Collective letter s to Stereophile

I also agree with all points made.That is the main reason I bought a computer to get real info from real people.Once I went online I stopped buying rags like the Magazine mentioned any many others like it. Thorman

Hi all,
I would like to point your attention to the situation where a component is dropped from the recommended list with the explanation "Has not been reviewed in a long time OR no follow-up performed".
Whose fault is this? Can't Stereophile go out and purchase the component to do a follow-up? I feel the real reason is that manufacturer probably asked for component to be returned after a lengthy "borrowing" period OR manufacturer refused to provide a FREE "long term loan" (basically gifting it to the reviewer). I recall the case of Sam Tellig selling one of the McIntosh amps (which may have been gifted or sold for pennies on dollar to him) and then while he is reviewing another later amp from McIntosh he manages to wangle another unit (of amp he sold) from McIntosh. No wonder that the subsequent review of amp was so complimenatry. BTW, the above incident was quite recent, in last year or so. Anyway, I only read rge S'phile to get specs of units, industry news and the blubbering attempts by Atkinson to defend his stable of reviewers. Note especially JA standard responses like - I too have heard component A in similar conditions as (fill reviewer name here) and feel that so and so was right on in his assessment! BTW, last issue had 3 speakers with average price of almost 30,000 - the economy must be doing better than I thought if the market for these is healthy!

Hi Jeff, I have been thinking about the "impartiality" of A/V website participants you mentioned in your post, and lately and I am beginning to think that it is an illusion. A reviewer sees so much equipment that I believe they are not as impressionable as an audiophile who just purchased his latest high end piece. I have been active at A/V websites for a long time now, and have noticed a sort of "buyers pride" bias, myself included. I think it is only natural, but I remember vocally supporting products I had purchased many years ago, that today I see as quite decent, but not superb at all. As my listening skills evolve and my experience with different brands grows I have become less inclined to think my current opinion is the last word. I have carefully tested around 10-15 brands of cables and settled on many Acoustic Zen and Harmonic Technology cables and have recommended them many times. Including 30 years of working professionally in music writing, producing, performing and teaching, this is a fair amount of cables tried to warrant a reasonably fair opinion, but if I were a professional reviewer I would want to have tried at least 5 times that amount before offering my opinion. The better reviewers have that kind of experience and then some. Over the years I have bought more than a few items that Stereophile and SGHT has recommended. Three quarters of them of them I was near buying and the review was the extra support I needed to risk spending my money. The products I bought, (off the top of my head), Yamaha DXP-A1, Denon AVR-5700, B&W 805's, H. Tech cables, REL sub, B&K pre-pro, Pioneer DVD 37A, Sony DVP-9000ES, Toshiba HDTV, were by and large everything the reviewers said they were. So I would have to give Stereophile at least a "95" in consistency. I found the letters section in this months issue to be a fantastic read, informed, eloquent, passionate, insightful, controversial and uncensored, that I must conclude that a good editor makes a big difference. Could Stereophile make an effort to try reviewing some different and deserving brands, sure, but as Larry stated it can have a negative effect on companies not quite ready for the big time. If more people became interested in the high end audio market, Stereophile's advertising income would increase, their review budget would grow, and we would see a wider variety of reviews, including more of the items mentioned here. It must be a difficult balancing act for an editor to decide what gets reviewed or not. On one hand as a consumer I hope to see comparisons of the latest products (like say.. a review of two or three multi-format players coming out soon, hint, hint) and on the other hand I like to be informed of new things I'm unaware of. I think the real question is how to get more people interested in hearing very good sound at home. I think it also needs to be acknowledged that many of us DO care about Stereophile, and want to see the magazine continue to offer insight and advice especially in these confusing times from the consumer's perspective. Besides, the ads are fun to look at. Hard to stop the drool on occasion isn't it?

Seems to me if you want to read a lot of new reviews, the current S-pile is not for you. (If you want some technical analysis of what is reviewed, it's one of the only games in town.)

On the other hand, there are a gazillion items on their Recommended Components list, so if you want to make your purchasing or auditioning decisions on the basis of glowing magazine reviews, their archive is a treasure trove.

Upgrade, MANY of those "loaner" components are never returned or returned WAY, WAY later. I've read reviews where a reviewer broke out an amp for comparison to what he was currently writing about. As it turns out, the amp that he "took out of storage" was a unit that he had reviewed WELL OVER A YEAR PRIOR !!! As such, who is going to "badmouth" a product or manufacturer that basically gives you "free" gear to use "indefinitely" ??? Besides that, what manufacturer is going to have the guts to "burn bridges" and literally demand a product back from a reviewer that might just "fix them" next time around ???

There is a lot of "complimentary hand washing" take place in this field and it's not only taking place at Stereophile ( believe me, TAS has MORE than its fair share too ). So long as one hand keeps the other clean and neither one of them "rats" on the other, you'll RARELY see anything but a complimentary review. Between that and the "advertising revenue game", most of the glossy mags are nothing more than entertainment at this point in time.

While i have little respect for many "reviewers" ( on a business level, nothing personal ), i will publicly state that i think that John Marks is "ethical". Whether or not you or i agree with his opinions and preferences may be a whole 'nother ball of wax. I also think that John Atkinson is "trying", but is kind of stuck between a rock and hard place. Fremer should stick to vinyl based products as that is what he does best. Sean
>