hp soundings
- Thread starter puroagave
- Start date
- Status
I consider myself a member of the older generation.
And I recall reading an issue of TAS wherein HP was giving components 5 stars or 1 star, and on IC's he gave a star (or maybe more) to a lone IC which was the MIT-330. I immediately bought a pair during my next trip to the SF Bay Area and came home happy knowing that I bought something HP rated even before listening to it. Even until today, I've stuck with MIT-330 shotgun IC's mainly because I'm satisfied with what I hear.
A good friend of mine who subscribes to TAS until today told me he wonders why HP, in his last few years at TAS, has not reviewed any SOTA speakers from Magico, Wilson, or Rockport, among others, and those speakers were assigned to Valin or Harley. In his own site, will we see HP's opinion on these brands?
Well the speakers weren't "assigned" to Valin. Valin went after the speakers (say at shows where HP is rarely found until recently) and the manufacturers sent them to him.
Imo, speakers or products under reviewed should be reviewed by at least 2-3 different reviewers , especially where there is no product testing taking place...
Stereophile used to do so many moons go , even while testing , not all the times but some products where listened to by more than one reviewer ...
Stereophile used to do so many moons go , even while testing , not all the times but some products where listened to by more than one reviewer ...
Don't you think it has to do with publication deadlines, and the time involved in schlepping the product from one reviewer to another for evaluation before a set of reviews on a single product could be completed?
Also, given the need to get content written, I suspect the magazines want more coverage of different products, rather than an extensive focus on one- though you still see articles where a review is accompanied by a companion piece, like an interview with the designer or tour of the factory.
Yes that's a major part.
1) Because of the Net, far more audio magazines than ever competing for the same equipment.
2) Manufacturers found themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment out on loan (that's overhead and we're not talking especially plush companies). Also the equipment can't be sold for new.
3) Sending equipment around would tie up gear for a minimum of six to nine months--plus the added time to publication. It would take year say for a review to appear in print, something less for the Net.
Yes it's our current zeitgeist, quantity over quality , same in education , now everyone gets a college degree and i guess everyone is now qualified at everything via interweb ...
I do agree about the delay's regarding release dates, etc, on equipment reviews , fortunately most magazines have other content to meet deadlines , like equipment previews , show reports , industry news and interviews , technical answers and suggestions, etc,
This would require some knowledge and commitment on the subject at hand , but hey think of it as actually delivering information to readers more so than pictures and opinions ..
Just saying .....
I do agree about the delay's regarding release dates, etc, on equipment reviews , fortunately most magazines have other content to meet deadlines , like equipment previews , show reports , industry news and interviews , technical answers and suggestions, etc,
This would require some knowledge and commitment on the subject at hand , but hey think of it as actually delivering information to readers more so than pictures and opinions ..
Just saying .....
Ohh, There is no way or reason for a product reviewed by 2 different reviewers to take a year to make it to press ....
Exactly. If you see the recent issue of Tone, Jeff Dorgay adds comments to my Peachtree review.
Also, in my reviews on PFO and Avrev.com, there are interviews with the designer, engineer, owner, or importer of the product under review about a 1/3 of the time.
This additional work is very time consuming, not to mention the break in time, shipping, etc.
Certain internet tough guys around here live in a fantasy land and love spreading negativity.
1. I was referring to three reviewers.
2. Allowing one week for shipping and assuming UPS, Fedex or anything else of that ilk don't destroy what's being shipped (a 50-50 proposition).
3. Only a small percentage of reviewers are full time.
4. At last two+ months for review, probably a bit more for the first reviewer adding in time to break in the component.
5. Time to write-up.
6. Editing.
7. Different internet mags have different policies eg. posting twice a month vs. constantly (will depend in part on whether a full or part time endeavor.)
8. Print mags have a one month lag until publication-editing, layout and printing.
---- I remember that very well, even later on, in the eighties, they were still doing that.
...And for loudspeakers, in particular, it's a very good/important point.
Then it became more personal, as music should. :b
I was referring to from submission to the going to the printer
Of course mailing adds time, depending upon whether it goes second or third class mail and where you live.- Status
Similar threads
