Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> 1. The name of the publication is Stereophile, not Stereophile
> Review.
>
> 2. Each review is the opinion of the writer of the review, not of the
> editor. John Atkinson sets editorial policy but he does not write all
> the reviews.
>
> Kn@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>>>
You have defended Stereophile in previous discussions, and I don't
question your intellectual honesty in doing so. But think for a moment.
- Are you suggesting that John Atkinson has no responsibility for the
overall content of equipment reviews published in Stereophile, no matter
how misleading, since they represent only the opinions of the respective
writers? How absurd!
In view of trends in the audio industry in recent years as compared with
other consumer goods and hobbies, one would think that Stereophile would
consider whether in fact it might be part of the problem. In particular,
as a practical matter, I think that they could assume a greater
responsibility for educating their readers concerning the wild
assertions promulgated by some manufacturers and some audio enthusiasts,
and for guiding them in making the endless choices entailed in putting
together a good system at a rational price. Instead, Stereophile seems
only too willing to publish reviews containing even more jargon and
"black magic gobbley beloved patriot." - Reviews of cables have included statements
such as: "Break-in of this cable was simply hilarious...!" (It took
several weeks before the reviewer thought he could notice it.) Or, "This
cable has solid bass response, good high ends, and good pace." - - (Can
anyone tell me how a speaker cable affects the "pace" at which
electrical signals corresponding to recorded music are fed to the
speakers, in view of the fact that current flows through a conductor at
speeds approaching the speed of light?) Stereophile could be far more
forthcoming and forthright in providing clear guidance to their readers
with respect to choosing among the multitudes of components, to the end
of achieving "audio value," or maximizing audible results per dollar
spent. Clearly, much of their content concerns the equipment rather
than the music, so it's obviously of interest to their readers.
It's obvious that complexities are entailed, that tastes differ, and
that, particularly with respect to speakers, one should listen to the
component before making a major purchase. Realistically, however, it is
quite difficult to compare several components of interest at the same
dealer or showroom. And it would no doubt be even more difficult to find
a dealer willing to let one compare the "response" of $1,000 cables to
that of 12-gage Home Depot speaker cable or the like. (Anyone ever tried
it at a dealer?) For these and other reasons, in my opinion, Stereophile
should assume a greater responsibility to their readers for providing
clear guidance in sorting out such claims. Their relationship to their
readers is, IMO, a semi fiduciary one because of the peculiar nature of
the hobby and the industry, in which so many often expensive options
and choices are entailed.
In fairness, I do subscribe to Stereophile and I do get helpful and
interesting information from the publication.- It's an interesting read.
Further, I respect their willingness to organize and publish the
semi-annual recommended equipment ratings, despite the limitations
entailed. (For example, how does one know whether a component reviewed
six years ago and no longer included in the recommended component list
would be considered by at least some of their reviewers as having better
response at a given price range than those in the list? - If Stereophile
was really interested in serving their reader's interests, shouldn't
reviewers' opinions or suggestions along this line be included?) Also
regarding the recommended equipment lists, it seems that at least 80% of
the space devoted to descriptions of such recommended components
relates to equipment that is so expensive that it simply would never be
an option for most readers. While it may be interesting to learn about
high-end technical breakthroughs (and while I have admittedly spent some
fairly big bucks on my own system), again, if their goal is to serve the
needs of their readers, why the disparity between the amount of copy
devoted to equipment that in all likelihood will never be seriously
considered or even listened to by most readers? Why not instead include
greater emphasis on suggestions to the reader as to how to maximize
results by spending less $$$ on components that don't provide
significant audible difference and more $$$ for components that do make
a significant audible difference, in the opinion of the reviewers, or
from other test or survey results. Further, why not include combination
of Stereophile reviews organized or summarized as in Consumers Reports.
Or, why not include an occasional blind test of components of particular
categories. - Why does the subject of blind testing have to be an
"either-or" rather than a "both-and" issue? - Hey! As suggested above,
the audio industry isn't doing so well, and maybe a little
out-of-the-box thinking might help.
The bottom line, as others have suggested, is that Stereophile's
concerns seem, on balance, to be primarily directed toward keeping their
advertisers happy rather than serving the needs of their readers. If
they would include a disclaimer to that effect in each issue, I would
have greater respect for Mr. Atkinson.
Jim Cate
/www.stealthmicrophones.com
Facebook
Twitter