Wasn't that the 'Flat Earth' approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Printable View
Wasn't that the 'Flat Earth' approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Some Linn/Naim systems had the tendency to do that, yes.
Marco.
Talking to Mr C today the FE/RE thing really is about communication and (not versus) presentation. It isn't really a dichotomy for when you use decent kit that isn't contrived in its delivery they go hand-in-hand. Effect a tweak or a component swap that gives you greater insight into the music and the chances are the presentational aspects will improve also and vice-versa.
Very good RE and FE systems will meet in the middle.
This is a presentation/communication issue, btw and has little to do with measured (objective) versus perceived (subjective.)
Hmm ... I have yet to hear a FE system that can do justice to the tonal colours of classical music. IME FE works by deliberately leaning out the midrange/upper bass (and often boosting the treble) to produce a superficially faster and more exciting sound. Just play a good recording of a grand piano on a FE system and all will be horribly revealed - it'll sound like an upright honky-tonk! ;)
Yup - I'll go along with that - see my previous post ^^ also. I think FE systems fit that description to a T.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
A review is nothing more than a finger pointing the way. If you agree or disagree with the reviewer - and do it consistently - you have a frame of reference. Usually that means the reviewer might have a similar room, tastes and equipment to you, or it means the reviewer has a room, tastes and equipment diametrically opposed to you.
The problem is not necessarily that advertisers dictate the shape and nature of reviews any more than they ever have, but there is a heightened sensitivity to negatives these days, far more than ever before. The old fashioned way of dealing with criticism was to look carefully at the review; if the review was fair, take it on the chin and learn from it... if it was unnecessarily damaging, speak to the editor for explanation and possibly a retraction... if it was a complete attack on the company and the product, speak to the publisher and possibly consider legal action. Today, the mildest criticism leads direct to the publisher, and the company withdraws its products (and tries to coerce its associates to do the same). Worse, the company will refuse to reconnect with the magazine until such time as the reviewer who wrote the review is removed. An advertiser merely adds that to the mix and threatens to pull their advertising.
Somewhere down the line, manufacturers - especially the smaller manufacturers - have come to view magazines as their Public Relations officer. This is not helped by a common view held by magazines and manufacturers alike that - because there are currently so many products out there - there's little point in a magazine printing a bad review.
With the downturn in the affairs of the audio industry, the amount of money available to reviews has dropped away. That makes the possibility of multiple listener and lengthy blind test reviews too expensive to run these days. Worse, it also precludes the possibility of lengthy measurement. The long-form review is also largely lost to history, too. As people seem to want to read five 1,000 word reviews instead of one 5,000 review, and the amount paid on each review gets less and less, so the chances of someone 'digging into' a review are remote. Which is why most reviews these days spend a lot of time discussing the functionality and not much about the sound and system matching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Sircom
I was afraid this was the answer you would give. I had thought this was the reasons, but dreaded a clarification.
We live in sad days.
The long-form review is really the only kind, imho, which have any broad value; which is why my reviews here on AOS are nearly all long-form. I can of course do this as they are a labour of love and not being paid for (obviously it would be deferent if I was being paid for my work....some day). I have the time and passion to continue, so long as I am lent gear to write about and/or can source it for small cost.
However Alan, the long-form review has been an endangered animal for a very long time as it began to vanish around the mid 90's except for + of course, until now that is. I would ask that you do your best to keep at least some long-form write ups in the magazine as frankly not all of us have short attention spans and are interested in gaining insight and knowledge about the products in for review...short-form is useless for this imho.
Thanks for the contribution to this thread and the forum.
Regards Neil
Seconded - and also for being remarkably candid - much appreciated, Alan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L
Those people are generally the ones whose systems don't image. Once you hear image width, depth and height there is no need to 'believe' because the effect is quite real.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grand Wazoo
Chicken and egg. Was I influenced before I was convinced? I am influenced now, but that's because I've tried lots of Kimber products and am convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
That doesn't mean I like the prices, though :)
interestingly i always read hi fi plus and in one issue they had reviews on 33 hi fi tweaks
i have about half of them in my system !!! and most i agree with , but i just have for the past few days a piece of mains equipment that is very highly reviewed and publicised in hi fi plus , fairly expensive and you know so far i can`t hear an iota of difference so in this case the review was not right for me
Does anyone know if the circulation of audio mags is still dropping? It certainly was plummeting in the nineties..
They obviously haven't heard the LEDR tests! The 'UP' test is supposed to go 6 foot above the speakers. It goes about 4 foot on ours, which isn't bad.Quote:
some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.
There are several things that annoy me about most magazines, but the hifi ones in particular seem to be more guilty than most.
- The way so much space is often taken up with lists/old reviews distilled down to 1 or 2 sentences - they must seem like an easy way to fill a few pages, but they're almost irrelavent after you've read them once & they never seem to be updated often enough.
- Awards - which usually rehash old reviews, but unlike above, distill them down to 2 or 3 paragraphs. They take up so much of an issue as to leave next to nothing of interest to the regular reader - an annoying waste of money.
- Christmas issues - generally filled with best of the year type articles - another excuse not to write anything new.
- What's even more annoying about December issues is the 'Ho, Ho, Ho, jingle bells, deep and crisp & even' type prose that fools no-one, as we know bloody well that they wrote it in August or September & they know bloody well that we're reading it in October or November. Why can't the month on the front bear any relation to the month of issue? It seems to be getting further adrift as time goes on.
- Style over content - photographs which impress on an artistic level generally don't do the job required of them in a technical magazine. A big photo of part of a volume knob (for example) does not impress me one little bit. Nor does it inform me about the product in question - which is what I want from a hi-fi magazine review. HFN's attempt to wow us with spectacular photos a few years ago was hopefully the last gasp of that approach.
To me, all of the above smacks of lazy journalism - a shame because I used to enjoy the British hi-fi press. All of the above plus many of the things previously mentioned by others makes it harder to justify the ever rising cover prices. Even more so if I'm paying for reviews of AV gear which I have no interest in whatsoever - if I want to read about it, I'll buy an AV magazine.
Chris..Aye so repetative audio rags these days..Last mag i used to take was 'Hi-Fi Answer'..Seemed to be decent rag with long reviews not that i ever took much notice of em, the products at this time were plentifull & exciting (with obvious exceptions of course).
The Feb 2010 issue of Custom PC mag came out a couple of weeks ago, so it's not just Hi-fi mags that have the issue dates all screwed up.
One thing I like about Custom PC mag is that if a product they are reviewing is crap, they'll say so and tell you not to buy it. When was the last time a Hi-Fi mag did that? Also, unlike Custom PC mag, Hi-Fi mags tend not to have photos of circuit boards or components. Why not? What is there to hide? 50p caps in £1K products maybe? Hi-Fi mags are generally a waste of money IMO. Hi-Fi World being the exception. But even then I take what they say with a pinch of salt.
They are all pet hates of mine. I don't buy audio annuals anymore. Worst example a few years ago was Hi-Fi News.....no reviews at all just big page filling photos and a few lines of text...it was related to the Eisa awards.... £4 of a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Grand Wazoo
The AV/Home Cinema mags are just as bad imho/e...I don't buy them anymore either.
Regards D S D L
It's all about advertising revenue. All of the points above can be explained once you take advertising revenue to be the PRIMARY driver, and not the notional subjectr of any review magazine. It's also why they are dying. The cover date "problem" is the push to get more money from the advertisers earlier and once you move to a 13-month annual cycle it gets difficult to get back to reality. The problem is that the 13th issue never arrives :D A large proportion of sales of review magazines are traditionally driven by seasonal factors and Christmas purchases are of course a big part of this. Having rehashed reviews, awards and summaries allow you to push the issue to advertisers. Take advertising revenue as the movtive to anything they do, rince and repeat.
Am I being to cynical ? I prefer being known as a realist.
I think you're absolutely right, Peter (and I also fully agree with Chris and Neil), but what use is prioritising advertising revenue if the audience the magazines are aiming their content at isn't buying magazines because they don't like the content? :scratch:
First and foremost, the magazines should fill their pages with what their target audience want to read, thus ensuring good sales, then worry about the rest later!
Doing otherwise is like opening up a new restaurant and spending all your budget on telling people where you are and what you've got (advertising) and forgetting about the most important thing of all - the food itself!! :mental:
Marco.
Exactly - advertising is useless if no-one is reading the adverts! Would you put a billboard up on a road that no-one travels on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
thats why hi fi critic is one of my favourites and has no advertisingQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Galbavy
Actually, the bit of controlled listening testing that has been done in this area indicates that we don't hear things all that differently. Sean Olive, director of research at Karman International, has conducted pretty extensive listening tests with a variety of subjects from audiophiles and recording engineers (trained listeners) to people with little interest in hifi. While the trained listeners were a bit more discriminating, in general, preferences cut across audience types.Quote:
I know we all hear things differently
More research, of course, could always be done, and while we can argue all day about the validity of blind listening tests and the effects of controlled environments, it's hard to imagine how looking your precious new component dead in the eye while comparing it to the old one you haven't just invested in would actually yield more objective results. But YMMV.
Personally, I think a combination of measurement and listening tests driving reviews would revive the credibility of the hifi press. But I'm not holding my breath.
Tim
Welcome back, Tim. I hope you had a nice Christmas :)
Marco.
Very nice, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Tim
Nice one. We did too. How are the ADM9s performing - I presume you still have them?
Marco.
Hello Tim.
I think you're right - I lapped up the old reviews of the late sixties/early70's where decent technical tests were complemented by listening. That's why I'm thought of as a legacy HiFi zealot on a certain other forum known to the two of us........
For example tuners, a master source was FM modulated and fed into a tuner and the results from the tuner output compared with the source directly. Also, any technical weakness could be judged for its subjective affect.
It costs loads, probably too much, to do highly technical group tests these days and many of the very few "technical" bods in the UK seem to have too many commercial or personal interests with huge ego's to match...
Look on the forum "that shall not be named" - it's all there in gory detail :lolsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I'm not being critical either, but I'm not going to turn the other cheek any more when someone pats me on the head for being a good but totally misguided little boy............. Nothing to do with ADM 9.1's, but there you go ;)
I do, and I'm enjoying them. I'm still a bit shocked sometimes at the clarity and imaging they produce. The bass is not deep, because I don't have the sub, but what is there is very well-controlled, with no boom or hangover. I'm sure those very characteristics would have them deemed "clinical" by some, but they suit me. Of course there is no rocket science there. What they do is exactly what one should expect of very well-executed active monitors of their size. What makes them exceptional is that so few are well-executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Tim
I take no issue with your legacy hifi zealotry, Dave. As I've said before, if I had the space, I'd have multiple systems, and one of them would probably end in a pair of old Altec Lansings or Klipsch (maybe even Tanoys ;)). I get the attraction. But given what I have, which is room for one listening space, I'll take a bright light on the warts on the worst recordings, so I can have the best of them fully revealed. YMMV and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DSJR
Tim
:)
Most of those on here seem to have run their own businesses so it should make sense that even if you start with the best intentions and a good business model, as soon as you become successful the whispering parasites start on you and tell you that by making a few changes you can double turnover, triple profits and all that crap. Suddenly, as the founder you find you are "retiring" and that the baby you watched grow is turning into a monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Most, if not all, publications start as someones good idea but then over time are taken over by one or other of the large publishers and that's it.
It's not the magazines advertising themselves, like you suggest above. It's selling space on your restaurant menus and wall for adverts. People might still come eat the food, but passing trade (ala McDonalds) is more likely than regular diners.Quote:
Doing otherwise is like opening up a new restaurant and spending all your budget on telling people where you are and what you've got (advertising) and forgetting about the most important thing of all - the food itself!! :mental:
And that's the point I think. Once the circulation is up, and hence the brand name of your mag is well known then new readers will just buy a copy when they want to buy hifi and so the ads are as important as the editorial. There are now so many consumers that this single purchase model work on an ongoing basis. No loyalty, no subscriptions.
Hi Peter,
I think the observations you make a very valid and likely explain much of the current situation with magazines. However, just to pick up on a few points:
This is very true, but I guess it depends how focussed you are on retaining control of your baby and the values you believe in. I run my own business, so can relate to what you mention, but some things in life are far more important than 'the bottom line', or selling 'one's soul to the devil', as it were.Quote:
Most of those on here seem to have run their own businesses so it should make sense that even if you start with the best intentions and a good business model, as soon as you become successful the whispering parasites start on you and tell you that by making a few changes you can double turnover, triple profits and all that crap. Suddenly, as the founder you find you are "retiring" and that the baby you watched grow is turning into a monster.
In the past I've often thought of expanding my business to increase profit, become more well-known or whatever, but doing so would have meant that I wouldn't have been able to offer my customers the attention to detail or personal touch I do now, and so the niche aspect of the products and services I offer would have been diluted.
This is precisely what's happened with some magazines by 'selling out' to commercialism and losing focus on the very goals that they set out to achieve at their inception. Or perhaps through just running out of ideas?
Indeed, and Hi-Fi+ are a valid case in point. I remember how much of a breath of fresh air the first few editions were; in fact they even included restaurant reviews! They were also chock-full of genuinely useful and insightful articles. Now they are but a pale imitation of their former selves...Quote:
Most, if not all, publications start as someones good idea but then over time are taken over by one or other of the large publishers and that's it.
I agree, but not if you do it right and build up an excellent reputation for first-class food and service, where people will travel for miles to frequent your establishment. This is precisely what I would strive for if I opened a restaurant; indeed my wife and I have thought about doing exactly that when we retire.Quote:
It's not the magazines advertising themselves, like you suggest above. It's selling space on your restaurant menus and wall for adverts. People might still come eat the food, but passing trade (ala McDonalds) is more likely than regular diners.
Yep, that's what happens when you (perhaps unintentionally or indirectly) abandon the intended target customer as a result of losing focus on your goals and 'going for gold', and end up in return catering for a much less discerning audience! ;)Quote:
And that's the point I think. Once the circulation is up, and hence the brand name of your mag is well known then new readers will just buy a copy when they want to buy hifi and so the ads are as important as the editorial. There are now so many consumers that this single purchase model work on an ongoing basis. No loyalty, no subscriptions.
It goes back to what's considered as most important - absolute profitability (the 'bottom line') or a genuine, extremely focussed, desire to produce a product (magazine) long-term that's different and of value to a dedicated audience. My view is that the latter, done well, could be both profitable and also of great value to the hard-core enthusiasts populating this and many other specialist audio forums.
Marco.
I'm sat here puzzled as to why you think an hi-fi rag is for the general publics good! It's a buisness nothing else.
Because not everyone has the knowledge and experience with hi-fi we do, Andre.
If there's a 'market' for forums such as this (and clearly there is, as AoS and other forums like it are a big success), then there's a market for a magazine offering similarly open-minded and unbiased (from a financial incentive point of view) advice and information to like-minded enthusiasts.
*That* is the type of hi-fi magazine I'd like to see on the shelves: one driven solely by the passion of enthusiasts to share knowledge and information for the benefit of everyone with no hidden agendas, commercial or otherwise. A magazine for 'the punters', as it were, which prioritises their needs and interests before anything else.
Marco.
Paper mags are always at least two months out of date though.
I'm not into studio gear, but Sound-On-Sound seems to strike a good balance I think...
It might be a business but magazines like Hi-Fi Critic exist only because of the enthusiam of the staff concerned. It certainly can't be for the huge profits!
More commercially, a magazine like Stereophile still shows the passion of its writers. It's just that advertising as a revenue stream always muddies the waters and the publishers aren't the ones with the passion.
Exactly Martin. I think Stereophile is a good magazine, but it's too 'high-end' orientated and American-centric for me, and doesn't (I believe) cater much for vintage and classic hi-fi and/or the modification of it, which is something I'd love to see a magazine tackle seriously (even more than HFW currently does); one which reflects what genuine enthusiasts are doing with their systems, not those who simply chuck money at it, or buy the 'latest and greatest' fad to appear as trendy.Quote:
More commercially, a magazine like Stereophile still shows the passion of its writers. It's just that advertising as a revenue stream always muddies the waters and the publishers aren't the ones with the passion.
Just imagine a magazine full of hints and tips on how to modify the likes of SL-1210s, DACs, vintage T/Ts, speakers and all sorts of stuff, and really good and useful D.I.Y articles on a number of subjects, as well as keeping up to date with the latest in computer audio and current hi-fi designs - the very things people on this forum and others discuss on a daily basis!
Undoubtedly, such a magazine (one that's mainly driven from sales of copies, not advertising revenue) would be a labour of love and would never make a fortune, but I believe that, done well with sufficient devotion to the cause, it would (eventually once established) still make a respectable profit and provide a decent income for those who ran it.
I respect the principles of Hi-fi Critic but for me it's a bit too Linn/Naim/solid-state orientated, which is entirely understandable given the audio proclivities of those in charge.
Marco.
Well if people think they are gonna get anywhere relying on what mags tell em to do they are very much wrong, you find your own way around in this hobby..;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
The best magazines were the 70's where you got a straight forward honest review of an item, no fancy wire,no & page adverts, was solely for the hi-fi hobbiest.
So are you saying that no-one here on this forum pays attention to the advice offered by our more experienced contributors?
I'd certainly have to strongly disagree with that. Therefore, if there's an audience ready to consider knowledgeable advice given on forums, there is equally an audience who would acknowledge such advice and/or reviews of equipment given in a magazine run by genuine enthusiasts and founded on non-commercial principles.
Marco.
No not saying that i'm saying don't rely on info from magazine, you'll get no where, you can't get audio nirvana from buying off shelf or mag reviews. Hi-fi needs forums like this as long as it's not full of Naim/Linn donks.
You're missing the point, Andre :doh:
I'm not talking about largely commercially-driven magazines. You need to read what I'm saying properly. Anyway, I'm about to have my lunch now, so I'll come back to the discussion later :)
Marco.
Sorry something i picked up from others on here :lolsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I used to take magazines from a none commercial outlet. 'Sound Practice' was one i used to buy directly from Audionote, that was good. But go on please clarify your point..
That's the key, isn't it Marco? Would such a magazine really sell enough copies to make critical mass? We're a crazy passionate bunch but are there enough of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Well, if we're talking about the viability of a UK-based magazine, first of all add up the total membership of pfm, Wigwam, Zerogain, WD forum, others and here, which totals tens of thousands, and then consider how many other people out with of that (not to mention some of the readership of current hi-fi magazines who may 'defect' to a magazine which better catered for their needs), who could be tempted to buy such a publication, and I think that the potential is there to make it a viable proposition.
Will it happen though? No of course not, so this is just 'pie in the sky', but nevertheless an intriguing subject to discuss :lol:
Right, I'm off now for some munchies!
Marco.
P.S I wonder what Alan Sircom or David Price would make of all this? ;)
Perhaps a bunch of us should contribute an article a month. Difficult to get review stock, though.
Surely the whole point about forums is that they are interactive; if you disagree with something that's posted, or need clarification, you can say so and get an almost instant response. With a magazine, you get what you're given, with the only comeback being a letter to the editor which may or may not be published a month or so later.
And some forums (eg PFM) are very broad churches, with subjectivists and objectivists fighting it out like cats in a sack. Hard to imagine how a magazine could satisfy such varied needs.
Who! Got two choices aint they ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Unfortunately "if you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. The reality is, the hi-fi magazines today are built on the reader demands of yesterday and today. Anything you don't see in a hi-fi magazine today but did see 20 years ago has gone because readers complained about it to such an extent, the feature went away.
Long before I started reviewing, magazines largely got rid of 'make your own loudspeakers' features because a new generation of audio buyers weren't interested and didn't want to associate themselves with the 'pipe and soldering iron' brigade that went before. When those features went away, it was only a matter of time before the 'what the measurements mean' features went with them, then the measurements themselves. And so on. For good or ill, the days of John Crabbe and Julian Hirsch, of Gilbert Briggs and F. Langford-Smith are long past.
The most consistent complaint received by a hi-fi magazine is that it doesn't review enough of the 'good stuff' (this 'good stuff' reflects the tone of the magazine - a magazine like Hi-Fi+ gets complaints from people if it goes too down-market and mainstream, where I would imagine WHF gets complaints if it goes in the other direction). Anything not directly related to that 'good stuff' (i.e. features, interviews, reader systems, Q&As, how tos, music reviews, technical explanations, etc) is considered 'filler'. Although as editor I have to balance these arguments against trying to appeal to a wider audience, the problem is I have to apportion budget on commissioning features that I know my publishers receive complaints about.
Right now, for most editors, that means computer audio features and reviews. I know these end up with a sea of 'cancel my subscription' complaints from existing readers hitting the publisher inbox, but to not address this key focus for the next decade at this time is to risk commercial suicide. Winning these battles comes at the expense of losing the sort of feature that might win back a disenfranchised audience.
As the readership of the magazine becomes more focused (which happens in a shrinking market), a magazine ends up reflecting that focus. Witness the recent sidelining of music reviews in Stereophile, brought about by a combination of squeezing the budget and a readership that only wants to read review after review after review.
Realistically though, the forum denizens are not a pool of tens of thousands of potential readers you suggest. There are a lot of cross-forum folk (the same names appear across all the forums, just their activity varies depending on which forum takes their particular fancy) and many members are one-hit wonders, posting on the forum to ask a particular question, only to disappear or lurk. A lot are disenfranchised readers who dropped off the magazine radar because they bought their equipment and the magazines no longer appeal to them (this last was always the case, but people read on because forums didn't exist).
If there was a way to revive that readership, someone would have done successfully it by now. I've tried... and failed and I'm not alone in trying. This is a lose-lose scenario for a magazine editor - to try and entice back a disenfranchised forum community, you end up having to instigate such changes to the magazine that you disenfranchise the existing readership, with no guarantee of success in winning back the lost readers. I suspect this is because the subject matter that appeals to forum readers is going to be best served in a forum these days. Trying to entice people to buy a magazine that offers what attracts people to a free forum is to invite the end of that magazine.
Interesting response, Alan, and thanks for that. I promise that I'll get back to you tomorrow when I've sobered up!!
In the meantime, my friend..........
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1108/party100.gif
Marco.
Having spent my career on the other side of the media/advertiser relationship, I've never bought into the consumer conspiracy theories that say advertisers have influence over editorial content. I've had many clients who have pulled, or threatened to pull, their ad budget from a publication in the wake of a negative story. I've never seen it work for them and they almost always end up back in that pub in a few months. The bottom line is that the advertisers need the media as much as the media needs them. More, on an individual basis. Besides, it's much easier to influence individual reviewers than it is to push around a media that may be much bigger than your own company.
But I'm not sure I buy into the notion that the demise of measurement naturally follows the end of do-it-yourself articles. I barely see the connection, and clearly remember reviews with measurements in publications that never, at least in my reading lifetime, ran build it yourself speaker articles.
Measurements went away for another reason.
Tim