not taking personal responsibility and always pointing the finger. We are each the master of our choices. |
I hear what you're saying Robsker but a "non profit" for hi-end audio? Another consideration is someone with some business savvy and ambition that might explore the viability of a for profit in the mode of Consumer Reports, not likely either. (I'm not sure if they are a non profit or not for profit but you can bet, someone or somebodies is making money along the line.)
In any regard I'm certain it would take a lot of investment capital and market research as a start that few would risk UNLESS some altruistic audiophile with deep pockets decides to do it as a worthwhile "non profit" or "NOT FOR PROFIT" enterprise in the service of his fellow audiophiles maybe? Again, not likely unless there is some beneficial tax loophole regarding the 2nd option. Consumer Reports researches a wide variety of product so has vastly broader appeal and a greater subscriber base. Another problem is that objective analysis can never override subjective appeal, how do you deal with that? It can NEVER be like Consumer Reports for that reason alone. Remember Audio Magazine and Stereo Review? Everything was pretty much based on measurements and a brief comment or two about how components sounded, which was generally "good". |
Schubert while you're at it why don't you just ask Kr4 what his average "take" is since he is a reviewer. While I agree that there are industries in this country where there are serious issues with corruption and greed that may affect peoples' lives in a profound manner, hi-end audio rags, reviewers and the industry as a whole are not even on the radar. Besides, it is a luxury expenditure. If one feels the reviewers or magazines are dishonest it is easy enough to choose to not subscribe. |
Actually it did exist and was an alternative to the mainstream audio magazines of the day. When JG Holt established "The Stereophile" in the early 60's it was to describe the subjective sonic characteristics of audio components, a first of its kind. It was a different approach in that the magazine didn't accept any advertisements unlike the other audio magazines of the day. There was a problem, it relied totally on a subscription base with no advertising. Of course from a business model perspective it meant that folks would have to pay more than the other magazines that accepted advertising. The value to the reader that the information provided would be ideally unbiased and uncumbered by the pressure from advertisers. It would provide what the reviewer heard (JG Holt) as well as measurements and how the two might correlate. The problem is the over the years, the magazine was never published on a timely basis which gave rise to another publication in the early 70's, The Absolute Sound with the same idea but a more timely publishing schedule.
Both of these magazines have evolved over the years and in order to stay viable and become profitable (a novel idea wouldn't you say?) decided to accept advertisements. It is tempting to be cynical when there is a conflict at play namely, is the magazine always being totally objective in describing subjective preferences and differences in components? I feel for the most part they do. Are they pressured by manufacturers' for good reviews of their products with the risk of losing advertising if not positive? I suspect that happens too. It isn't a perfect world and maintaing a viable business in a constantly changing business environment is not always easy. While there has been an evolution of both of these magazines most particularly Stereophile when Larry Archibald sold it to a larger publishing concern, I'm sure other pressures on the Editor/Publisher came into play. We as readers can't know these details but we can only rely on our own senses and experience when reading reviews.
There are numerous e magazines to read and there is a wealth of information, more than ever before, for audiophiles to gather data in order to make sound purchasing decisions. But yes, I agree, virtually any consumer interest magazine that accepts advertising yet reviews products can be viewed as nothing more than entertainment and "pretty pictures". |
Me too Mechans, a hobby within the hobby. I'm sure that is how it is with most reviewers. Along with the nice discounts they may get for components that they like, remember, no dealer markups. That isn't corrupt, is it? Oh, where is the line! |
Well said Nonoise! You took the words out of my mouth if I had the words to say what you so simply and eloquenty did. |
"(Again, please feel free to correct me)."
Who would be tempted to try! I enjoyed your most comprehensive input. It is refreshing to hear from someone with a broader knowledge and view of the subject as a whole to put things into a more balanced perspective. |
"(Again, please feel free to correct me)."
Who would be tempted to try! I enjoyed and learned a thing or two from your most comprehensive input, a good thing. It is refreshing to hear from someone with a broader knowledge and insider view of the subject as a whole to put things into a more balanced perspective. So much for those VSPs, eh Nonoise? |
