The top audiophile components of today are clearly better than those of yesteryear, which is why favorable reviews abound. The problem is that too many reviewers refuse to look at a component in a critical fashion, which requires him/her to make an honest attempt to compare it with its competitors. Do we really need a reviewer to tell us that the latest megabuck Rockport or Magico is a really great speaker? |
I don't know why it is so expensive now. I suspect there are many reasons, reduced market share, marketing, prestige factor, etc. Some of it may be less true competition. Way back in the '70s there were many big separate companies making good products. That number has dwindled. Now there are many boutique companies making products without the engineering resources of the big boys. Once those boutique companies prove their product they are gobbled up, like ARC or Wadia. It is a completely different market now.
The other thing of interest is that HiFi news is giving out more good reviews now. Why? Is it possible the products are just better now than ever before? Take mid-fi products for example, a mid-fi reciever in the late '70s compares to a mid-fi receiver today are world's apart in performance and quality.
A sansui G8000 in 1979 retailed for $920. It was a 2 channel amp with 120W / channel, tuner included. That is about $3000 today. That would buy you the top of the line Pioneer Elite receiver. 140W/ch into 9 channels. 9.2 pre out, dolby atmos, streaming audio, video switching, etc... I would say that the new Pioneer probably sounds better too.
So how do you adjust the scales? Is there a set comparison point, or is it all relative, and relative to what? This hobby of ours has come a long way in the last 40-50 years, and it continues to improve. I expect it to continue. What was hi-fi 20 years ago is probably mid-fi performance now. |
It is over-priced because the income disparities have become so so great the top few percent consider 50 K candy-bar money. |
HIFI is not in decline. There exists a plethora of gear, more than any other age for our hobby. Possibly, purchasing this gear is in decline, this is directly related to the over-priced aspect of our hobby as well.
Every year, the "retail" prices incrase at least 10%, as manufacturers are covering their losses from the previous year. Everyone knows this...
Happy Listening. |
I think some of these last few posts kind of hit the nail on the head. I was not saying the decline is due to the magazines alone, but if in '77 mags gave useful info, why is that not so much the case now. Bloggers really do lack a bit of integrity, but they don't have what I think is an industrial responsibility so to speak. When Hi-fi was more central to our home entertainment (ie we now have playstations, computers etc) there was more of the average persons budget dedicated to buying good and decent hifi. For instance the top end of turntables, although expensive as at the time Technics SP10 mk3 springs to mind, it is not vis a vis as expensive say as an SME 30. So where products are financially in the middle ground, there is a real competition to make the best product within that cost parameter. So we have more products competing within a sector and a need for reviewers to be more critical. Have read of a good car magazine - Autocar/Car/Top Gear - they are not scared to give a genuine opinion positive or negative - and the motor industry continues to thrive (yes I know it is a different industry dealing with 'essential items'). Currently we do have all out cost no object products - with a price to reflect this too. The problem with this is that whilst I love statement products, they do not occupy the real world, and worship within magazines of such products is seen as over-indulgent to the normal consumer. In car programmes, and I use top gear once again, they aren't scared t criticise such products. The average consumer need not have to read between the lines and get to know the writer first - I work with the spoken word all day as a lawyer, and I like precision (honest -lol). In the uk, apparently HiFi World have the highest ownership (of equipment) to reader ratio - it tends to contain a lot more realistic priced products - I must say I think the writing in that magazine has really gone south since it gives out 4-5 globes to just about everything. HiFi News are, unfortunately, just going backwards from the days of Colloms - hardly anything gets less than 75% score in sound tests. Same can be said of HiFi Choice which, if you pick up an edition 25 years ago, against something in the last 5 years, you will see that the old editions weren't scared to criticise a product. I went to the High End Show in Windsor and couldn't help but feel that it felt a bit like the last throes of a dying animal - there were some astonishingly tasty bits of kit that bore no relation to most of the buying public that were in attendance. When I went to my first show in 2002 (I think) I came away and set up auditions for several products, many of which I then purchased - I don't have an ultra high end rig but most peoples eyes water when I tell them the price of it. Even then the magazines were less critical than 10 years before, but are positively harsh to those out now. |
Psag, I think you are correct in what you say about the magazines. This may seem a daft comment, but does it matter that they are in thrall to the manufacturers? It only matters if you do'nt know this is the case. I suspect every seasoned "Audiophile" does, or should know that.
Who is at risk then? Well I suppose the newcomers. Those who have heard a great system and think they would like some of that. Well where do you start? For me in 1977, I started buying the magazines, in good faith. To be honest, I did'nt go wrong following their advice.
Now I use magazines as a, hopefully, interesting read, making me aware of new products I might want to research or audition |
The editors of the online blogs and the glossy mags need to up their integrity levels. What are we to make of an editor/reviewer who states that the latest DCS stack is the ultimate in digital playback, and a few months later says the latest Berkeley DAC is the new state of the art? The journalistic sources of information have devolved into glorified advertising services for the latest cool gadget. |
Just found this thread. Not followed every post, however I concur with Mofimadness (2nd post) and Electroslacker post. If Hifi is in decline it is not for lack of great gear. Nor are the reviewers at fault. Who wants to spend time with and write about something that one is not interested in? Especially when there is so much worth writing about. My interest in audio is not in decline, I enjoy the mags, and am having more fun in this hobby than ever.
As an afterthought, think about how many TTs, phono stages, cartridges are available even after the rise of digital and how many approaches to digital exist. Is this indicative of a decline? |
If you're writing for enthusiasts, then a) you better be enthusiastic, and b) you better create voyeauristic experiences with unattainable objects. Otherwise your audience will choose a different purveyor.
The audio press supports the illusion that there is a vector towards better and better that is moving far faster than actuality, which feeds the underlying consumerism that supports the industry, but after fifty years of variation on a theme it is far more likely that these are mostly just variations in subtle differences. There will be a next AR preamp, heralded with rave reviews of 'better' and calls to consume it, but it is unlikely to be better than all that have preceded it. |
OK then lets start out making a new hi fi movement altogether. Ther was a web site about it not long ago but lets try again affordable audio we will mainstream, we'll call pop music, main wave. We will congratulate those who make good stuff cheap. Maybe not the last top 5% we all chase which can be left alone, which can carry on in the fashion it has.
You know we are not the only people who care about older technology. I collect and use fountain pens and there are plenty of people who shell out $400-500 day in and day out for these pens. A perfectly usable fountain pen can be bought for about $1.50 and is thrown out like any old ball point. I am not suggesting that user of cheap pens gain an appreciation for slightly better ones but it may be as hard as getting people to appreciate mid fi. That stuff used to dominate. Ah the good old days Pioneer, Kenwood, Yamaha, Sansui, and better McIntosh, Accuphase even B and O, before that Fisher, Scott Bogen, Sherwood, Harmon Kardon etc.Oh well Where have they all gone...
I do have hope I noticed that people seem to want better headphones and are willing to pay for it. wWell see.. |
One man and his dog is all good and well, but he has some difficulty serving the masses or relating what he makes to the buying public - hence he remains one man and his dog. Hi fi is in decline, yet music sales have increased year on year. The growth of streaming products, and things like the Devialet are good news IMHO - modern, stylish, versatile, and sounds brilliant. That said products like Magico and other uber expensive speakers are bad news - out of touch. Magazines and reviews that slap the back of such products every time they come out is also bad news - I was impressed with Fremer being one of the very few reviewers not to be bowled over by some Magico (Q5's) I think. Read an Alan Sircom review and he simply has nothing bad or negative to say. Hi fi needs to become genuinely affordable again, and reviewing must reflect that realiseable reality. |
Mrtennis responded that if HiFi is in decline, then the product should be declining too. Not true I would say, because of the rise of small, specialist manufacturers. In the 19070's with a true mass market for HiFi, I suspect the one man and his dog outfits would have been crushed by the majors, Pioneer, Linn etc. Now these large companies have left the stage, so to speak. The little guy has come to the fore and I think we are as well or better served by manufacturers now as in the 70's. It's ironic, that as Vinyl and even more so, CD are becoming legacy formats, we are seeing such a range of fantastic and fantasticly expensive kit to play them on.
HiFi+, which is the only magazine I read, had it's 100th issue this month and the editor tried to speculate where the hobby/industry, would be at issue 200. The answer was, he had absolutely no idea, technology is moving that fast.
Courant's contribution was of great interest, but told us what most of us expected. Magazines run on advertising copy, not magazine sales, so are beholden to the manufacturers. I personally don't think most magazines would give 5 stars to a rubbish product, they would quietly send it back to the manufacturer and not do a review. There is sense to this too. Why spend 5 pages advising readers not to buy a product. The magazines are finding it just as tough as the manufacturers. I found out that HiFi News one of the biggest UK magazines, has a monthly circulation of about 8000 copies. I find that astonishing and just wonder how it can survive. |
Interesting analysis, Lohanimal. If, as you say, high end audio is becoming a cottage industry, would it be safe to say that it can be rescued and maintained by the remaining major brands that still hold audio to a higher standard?
I'm referring to brands like Luxman, Accuphase, Marantz, etc. that have the wherewithal to weather the economic storms and retain that look and feel that we associate with the high end, not to mention the niche players and local makes that seem to be doing just fine for the moment.
Reviewers of any sort aside, for the moment, these that I mention will be around for a long time to come. I believe the relevancy of reviewers is overstated and despite the debate, only provide a touchstone of sorts.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Whilst your experience is doubtless courant, it is, nevertheless, descriptive of magazine and journalistic practices to run as a viable business. It explains to some degree why magazines publish what they do, and why - (I say to some degree, because I am sure that there are several other factors that would perhaps take too long to describe).
However, magazines have also been influential over time - such as the storage of vehicles post manufacture that Top Gear highlighted, or fashion magazines such as Vogue that have criticized working practices in clothes manufacture in the developing world. |
First of all I am glad this thread has provoked a response. I very much agree with Robskers ideal.
I used Breitling as an example of luxury product, that to all intents and purposes is completely and utterly irrelevant to the end user, yet attracts a lot of money. Hifi, let alone the high end, is very much perceived, outside HiFi circles as utterly pointless. Yet we have a watch company that thrives and takes money from the type of people that can afford to buy, and ought to be attracted to hi-fi. I used the Breitling example having read an article at the back of HiFi News.
As to the demise of HiFi - let's face it - 'it's hifi but not as we know it'. You don't have the hifi stores packed to the rafters on Tottenham Court Road anymore. It does not attract the mainstream expenditure as a proportion of our income as it once did. In the past most people did not have a Sony Walkmen, and listened to music on a hifi at home. Now the truth is that the majority of people regrettably never listen to music other than through white ear buds, and the closest thing to bass is from their car boot.
HiFi has, by the year, and I've seen it in the last 10 years become more and more of a specialist and marginalised hobby made of small boutique brands. As this continues the products become more and more expensive. Take for example the Vendetta Research phono stage - it was a high end product, and can probably beat the vasst majority of todays phono stages. Index linked, whilst it will not be cheap, it certainly will not cost you the ridiculous sums that some top end phono stages do currently.
If you do pick up an older copy of HiFi News and read a review by MArtin Colloms for instance, he was not scared to be genuinely critical of a product, and likewise clearly explain his position. His magazine called HiFi Critic is much the same in that regard.
Manufacturers, understandably love what they make, but you can't send a product to a magazine, pay the magazine to review a product, and then also expect an uncritical review. It's a ludicrous set up. There is one on-line magazine that won't say boo to a goose, and says everything is the best thing the reviewer has ever heard.
A reviewers job is to provide a critique, a comparison, and relate it to the reader.
Some reviewers start of very well like Roy Gregory did in the early years of HiFi plus, but as time went on, he had to ward off and respond to several letters about his bias in favour of Audiofreaks imported items. Worse still in the reviewers system edition, I have a funny feeling that he had quite a few items from Audiofreaks in it. The list just keeps going on. Alvin Gold in the late 80's and early 90's was never scared of criticizing Linn products for instance - in particular the halo wearing LP12.
Compare this to Jeremy Clarkson and the Top Gear crew. They may well be 3 middle aged twits, but they can relate products/cars to the buying market. Likewise they have absolutely no fear in actually being openly critical of a product.
Hi-fi is slowly turning into a cottage industry, and this is due to the fact it is simply not attracting customers. Another thing - the 1970's was the 'Golden Age' of hifi - paradoxically it was the time when luxury watches were doing their worst ever as the cheap Timex LCD watches were the thing to buy. Fast forward to now... |
"(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? |
"(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. |
if hifi is in decline, it means that a quality audio system assembled today is inferior to some other quality audio system from years past. is there any evidence of this.
although i prefer my stacked esl-based syste from the 60's over any of today's systems (no digital then), i wouldn't assert that hifi is in decline, as there would be some system preferred by some audiophiles in comparison to the quad-based system.
so, i see no evidence in the decline of hifi.
i think the introduction of digital in the 80's, created problems, but , if your system is analog based, there should be no problem.
one could make the case that an audio system consisting of high quality analog tapes creates the highest quality of sound, in which case ,if you subscribe to such a hypothesis, one would need to acquire tapes and a tape deck to attain the best sound.
the point is speakers, amps, preamps, and cables are as good as those from the past, which isconsistent with my listening experiences. although i prefer stacked quad esls, it is a preference, and would not say definitively that the original quad is the best speaker ever made. |
Always amusing to see non-researchers and non-journalists critiquing trade and hobby publications...
The trades and hobby pubs are a business. They make their money selling advertising; singleton copies at the newsstand or online; and subscriptions (both hard copy and online). Content usually consists of either: industry news; trends; techniques; profiles; or reviews.
Typically, critical reviews are within editorial policy when the item receiving coverage is external to the central or "core focus" subject matter of the publication. The Chicago Sun Times, for example, is not primarily focused on (or supported by) the entertainment or hospitality industries. Its on-staff reviewers are thus permitted to submit critical reviews about movies, restaurants, music products, and the like. Likewise, "music products" are not the core focus at Stereophile. As trends have shown, Stereophile has no problem critically reviewing album releases. Shootout format reviews of Expensive Cables, not so much... :-)
Speaking of which, when the reviewed item does apply to the publication's core focus, then products given review coverage will typically be presented in a positive light and in a neutral tone. Negative coverage is usually only done in instances where the reviewed item does something egregious. Otherwise, a "negative review" is denoted via non-coverage. Simply put, stuff that's mediocre or outright sucks doesn't warrant column inches except in unusual or extreme cases. More often than not, reviews are more about finding "hidden gems" (e.g., Sam Tellig's review of the LFD integrated) than it is about "bashing". At the same time, bashing or a "reality check" does happen on occasion (e.g. the recent Totem Forest "C" rating in Stereophile).
A good analogy to the editorial policy at HiFi magazines would be reviews found in Photography Equipment Hobbyist publications. These magazines generate most of their income from photo equipment manufacturers and dealers buying advertising. Products that are given coverage in featured reviews are presented in a positive light almost without exception. Again, stuff that's crud, with rare exception, simply doesn't warrant coverage.
Also, Breitling is a privately held company and as such doesn't release exact unit sales figures. So, how exactly was the Breitling earnings factoid determined?
That, and I highly doubt the comment that a car reviewer earns $180K a year for published reviews. $180K is about what a Managing Editor gets at a nationally distributed monthly. Please feel free to correct me, but more than likely, your neighbor is paid $3000.00 for a published assignment, with each assignment containing ~5 reviews. This would yield an annual salary of $36,000, which is much more in line with current market rates for Staff Writers. Two assignments a month bumps that up to $72,000 a year, which is consistent with current market rates for Senior Writers. (Again, please feel free to correct me).
Disclosure: I have 20+ years working as a staff & freelance journalist. I've been nationally published and have sold over 150 assignments in 19 markets. These days, my primary income source is working as an IT consultant, where I earn my keep conducting Human Factors & Marketing Research. A substantial part of the job entails authoring deliverable reports and presentations. |
Thanks Tubegroover.
I had what alcoholics call a moment of clarity.
:-) |
06-22-13: Onhwy61
That's a great response Charles1dad. Knee jerk conspiracies are lame, but somehow the NYT and NPR are behind them and free choice is about to be taken away. You've said it all! Huh? |
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. |
I agree there is a lot to be desired with the quality of reporting nowadays but the biggest threat is what passes for journalism and is simply propaganda. If you were to check the W-2s of most of the loud mouths out there you'd find "entertainer" as the most common occupation, not journalist. They are just highly paid cheerleaders and propagandist (which is still illegal but never enforced) . Great journalism is out there, in abundance. One just has to read and critically assess.
All rely on corporate handouts as well as advertising revenue and public donations. They're all prisoners to those whose interests are not the same as yours.
That's not to say that the entirety of their output is compromised: far from it. They're just reminded now and then as to just how far they can go before a story is quashed. You can find some great reporting along with the usual pablum from the VSPs (Very Serious People) who haven't a clue as to what is the matter but pontificate like a deranged pastor.
All the best,
Nonoise |
The HiFi industry is in decline and HiFi reviewers are always positive. I would'nt argue with either statement, it does'nt mean the one follows the other.
I read some of the magazines, particularly HiFi+, because it is at least literate and an interesting. I agree with Charyo though, anyone buying kit on the basis of a magazine review, needs there heads examining and by the way, I have a great investment opportunity, building a railway through the Amazon jungle, just send me a PM. I read some of the magazines because I am interested in HiFi and it keeps me abreast of what new kit and technologies are becoming available, nothing more. I think that is true of 99.9% of other Stereophile/ Absolute sounds, etc, readers. I do'nt feel I need protecting from my own gullibility. |
That's a great response Charles1dad. Knee jerk conspiracies are lame, but somehow the NYT and NPR are behind them and free choice is about to be taken away. You've said it all! |
Tubegroover,Jond and Nonoise, nice points and well said.This knee jerk everything is corrupt or some corporate conspiracy is lame.Too much NPR and NY Times type pablum.I`m glad there`s a High End market available and I can choose to buy and spend what I want with my money.How long before this choice is regulated and taken away?
Regards, |
If one just looks at reviews as a jumping off point and do their due diligence (homework, footwork, inquiries) and stop relying on others to gift them the answer to their prayers, than all would be well in the world.
We've become a spoon fed country and rarely look beyond what's told us. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply these days. Couldn't agree more. To many people fall into the trap of believing that a review from a "consumer" supported review is somehow free of not only the manufacturers advertising bias but the reviewers bias and prejudices as well. Reviews of either type are the starting point, not the end point in deciding on a purchase. |
That gradual decline you speak of seems to me to be just a generational thing, in that different values and expectations are the norm now instead of the exception.
When that ship goes down, we're taking an irreplaceable part of that culture with us, leaving those who follow with, hopefully, a decent map to go by.
All the best,
Nonoise |
"Why is everything always "in decline"? Why is there constantly a "conspiracy"?"
That's a good question. I know for sure that I am in gradual decline getting older and we all are in that same boat as far as I know. I think its just perhaps wanting the rest of the world to go with us as the ship goes down..... :^) |
If one just looks at reviews as a jumping off point and do their due diligence (homework, footwork, inquiries) and stop relying on others to gift them the answer to their prayers, than all would be well in the world.
We've become a spoon fed country and rarely look beyond what's told us. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply these days.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Why is everything always "in decline"? Why is there constantly a "conspiracy"? BTW I am using quotation marks to be extra annoying. I look at the choice in high quality gear at various price points, a wide multitude of musical formats, and the wide embracing of various and often contradictory forms of technology and, well, I see a bit of a golden age. Maybe I am being naive or pollyanna-ish, but I can read reviews for fun with a grain of salt. I doubt there is corruption per se, more like occasionally misguided enthusiasm? |
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! |
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". |
After reading this I would like to become a reviewer. Even if for the long term loans of some of the pricier equipment that I am sure to love, even though the associated equipment isn't with me right now.
Nice cars watches good pens whatever I will review them also, all magnificent! |
Tubegroover:
good points. It seems we agree (at least i think we do) --- that the context for professional review of audio equipment whereby the review would be of value (not biased, not absolute but relativistic, etc) simply does not exist and likely cannot exist.
i like your Consumer Reports idea... but, like you, such is not likely.
So... again, audio review websites, magazines, etc. --- they are pretty pictures and, essentially... nothing else. |
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. |
True, but concept is still valid.
The size of the industry is irrelevant, take per scam ratio is very high. |
Knowing even one exception contradicts your absolutist
"anything." Besides, high audio is small potatoes
as an industry. |
Just you naivety speaking Kr4. |
"One has to be naive in the EXTREME to think anything in the USA involving sizable sums of money is not corrupt."
No, I think you have to be cynical. |
One has to be naive in the EXTREME to think anything in the USA involving sizable sums of money is not corrupt.
How you thread you way through the mine-field is another matter. |
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". |
Regarding the opening sentence about M.Fremer's reviews, i have to say that Stereophile almost ALWAYS gives him the most exotic/expensive components and speakers to comment on. This in itself shows a bias that i am uncomfortable with. Are not the others on the staff capable of evaluating the really pricey equipment both for sound as well as value/dollar?
The really good stuff out there at this point IS going to sound very very good.
some manufacturers still have reliability issues and in those cases they either have to fix the component RIGHT AWAY for the customer or they should not be in business at all. But what a reviewer says is too often a result of either a very good listening room and associated components or perhaps not one and/or the other. or they are partial to vinyl over cd's. nothing wrong with that, but they (in Mr.Fremer's case) own a VERY exotic record player, not a Linn or VPI, etc. Perhaps redbook cd's should be the acid test for most systems due to the fact that just about EVERYONE knows what the good and bad of cd sound results in.
Overall i find reviews are helpful, although of course you need to go hear the components yourself. and where are those few stores that carry high-end gear set up for auditioning? certainly not readily available for most of us. you can however get a sense of what is going on with high-end audio from what IS available to listen to within a 2 hour radius of your house, especially when it comes to really good speaker systems. and perhaps as the internet forums get better and more to the point, you can find out from other individuals what they thought about a piece of gear they heard at a store or an audio show. If you've heard it, and more importantly if you've OWNED IT for awhile, PLEASE contribute what you know about speaker-X or preamp-Y, etc. you may not have the writing skills of a professional reviewer, but you may know a lot more about living with a piece of equipment than they would. |
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. |
Buco,
Consumer Reports also said that buying anything more expensive than Bose was just a waste of money! |
for a review to be of value the following conditions must be met: a) the reviewer be at a non-profit that does not advertise, b) the reviewed equipment must not come directly from the Manufacturer but be purchased in the manner we as consumers would purchase, c) the reviewer does not know and has no contact with the manufacturer, d) the reviewed item is reviewed in a real world system (5k speakers in a 10k system --- not a 40K system; a 4k preamp in a 20k system --- not a 100K system), and e) the reviewed item is compared in one system against 3 other items and reviewed in a relativistic manner (example: 4 total 5k speakers compared & contrasted or 4 total 4K pre-amps).
These conditions are never met.
Thus, no professional reviews are of value --- except as a diversion for a few minutes and to look at pretty pictures.. otherwise, professional reviews are biased, non-relativistic (and thus meaningless) and of no real value to a person considering a purchase. |
intelligence of people often grows when funds needed to be saved or spent smart. people making less and less decisions based on professional reviews, but rather by specification, parameters and system synergy that makes the best performance for the budget. |
The world in general is corrupt, evidently has been this way for some time now.
Also, I belive the younger generation has it correct, if you listen to "pop" music of any genre an Ipod is sufficient.More than sufficent really. |
The general business of car reviews is as corrupt as those of audio reviewers. I have a neighbor who is a car reviewer, she does about 60 reviews a year. Never anything negative. My talks with her confirm, be always positive or you will be put out of business, quickly. She gets about $3,000 a review. Remember, the only long established product reviews are conducted by consumer Reports, who pays their own way. |
much easier to review autos etc., an automobile is a whole entity unto itself. Audio components are mingled with other components, cables and different acoustics of each room they're placed in. |
