New Free Stereo Magazine

A 40 year old review of a piece of gear is one thing. A new review of the same piece of gear in the light of day with the benefit of all the new gear surrounding it is a completely different thing. To provide the old reviews and the new review of the unit at the same time would be the hot setup.
Do we have more 2 channel gear from 1950 to 2000 available to use than is introduced each new year? Would it be nice to have a recent perspective of it before we buy it? And not just from the rose tinted glasses of 40 years ago?
With 24 working receivers and 16 working pair of speakers on hand I can say that a lot of the units that were so eloquently waxed poetically about did not earn it. And with the advertising dollars removed from the scene would not get it today.
I don't need or care about new or old reviews of old music. I can hear the music for myself.
 
The problem is that the condition of that 40 year old equipment is unknown, but can have a huge effect on how equipment sounds (including it not working at all). So then the question is how much restoring do you do, and does the amount affect comparative ratings - certain makes or models require less work to sound okay, and how much does that matter to the evaluation, and so on. And the comparison should go both ways - some new stuff may sound fine now, but will it still in a few years? How do you handicap that?
 
Do we have a better chance of doing a tune-up on a 40 year unit than we do of making any repair on a 5 year unit? That might be the only reason to have the old unit. But who's gonna do the tuning? There seems to be an interest in the gear and plenty of it available. But only useful to the people that want it. And maybe not even enough good units left to bother testing.
But it would be entertaining.
 
Steve Simels was the guy I ALWAYS disagreed with. If he hated it, I would like it.
Ha!! Yeah, I had the same experience! I remember him all pumped up over some Tonio K album, about it being one of the best things he'd heard, and another reviewer elsewhere pretty much dismissed it. One of the reviewers at AllMusic reminds me of Simels--he gives flowery descriptions to everything while rarely getting into what the individual tracks are like; he's also one of those who makes broad assumptions as to why an artist recorded the album or a particular song. (Won't mention his name, but he's pretentious enough that he uses his first, middle and last name...)

Phyl (Phyllis) Garland at Stereo Review, however, was a treasure--her reviews of R&B and soul albums was top notch, as were the legendary Chris Albertson's jazz reviews. With his, even if I disagreed with his assessments, he was smart enough to make a good case as to why he liked or disliked a particular recording, and I respected his opinions.
 
That old address I don't think was used beyond a few issues.

Frank Doris is now the editor in chief--his predecessor retired from PS and from editing Copper. Still the same modus operandi though--even though the magazine is "published" by an audio company, no products are mentioned beyond historic components (such as the series on the evolution of the turntable and record playback, and the current series on recording tape). There are also music features, a handful of interviews, but equipment reviews will never be a part of it. Other magazines do this--no need for another. Since there is a lot of mutual respect between the high-end companies, reviewing some current-day industry folks (who might also be competitors) is not out of the question.
 
I bought several LPs on reviews from AUDIO magazine in the 1970s, never disappointed and don't recall ever reading a vicious review of anything in it. The theme seemed to be sharing new artists and releases of merit, rather than following the charts.
 
I bought several LPs on reviews from AUDIO magazine in the 1970s, never disappointed and don't recall ever reading a vicious review of anything in it. The theme seemed to be sharing new artists and releases of merit, rather than following the charts.
I remember the same--they always had a good review section. The magazine that Wayne Green published, Digital Audio, was the gateway drug to many of the CDs I bought in the early days, and I don't recall ever reading many bad reviews there either. The length of the reviews in these two and Stereo Review were the perfect length. Stereophile had record reviews also, but I found them to be way too wordy, and too tedious to hold my attention. I would read if I really liked an artist but otherwise, I didn't need a novel for a 35-minute album.

I will say that for any reviewer out there today, streaming has been a revolution. No more need to beg labels for review copies (although some still offer pre-release versions) and on the flip side, no having to review everything sent your way since, if you don't, you risk losing access to the steady stream of review copies from the more finicky of the labels (some were notoriously tight with who they sent promos to; others sent them to everyone with credentials).
 
Back
Top Bottom