State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[tima]

Personal discussions with a couple of reviewers and one distributor (unnamed to protect the innocent, but if anyone is really interested I can respond via PM if their identities are kept confidential - although feel free to contact them if you wish) who tell me that some ezines require payment and/or advertising for reviews or vice-versa (manufacturer/distributor requires a fee to provide a product for review); likewise with manufacturers/distributors "shopping" the different review outlets before deciding which might get a product for review.

I don't think any of this is "news", and therefore it might not qualify as an absolute lack of transparency. It is hopefully not very common or widespread (but the point is the readers don't know), and therefore perhaps even more important that it be disclosed if possible.

I'd like to know the publication your couple of reviewers write for and how long they have been around.

 

[RoyGregory]

Jeez guys - take a breath... Okay, okay - and purely in the spirit of generating some clarity - why write the Glass Ceiling piece now?

Two reasons: firstly, because there are signs that it's cracked already and getting close to shattering; secondly, because as that happens, those relying on or profiting from its existence are getting more desperate, more aggressive and increasingly out of order.

 

[ddk]

Jeez guys - take a breath... Okay, okay - and purely in the spirit of generating some clarity - why write the Glass Ceiling piece now?

Two reasons: firstly, because there are signs that it's cracked already and getting close to shattering; secondly, because as that happens, those relying on or profiting from its existence are getting more desperate, more aggressive and increasingly out of order.

Thank you for your candor.

david

 

[rbbert]

I'd like to know the publication your couple of reviewers write for and how long they have been around.

SoundStage! Ultra and DaGogo, and each reviewing for at least 10 years

 

[bonzo75]

This isn’t a new issue I’ve been saying many of same things about high end audio magazines since mid 90’s and then some. Looking back the same practices were prevalent in the 80’s too so my question is why now you’ve been doing this for a very long time?

david

Even if you were right: that as such is no reason at all to not bring this issue up again.

That’s not what I said, I was asking about what compelled him to bring up the matter now after all the years being part of the system, this isn’t news.

david

I know what you said and my reaction stands.

Of course! You make up what I never said and then agree with yourself.

david

Of course your ad hominem comment makes no sense.

You're making things up again Rudy.
david

No Davey, I am not but apparently you do not get it.

I get you started a pissing match Rudolph to what I don't know.

No David, I disagree with your comment on Roy’s interesting remarks and made that clear in a comment. Don’t try to create the false illusion that I misunderstood you.

david

What was the comment that you disagree with?

david

See my first reaction to your comment that speaks for itself.

I didn't comment I posed a question to Roy, what's your problem besides what you make up for yourself?

david

This whole script is ROFL British sitcom material.

@spiritofmusic the two of us need to do better next time else we will lose our show rating

 

[Audiocrack]

This whole script is ROFL British sitcom material.

@spiritofmusic the two of us need to do better next time else we will lose our show rating

I must ‘confess’: we indeed raised the bar (or did we really??)

 

[spiritofmusic]

I must confess: we indeed raised the bar (or did we really??)

Well, it was a limbo bar, so pretty easy.

 

[rbbert]

SoundStage! Ultra and DaGogo, and each reviewing for at least 10 years

I should make clear that neither of those sites engage in any of the practices I mentioned; one reason why each of those reviewers writes for them now rather than other sites where some of those practices might be observed.

 

[Sampajanna]

. Alan Sircom is indeed writing a large share of reviews at hifi+ and we are addressing that. However, as a long-time reader going back to the first issue, I am grateful Alan is so productive. He's clearly one of the best writers out there and has a tremendous enthusiasm for the gear and music. One of my absolute favorite things about my job is to get to work with Alan. He is a real gem and quite hilarious in person.

You say that, but this has been going on for the entire year I have been a subscribed, right up to my very last issue. There are many other problems with this magazine beyond the fact that one man writes all the reviews, so many of which are so cookie cutter that they even mention the same tracks in the same part of the article so you can literally swap product names and read the same words over and over.

 

[fbhifi]

At least, he should know his reference tracks really well for comparison purposes.

 

[thedudeabides]

Probably an over simplified comparison. I lived in Jackson, WY., marketed as Jackson Hole. A sign at the top of Teton Pass states "the last and best of the Old West".

That certainly seemed true when I first moved there in 1981. Fast forward 36 years when I retired and moved to Alto, NM. Housing prices are now $1,000 per square foot, very few locals (including law enforcement, medical personnel, etc.) can live there due to prices and lack of inventory. The business interests continue to dominate and further compromise whatever is left of the valley's community character. The very thing that initially attracted folks to move there has been destroyed by greed and money.

The good news is 97% of Teton County is in the public domain and money cannot buy the incredible beauty of Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks and the Bridger Teton National Forest.

 

[Sampajanna]

At least, he should know his reference tracks really well for comparison purposes.

HAha. Trentmoller. He always references that ….

 

[Sampajanna]

Who could blame him though. He is a good author, funny and writes well. But who could review 10 products every month in a way that would mean anything to anyone.

 

[perart1]

This whole script is ROFL British sitcom material.

@spiritofmusic the two of us need to do better next time else we will lose our show rating

I still prefer Monty Python; but only just

 

[spiritofmusic]

My fave cut and paste from Sircom is how the component he's reviewing "combines the best of brand A, w the best of brand B, w the best of brand C".
Almost every review I read of his does this, it's like an AI program combined w Groundhog Day lol.
No wonder he can knock out so many reviews at a time, he just has his machine w well worn phrases at the ready.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I still prefer Monty Python; but only just

Ha! Ked and I are what the Python boys left on the cutting room floor, surreal but tediously boring and predictable all at the same time.

 

[Alan Sircom]

My fave cut and paste from Sircom is how the component he's reviewing "combines the best of brand A, w the best of brand B, w the best of brand C".
Almost every review I read of his does this, it's like an AI program combined w Groundhog Day lol.
No wonder he can knock out so many reviews at a time, he just has his machine w well worn phrases at the ready.

No, I don't cut and paste my work, and if I handed my workload over to AI, it would be grammatically better.

One of the more common complaints directed at high-end audio reviews is the absence of comparisons. Because of my throughput, I can go some way toward making those comparisons – or at least allude to them – through commonalities. It's often functionally impossible to perform direct comparisons in high-end because of logistics and swap-out times. However, with exposure to so many bits and pieces, I can work up something that comes close to a comparison, which doesn't involve having an orthopaedic surgeon on speed dial.

Yes, that means reviews can end up self-referential and 'meta', but I maintain it's a helpful shorthand that most people who have got this far can understand. I feel it's as relevant as relying on the limited vocabulary and overused analogies we have in audio reviewing; I have to do that in reviews where I can't apply some direct comparative benchmarks. Some (myself included) have attempted to extend this vocabulary by introducing neologisms and even terminology from music and music technology, but there is a lot of pushback whenever we try.

Similarly, we are limited to drawing parallels to cars, cameras, and watches because even though they are desperately trite, they are also universally understandable. When you use anything else in an audio review, the resulting analogy can appear awkward, calculated, or parochial. Worse still, if you try to avoid using analogies altogether, you can seem aloof in some regions.

In truth, I would like to review fewer products, but my workload is an unfortunate by-product of chronic insomnia. Writing tens of thousands of words a month gives me something to do at 4 am and it's slightly healthier than drinking myself unconscious regularly.

Now... if you excuse me, I have to catch up on all the work I didn't do thanks to my latest tussle with COVID-19.

 

[SCAudiophile]

Glad you are back and feeling better!

 

[howiebrou]

No, I don't cut and paste my work, and if I handed my workload over to AI, it would be grammatically better.

One of the more common complaints directed at high-end audio reviews is the absence of comparisons. Because of my throughput, I can go some way toward making those comparisons – or at least allude to them – through commonalities. It's often functionally impossible to perform direct comparisons in high-end because of logistics and swap-out times. However, with exposure to so many bits and pieces, I can work up something that comes close to a comparison, which doesn't involve having an orthopaedic surgeon on speed dial.

Yes, that means reviews can end up self-referential and 'meta', but I maintain it's a helpful shorthand that most people who have got this far can understand. I feel it's as relevant as relying on the limited vocabulary and overused analogies we have in audio reviewing; I have to do that in reviews where I can't apply some direct comparative benchmarks. Some (myself included) have attempted to extend this vocabulary by introducing neologisms and even terminology from music and music technology, but there is a lot of pushback whenever we try.

Similarly, we are limited to drawing parallels to cars, cameras, and watches because even though they are desperately trite, they are also universally understandable. When you use anything else in an audio review, the resulting analogy can appear awkward, calculated, or parochial. Worse still, if you try to avoid using analogies altogether, you can seem aloof in some regions.

In truth, I would like to review fewer products, but my workload is an unfortunate by-product of chronic insomnia. Writing tens of thousands of words a month gives me something to do at 4 am and it's slightly healthier than drinking myself unconscious regularly.

Now... if you excuse me, I have to catch up on all the work I didn't do thanks to my latest tussle with COVID-19.

Very kind of you to drop by Alan.

 

[Sampajanna]

No, I don't cut and paste my work, and if I handed my workload over to AI, it would be grammatically better.

One of the more common complaints directed at high-end audio reviews is the absence of comparisons. Because of my throughput, I can go some way toward making those comparisons – or at least allude to them – through commonalities. It's often functionally impossible to perform direct comparisons in high-end because of logistics and swap-out times. However, with exposure to so many bits and pieces, I can work up something that comes close to a comparison, which doesn't involve having an orthopaedic surgeon on speed dial.

Yes, that means reviews can end up self-referential and 'meta', but I maintain it's a helpful shorthand that most people who have got this far can understand. I feel it's as relevant as relying on the limited vocabulary and overused analogies we have in audio reviewing; I have to do that in reviews where I can't apply some direct comparative benchmarks. Some (myself included) have attempted to extend this vocabulary by introducing neologisms and even terminology from music and music technology, but there is a lot of pushback whenever we try.

Similarly, we are limited to drawing parallels to cars, cameras, and watches because even though they are desperately trite, they are also universally understandable. When you use anything else in an audio review, the resulting analogy can appear awkward, calculated, or parochial. Worse still, if you try to avoid using analogies altogether, you can seem aloof in some regions.

In truth, I would like to review fewer products, but my workload is an unfortunate by-product of chronic insomnia. Writing tens of thousands of words a month gives me something to do at 4 am and it's slightly healthier than drinking myself unconscious regularly.

Now... if you excuse me, I have to catch up on all the work I didn't do thanks to my latest tussle with COVID-19.

Yes, thank you for participating. I am glad you are on the mend, and wish you a speedy recovery. As I mentioned, I think you are a very good author and write well and are no doubt capable of writing profusely each month. What I question is the experimentation, listening time and overall time spent with each product when doing ten reviews a month. The writing quality is Not an issue, the review process is. How do you move so many products in and out of your listening room? Or, as I suspect, these arent in-house reviews but rather day trips to dealers or something else? Personalily, i dont think i understand a component until it has sat in the system a long time. Amd that implies i understand the rest of the system, the room and the music…. That said, even if I did understand, I couldn’t write as well as you.