Jim
Could you tell me what notable press association Stereophile and Soundstage! are the only audio publication members of? I discussed this briefly with either Kal or John Atkinson a few years back.
Thanks.
AIAP: New Audio Industry Publications Association
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
Jim
Could you tell me what notable press association Stereophile and Soundstage! are the only audio publication members of? I discussed this briefly with either Kal or John Atkinson a few years back.
Thanks.
Not sure what you're referring to: EISA perhaps? That's the Expert Imaging and Sound Association. I believe Soundstage and Stereophile are the only North American members. EISA also includes many European publications though, and it now includes some Asian ones as well, I believe.
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
To you and those liking what you say ...
You quote my words; don't confuse me with a standards organization. I cannot speak for it.though I am allowed an opinion as is everyone.
Your post seems to suggest you want the opportunity to debate something. You sound like you want to be involved in the formation of principles and an organization. Can you imagine the liklihood of codifying principles for a publication and individuals (reviewers) based on the agreement of WBF members?
Since you see no value in the AIAP and are not a participant in audio publishing, why do you care? I cannot see how the AIAP principles are in any way harmful to magazines or readers, in fact just the opposite.
How equipment is selected for review is, imo, outside scope of the AIAP.
I agree about raising the quality of writing and editing. Imo this has been an on going issue, but it is not the purpose of AIAP document to address this - it is not meant as a cure-all. If one wants autonomy for publishers, hiring is part of that. How would you address improving quality and assure that writers know what they are talking about?
As regards the other issues you mention, they seem to be hypotheticals about could go wrong at some point: enforcement, possible stigma for not joining, etc. I say let's not condemn based on hypotheticals, I prefer to wait and see how this plays out.
Perhaps. My sense is the print magazines were taken somewhat by surprise by the AIAP initiative. You say your publication has been a leader. You seem to have no issue with the AIAP fundamentals. It may be a hard question but why didn't Stereophile proactively initiate the convening of publications you see fit for such an effort? Or do you see a competitive advantage in not doing so? If that is the case can you see why other publications might take this up?
It's not a hard question at all. I don't concern myself with what these other publications are doing. Why should I? I hope they will match Stereophile's ethics, since that's what's best for the industry, and it seems they are at least coming close to doing so. As for competitive advantage, and why other publications may take this up, that's not something I concern myself with. I leave that to our business side. My job is to make Stereophile as good as I can make it, and I trust that if I'm successful, people will read it. And they do.
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
Surely. Thanks for participating. I also just presented my opinion.
No, I say that such principles should be written to defend the interest of consumers, something I do not see in this publication being discussed. And yes, it looks as it was drafted after reading the more usual insinuations of a few members in WBF posts against the audio press.
IMHO in fact it can be very harmful to consumers. The idea that obeying to a superficial set of permissive principles will separate the good from the bad people will spread distrust.
BTW, it will not change the way I read reviews. But WBF is an audio forum, someone suggested the subject and we are freely debating it. As I wrote just MHO.
Exactly my point. Important fundamental aspects are ignored. Do you know what are the main requirements to become a member of such association?
with so many moving parts and nuances to any review, the idea of consumers being served by an audio industry publication association is wishful thinking. it's more likely to simply confuse things more by the appearance of legitimacy and process.....without substance. sh*t is always going to be going on or not. either it passes the smell test or it does not.
i like the current degree of chaos and the obvious responsibility to the reader to do their homework. it's perfectly imperfect.
i could be dead wrong. happened before.
i like the current degree of chaos and the obvious responsibility to the reader to do their homework. it's perfectly imperfect.
i could be dead wrong. happened before.
As I noted the issue of integrity of audio reviewers and publications has been around since before the Internet. Scepticism expressed at WBF by a few is an example, there are many other examples. I do not believe WBF acts as cause for the initiation of the principles in the AIAP.
Similar principles are in effect at some individual publications today - you seem to acknowledge that. These are a set of rules / guidelines primarily for writers and how they interact with manufacturers as spelled out by the publications they write for. I do not see how this spreads distrust but you are free to think what you like. As someone directly, immediately effected by these policies I believe it is a good thing they are publicly stated.
edit:
I do not. There is a 'contact us' page on its Web site.
Contact Us – AIAP Online
aiap-online.org
Last edited:
We will see if there is only appearance and no substance behind this initiative or if there is. There is nothing here about subjugating or dismissing a reader or buyer's responsibility to themself. Continue to smell test as you will.
Personally, I see this as just another rag/association with no weight. I would rather listen to something myself or rely on a few trusted ears, as it has been for some time.
Tom
Tom
Internecine rivalry of some manner is becoming all too common.
My brief and admittedly incomplete readership of PF/any signatory leads to viewing this as an openly friendly arrangement. We will try not to punish new ideas while holding fast to those that brought us together. Postmarked HAPPY VALLEY
My brief and admittedly incomplete readership of PF/any signatory leads to viewing this as an openly friendly arrangement. We will try not to punish new ideas while holding fast to those that brought us together. Postmarked HAPPY VALLEY
Dear Jim,
Thank you very much for replying to our questions here. I truly appreciate it!
It is very interesting to learn that you were not approached about being a charter member. Perhaps the reason for that will eventually afford us some insight into the motivations of the founders for organizing AIAP.
I apologize for my innuendo now that I know that any violations were in the distant past.
I share your concern about Principle 11.
Kindest regards,
Ron
Last edited:
The following are my own thoughts. I neither represent nor speak for the AIAP consortium.
Ron, I think your intentions in your post (above) are right-headed. However citing 1 sentence in isolation out of the entire item #11 and the other items before it yields a mis-leading interpretation of how it can be read. If not mis-leading, it is a singular interpretation and fails to consider the full context of item #11 and surrounding items. Some people - perhaps looking to find a way to object to the entire initiative - have latched onto your comments which focuses on that one sentence and the notions of 'full disclosure' and 'no conflict of interest'.
I believe you know it is not advisable to take things out of context. Pulling one sentence out of context liables it to many different interpretations made possible without the benefit of context.
First, some background stated in the AIAP document prior to item #11:
The essence of item #9:
This is followed by examples. Member publications or contributors writing for member publications will not and do not engage in conflicts of interest.
Item #11 is about acknowledging that relationships exist between members of the press on the one hand and designers, manufacturers, dealers and distributors on the other. Item #11 speaks openly about the positive value such relationships can yield in getting information to readers.
I can vouch for this. Every review I have written could not have been written without the opportunity to ask questions of the manufacturer about his business, his products, and his approach to design and audio in general. Fwiw, I tell every manufacturer, etc. that what they say to me is under an NDA and I will only disclose what they want in a public review. This has helped tremendously in gaining trust and access to product information that would not have been given otherwise. I put my own reputation on line. I can tell you that every manufacturer is highly sensitive to and seeks to avoid disclosure of proprietary information.
But I don't see this type of disclosure as what item #11 speaks to.
Item #11 reiterates #9:
Then, instruction is given to AIAP members. Or consider it a prescriptive statement of agreement among members about how they will act to avoid any conflict of interest:
In other words, members agree to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest through full disclosure.
Perhaps you read 'equals' as equivocation - that might work if you focus on that sentence out of context. That's not how I read it.
The notion of "curing a conflict of interest" is irrelevant. Item #11 is not about fixing or repairing or restoring, it is about avoiding a conflict of interest. It provides an example of what it is talking about - did you see the example? The example has nothing to do with "curing".
There is already agreement about not engaging in conflicts of interest in #9. Item #11 advocates for transparency in disclosure as a means to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
As far as I know a few of them have principles that are respected and trusted, perfected along the years. Similarity does not mean anything - in such systems (as in the high-end systems
) even the small differences make the real difference. And we are not discussing just small differences ...IMHO in the new audio internet publications, including some of the members of the AIAP there is not a clear separation between a professional review and a consumer report. In a word of immediate answer "Letters to editor" , "Letters" , "Reader feedback " or similar are sometimes as important as reviews.
Can I ask you how many formal reviews you have written in the last five years?
BTW, I also think for the good of transparency I think these rules should be known by any reader. Particularly the exceptions. Pretending to rule friendship in a subjective hobby is a lost cause. It can't be ignored in his hobby, consumers must learn how to deal with it, not to ignore it.
in such systems (as in the high-end systems
Can we get therefore a scientific paper regarding the reviewing process of audio cables .
This is an area which needs specific scrutiny.
You have it since long, but the advice is not feasible.
Objective data shows no correlation with subjective sound quality. There is no scientific theory that can relate cable properties with its sound, except in the case of technically very poor cables or gross mismatches. So the only scientific method to evaluate them is statistical analysis of preference of individual independent listeners, in unbiased conditions. Not possible in this hobby, that relies on bias and diversity, and a has a small number of active participants.
I think it's a highly principled idealistic idea and after reading through it I think it's well-reasoned and a great deal of time and effort went into drawing up the charter or whatever you want to call it. However, there already are insinuations (not coming from the members) that if you don't join you must be crooked or words to that effect. That's a not unforeseen problem. Not sure what can be done about it. Since there's no "policing" involved, it's easy to sign on and appear principled but what goes on behind the scenes remains hidden as always. "Long term permanent loan" type stuff. On the other hand, there are manufacturers who don't like it when reviewers buy and own gear. They say (and I won't name names) if you own stuff, you are invested in it and are less likely to honestly review a competitive piece that's better than what you own. I've heard every rationalization for every stance regarding reviewer ownership versus "long term permanent loan"-ership. Cynical readers will always make charges. I remember when a Stereophile reader/detractor wrongly claimed that Stereophile only reviewed products from companies that advertised in the magazine. His timing was poor because the magazine had just put a VPI turntable on the cover (I think I wrote the review) and at that time and for some time afterwards VPI had never advertised in Stereophile. When I pointed that out to the person making the charge his response was "Well, then the magazine put VPI on the coverer because it wants VPI to advertise in Stereophile." Magazine and website readers need only pay attention to what's there and not and using a rational, not cynical and/or paranoid approach to what's presented, decide for themselves what's above and what's below board regardless of membership or not in this group. Currently being a corporate employee I have no say in joining or not joining this organization.
Microstrip's comment about cables, if I understand it correctly, seems spot on to me. One must listen to the cables they have access to in their system and decide for themselves what works for them and what doesn't. Their decision will be valid for only them in their system and will not necessarily correlate into meaningful data for someone else.
Similar threads
