Revel Salon 2: I'd prefer to stick to the topic on hand which is Andre Marc's thread topic. Since I've got a pony in this race, I actually have self interest in that part. Defending my writing? Less so. Why? If it were as terrible as you say, my site would suffer. Since that's my actual livelihood, I'd certainly be extremely motivated to rectify it pronto. Those signs just aren't there. But it seems quite clear that my style/approach are divisive. Some really like them, some really don't. And you may not believe it (or it may not register to your sense of it) but I actually am constantly working on my craft. Perhaps I'm simply not doing a good enough job of it to suit your preferences. Which is fine. That's why we've got a number of different writers. Perhaps some of them write more in a style you find satisfying.
6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
''Sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on.”
I am no Michael Fremer defender but at least he has posted the FR graph at his seated position. I am not saying it means everything. However, there needs to be a minimum qualification for me to take any review seriously. I know Kal published measurements as well.
I guess Srajan has measurements but I haven't seen them yet. It would be a great point of reference in addition to photos.
Michael.
I guess Srajan has measurements but I haven't seen them yet. It would be a great point of reference in addition to photos.
Michael.
Well, Phelonious - glass itself ain't so bad. In fact the BBC today builds entire recording studios out of it. Yep, they do. Whatever treatments they require, they put in the ceiling or floor. Speakers from Crystal Cable, Perfect8, Waterfall and others are made out of glass. The right glass can be a terrific material for sound. Very large relatively thin glass panels will of clourse flex and leak a lot of bass. The Munich show traditionally suffers that. In my room however we're talking far smaller double-paned heavily framed French doors which are all angled relative to the listening position. Then we've got a two-storey ceiling above the speakers into an open 30sqm loft with a compound-angled ceiling. There's no wall behind the seats until you get into the open floor-plan kitchen...
I've tried overdamped rooms. I've even had corner and sidewall traps. Guess what? They sucked all the life out of the sound. I made them available for free. Couldn't give 'em away -
What is important at least in my experience is path-length equality between speakers and seat down to a millimeter; perfectly symmetrical toe-in (or not); sufficient distance for early sidewall reflections to arrive outside where the ear/brain sums direct and reflected sound to smear; preferably higher ceilings or cross beams on lower ceilings for some break-up. Just as important is not to have too much speaker for the room. Rear-firing ports close to front-wall corners become big pressure zones for LF which damps HF and causes booming which sound like room modes until you plug the ports and they, poof, disappear (or reduce significantly). Each room's decay behaviour is its signature and apparent already in your own foot fall and by listening to your own voice and that of others. If they sound natural, intelligible at low levels... then the acoustics aren't bad as long as you're not using a speaker which overloads the room. Hence my general preference for two-ways, with perhaps some very mild active sub assist below 40Hz.
Your type of comment reminds me of a forum whose owner predicts the sound of installations purely on their photos. He then describes everything that's wrong and what the sound is like. If I could do that, I wouldn't have to do any listening at all. Manufacturers would send me photos of their equipment in their room and presto. Or, they could just send me the measurements. Again, no equipment necessary. Am I jesting? Only half.
I don't expect you to believe me by the way. I will simply add this. I've gone to many CES shows as a manufacturer to set up rooms. Before that I was a sales manager who visited dealers across the US. As a reviewer I've covered numerous shows for the last 12 years to hear a lot of stuff in a lot of different spaces - from atrocious to stunning as this and last year's Vox Olympian installation by Living Voice. I think I have a fairly decent take on what's possible. Using that as a reference, I find my room a most suitable tool for the job. A particularly bad listening space? You're convinced. So be it -
I'm confused, you're talking about this as if the pictures are all of the same room, with the same speaker set-up. They're obviously not.
BOLD: We have found some common ground. I mean none of this as a personal attack, by the way. I was commenting on listening spaces pictured here, where you are not a member and were not a part of the conversation. I was also commenting on multiple listening spaces, not your personal room. I believe I still am.
Back on topic; I admire your honesty and you make a good case for a very difficult position. Good luck.
Tim
Hey Tim, no worries.
I agree with this statement to no end:
"Untreated rooms are not the issue, dramatically poor conditions are."
Yes, to be fair Tim, I did understood you were commenting on a number of rooms, not Srajan's specifically.
Hi
I am imagining this conversation between an Audio manufacturer owner or Manager or CEO and their Marketing Executive:
CEO: They just buried our product as far as they are concerned it is no good ...
Marketing Person: Great! Let's buy a year advertising from their magazine ..
There are things that no amount of discourse/rationale will make right. There will be a case where product A is perceived by readers and /or reviewer as superior to product B.. What to do then? If both are advertising in the magazine? How does a manufacturer reacts to that? isn't there a risk that said reviews become glorified marketing literature? There is value in coming forth with the notion but once such a model is adopted sets in the notion of credibility goes out of the windows,IMO. What does happen when a manufacturer is your biggest advertiser ? would they go on "supporting"you when their products are not systematically "better"than the others
I respect the right for anyone to make a living. I find the very idea of only reviewing those products from manufacturers that "support" the magazine unsettling. Its only redeeming value is its frankness that doesn't make it any valid from a credibility position. All that IMO, YMMV, etc...
I am imagining this conversation between an Audio manufacturer owner or Manager or CEO and their Marketing Executive:
CEO: They just buried our product as far as they are concerned it is no good ...
Marketing Person: Great! Let's buy a year advertising from their magazine ..
There are things that no amount of discourse/rationale will make right. There will be a case where product A is perceived by readers and /or reviewer as superior to product B.. What to do then? If both are advertising in the magazine? How does a manufacturer reacts to that? isn't there a risk that said reviews become glorified marketing literature? There is value in coming forth with the notion but once such a model is adopted sets in the notion of credibility goes out of the windows,IMO. What does happen when a manufacturer is your biggest advertiser ? would they go on "supporting"you when their products are not systematically "better"than the others
I respect the right for anyone to make a living. I find the very idea of only reviewing those products from manufacturers that "support" the magazine unsettling. Its only redeeming value is its frankness that doesn't make it any valid from a credibility position. All that IMO, YMMV, etc...
Anything else/more on the original topic?
I'll try to jump start something here with some specific questions. I think to make sense, we should agree that the ad-based model is imperfect so we have something to talk about. Then let's acknowledge the need for professional writers (here it's not a function of whether you like them or not, simply that they do it for a living, not as a hobby) to make money. And, to narrow it down even more, let's posit that a reader-based subscription model won't really work (see Alan Sircom's actual numbers for the New York Times and London Times pay-wall reader loss numbers [90%] in the Audio Asylum Critics thread on the same topic). Against that basic scenario, what do you think is
a/ a better solution than the current ad-based business model for hifi publications? Is there one?
b/ can the ad-based model be adapted somehow to work better than it does now, to be fair to everyone and serve the needs of the readers, the manufacturers and the reviewers (a tall order admittedly)? If so, how?
c/ is it completely impossible to be a paid critic and call it as you hear it? If so, why, exactly? How come judges, referees, arbitrators, inspector of various stripes and so on can do it? What are the peculiarities of the hifi reviewer that exclude him?
I would like to participate in that type of discussion because it was what Andre Marc invited me to in the first place. Any takers?
I'll try to jump start something here with some specific questions. I think to make sense, we should agree that the ad-based model is imperfect so we have something to talk about. Then let's acknowledge the need for professional writers (here it's not a function of whether you like them or not, simply that they do it for a living, not as a hobby) to make money. And, to narrow it down even more, let's posit that a reader-based subscription model won't really work (see Alan Sircom's actual numbers for the New York Times and London Times pay-wall reader loss numbers [90%] in the Audio Asylum Critics thread on the same topic). Against that basic scenario, what do you think is
a/ a better solution than the current ad-based business model for hifi publications? Is there one?
b/ can the ad-based model be adapted somehow to work better than it does now, to be fair to everyone and serve the needs of the readers, the manufacturers and the reviewers (a tall order admittedly)? If so, how?
c/ is it completely impossible to be a paid critic and call it as you hear it? If so, why, exactly? How come judges, referees, arbitrators, inspector of various stripes and so on can do it? What are the peculiarities of the hifi reviewer that exclude him?
I would like to participate in that type of discussion because it was what Andre Marc invited me to in the first place. Any takers?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Perhaps the answer for Srajan might be what Amir and I did at WBF. Specifically we solicited donations from our general membership to help us sustain the ongoing expenses. Should he do the same, IMO this takes the stigma away from the mfr of having to advertise in order to obtain an interview. Many different ways to skin a cat. Membership was very receptive and several even suggested that we do this on a recurring basis much the same as PBS solicits donations regularly. I feel this would obviate any bias by the reviewer that payment was made to get the review
Steve, the paid content model does not work.
What Srajan was referring to was that both the London Times and the New York Times essentially lost 95% of their readership online when they started charging.
There has not been a single instance of ad free audio publication surviving. The only one in existence now is the Audio Critic with a paltry 500 subs, if even that.
Audiophiles talk a good game about wanting untainted reviews, but when it comes time to pony up, their wallets stay in their back pockets.
Any one here willing to pay $150 to $250 a year to subsidize an ad free magazine? You will hear a pin drop...
There's no need for reviewers. There are plenty of folks with excellent knowledge and experience that can easily fill the old magazine reviewer model. Could it be that the subscription model doesn't work because subscribers have found better ways of getting what they want?
Alan Sircom's quote, from another forum:
_______________________________________
"If your readers think you are professional and truly giving valuable advice with well written, concise and insightful reviews then they will pay."
_________________________________________
Not enough will pay enough. For example, The New York Times lost more than 99% of its readership the moment it put up its paywall in Feb 2011. Today, it currently posts 760,000 subscribers, which is better, but still nothing like the 61.9m unique browsers it got before the paywall. The London Times went from 20.4m unique browsers in 2010 to 131,000 fee-paying subscribers two years later (I don't have more recent statistics to hand). Most people in the subscriptions field expect an attrition rate of around 95-99% of the pre-paywall audience, almost irrespective of content.
A lot of site owners feel their content is distinctive, valued, and valuable enough to be a financially bankable asset. They typically put up a paywall for their services, and disappear without trace soon after.
A pay model is survivable (just) if you are the New York Times, because a tiny fraction of 61.9m is still hundreds of thousands willing to pay a subscription. It's survivable if you are the London Times too, because you have a very profitable multinational TV organisation holding out an umbrella for you. But when you don't have tens of millions of unique visitors every month, ridding yourself of almost all of them is suicide."
_______________________________________
"If your readers think you are professional and truly giving valuable advice with well written, concise and insightful reviews then they will pay."
_________________________________________
Not enough will pay enough. For example, The New York Times lost more than 99% of its readership the moment it put up its paywall in Feb 2011. Today, it currently posts 760,000 subscribers, which is better, but still nothing like the 61.9m unique browsers it got before the paywall. The London Times went from 20.4m unique browsers in 2010 to 131,000 fee-paying subscribers two years later (I don't have more recent statistics to hand). Most people in the subscriptions field expect an attrition rate of around 95-99% of the pre-paywall audience, almost irrespective of content.
A lot of site owners feel their content is distinctive, valued, and valuable enough to be a financially bankable asset. They typically put up a paywall for their services, and disappear without trace soon after.
A pay model is survivable (just) if you are the New York Times, because a tiny fraction of 61.9m is still hundreds of thousands willing to pay a subscription. It's survivable if you are the London Times too, because you have a very profitable multinational TV organisation holding out an umbrella for you. But when you don't have tens of millions of unique visitors every month, ridding yourself of almost all of them is suicide."
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
They cover a wide swath of consumer grade products. What would happen if they suddenly announced they would only
evaluate audiophile products? Can you say chapter 7?
Steve Williams: Thanks for your post. Could you be a bit more specific about exactly what and how you did that? I'm all about learning new ways to skin the cat as long as it's not our actual feline named Blondie. When you say WBF, you're referring to this forum. Do you do your moderator's job full-time, i.e. whatever revenues via the donation route you raised cover not just your hosting and related expenses but your actual pay-the-rent livelihood without any supplemental income? Does WBF publish formal reviews like we do where contributors work with temporary formal review loaners? Are those contributors compensated or do they do it solely for fun? Here I'm not suggesting that magazine reviews are superior to forum posts btw. I'm simply trying to understand how close or not your situation is to mine (or a colleague's like Andre Marc) and whether your fund-raising solution could be applied to ours. I've not been to WBF before today so excuse my general ignorance about it.