gvalent
Well-Known Member
Were any of the so called "hype" cables mentioned by name in the article?
Was this quote from a cable review? If so, was the review a positive one?
Last edited:
Does The Absolute Sound Do Bad Reviews?
- Thread starter Duckzilla
- Start date
Were any of the so called "hype" cables mentioned by name in the article?
Was this quote from a cable review? If so, was the review a positive one?
trhee
ㅇtㅈyㅅr
All audio mag reviews have to read with a good dosage of salt and read between the lines. All magazines make money from ads. More ads = more revenue. Subscription and newstand sales account for a very small portion of their revenues.
In a review based magazine such as TAS and Stereophile, if they give a bad review, it may mean that the advertiser may pull their ads. The editor must therefore keep a balance between their mission and their profitability. It's a sad story but one that is very true.
Therefore, you will almost never see a bad review of anyone who advertises in the magazine. And the heavy advertisers... let's not even go there.
This doesn't mean I don't read either magazine. It is entertaining to read up on new gear.
The way I go about interpreting reviews is such... if any reviewer writes in roundabout ways and doesn't seem to be drooling, it's basically a polite way of saying they really didn't enjoy their time with the gear. It's political correctness in the audio world.
If however, they go on to praise the gear as if it were the second coming and they end up purchasing the review sample, there is some credibility to the review but with a lot of butt kissing involved so that the company will hopefully take out more ads in the future.
I believe back in the old days, when Stereophile and TAS were starting out and with a very limited audience, the reviews were more honest. As they grew and became a "business", the reviews became almost no different than Stereo Review and Audio where they couldn't find any gear that they didn't like.
In a review based magazine such as TAS and Stereophile, if they give a bad review, it may mean that the advertiser may pull their ads. The editor must therefore keep a balance between their mission and their profitability. It's a sad story but one that is very true.
Therefore, you will almost never see a bad review of anyone who advertises in the magazine. And the heavy advertisers... let's not even go there.
This doesn't mean I don't read either magazine. It is entertaining to read up on new gear.
The way I go about interpreting reviews is such... if any reviewer writes in roundabout ways and doesn't seem to be drooling, it's basically a polite way of saying they really didn't enjoy their time with the gear. It's political correctness in the audio world.
If however, they go on to praise the gear as if it were the second coming and they end up purchasing the review sample, there is some credibility to the review but with a lot of butt kissing involved so that the company will hopefully take out more ads in the future.
I believe back in the old days, when Stereophile and TAS were starting out and with a very limited audience, the reviews were more honest. As they grew and became a "business", the reviews became almost no different than Stereo Review and Audio where they couldn't find any gear that they didn't like.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
It's not a question of "ignoring" the flutter, just because the specs read a certain way does not mean it will be audible to most people. And I don't think highly of the Debut III, but like John, due to the quality of the tonearm, I think it's a superior choice to a lot of vintage turntables, although the Debut III is often disparaged because of its simplicity, and the pervading myth that it's cheaply built.
One hyperbolic review doesn't prove anything except that the person who wrote it is out of sync with the opinions of most other reviewers, who were enthusiastic but not unrealistic about the sonic benefits they heard while using the Shakti "stone."
You're bringing your own bias into this, your assumption apparently that all expensive cables are crap, and that it's good journalism to disparage a product without a detailed explanation of why. It's not. And yes this quote was from a cable review that was positive. I happen to own cables from the manufacturer that was being reviewed and like them myself...again..first hand experience rather than assumptions is to me a stronger leg to stand on. I quoted that to illustrate that if they are in cahoots with, say, the really expensive cable manufacturers, slighting pretty much the whole industry would seem to be a no-no. But they did it, and published it.
The other quote was from a review of a pair of Canton loudspeakers. It was not very positive but it also did not outright trash them. It just seemed an honest appraisal. I get the feeling that some people want a magazine that just trashes something. "I listened to these speakers and they absolutely sucked. You'd be a moron to be caught with these things, you should buy a pair of Large Advents instead because they're as good as anything out there made today".
I've heard the Canton speakers being reviewed, before the I read the review, and thought they sounded good but not as good as their price would suggest. And that was the same conclusion of the reviewer. I haven't used those stone things nor do I care to. Doesn't mean I haven't been introduced to a ton of interesting gear through those magazines. TAS loves the Magnepan 1.7. I don't like it at all. It's just a differing opinion and I'm confident enough with the rest of what is going on in my life that I can live with somebody disagreeing with me on a pair of speakers without thinking they are part of some conspiracy theory. As was just mentioned, it is bad business to outright trash something (I think it's also bad journalism, because it's largely subjective), but you can readily tell when they don't really care for something. It's a bit veiled but the veil has a pretty open weave and you can see right through it.
Last edited:
Hmmm...
We've spent all this time repeating the usual debate on the magazines; how about we turn to something more productive?
I was thinking it would be fun to have a discussion every month about the actual contents, meaning the reviews, trends, editorial, etc. No discussion of "bias", no gripes about new vs vintage, none of the negative stuff this thread focused on, would be permitted.
I'm still mulling over where to put a sub-forum for this, but before I propose anytig to Dave, what do people (who like the magazines) think? Is it something you'd participate in?
The usual sour grapes of "why discuss what they say when it's all wrong and biased" will be ignored.
We've spent all this time repeating the usual debate on the magazines; how about we turn to something more productive?
I was thinking it would be fun to have a discussion every month about the actual contents, meaning the reviews, trends, editorial, etc. No discussion of "bias", no gripes about new vs vintage, none of the negative stuff this thread focused on, would be permitted.
I'm still mulling over where to put a sub-forum for this, but before I propose anytig to Dave, what do people (who like the magazines) think? Is it something you'd participate in?
The usual sour grapes of "why discuss what they say when it's all wrong and biased" will be ignored.
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Negotiable, why lump some of our concerns as merely sour grapes, or a mysterious conspiracy, when we are actually talking about instances of collusion, and an editorial slant of avoiding discussion of a product weakness to procure, maintain, or augment ad revenues?
I found it disconcerting that Michael Fremer could write a review of the Continuum turntable, and then manage to finagle a three year grace loan from the manufacturer to purchase that said TT at an industry consideration price. Fremer has also stated that he has the luxury of always making a profit whenever he sells any gear, due to his sizeable purchase discount he enjoys as a reviewer. I would say this is a significant collusion that places a third party with economic interest at a disadvantage.
When I grew up and became a fan of Klipsch speakers, I always wondered why Klipsch could never get a speaker reviewed, and Paul Klipsch noted in person that he was not in the business of giving speakers away in order to get them reviewed.
Bill Dudleston of Legacy Audio has also made a similar observation, so it is not only dead people that have problems with reviewers not desiring to return costly gear.
The following has some interesting points made, some being sharper than what is allowed here, and the topic in general being freewheeling.
http://www.avguide.com/blog/three-myths-about-wilson-audio
Everything isn't all wrong and biased. It also isn't all right and above board. Like everything in life, it is a little this and a little that, but I would expect a much more even and honest appraisal. The car industry gets it done pretty effectively, but then again, all major newspapers have auto editors that play with those funny things with four tires.
I found it disconcerting that Michael Fremer could write a review of the Continuum turntable, and then manage to finagle a three year grace loan from the manufacturer to purchase that said TT at an industry consideration price. Fremer has also stated that he has the luxury of always making a profit whenever he sells any gear, due to his sizeable purchase discount he enjoys as a reviewer. I would say this is a significant collusion that places a third party with economic interest at a disadvantage.
When I grew up and became a fan of Klipsch speakers, I always wondered why Klipsch could never get a speaker reviewed, and Paul Klipsch noted in person that he was not in the business of giving speakers away in order to get them reviewed.
Bill Dudleston of Legacy Audio has also made a similar observation, so it is not only dead people that have problems with reviewers not desiring to return costly gear.
The following has some interesting points made, some being sharper than what is allowed here, and the topic in general being freewheeling.
http://www.avguide.com/blog/three-myths-about-wilson-audio
Everything isn't all wrong and biased. It also isn't all right and above board. Like everything in life, it is a little this and a little that, but I would expect a much more even and honest appraisal. The car industry gets it done pretty effectively, but then again, all major newspapers have auto editors that play with those funny things with four tires.
gvalent
Well-Known Member
Seriously, I have absolutely NO IDEA how you came to this conclusion.
Your concerns may be discussed here, including in this thread, and no one is objecting.
I was asking if anyone would be interested in a forum to discuss the current content of the magazines, without the "concerns". In that forum (which won't happen if there's no interest), addressing the "concerns" would be prohibited, since if it wasn't, every single thread would degenerate into a rehash of this one.
JonL
Lunatic Member
I could be interested in such a forum. I don't presently read any of the mags, but that might change if there was some active discussion about them going on.
I would participate in such a forum. I'm very interested in the new gear that they review, own some of it, and would enjoy talking about whether or not anybody here has actually heard what is being reviewed, whether they agree with the review, etc. I don't know that there would be a ton of participation, though. Maybe it would bring some new people in that have a bit of a different viewpoint, though.
bobbyonions
AK Member
If no one is allowed to be concerned about anything, than what is there to talk about?
That was my hope!
Anything? Read again, please. The forum will be to talk about the gear, the music, the trends, the industry... you know, the reasons we're all here... unless you only came here to gripe?
Bingo!
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
Well, a big concern I have is the use of "conspiracy" versus "collusion."
Conspiracy means most people in this forum, and seemingly the moderators, view the rabid few as nuts. Collusion means the moderators, and people frequenting this forum, are at least willing to view some aspects of the reviewer/manufacturer relationship as not above board.
Then again, look what happened when Bob Carver did his amp challenge. He got it right, backing his words and winning the challenge. He also ended up with few friends, and got his products blackballed by an embarrassed stereo mag.
There aren't too many of us who visit the forum who hold diverging points of view, and when we do visit, we are not welcome. I hold quite a few stereo gatherings at our house, and we have guests who hold marked differences in opinion regarding gear, reviews, and what is great, good, and bad, but I have not seen anyone disparaged for conspiracy theories, or put down for wanting to always measure everything above listening to music, or hating new gear, or being boring. The strawmen buildup and putdowns are readily available here, though, so there is balance.:thumbsdn:
Conspiracy means most people in this forum, and seemingly the moderators, view the rabid few as nuts. Collusion means the moderators, and people frequenting this forum, are at least willing to view some aspects of the reviewer/manufacturer relationship as not above board.
Then again, look what happened when Bob Carver did his amp challenge. He got it right, backing his words and winning the challenge. He also ended up with few friends, and got his products blackballed by an embarrassed stereo mag.
There aren't too many of us who visit the forum who hold diverging points of view, and when we do visit, we are not welcome. I hold quite a few stereo gatherings at our house, and we have guests who hold marked differences in opinion regarding gear, reviews, and what is great, good, and bad, but I have not seen anyone disparaged for conspiracy theories, or put down for wanting to always measure everything above listening to music, or hating new gear, or being boring. The strawmen buildup and putdowns are readily available here, though, so there is balance.:thumbsdn:
bobbyonions
AK Member
Now that you put it that way, I'll blindly go along with that.
Works for me.
I hope no one is taking my comments in this thread to mean that I don't recognize the inherent conflicts of interest presented by the magazines' combination of reviews and ads. To me, those conflicts are very real, and completely unavoidable. I assume there will be abuses. I also believe that the worst abuses will be caught, and the abusers will lose credibility. Much of that, and the abuser will vanish as the magazine struggles to keep its readers. As a result, I'm unwilling to spend much time focused on that negative aspect. It will take care of itself, leaving us free to have a forum to discuss the gear, the reviews, the engineering, the trends... all of the fun and positive aspects.
Besides, Erik seems to be looking forward to having more to do!
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
I'm all for it!
stereofanboy
Addicted Member
It actually seems reasonable for them to ignore used gear. A lot of car magazines only review/test new cars. There are different car magazines for people who like old cars. I think it would be cool to read an audio magazine about old stereo gear, but it probably wouldn't be cool to publish such a magazine.
No, their skewed vision of affordability has a much more basic cause. They probably don't buy gear at full price, when they do actually buy it, which often isn't necessary because the UPS man is always bringing them something else to try out.
That actually sounds pretty fun.
I believe that this helps to insulate the magazines and their readers from reality, and to a large part is what allowed the magazines to become what they are today. When the audio press is the only game in town, where else can you get your information?
Whether those guys purchase any audio gear at full price is one of the subjects being looked at with suspicion in this thread.
Sounds like fun. I'm willing.
I won't use the phrase, "snake oil" if you won't use the phrase, "conspiracy theory", as it has developed an unfortunate connotation.
Last edited:
Dave, you have every other forum to do that. This is our one area of respite. Some of us actually, legitimately, want to talk about this stuff without it becoming..every single time..an argument about defending our viewpoint from accusations of conspiracy (you may be insinuating collusion but it's often conspiracy from many others), that all high end is a scam, that all amps sound the same, that copper wire is as good as anything and that anybody who uses anything else is an idiot, etc etc. I know you didn't say any of those things but every discussion about this stuff, when it wasn't in this forum, was quickly locked because it became not about wires or magazines, it became 'they're scamming you, you're an idiot for buying into it' in so many words. And that is why, when people come into this forum with those same old arguments that have been made 100 times (we get it, we know that Bob Carver had a challenge..but his stuff really has been reviewed in Stereophile quite often since then, and he's even been interviewed a few times in the same magazine, for what its worth)....well, it's not exactly welcomed by those of us who want to talk about cables and what we read in the magazines and what they review. If not, every thread would get locked because we'd start talking about the stereophile review of some amp...say the Peachtree Audio Nova....and then somebody would say "all chinese made amps are crap even though I haven't heard this one" and then somebody else would say "stereophile only liked it because they advertising in that magazine, because it can't be good, because its new and not only that...its Chinese" and on and on and it would never get around to being a discussion about whether the Nova actually was a good amp or if our own experience agreed with the reviewer. Which is funny because if it did differ with the reviewer, and we discussed that, it might actually lead to evidence that maybe they aren't being straight with us.