HP- Why I Quit the Absolute Sound or: Path to Personal Revelation
- Thread starter mauidan
- Start date
HP's contributions are there. They are part of everyday life to most people (except the members who visit this site for the fun of arguing). From 60,000 feet in the air, there have been only a handful of big contributions in audio. Of course, there have been the innovations in functional technologies. They are a given. But just as important, there is a language and a meaning of products to our everyday life. People use products not just for their technical aspects, features, and functions, but also for emotional and psychological goals that contribute to human happiness, fulfillment, and growth.
From that big picture level, some of these innovations are:
- in the 60's and 70's audio equipment sat on racks and racks of stuff for most people, for audiophiles and non-audiophiles. Bang and Olufsen comes along, and for those not interested in the best sound, reinvests the meaning of the laboratory look of audio into well designed pieces of furniture
- With advances in mobility, the mp3 audio standard comes along and changes the way people listen to music in their homes. Instead of big furniture pieces, music has become mobile and social: people rip, buy, and share music both on the go and throughout their homes.
- For those remaining with high end audio and its racks of equipment, Gordon Holt started a magazine to listen to pieces of audio gear and subjectively evaluate the sonic differences, creating a vocabulary to do so
- And Harry Pearson’s innovation was to reinforce that the engineers who design the gear make it sound not like a precise instrument but like real music.
All these big contributions have affected our culture and have changed how music affects our lives.
So the new crew at Absolute Sound may be making money. Good for them. I hope they make as much money as possible. As long as it is done legally, no one should give a damn. But while that money is made, what meaning does their work impart on their readers?
Industry wide, some of these innovations are:
- in the 60's and 70's audio equipment sat on racks and racks of stuff for most people, for audiophiles and non-audiophiles. Bang and Olufsen comes along, and for those not interested in the best sound, reinvests the meaning of the laboratory look of audio into well designed pieces of furniture
- With advances in mobility, the mp3 audio standard comes along and changes the way people listen to music in their homes. Instead of big furniture pieces, music has become mobile and social: people rip, buy, and share music both on the go and throughout their homes.
- For those remaining with high end audio, Gordon Holt started a magazine to listen to pieces of audio gear and subjectively evaluate the sonic differences, creating a vocabulary to do so
- And Harry Pearson’s innovation was to reinforce that the engineers who design the gear make it sound not like a precise instrument but like real music.
All these big contributions have affected our culture and have changed how music affects our lives.
So the new crew at Absolute Sound may be making money. Good for them. I hope they make as much money as possible. As long as it is done legally, no one should give a damn. But while that money is made, what meaning does their work impart on their readers?
..but not demographically diverse, right? Most of these 70,000 will be males, white, and over 40? No?
In the case of reviewers, I believe there is a point at which the relationship between reviewer and manufacturer can be too cozy.
I personally remain cordial, but if the relationship becomes too personal, how can you be objective?
Bill, food for thought...why should a reviewer have a very different experiences than the consumer..
For instance, most consumers get a week, maybe two, for in home trials, and generally many hours at the dealer.
I bought ALL my gear based on this model, with no regrets.
I truly believe in Listener (and reviewer) break in. Spend 4 or 5 months with something and no matter its faults, up to a point,
and it becomes your baseline.
Playing devil's advocate here!
I think demographics (I called it superficial diversity) don't matter at all if you are interested in problem solving. Social category membership (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, age, physical disabilities) and things like social status (e.g., tenure, socioeconomic) don’t matter one bit. In fact they hurt our hobby, resulting in group think. What’s more important for problem solving is psychological and cognitive diversity. Things like knowledge or skills (education, practical knowledge, expertise, training, experience, abilities). Also, important are values or beliefs (e.g., cultural backgrounds, ideological beliefs) and personality differences (mood, motivation, musical tastes).
What you are looking for, really, are dissenting opinions. That’s why in a post above I said that all expert opinions should be averaged to eliminate biases.
5 reviewers listening to small scale and female vocals music will miss critical aspects of a component’s sonic signature. That's exactly happened what happened to Magico Q5 reviews, until Fremer reviewed it and played rock on it.
Wow. No idea it was that few. For reference, more people than that applied to get into Berkeley this year, and there are about 1million people on the terrorist watch list. What matters of course is how much do these 70K people spend on high end audio equipment, but irrespectively the number is shockingly low. I suspect the Home Theater mags have a far bigger circulation.
Is that taken from Stereophile's latest published and audited (which TAS's isn't) circulation statement or a guess? Not that it would be much larger, just thought it was in the '80s. And believe it or not, even Stereo Review's (which should be the standard not consumer reports) circ wasn't that much better.
You can basically take it to a bank that at best, a magazine's profit margin is around 12%.
and let's not forget Vivid Audio who I think deserve more exposure from reviewers....
Remember some manufacturers don't desire "exposure." Or it has to be the right kind of exposure.
That's right. I happen to think that the Vivid Giya is one of the world's great loudspeakers. And with TAS posturing their gear as a "king magico" and its subjects, who wants to send in a speaker and be labeled as a "#1" or "#2" contender", when at that level it's all a matter of relative strengths and weaknesses and personal preference? This stuff hurts everyone in the hobby.
With such profound personal hatred to Magico (and TAS), sounds like YOU were hurt in a big way...
Caesar, I do agree with you, the Giya is one of the best speaker's that I have heard. Problem seems to be that it takes a very large room, needs a very precise set-up and of course the looks are shall we say a '"defined taste".
However, when all is good, IMHO it's a contender for world's best.
Home Theater's circulation is 93,000 (Stereophile is 72,000 as the latest; used to be from 45,000 to 60,000, then 60,000 to 80,000 and at the peak about 90,000, and now hovering around the 70,000 mark).
* Stereophile started back in 1962 (J. Gordon Holt as founder). ...John Atkinson joined in 1986.
The Abso!ute Sound, I don't know, but I'm sure it is lower than Stereophile.
Audio Aficionado is 122,000 members; but out of that total approximately 100,000 are fake members!
It is very easy to verify too; just take some time to go over the member's list, you will see the obvious.
I believe that Harry P. did the right thing in these days and age of the Internet.
...And Michael Fremer? ...He's everywhere where analog still lives. :b
I agree with your premise..but how can you have much cognitive diversity when there is little demographic diversity.
Let's look at the facts...90% of reviewers are older, white, educated, and overwhelmingly male. I am NOT saying this is bad..since it may reflect the
hobby itself..but I don't see how you can have much diversity.
BTW, there is NO doubt the older reviewers prefer vinyl and the "younger" ones have either both a turntable and a digital rig, or various forms of digital.
Agree on the Fremer Q5 review!
Those numbers are actually four years old (they quote 2010 so is probably 2009 or one year post-recession).
Similar threads
