Let's show professional courtesy to industry participants. Please focus on the topic than the person.
6Moons New Policy: Support us, with ad revenue, and we will review your product.
- Thread starter Andre Marc
- Start date
It's pretty clear Srajan has drawn a line in the sand. In my estimation he has painted himself into a corner if the response is weak.
On crowdfunding, in general I do not believe it is in the best interests of the high end industry and consumers. One company doing so has pissed off a bunch of people by crowdfunding numerous projects while not delivering product in a timely manner, one person suggesting it starts to look like a Ponzi scheme.
On social media, I think this can work for low cost items but not for bigger ticket ones.
On crowdfunding, in general I do not believe it is in the best interests of the high end industry and consumers. One company doing so has pissed off a bunch of people by crowdfunding numerous projects while not delivering product in a timely manner, one person suggesting it starts to look like a Ponzi scheme.
On social media, I think this can work for low cost items but not for bigger ticket ones.
It's now been 8 months since I joined the Indiegogo campaign for the Geek Pulse. This was supposed to be ready for April....still no word. I'll never do it again!
Johnny, I am not a fan at all of crowd funding audio products, but I must say I was surprised at the amount of money LH Labs raised and how well
it was received.
To be fair, they do have 72 updates on their website and they claim shipping of the first units will begin this week.
I totally understand your frustration and delivering late is par for the course. None of these projects have shipped on time.
I have only crowd funded one thing so far..I contributed to the recording of the new Dengue Fever album on Pledge Music
.I don't think you can dismiss a site on the grounds of whether or not it chooses to measure the products it tests. This largely comes down to the type of readership you aim for. I've worked in a measurement-based and a non-measurment environment in audio, and they pull in very different enthusiasts, with equally valid priorities.
For my part, I made the jump because I felt the audio publishing world is getting a little too 'Automotive Engineering International' and not 'Top Gear' enough for today's readers. I feel demanding that people go through a course in audio engineering before they decide what amplifier to buy is asking a lot of busy professionals in other fields. I also think that a lot of the measurement published by a magazine is not understood by the readership at large, who treat published measurement as an elaborate game of Go Fish. That might seem a harsh assessment of the readership in general, but having spent years trying to promote a wider understanding of measurement in a measurement-led magazine, I feel entirely justified in making that assessment.
That is not a criticism of the measurement-based environment however, and I strongly think the two should co-exist.
It's also worth noting Srajan shares the same concern faced many of us who routinely don't publish measurement, in that he has reviewers who do measure the products they test in the review process. Usually, the resolution to this is to fold the measurements into the review text (as opposed to breaking them out into a 'tech box'). For my part, I find it strange that someone who says "the impedance hovered around six ohms throughout, except for a dip to 1.9ohms at 93Hz" in the body copy is dismissed as so much subjective nonsense, where the same thing plotted on a graph in a side-bar is science incarnate.
Just wondering if it's a joke why do you still read it ? you have that option not to access the site
Last edited:
I personally find it to be a nice alternative from the measurement-laden pages of the competition. Seems to me that both have their merits.
agree like this months Stereophile. 123 pages, 77 pages of advertisements, and of those 77 pages 55 are full page advertisements including classifieds .