Criticism of the Hifi media: What would you do different?

[Lee]

There is a constant stream of criticism aimed at the hifi media on this forum. Some of it justified and some not.

Let’s assume you are CEO for a day and can run The Absolute Sound or Stereophile.

What would you do different?

 

[italia]

Unnecessarily long equipment loans to reviewers, and reviews potentially tainted by advertising revenue breed skepticism, in my opinion. While I would love to believe that all reviews are perfectly immune to these influences, my cynicism leads me astray of putting faith in them.

I recall when TAS and Stereophile went from being ad-free to acceptance of advertising. As I recall, HP claimed to have distanced himself from the TAS advertising coordinator, and thus was allegedly unaware of which companies were placing ads until seeing the published issue. I continued to subscribe for many years after advertising began, as it was pre-internet and few other sources of information existed on audiophile equipment and recordings.

Honestly, I felt greater trust in the reviews when advertising didn't exist in these publications, but am realistic enough to know that it will never happen again. But for a day, I'd bring back that 'closer to purist' time in audiophile publication

 

[djsina2]

Write in plain English and stop trying so hard to act like you’re some literary master. It’s embarrassing. Also, don’t start every review with some incredibly long winded blabbering about your past. Bottom line, get to the point.

 

[Ted Denney III]

Ignore the magazines (as nearly everyone other than octogenarians now do) and seek opinions online

TAS online > TAS print— and so on.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I am from OSHA and I am here to help.

 

[andromedaaudio]

What would you do different?

First of all i would be completely transparent .
Most money best review

 

[italia]

Write in plain English and stop trying so hard to act like you’re some literary master. It’s embarrassing. Also, don’t start every review with some incredibly long winded blabbering about your past. Bottom line, get to the point.

Many thanks for your irrelevant, off-topic appraisal of my post. Here's a brief reply I hope you can understand more clearly: [edited out - vulgar and against the TOS]

 

[djsina2]

Many thanks for your irrelevant, off-topic appraisal of my post. Here's a brief reply I hope you can understand more clearly: [edited out - vulgar and against the TOS]

I think you are very confused.

 

[Doc76]

I don’t trust magazines. IMO most are swayed in their opinions by the advertising dollars they receive. So, IMO these are merely paid advertisements made by word-smiths.

I don’t trust every opinion online forums. Some online dealers childishly attack their competitors. Some attack products they have never heard before. Some online threads are merely advertisements (it must the best if there are so many posts about it). Some over-moderate and others under-moderate, some are fair in their moderating, and others not so much. And whether they admit it or not, everyone has biases - me included.

As this post, all this stuff is just an opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[PYP]

Many thanks for your irrelevant, off-topic appraisal of my post. Here's a brief reply I hope you can understand more clearly: [edited out - vulgar and against the TOS]

um, I took his comment to be about the magazine reviews. There is a trend lately (or perhaps earlier too) of starting something like this: When I was a boy... And it goes on for a while.

 

[italia]

I think you are very confused.

Sooooo, @djsina2 if your post was a comment about magazine reviews (as @PYP suggested) rather than a comment on my post immediately above yours, I apologize for my rather irreverent reply. LOL at myself now.

They say confusion can be beneficial so I'm just going to see where I can grow from here. Be well

 

[djsina2]

Sooooo, @djsina2 if your post was a comment about magazine reviews (as @PYP suggested) rather than a comment on my post immediately above yours, I apologize for my rather irreverent reply. LOL at myself now.

They say confusion can be beneficial so I'm just going to see where I can grow from here. Be well

Obviously it was not in regards to your post since I did not reply to yours specifically.

 

[PYP]

To respond to the OP:

- edit more closely. When someone starts to exaggerate excessively for the purposes of making the equipment under review stand out. There are times when the writing is similar to this (and, here, I am exaggerating): The Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, unlike much of digital, does not sound like a sharp stick in your ear. Um, like the amazing digital component from the last issue? Or, (paraphrasing): While I haven't heard version 1 in two years, I can still remember... Nope. Or, something along the lines of: There is nothing really bad to say about this component, but I'm paid to nitpick. And then the nit is actually that the reviewer prefers their own gear and may not realize they are listening to their setup for the first time if the gear under review is truly transparent.

- some recognition that the reviewer is listening to a system at all times. And that synergy exists and can favor one component over another.

- more interviews with designers. What are they trying to achieve now? How has that changed? How have their designs changed with more experience? How has the product category changed over time? Who is their listening panel?

- an interview with musicians who are also audiophiles (if more than one). Ron Carter, for example.

- interview with millennial musician who has carefully chosen a particular mastering engineer. Kirsten Edkins, for example. Or young musicians who have started their own label and perhaps record at home.

 

[Lee]

I don’t trust magazines. IMO most are swayed in their opinions by the advertising dollars they receive. So, IMO these are merely paid advertisements made by word-smiths.

I don’t trust every opinion online forums. Some online dealers childishly attack their competitors. Some attack products they have never heard before. Some online threads are merely advertisements (it must the best if there are so many posts about it). Some over-moderate and others under-moderate, some are fair in their moderating, and others not so much. And whether they admit it or not, everyone has biases - me included.

As this post, all this stuff is just an opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

So would you fire the writers and just find online people you like?

 

[Lee]

Unnecessarily long equipment loans to reviewers, and reviews potentially tainted by advertising revenue breed skepticism, in my opinion. While I would love to believe that all reviews are perfectly immune to these influences, my cynicism leads me astray of putting faith in them.

I recall when TAS and Stereophile went from being ad-free to acceptance of advertising. As I recall, HP claimed to have distanced himself from the TAS advertising coordinator, and thus was allegedly unaware of which companies were placing ads until seeing the published issue. I continued to subscribe for many years after advertising began, as it was pre-internet and few other sources of information existed on audiophile equipment and recordings.

Honestly, I felt greater trust in the reviews when advertising didn't exist in these publications, but am realistic enough to know that it will never happen again. But for a day, I'd bring back that 'closer to purist' time in audiophile publication

The issue with ad free is that several past attempts did not work.

 

[Adam L]

Unnecessarily long equipment loans to reviewers, and reviews potentially tainted by advertising revenue breed skepticism, in my opinion. While I would love to believe that all reviews are perfectly immune to these influences, my cynicism leads me astray of putting faith in them.

I recall when TAS and Stereophile went from being ad-free to acceptance of advertising. As I recall, HP claimed to have distanced himself from the TAS advertising coordinator, and thus was allegedly unaware of which companies were placing ads until seeing the published issue. I continued to subscribe for many years after advertising began, as it was pre-internet and few other sources of information existed on audiophile equipment and recordings.

Honestly, I felt greater trust in the reviews when advertising didn't exist in these publications, but am realistic enough to know that it will never happen again. But for a day, I'd bring back that 'closer to purist' time in audiophile publication

I would like to see all publications clearly identify what associated equipment reviewers own and what is on loan. Positive Feedback is the only one I can think of that does this. Also, reviews with no mention or limited mention of the associated gear are basically worthless. TAS is terrible about this.

 

[Doc76]

So would you fire the writers and just find online people you like?

I dumped all my subscriptions a long time back. So, I have already fired all of them. They aren’t worthy of my dime or my time.

After what I wrote about online posts you must be joking. The only people I trust online are the ones I know personally (actual friends). Everyone else I take with a grain of salt as to their opinions about gear ….

 

[Zuman]

I don’t know how to pull this off, but I’d love editors to be more demanding and rigorous when reviewers talk about “substantial,” “significant,” and “not subtle” improvements. With the number of “massive” improvements delivered every year, it’s clear that we must have been listening to absolute garbage five years ago, and twenty years ago our systems must have been made of rocks, twigs, and tin cans. I’m really noticing this in reviews of ultra-high end digital. And, I must admit, owners may be more guilty than published reviewers.

 

[andromedaaudio]

There is a constant stream of criticism aimed at the hifi media on this forum. Some of it justified and some not.

Let’s assume you are CEO for a day and can run The Absolute Sound or Stereophile.

What would you do different?

Im afraid i cannot answer it ,as its proprietary information

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Lee,

I'm sure I will add other things to this list in due course.

1) Component Loans

A) Component loans except loudspeakers and cables limited to 12 months and disclosed.

B) Loudspeaker loans limited to 24 months and disclosed.

C) No limit on duration of cable "loans." Obviously this means the cable "loans" are gifts. All cable loans and gifts must be disclosed.

D) Serial loans are the functional equivalent of gifts. Prohibition on serial loans by the same manufacturer. For example, a reviewer (say, Jonathan Valin) may have the Magico Q7 on loan for the permitted 24 months. Then Magico replaces that speaker with the Q7 Mk. II for 24 months. Then Magico replaces the Q7 Mk. II with the M6 for 24 months. I would prohibit such serial loans by the same manufacturer.

E) If a manufacturer wants to make another loan then it has to wait 12 months for components except loudspeakers, and 24 months for loudspeakers, before making the next loan.


2) Compensation and Perks

Compensation received by a reviewer in connection with, or as a condition of, a formal review or a report at an audio show or a factory visit should be disclosed. The amount of direct compensation, and the approximate value of airplane tickets, hotel accommodations, meals, wine and transportation should be disclosed in the review, report or visit.


3) Hyperbole

Encourage reviewers to be circumspect and to do their best to constrain hysterical hyperbole.


4) Video Talent

No one who moves or speaks in slow motion allowed on camera.