Why do you think it is an 'interesting choice of words?' It is in reference to an earlier post about the conditions for not confining me to quarters.
++++StereoPhile Class A components+++++
Any of you guys who have listened to more components than I have, or maybe anyone who has been in the industry: I see a lot of posts mentioning "stereophile class A " etc, so I assume this recommendation carries a lot of weight. (After purchasing my Audio PHysic Virgo II's, I saw that they were class A in stereophile, so I felt like I agreed with what they were saying.) Are the reviews completely independent? With the vast array of components out there, can they really cover all of them? Do you guys really agree with the class A and B thing? Thanks for the perspective....Mark
78 responses Add your response
Reviewers cannot afford such measures. We do have 2 methods. First, there's the double-blind procedure: When we meet with manufacturers, it is a requirement that we both get blind drunk so that no one can remember what was discussed or with whom. Second, there's the ABX approach in which all such meetings require the presence of a third masked party who is a competing manufacturer or a reviewer for a competing magazine but whose identity is kept from both reviewer and manufacturer. With these methods, we can socialize and accomplish nothing. |
"With these methods, we can socialize and accomplish nothing." ? Sure you do accomplish something. The Manufacturer usually pays!! "Blind drunk" Golly blind AND deaf?! That's major sensory deprivation man! Must be awful for you! Uh, that's humour Kal. Us Conspiracy Theorists gotta' have SOME fun. Well, I have to go watch Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory now. I haven't watched it yet this week, and I have to stay sharp so I can keep an eye on you guys and figure out what's REALLY going on! |
As someone who as actually been confined to quarters, I can understand Kals reluctance. I was referring corporate policies in some companies prohibiting posting on internet bulletin boards within their industry, even anonymously. It is assumed you speak for the publisher. There is supposed to be a chinese wall between advertising and content. It appears that Stereophiles' wall seems porous to the unwashed. Myself included. Enlighten me. |
Helcat: I have no problems with Kal or his reviews. As i mentioned above, i think that he ( and most all other reviewers ) are between a rock and a hard place. What path they take to get out of such a place is up to them. As such, i think that Kal ( as an individual ) does a fine job of walking the tight-rope that we ( as regular readers of his work ) and the "powers that be" at Stereophile have provided for him. And for the record, yes, i knew that he was posting under the moniker of Kr4 prior to this thread. Sean > |
Sean, actually I very much respect Kr4 reviews. The original thread was/is Stereophile class listing and the credence given. Don't get all wishy-washy on me now that a credentialed reviewer is online. remember your first post? Trust your experience. I would never cancel my Stereophile subscription as then I could only yell at the TV. Also, Sean |
Helcat wrote: "I was referring corporate policies in some companies prohibiting posting on internet bulletin boards within their industry, even anonymously. It is assumed you speak for the publisher." It would be incorrect to assume so. My statements here and elsewhere (including in print) are my own opinions based on my own knowledge and experience. I am not an employee of the magazine and I earn my living elsewhere. "There is supposed to be a chinese wall between advertising and content. It appears that Stereophiles' wall seems porous to the unwashed. Myself included. Enlighten me." I cannot enlighten since I have no knowledge of or contact with the advertising end of things. They have never contacted me about an impending/prospective review and I have certainly never contacted them. I do know who the ad people are since we have attended various functions together but there are no lines of communication or procedures. |
Stereophile is in the business of selling (generally) high-priced, many would say highly overpriced, high-end gear. Why? Simple! A magazine's profits come from advertisers, generally, from my experience in the magazine business, in the ratio of 60% ad space to 40% articles. Have you noticed how much thinner Stereophile has gotten since the number and space of ads has declined. Readers, you ask? To magazines readers are a necessary evil. Advertisers pay according to the number of subscribers, which is why you get all those 'bargain' subscription offers. This brings me to the "A" list and reviews. A magazine can't afford to antagonize advertisers or trash equipment sent for review. Obvious, isn't it! Do that and the magazine goes down the tubes (no pun intended). That's why it appears that Stereophile's reviewers haven't, to paraphrase Will Rogers, met a piece of equipment they didn't like! Are the reviewers dishonest? Not necessarily! They must certainly be cross-pressured. On the one hand they must serve, and thus maintain, their subscriber base, and, at the same time serve the interests of makers of often overpriced equipment. Do I read Stereophile? Sure, I do! At the going subscription rate one can't afford not to. I find it fun and sometimes even useful. I jus take their recommendations with more than a grain of salt! |
Helcat: My position about Stereophile ratings has not wandered one bit, nor am i "sucking up" to "a famed reviewer". Having said that, i'm NOT going to put Kal on the spot. I will only say that i've found his reviews to offer moments of critical insight that i've found lacking in the reviews of other Stereophile employees. THAT is why i don't have a problem with Kal or his reviews. The fact that Kal has very little to do with overall Class Ratings at Stereophile also comes into play. That info can be found in another thread that he, i and JA were involved in over at AA. For that matter, if you had ever read ANY of my public correspondance with members of Stereophile at AA, you would know that i'm not a "brown noser" in the least. I try to call them as i see them, good or bad. As such, i've posted "kudo's" to them when i really enjoyed something and dished out criticism when i thought something was "fishy" or poorly executed. After all, i am one of the bosses there and have the right to voice my opinion. As to how i am one of the "bosses" there, my subscription fees help pay their bills and paychecks : ) As far as cancelling subscriptions go, i'm not going to do that as i'm prepaid for another three years or so. Whether or not i like specific attributes of the magazine is besides the point. It is a great source of info / current trends / occasional technical articles. In that respect, it is worth way more than what we pay for it. As some may recall, i had actually encouraged JA to raise the price of a subscription so as to minimize the dependency of the magazine on advertising revenue. I still have that point of view and would put my money where my mouth is should they decide to go that route. Sean > |
Sean, I will try to take some time off to catch up with your prolific postings on multiple sites. Sorry... My wife forced me to attend AA after a vicious three day bender. I got the chip somewhere. I was under the impression they were a self perpetuating meritocracy without bosses. The other day me and JA ST and the gang had to call MF onto the carpet over that whole crown jewel reference se/shelter fiasco. Just kidding. I always enjoyed name dropping. Don't make me taunt you a third time. Enjoy:) |
Helcat: I don't know whether to take your post in jest or not. I wasn't trying to "name-drop", i was trying to point out that my comments / points of view have remained consistent regardless of who i was talking to and where it was said. For the record, i do enjoy my music, my systems and the correspondance that takes place on forums of this nature. If i didn't, i wouldn't be involved with any of it. Sean > |
Helcat, Kal, John Atkinson, "Sam Tellig," John Marks and other Stereophile contributors have participated from time to time at audioasylum.com, where Sean is also a regular. Sean has had some arguments with "Sam" and, in general, is one of the members there who seems to be very interested in audio reviewer "ethics" and Stereophile's policies. I find most of these discussions rather tedious. Though I have had an argument with Kal regarding speaker frequency response (I like presence dips, he doesn't), I think all of the contributors to the print mags are decent guys, and almost all of the components they review are recommended because most things made and sold by audio manufacturers do what they are supposed to do. My only discomforts are with the increasingly stratospheric prices of the components they review and the proliferation of "Class A" loudspeakers (I think a lot of them belong in a lower class or are too expensive to recommend for the performance offered, but that's just the personal pov of a listener not connected in any way with the industry). It is unrealistic, however, for anyone to expect a component to be trashed in a review. There just aren't that many of them that are so bad. Just remember that Stereophile is a buff mag published to entertain and to provide a vehicle for advertising. (There isn't anything wrong with advertising.) Unlike Sean, I would not pay more for Stereophile. I have less and less interest in component reviews anyway, but the components they are reviewing are just getting too expensive. |
Paul: That was a very nice overview of my past "discussions" with the folks at Stereophile, especially given our personal differences in the past. Hats off to you for being a complete gentleman about those differences and presenting a very fair synopsis of the situation. I would only add that i've had more than a few "run-in's" with JA and, to a far lesser extent, John Marks. Kal must have found a good rock to hide under or is either more selective / more careful about how and what he writes : ) While i would be willing to pay more money for what i would consider a magazine of higher calibre and integrity, i too have to agree with your assessment of the price structure of components reviewed. While it is true that technology and R&D take both time and money and a manufacturer has to recoupe that somehow, the prices on the majority of "high end" products is beyond belief. Quite honestly, i can't afford the mass majority of products reviewed or featured in these mags anymore. That does not mean that i don't want to be aware of them and / or the technologies / design theories that went into creating them though. As a side note, folks might want to take a look at this very recent Stereophile based thread on AA. Some may agree / disagree with the points that i bring up there, but everyone is welcome to voice their opinion. I'm sure that JA and those that run Stereophile would like to hear from their subscribers on this matter as it could be the future of the magazine. Sean > |
Well, this divorced daddy is cooking dinner for the youngens, never quite know how its gonna come out. Did I miss anything? I remember, and having cancelled my subscription to Stereophile because it was $36 and I thought it was too expensive compared to others I like. Now I think the magazine is a good price but I cant afford the equipment I would really like. Go figure. |
I'm curious - How many of the posters here who see advertisers receiving positive reviews as de facto incriminating evidence of a quid pro quo are Consumers Reports subscribers? How many would pay what a Stereophile subscription would cost if they didn't accept advertising? How many would even enjoy perusing the magazine if it were bereft of ads? I agree that Stereophile's credibility gap is of their own making, but people unwilling to put their money where their mouth is shouldn't lob hand-grenades. |
I've nothing against advertisers or even reviewers who write up advertisers products as long as they make it clear that their reviews are biased. After all, no one, no matter how ethical and honest, will quarrel with his or her kind providers. When they first appeared, neither Stereophile or Absolute Sound accepted advertisements. Consequently, their hard-hitting reviews sent manufacturers whining and whimpering into corners. Then, they decided to accept advertising after all - but only dealers. Later they also accepted manufacturers ads, in my view, at the cost of absolute honesty. Many years ago, to make summer cash, I worked in the kitchen of a ritzy hotel. I remember the manager storming in and reproving the 'extravagance' of one of the chefs by saying: "Anyone can cook with butter!" Look, anyone can make a good loudspeaker for $35,000 or even $10,000. Making a good one for $1,000, now that takes some doing! So, I guess if you can afford the prices, you can surely trust the "A list". |