 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.203.74.142
In Reply to: More Chinese Whispers? posted by John Atkinson on March 7, 2007 at 04:23:50:
AFAIC its a good thing for reviewers to have a number of components/spkrs/accessories to use with a DUR in order to inform readers what is most synergistic, or the reverse. For that reason I'm glad that reviewers get to keep "loaners" for a while and utilize them in reviewing other gear. But without distinguishing what is owned from loaned the reader has no idea what personal choices the reviewer has made regarding cost/performance issues for his own system.Presumably your reviewers accumulate more knowledge about hifi gear than the average S'phile reader because they hear more gear in the course of reviewing. It would certainly be instructive to know what they choose they to spend their own $$ on. It would not only be helpful in understanding their taste (relative to our own), but also their view of value -- albeit with insider's discount. Since that discount is offered by most manufacturers its still a level playing field and reviewers' choices would still be informative.
What would be so cumbersome about inserting two headers into associated components lists......."bought" and "loaned"?
IMNSHO a reviewer should have a single STABLE reference system of high quality. He should also have a reasonably short list of reference quality recordings, across musical genres and preferably ones that are currently available. (Reviewing analog components may present a problem here.) He should then substitute the component being reviewed for the one used as his stable reference and describe in detail what he hears on several of his reference disks, to wit, what differences he hears, if any. That should all be done BEFORE he makes any judgments or recommendations.That way the reader would eventually find comfort with what the standard is for a particular reviewer. That way the reader can assess the new component next to one acknowledged to be of high quality.
That's how it used to be done.
That's how it is done no longer (generally).
That's the pity.
> It would certainly be instructive to know what they choose they to
> spend their own $$ on.
Actually, many Stereophile reviewers do mention in the magazine what
they have purchased on a regular basis. If you peruse the Asylum
archives, you will find criticism of Michael Fremer based on his
disclosure.
Regarding what reviewers have on long-term loan, as I said, it would
be cumbersome to do this with every review. But now that three
Stereophile reviewers _have_ published their lists, why don't you
ask the same question of reviewers for other magazines?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I addressed my question to you because *you* posted above, and *you* claimed my suggestion would be too "cumbersome". I would have thought it was blatantly obvious that I'd like the same suggestion implimented at all other hifi mags/e-zines too.Yes, the *current* lists from columnists Dudley & Marks were informative. But of course their lists could change 3/6/9 months from now with additional or different "loaners" and/or purchases. Big deal, your reviewers would actually have to spend ten minutes letting you know what's a loaner and what they bought, and you'd either have to add two words or use David's even simpler idea of bold type. It would be a very easy way to be more open and helpful. Obviously I asked for too much.
> I addressed my question to you because *you* posted above, and *you*
> claimed my suggestion would be too "cumbersome".
Right. I still believe that to be the case, though I am thinking
about a page on the Stereophile website where that information could
be updated on a regular basis.
> I would have thought it was blatantly obvious that I'd like the
> same suggestion implimented at all other hifi mags/e-zines too.
Not obvious at all, given that all the questions have been addressed
to Stereophile. In response to those questions, those of us at
Stereophile who frequent this forum have been forthcoming about what
we have purchased and what we have on loan. In addition, Art Dudley
did the same in the March issue of Stereophile. Yet still the
questions come (not just from you, please note).
> Yes, the *current* lists from columnists Dudley & Marks were
> informative. But of course their lists could change 3/6/9 months
> from now with additional or different "loaners" and/or purchases.
I am not trying to hide anything. I merely think it appropriate for
you (and others) to address those same questions directly to editors
and writers for other magazines in order to see how readily those
people respond. Other than David Robinson at PF, no-one has uttered a
peep so far.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Perhaps the easiest way to separate "owners" from "loaners" in any reviewer's equipment list would be to adopt a publication convention for components.For example, items that are under review (long term or short term) might be boldface, while anything owned by the reviewer might be in standard type.
Provided that the convention was very clearly explained at the top of the section, this would allow readers to separate the two categories at a glance.
At Positive Feedback Online, we publish reviewers' systems and as much potentially useful information about listening rooms as we can gather. Additionally, we publish photographs of many listening rooms so that our readers can see the gear *in situ*. (This is much easier to do online than in print; print publication of this information would be very expensive. But even print publications could easily adopt the boldface vs. regular type convention for their reviewer equipment listings.) As I think about it, it would be easy enough over time to adopt such a convention, so that the readership could track "owned" vs. "loaned" over time.
It's worth a trial. Let me see if I can work this up over the next few days with my fellow editor, Dave Clark, and give it a spin for our systems. If we like it, then we can go through the process of getting updates from our other editors and writers (there are a lot of them!), and convert this entire section to the new convention.
All the best,
David W. Robinson
Editor, Positive Feedback Online
s
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
