The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.

[Alan Sircom]

If you write a lot of bad reviews, then the manufacturers avoid you if they have a choice. Unless they find a business model to adopt what Consumer Reports does with buying their own stuff to review, you will always have this ultimate conflict of interest. At least for high-end gear.

That said, a lot of other magazines get stuff for free while being at least somewhat critical.

Unfortunately, even if an audio magazine had the resources to buy every product it tested, the relatively small number of dealers each high-end company has today would still dictate review policy. If the manufacturer decided it did not want a product reviewed, it could threaten dealers with excommunication if they ended up being the one that sold it to the magazine. You can't make the same diktats if your toaster is sold through 30,000 outlets.

Also, the badness of the review is in the eye of the beholder. Or the manufacturer. I am on the 'no reviews' list of several companies, including one where wrote a very positive review and subsequently bought the product. I just wasn't positive enough, apparently. I have even had someone try to pin me to a wall after winning an award some years ago, because they thought they (not their product) deserved more. OK, they were on their second pint of tequila by that time, what they ended up saying was 'nerfuyworiydwroaaaaaahghaaward' and it's unclear whether they were trying to pin me to a wall or trying to find a way to prevent falling off the floor, but it's the thought that counts.

 

[vinylphilemag]

Don't you think that there are some subsribers that just look thru the pictures and ads? Hell with reading

Hmmmm, Playhifi. Hugh Hefner would have a field day!

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I am certain there are a lot of problems associated with publishing, especially for such a small readership. Then again it is the responsibility of the magazines and the industry at large to find ways to increase the readership ...
The problem remains that the reviews have lately grown from bad to worse with numerous reviewers straining to not come with any usable conclusion... This is a fact .. that there are reasons do not change much of that ...
Critics have an important role in any creative endeavor. The magazine should be that voice , one who dares criticize. Although the term criticism is associated with negative, its etymology is "able to discern" so a critic can end up being positive , no doubt but to bob, swerver and avoid any conclusion is not right and we have seen a lot of this lately

The High End Audio Industry needs to grow and indeed need to grow up. The magazines can help .. By not doing it, they (Both the magazine and their industry) are digging a bigger hole, one that would ultimately be their tomb

 

[Gregadd]

It's always difficult to serve two masters. Especially when you are dealing with money. Print media is dependent on money from subscribers and advertisers. Now days we have the internet where the review is given away. That makes the publisher even more dependent on ad dollars. One still has to maintain a certain credibility if you want to attract readers. Claims of corruptions were made long before tas accepted ads. HP was accused of bias because he accepted long term loans. Other writers because they received "industry accommodation prices."

The point is that the industry sacrificed its' credibility as a whole. Some individual companies maintained credibility. The consumer is left with a choice; go it alone or accept the advice of reviewers. Consumers just don't have the knowledge. time, or resources to accomplish that. Unfortunately the review game became an industry unto itself. We now have a situation where the review game is no different from the industry. It has a bottom line. A profit motive and a desire to survive. There was a time when tas could speak the truth at least as they saw it. Survive on reader subscriptions. Publish everyone once in awhile. The problem is there is always someone willing to do what you will not. Especially where there is money involved. You can make a choice. Compete with that guy or take your principles and go home.

 

[audioguy]

FrantzM and Gregadd:

I agree completely. Not only do they dump upbeat praise on virtually every product they review, they continue to extol the virtues of the 2010 equivalents of goof ball products like the Tice Clock and lose whatever credibility was left to any new reader (and potential high end audiophile) that may pick up one of the magazines.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Also, the badness of the review is in the eye of the beholder. Or the manufacturer. I am on the 'no reviews' list of several companies, including one where wrote a very positive review and subsequently bought the product.

That hits my funny bone. The most badgering and petulant exchanges I have had with manufacturers have all been subsequent to positive reviews. Some have even sent me modified copy (they get a prepublication draft from the editorial office) pressing me to accept their version of the review! Of course, that is rejected but nothing is good enough for some people.

 

[Gregadd]

I wonder if an engineer ever disassembled the Tiice clock to see what was there? A digital clock does not take up a lot of space. They are a serious company that pioneered power conditioners and ac storage devices. Oh wait, they don't believe in those either.

 

[es347]

I should begin by saying that I like Stereophile Magazine. In fact, I adore it. If I were asked to name something else that comes to my mailbox every month that I look forward to with equal enthusiasm, I would be hard pressed to provide another answer, with the possible exception of TAS and Gramophone. I should also mention that I appreciate just how hard it is to review audio gear for a living. Although to many of us it sounds like a dream job which allows the opportunity to hear the very best and latest gear, I’m sure that in reality, with limited time to complete thorough evaluations and publication deadlines constantly at hand, the actual job is harder than we might have guessed. I also like Stereophile’s commitment to providing technical measurements that gives the reader additional information that might be important or useful in trying to assess the full measure of a piece of gear under discussion.

But enough accolades. Despite these strengths, there are some obvious and tragic examples of audio reviewing that really leave me shaking my head at the stupidity of remarks that are made by people who should know better. One wonders- why is it we never, ever see a bad review in Stereophile? (I thought the days of “everything is great” were over when Julian Hirsch left the field? Apparently, not.)

Two fine examples can be found in September's Stereophile. In discussing a Cary CD player, Mike Fremer comments that “the sound….was never less than complimentary to every disc played, even those that were warm and mid-bass heavy, or slightly rolled off on top- another indicator of the skill with which the player has been voiced”. Mikey; two things. First: “the sound….was never less than complimentary to every disc played”. What the hell does this even mean? “Second, “….the skill with which the player has been voiced.”? Are you kidding me? Look at the damn frequency response Mikey. It’s ruler flat from 10Hz to 20KHz. Do you even know what the word “voiced” means? You generally need some deviation in frequency response to have any sort of genuine voicing options at all. Seems like a ridiculous comment to me. But as enjoyable as that gobblygook was to read, it was not quite the equal of John Atkinson’s review of the Violoncello II speakers.

Get this. Here is a speaker that shows a frequency response characterized by a rising top end over 6K that is up 5 dB between 10KHz and 20KHz! It’s so insufferable that Atkinson had to insert a 600-ohm series resistor in the tweeter feeds just to reduce the level above 10KHz to acceptability. In fact, he said the ionic tweeter sensitivity is “too high for a completely neutral on-axis response” so he had to resort to “toe-in” just to listen to the damn thing without frying his ears. Atkinson says “this won’t be an issue in a well-damped large room”, but meanwhile the top end is so hot in his room you can fry an egg on it. Add to the fact that the impulse response is a total train wreck with out of phase driver responses and level mismatches that are a sonic embarrassment, and you simply have to shudder when you read his final conclusion that the speaker is “highly recommended”!!! John, what the hell are you thinking?

Wouldn’t it be really nice for a change if a reviewer wrote something honest that was totally believable in an audio review? How about “although the dynamics were impressive, the basic flaws for a speaker of this price ($80K) leads me to conclude that you can do a lot better for far less money elsewhere. In fact, based on the fundamental anomalies of frequency response and impulse response, the speaker essentially sucks and you’d have to be nuts to even think about owning these”. I know that many folks including me have beat up Valin for saying that everything he seems to test recently is “the best”. But its not just the occassional review in TAS that lack credibility. Stereophile has done a great job of displaying their own lack of credibility in the two examples I cited. Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to discourage them from reviewing the latest gear. But what I’d like to see is more reviews that reflect the reviewer’s honest opinions. And not a review that is couched in language so as to meet the following standard: “ Jeez, these guys spent a lot of money to advertise with us so I have to figure how to say something nice about the product even though it really isn’t very good. I just have to figure a way to say it so our average reader can’t figure that out yet the manufacturer will continue to advertise with us!"

Do you have your own tale of dumb audio equipment reviews? Please share them. We all need a good laugh now and then and I’m sure there are plenty of equipment reviews out there to laugh about.

One of the S'phile reviewers could be credited with the ultimate silver lining quote..."for a fat girl you sure don't sweat much".

 

[marty]

It used to be that audio reviews were performed by two basic types of subscription-based publications; those that accepted advertising and those that did not. How we loved it when J Gordon Holt started Stereophile and said he would not cower to the pressure of having advertisements which he viewed as making a bargain with the devil and the promise of revenue in unspoken exchange for a good review. (Recall some companies were virtually launched this way; to wit, the infamous Burt Whyte review of the original Bose loudspeaker). Unfortunately, that publishing model became untenable and even Stereophile and TAS had to eventually accept ads to survive. One could ask, how many audiophiles would pay more for an ad free journal? But that would not solve the problem. As has already been pointed out, reviewers still would be pressured to write good reviews or fear of not receiving future gear for evaluation. And second, we all like to look at the ads! So what's the solution? It seems to me its a matter of integrity. It's just not credible that all reviews need to be good reviews in Stereophile and TAS.. The Violincello II review that Atkinson did is a clear example. This thing has notable and serious flaws. It's John's responsibility not to conclude his final evaluation with "highly recommended". Perhaps if he stuck to the basics tenents of good reporting, we'd have greater confidence in the veracity of his publication. Let me re-phrase that. He did a good job of reporting as he did indeed point out the speaker's flaws. What he then did was fabricate a recommendation that was inconsistent with the data. In my world, we call that scientific fraud. It all comes back to "integrity". Either you have it, or you don't.

 

[FrantzM]

Re-eading some of the posts... It has come to me that the magazines or at least those from magazines who have voiced their point of view in this thread do not seem to recognize how their stock is falling within the (smallish) readership...
This will lead to search for more ways to make money not necessarily atract new readers, meanwhile the old readers, those with the most potential to be loyal are no longer that .. loyal .. I will take myself as an example, (talk about modesty) back in the mid-80's , I did not have a subscription and I remember going to Tower Record just to buy my copy of TAS, which to me was of the proper form factor .. I still do have some of these and reading it from cover to cover .. Right now I have let my TAS subscription lapse and I am not alone. If we were to conduct an informal survey here in this very forum we would have a better idea but I am willing to advance that few here are fans of these magazines .. Oh! we buy them from time to time or download them but admirers ? Reading from cover to back cover? Unlikely
There are problems no doubt but the quality of the reviews, the boosterish attitude and the impression that many of these mags .. I will cite SP and TAS but this applies to ocuntless others, don't have the well-being of their readers ar stake, needs to be addressed for these magazines to survive ...

P.S. I have not yet approach the role magazines have played in the suicidal price strategy of High End Audio (don't look hard but now there seems to be, finally a $200 K DAC) ...but dare I say that when a 80 K speaker has those problems in the treble it should not ...well.. cost 80 K .. because there are truly better speakers at much, much less?

 

[MylesBAstor]

It used to be that audio reviews were performed by two basic types of subscription-based publications; those that accepted advertising and those that did not. How we loved it when J Gordon Holt started Stereophile and said he would not cower to the pressure of having advertisements which he viewed as making a bargain with the devil and the promise of revenue in unspoken exchange for a good review. (Recall some companies were virtually launched this way; to wit, the infamous Burt Whyte review of the original Bose loudspeaker). Unfortunately, that publishing model became untenable and even Stereophile and TAS had to eventually accept ads to survive. One could ask, how many audiophiles would pay more for an ad free journal? But that would not solve the problem. As has already been pointed out, reviewers still would be pressured to write good reviews or fear of not receiving future gear for evaluation. And second, we all like to look at the ads! So what's the solution? It seems to me its a matter of integrity. It's just not credible that all reviews need to be good reviews in Stereophile and TAS.. The Violincello II review that Atkinson did is a clear example. This thing has notable and serious flaws. It's John's responsibility not to conclude his final evaluation with "highly recommended". Perhaps if he stuck to the basics tenents of good reporting, we'd have greater confidence in the veracity of his publication. Let me re-phrase that. He did a good job of reporting as he did indeed point out the speaker's flaws. What he then did was fabricate a recommendation that was inconsistent with the data. In my world, we call that scientific fraud. It all comes back to "integrity". Either you have it, or you don't.

Exactly right Marty! The model has changed. So has publishing. No longer are articles typed on a typewriter and type set Yeah I remember pasting up pictures-and remember not opting for digital scanning when it first came out because the pictures looked awful. I remember when I started The Audiophile Voice, being one of the first magazines to go directly from disc to film. I remember sending in 20 or 30 discs (or more), because of the disc capacity, to the printer. I remember hunting for a post-script printer, finally having to rent one, and it taking a whole day to print out 176 pages of copy. Boy have things changed!

By contrast now, everything is digitally scanned including the large format pictures used on a magazine's cover. In fact, in the fitness magazines, they'll photoshop a shot and add some definition to the person's abs

You I'm sure will remember the controversy that went down when HP asked his readership for an up or down vote on accepting advertising Thing is you can build a small magazine like Bound for Sound on an advertiseless basis but that's exactly what the magazine will be forever. There's no room for growth. Or you can run a web based publication like Positive Feedback went to where costs are much lower.

But the bottom line is how will you pay your staff (including editors/graphic artists) w/o advertising. If you don't, they will eventually leave for greener pastures where they are paid. Reviewers like to (and are due) be paid for their time. When you figure it takes about three or so months of listening to a component before writing it up, it comes out to 0.000001 cents/hour. It really comes down to a labor of love for the reviewer.

And it takes a long time for a reviewer to build credibility and if your staff is constantly turning over, then your magazine never achieve much credibility. Readers take time to link/identify with a given reviewer who "hears" the same way they do.

And Alan had an excellent point too. What seems like a rave review to a reader can make a manufacturer see red. All reviewers will have had that happen, if they've been writing long enough. There are just some manufacturers who think their products are perfect and can not take any criticism (s).

 

[MylesBAstor]

I wonder if an engineer ever disassembled the Tiice clock to see what was there? A digital clock does not take up a lot of space. They are a serious company that pioneered power conditioners and ac storage devices. Oh wait, they don't believe in those either.

Actually Greg, nothing was done inside the clock. I went to George's and watched them do the TPT treatment to their cables and clocks. The treatment did change the sound of the cables; it was not to my liking however.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi

I am certain there are a lot of problems associated with publishing, especially for such a small readership. Then again it is the responsibility of the magazines and the industry at large to find ways to increase the readership ...
The problem remains that the reviews have lately grown from bad to worse with numerous reviewers straining to not come with any usable conclusion... This is a fact .. that there are reasons do not change much of that ...
Critics have an important role in any creative endeavor. The magazine should be that voice , one who dares criticize. Although the term criticism is associated with negative, its etymology is "able to discern" so a critic can end up being positive , no doubt but to bob, swerver and avoid any conclusion is not right and we have seen a lot of this lately

The High End Audio Industry needs to grow and indeed need to grow up. The magazines can help .. By not doing it, they (Both the magazine and their industry) are digging a bigger hole, one that would ultimately be their tomb

Frantz: Sorry to break it to you but the industry doesn't care. They could have done some things when HP sponsored AAHEA but none of the companies could agree on a plan to promote high-end audio. The one idea they had on cooping an ad in large circ based magazines was ruled illegal because of some anti-trust laws or something I was told. On top of that, the industry just doesn't have the money power to afford a large scale advertising strategy. One of the few that attempted that was Krell when they advertised in the Robb Report and some other non-audiophile type magazines many years ago.

Tell me why the manufacturers can't get together and throw their own high-end show? Why do they have to depend on Stereophile? At least some of the recent local shows may help in promoting audio, though from what I've heard, the attendance has been disappointing.

The bottom line (and no offense to any of WBF members), the big cities in the US remain the hotbeds of high-end audio. (nothing like say the Munich or Far East shows though). The SP New York shows drew by far the most attendees of all the shows. Problem is that the union costs kill the ability of anyone to throw any sort of smaller show. You can't even plug anything into the wall w/o and electrician. Or for example, when I debuted my magazine years ago at the SP show in SF, it cost me $800 to send 8000 copies of the magazine from VA to SF; it cost me $2400 to ship from the stupid warehouse in SF to the show hotel. When they asked me at the end of the show if I wanted to send the leftover copies sent back, I said not with those costs and dumped the remaining 1000 or so.

 

[FrantzM]

Myles

Again I see description and listing of problems.. IOW the problems are known ...what are they, the High End Audio Industry going to do about these?

What does that say about the High End Industry when they "don't care".. an industry which doesn't seem to care about its own survival .. Simply that we will see and more of the stalwart disappear .. I would like to see that will not be the end of High End Audio ... I would like to think the demises of an odd way of doing business ... Progress won't stop or so I would like to think .. Must say I am not encouraged .. Then again I have been greatly disturbed for the past few years by the absence of progress in most areas of High End Audio and the close to non-correlation between performance and prices ...

 

[DaveyF]

It seems fairly obvious that in this day and age, that all periodicals that hope to survive and/or prosper need to accept advertising. Stereophile and its publishers are clearly very aware of this scenario. Herein lies their conundrum, take a companies ad dollars and thereby attempt to indirectly sell their product while at the same time be objective and honest with their readership by telling them how poor the product really is. I think that maybe the solution lies where the magazine tells the advertiser two things...One,If you advertise with us, you accept the risk of a poor review and are willing to learn from such, thereby possibly having the ability to improve your product and consequently receiving a positive review that would then boost sales; and two, to insure the magazines integrity we will do our utmost to see that your product is reviewed fairly and on a level playing field with your competitors.
One of the models of this plan is the famous magazine " Consumer Reports". I think that they are in an enviable position of being able to accept ads and at the same time having enough strength of readership to be able to identify problems with products that exist. This theory may be all wrong BUT it seems to be the only way around this continuing problem IMHO. Personally I am tired of reading about overpriced audio products that are clearly flawed and yet are given favorable reviews by less than scrupulous reviewer's. Maybe I am the only one,but I would much rather support a magazine that has reviewers that are more discriminating and who are not afraid of the consequences of the 'slam review' due to the policy above. Ok, I'm sure I am naive!!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Let me throw this out. Everyone thinks the lack of negative reviews is due to a lack of integrity. Could there possibly be another reason (s)? I can thing of quite a few.

Funny thing is that there is a subpopulation of audiophiles who thought that TAS made its name because of its negative reviews and trashing components.

 

[Gregadd]

Before we get carried away most businesses, even with return policy and warranty, still operate on caveat emptor. Most people choose their stereo from the limited choices places like Best Buy provide. Distribution is still the king of the hill. We have it better than most.

 

[DWR]

Funny that you posted that Myles, I almost posted earlier this morning this question. .......... Is it just possible that the lack of negative reviews is due to the fact that there is a lot of high quality audio equipment out there for sale????????

 

[MylesBAstor]

Funny that you posted that Myles, I almost posted earlier this morning this question. .......... Is it just possible that the lack of negative reviews is due to the fact that there is a lot of high quality audio equipment out there for sale????????

Agree or disagree, I once asked a number of leading high-end manufacturers, including a pair with a PhD in economics () whether it would make more sense to sell direct? The answer. No. The reason given. The cost to them of a money back guarantee if not satisfied offer would eliminate any profit. So I think we're left with selling thru audio gear thru stores!

 

[FrantzM]

This would not be a repeat of my last post ...denial is setting in or it could be that all is well with the state of the Audiophile press and Industry ...

We haven't seen the end of those pseudo reviews but we might be seeing the end of this industry as we knew it ...