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

[MarkusBarkus]

...editorial policy, banned words and phrases (partial):

--clean/dirty glass
--even my wife...
--film has been removed
--gob smacked
--gob-smacked
--jaw dropping
--jaw-dropping
--unbelievable...
--veiled
--veil has been lifted (how many veils are there, BTW?)

 

[twitch]

the minute some reviewer talks about 'chocolaty mids' I just want to smack him upside his head ! on a serious note, I for one take it all with a grain of salt...........

 

[dcathro]

I agree with most of the suggestions so far, but would add:

- Stop just focusing on/reviewing the same old suspects and broaden the outlook.

- make the magazine less commercial and more hobbyist/fun.

- Examine more fringe products such as exotic horns, field coils, etc.

- Do features on technology/materials and how it might influence sound.

- Look back on the history of audio (past AR) to JBL, Lansing, Klangfilm and WE.

- Have a section on DIY, such as making your own cables.

 

[Synaxis]

I agree with most of the suggestions so far, but would add:

- Stop just focusing on/reviewing the same old suspects and broaden the outlook.

- make the magazine less commercial and more hobbyist/fun.

- Examine more fringe products such as exotic horns, field coils, etc.

- Do features on technology/materials and how it might influence sound.

- Look back on the history of audio (past AR) to JBL, Lansing, Klangfilm and WE.

- Have a section on DIY, such as making your own cables.

You listed some fantastic ideas. Great list.

 

[tony22]

All of the above.

 

[Elliot G.]

Mags are profit making corporations. They are in business to make a profit. They make profit by selling advertising and subscriptions. They are not concerned with most of that list because it is not going to make them any money .
Credibility comes from honesty. Honesty means the disclosure of tactics, policies and principles .
They have no obligation to disclose anything anymore than any business has to tell all its customers its secrets .
However in order to be believable a reviewer should disclose his or her principles, procedures and conflicts if they exist.
IMO a magazine serving too many minds is a magazine just trying to turn a profit

 

[zerostargeneral]

Dear Sir,

Please be stoic, specific, informative and interesting. Maybe stop pandering to egos, filling the content with ground bait is not
Commensurate with quality.

Avoid inclusivity like the plague; teach, learn, listen, test whilst engaging the readers with implied challenges.

Stop praising mediocrity in all forms as it serves nothing.

Do more M. Spitz type interviews(still my favourite).

Kindest regards[test Musk's IQ], G.

 

[tima]

...editorial policy, banned words and phrases (partial):

--clean/dirty glass
--even my wife...
--film has been removed
--gob smacked
--gob-smacked
--jaw dropping
--jaw-dropping
--unbelievable...
--veiled
--veil has been lifted (how many veils are there, BTW?)

I once wrote: "Unicorns shat musical ducats and the oceans rose."

 

[wil]

...editorial policy, banned words and phrases (partial):

--clean/dirty glass
--even my wife...
--film has been removed
--gob smacked
--gob-smacked
--jaw dropping
--jaw-dropping
--unbelievable...
--veiled
--veil has been lifted (how many veils are there, BTW?)

Please add “not subtle.” This would be at the top of my list and in bold.

#2 would be the “even my wife” trope. I subjectively believe this has a not subtle effect on my blood pressure.

“Unbelievable” and “Incredible” should be generally banished from the language, imho

 

[Rexp]

Zero subjective opinions, let sound clips do the talking

 

[Lee]

Dear Sir,

Please be stoic, specific, informative and interesting. Maybe stop pandering to egos, filling the content with ground bait is not
Commensurate with quality.

Avoid inclusivity like the plague; teach, learn, listen, test whilst engaging the readers with implied challenges.

Stop praising mediocrity in all forms as it serves nothing.

Do more M. Spitz type interviews(still my favourite).

Kindest regards[test Musk's IQ], G.

Mark Spitz is a very interesting guy.

 

[PYP]

-- features about audio development in various countries. Because of my equipment, I naturally think about the Netherlands (Grimm, Mola Mola, Taiko, Pink Faun are all innovative companies), but I also see more stuff designed and built in Poland, for example. And many countries in East Asia...

 

[Mgrif104]

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.

A great point. Just how many more veils can be lifted? How many more layers of glare can be removed? Of course, like all of us, I welcome improvements. But there is rarely an appropriate comparison or moderation in the hyperbole. Then again, if there is not the whetting of the appetite, would not sales and innovation slow resulting in stagnation? So, I’m not sure where to draw the line.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...the veil metaphor always bothers me.

Is the amount of noise a finite concept? If it is, at some point, logically, wouldn't you *only* be changing the flavor, not actually removing bad stuff to get to the unadulterated signal/sound?

 

[TonyW]

Since audio is a subjective hobby a panel of reviewers would seem to offer a more comprehensive overview. A European Journal does that. They all listen to the gear at the same time in the room and rotate positions and then each reviewer gives his take. Seems a more reasonable approach to me. In fact, I recall a few decades back our US hifi magazines used to offer 2 or more viewpoints on a piece of gear. When did a single person become the final authority, the final word on a piece of gear?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I agree with most of the suggestions so far, but would add:

- Stop just focusing on/reviewing the same old suspects and broaden the outlook.

- make the magazine less commercial and more hobbyist/fun.

- Examine more fringe products such as exotic horns, field coils, etc.

- Do features on technology/materials and how it might influence sound.

- Look back on the history of audio (past AR) to JBL, Lansing, Klangfilm and WE.

- Have a section on DIY, such as making your own cables.

That would be great. I grew up with such mags.
I wonder why they have all disappeared?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Lee for starters let the reviewers do a phone recording after the words (reviews .)
As already mentioned.
A kind of second opinion / review add on

I have had so many occasions that my listeing experience didnt match with the reviewers / magz opinion , that i basically gave up

 

[thedudeabides]

Lee, a reasonable ancillary thread variant I hope. Given all the desireable, ideolic reviewer descriptors above and recognizing "perfect" is nonexistent, who (past and present) is the best and the worst in your view? And yes, I fully recognize the subjective nature of this question with the predictable lack of consensus.

 

[Bobvin]

I think it would be great if the magazine had a well sorted room for conducting reviews and for something like flagship speakers and components several reviewers spent time listening and the review included opinions of several different reviewers. The magazine then could be the temporary “owner” of the loaned gear, and even allow a reviewer to swap different components from the library of equipment on loan when evaluating the unit under review (but all contributors would have to listen to a “base” setup before trying different components.)

For example if reviewing a speaker, reviewer “a” can comment on the base system then comment on changes when he changed out the amp or pre-amp or cables. Same for reviewer “b” but he might try yet another amp, etc.

This wouldn’t rule out individual reviews as are done currently.

 

[Balle Clorin]

I subscribe to Stereophile, but mostly look at the pictures and read the measurement section. Without the measurements I would not subscribe..
The written review can be fun to read when a product that measures very poorly is praised by the writer at 66+ that cannot hear past 6khz notices nothing wrong and praises the wreck.

The Stereophile Review of Technics 1300G gave some very useful information about how to install the platter correctly, information that many users have failed to use…( many wobbly platters on YouTube )