Printable View
Yes according to Howard P. he is off to Hi Fi Choice. Good luck to him, decent chap and nice to talk to, hope he settles in OK and brings us some good stuff.
It's confirmed just texted David and he is off, may shake up the mags a bit! Thanks to Howard for breaking the news.
I'll echo your best wishes, David - I loaned David Price an L-07D many years back for an L-07D/Gyro bake off - and found him to be a very nice guy; great host with (no suprises here) a remarkably keen, astute ear.
I wish him well - as I do Hifi World in finding a replacement.........
Looks like new owners have poached him to pep up the mag. I might be following him in my reading habit in that case. David was largely responsible for the style and approach of World even to some extent before becoming editor. After the early days (when Alan Sircom was there) and well into the Popemeisters reign I think the mag was loosing its way.
I fear things may go downhill now unless a good replacement can be found. They are up against a revived Hi-Fi news and the prospect of an improved Choice under David. Tuff competition in prospect with 2 imitators in effect, likely to steal their thunder under better resourced ownership.
I buy all 3 mags anyway, world , choice and news, even though they mostly have the same first 6-8 pages with new stuff in and then reviews of kit no one can afford and then a bit of vinyl stuff and plenty of ads!Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioman
Bet that includes me :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mains Cables R Us
Will wish David Price well. It was he who first got my interest in the Technics 1200 mods, when he fitted a SME V with a Koetsu cart about three years ago and published iy in HFW. Thanks David.
John :)
i wish david all the best at the under new ownership choice. this means 3 hifi titles worth at least a flick through each month. thats 3 titles. we need to support them as the printed mag is fast becoming a dodo :( due to the lemmingmania of the download to kindlepad :stalks:
Good luck to David, I'm sure he'll pull up a somewhat drifting Choice to the level of News. It'll make me look at it again, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioman
Hard to see how Choice can be improved unless they abandon their format. When times got tight for me a few years back Choice was the first magazine I stopped buying and based on my occasional looks on the news agents shelf I am not missing anything as it has got worse.
I wasn't really going to comment on this thread but I am quite surprised by this move as David is moving from a magazine that is txt based i.e mostly long form articles to a more photograph based magazine with more short form articles. So unless Choice is going to move away from the comparison based review process (a flawed one in my opinion (1) to more individual long form reviews I can't see that aspect of Choice, that I don't personally like, changing any time soon.
I am curious to see what happens but like Ken Kessler's short lived move to Choice I suspect David will be back in HiFi World before too long unless he has burnt his bridges; which I hope he hasn't as World (while not a fave of mine it did survive the cull of magazines I stopped buying at the time I lost my job nearly 4 years ago, though I don't buy it every month) will be a much poorer title with David gone.
Regards D S D L
(1)
In my view one system being used to review 10 CD players or 10 pairs of speakers etc does not work as system synergy with those components is hardly possible with this reviewing approach. The products that do well only do so so as they just happen to match the test system and those that do badly fail as they don't. Does that make them flawed products no. It was possible to predict which products would do badly with Choices group reviews based on the system used and the panel doing the review, just as it is with What HiFi and their acoustically dead listening room.
World do tend to do at least one comparison review each issue - I think it was amps last month. I agree using the same review system for every item makes no sense.
I am assuming the new owners have hired David with a view to format change. I can't see him lasting if he isn't largely allowed to do his own thing. Whenever I browse through the pages in WHS there isn't anything realy worth reading in Choice now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L
I agree about the comparative reviews but to some extent all magazines do them on occasion with a limited range of systems or without defining in what context the product is reviewed. This also goes for individual product reviews where a reviewer sticks largely to his own system components. As far as World is concerned the queries section gives a better indication of products that they like long term than the 4/5 globe reviews. Hardly anything gets to review stage that would not get at least a 3 globe rating.
I had forgotten about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Choice though always have that comparison review as the headline article, a fair percentage of the txt and most of the rest are small one page reviews with the odd one that stretches into two pages. However once you take the large photos out there is not a lot of txt.
My biggest gripe with printed magazines and some online ones is there is not enough depth to the reviews. In order to really know how an item sounds it takes lots of txt to properly convey that in my opinion.
Regards D S D L
Except the old Hi-fi + where reviewers took three pages of small print to describe the facia and knobs ! Ended up heading to the last paragraph for the sit on the fence / positive outcome. Oh and most people couldn't afford it anyway yet alone find a dealer that stocked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalek Supreme D L
...or someone with the necessary language and communication skills to be able to portray their intended message within a finite use of carefully chosen words. Sometimes concise and to the point is better, Neil, than reams of flowery (often meaningless) prose ;)Quote:
My biggest gripe with printed magazines and some online ones is there is not enough depth to the reviews. In order to really know how an item sounds it takes lots of txt to properly convey that in my opinion.
Personally, depending on the writing skills of the reviewer, I can tire quickly of the latter, as my attention wanders due to boredom.
Anyway, good luck to David in whatever plans he has for the future. HFW will definitely be worse without him!
Marco.
I must confess to not liking lots of txt being wasted on button layout and operation details unless there are operational quirks found during the review process and those should be mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioman
I miss the old HiFi + even Roy (I liked his style of writing) and the current version is a pale imitation of the old. Big txt poor quality photos compared to the old version of the magazine. It takes me no time at all to read the current + compared to the old which kept me reading for quite awhile.
Regards D S D L
We will have to a disagree on this Marco as frankly I am not referring to reams of such txt but the getting into understanding how a product works and interacts within system (plural) contexts takes time to relay and this is something that most modern magazines don't do; it is just pandering to a dumbed down media and those who can't be bothered to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
My reference re quality in depth reviews is The Absolute Sound magazine of the 80s that had a main review and two alternative view points to expand on the understanding of the product. By the time you finished you had an excellent knowledge of how a product was and whether it would suit you or your system.
Regards D S D L
I guess that it depends on how you use magazine reviews, and magazines in general, Neil.
When I used to use them as part of the process of choosing the equipment I bought (those days are largely now long gone), all I wanted to know, with the minimum amount of 'waffle' and/or technical jargon, was whether the product(s) concerned were worth auditioning at my local dealer.
Therefore a well-written 'snapshot' of what it was capable of, sonically, was enough for me to put it on my shortlist, or not, as the case may have been. The finer points of what it was sonically capable of, which you're alluding to, I would discover with my own ears later, when listening to the equipment in question.
I simply get turned off and become bored reading excessive 'froth' (the definition of which I agree is entirely subjective), unless the review in question is written by someone I respect and whose opinion I generally agree with and can relate to in some way. That's just me, though. You're obviously different, which of course is fine! :cool:
Marco.
I have always been of the belief that less is more. A good guitar solo is more about the notes left out than the ones that remain.
If a respected reviewer were to say, that the CD Player he has just listened to is quite simply ‘the best ever heard’ and leaves it at that, the item will sell a million in anticipation. The more he adds to the review the more the initial proclamation will be diluted and interests fade. However that would impact future reviews and CD manufactures would soon be lobbying; all business is politics.
KC
Do you seriously think that any reviewer stating in a review that the item is "the best ever heard" is going to be believed, and that "the item will sell a million in anticipation"?Quote:
Originally Posted by KC Jones
I suppose it depends on how gullible/easily led you are ;)
I know where Kevin's coming from, though.
Marco.
So what guidelines would you recommend, so as to encourage members to write their own reviews for 'Strokes of Genius'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
What, for example, is your opinion of the reviews appearing in Neil's 'Adventures in High Fidelity Audio'?
Cheers
I stopped buying magazines years ago. Reviews are useless unless you know for sure that the reviewer is giving a totally unbiased review. I would say it is impossible for there to be a totally unbiased review. The reason? We all know what sort of sound we like. The older we get the more entrenched we get (IMO). If what we are listening to does not conform to our model, it is likely to be denigrated to whatever degree considered neccessary.
Not to mention their shocking spelling and grammar, which used to have my jaw dropping in early issues so poor was the quality of English used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Audioman
Hi Barry,
Well, far be it for me to tell people how or what to write, my advice would be to keep it concise and to the point, but whilst ensuring that as much relevant information as necessary is covered on the product(s) being reviewed, in order to ensure that interested parties are provided with the bulk of the information that the reviewer considers they might want to know. I realise, however, that the latter is open to interpretation.Quote:
So what guidelines would you recommend, so as to encourage members to write their own reviews for 'Strokes of Genius'?
I suppose an example, IMO, would be what I wrote here about my new Paul Hynes T/T power supply (post #92):
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...067#post268067
I could've gone into even more detail, but I felt that enough information had been provided in seven reasonably short paragraphs, which both hopefully got across what I was hearing and piqued the interest of potential buyers.
I think what Neil's doing is good, and should be applauded, but aside from some of his last Whittlebury Hall show report, I haven't read many of his reviews, due simply to lack of time. It takes me all of my spare time to read what's written here on AoS! :)Quote:
What, for example, is your opinion of the reviews appearing in Neil's 'Adventures in High Fidelity Audio'?
Marco.
I anyone here doubts the power of the reviewer's pen to sway people towards a particular product, take a moment to look at the probably 50% of each magazine taken up by glossy adverts for exotic this and that. Do you honestly believe that the makers of this stuff would spend serious money on these adds if they thought for one moment that they had no effect? A reviewer giving a positive review might well have even more effect, so in the eyes of the manufacturers the reviewers need to be treated well. It is for this reason that I do not read magazines, I have heard stories of permanent loans of review samples, reviewers have even worked for hifi companies and one or two stories concerning manilla envelopes filled with the green stuff. (no, not Linn green stuff!) OF course, not all are like that, and probably very few but it only takes one bad apple... and besides, a review by another person in another system can serve as nothing but a loose guide IMO.
Part of the reason manufacturers advertise with magazines is we give wider scope than forums. The forums tend to be very narrow in outlook. Things that are in vogue in a forum are extremely well favoured; things that aren't just vanish off the radar. While we have our fads and trends too, a review-based magazine constantly needs new products to fill its editorial pages and that generally means a broader selection of products within that magazine's catchment area over any given year.Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapiranha
Just putting news in the magazine helps some manufacturers, even though the news items are usually very old by the time they hit the newsstand. The thing is, unless we give these products coverage, they don't get coverage.
The magazines and advertising is there to show there's more out there than the flavour of the month.
Reviewers get long-term loan stock in many branches of the media, because readers want reviewers to have the latest equipment that relates directly to their stuff. Is this ethical? I've been on journalistic ethics committees and there is no easy answer. Someone who reviews a Rolls Royce needs to have extensive experience of a number of Rolls Royce-grade cars, but no journalist earns that kind of money, so either you wait for interested millionaires with good writing skills and extensive driving experience to magically appear or you get a journalist living the champagne lifestyle on a beer budget. The first will be assumed to have made their money through nefarious means, the latter is almost guaranteed to be read as being 'on the take'.
As to the people actually on the take, if it happens, why doesn't it happen to me? Why, in 20 years, have I never, ever been offered a bung? There have been times those extra bits of cash might have helped and would have proved hard to resist. But I didn't have to resist. There were no manilla envelopes. No loudspeaker ports filled with used fivers. Nothing. And I'm pretty connected in this business, so I doubt I'm missing out on the payola. This business isn't big enough for big bungs, and a reviewer isn't likely to commit career suicide for a small one, so I guess these 'stories' are just 'stories' after all.
But this is getting very much off the point. Good luck to David and all the best to Dan in his future ventures. I hope it all works out for both of them.
Hi BarryQuote:
Originally Posted by Barry
Yea I really I do believe that, perhaps a million is a bit off the mark though.
On another note, I also believe there are impartial reviewers without an agenda, why? because they say so, sometimes you have to believe people and put your trust in them, I do, as I also do on this site, reading other people’s experiences and enthusiasm for certain synergies. It helps us less experienced in sound get ‘there’ quicker. Cynicism can often be our worst enemy, I know it can sometime be mine!!
(The above sentence is not directed at anyone here, especially not you Barry, just a general observation)
Nothing wrong with a bung here and there either, the reason we didn’t get the world cup was because the FA wouldn’t bung FIFA, why not I want to know? if that’s what it takes.
(Sorry off topic)
Cheers - KC
An astute observation there AlanQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan Sircom
I mean we could end up with a forum that is just large dual concentric speaker driver orientated, coupled with thermionic amplification being driven by a rock being dragged around a piece of plastic perish the thought.
Similarly we could have a purely light shinning on a spinning optical data disc forum with closed minded posters who shun anything other than uber binary systems powered by kilowatt charged brick-shit house sized monsters 'driving' large box shaped multi driver array’s, 6 foot Fugly darlek shaped boxes.
Perish the thought anyone would want to listen to music :lol:
I mean that would never happen right?
Back to the matter in hand:-
DP's first day as editor as HFC getting the run down from Mr. Miller on how things 'work' at Hifi News HQ
Indulge me here I am in need of sleep and this is purely hypothetical of coarse
Picture the sence:-
Small cupboard shaped office, large 'boss' sized desk, a few PC screens littered around the office.
A sign above the door "nothing but the best" stands out throughout the room.
DP wearing a full gimp suit, (open backed) with a the 'ball' tightened extra tight whilst bent over the desk, with P Miller in full US biker gear brandishing a full tested and spectrum analysed EISA awarded(2011) cat of nine tales 'Educating' Mr Price the ways of the 'non dark side'
1>We do work more than 35 hours a week
2>We do come into the office at least 5 times a week
3>We do work at weekends (this is not a 9 to 5 job son shine)
4>We actually measure equipment properly here at this publication
5>There is life beyond Yammy NS1000's
Start with above and we'll get on fine!
The problem is with therapy after a while no one wants to listen :eyebrows:
I'll get my coat
So true :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Sircom
Maybe too that there is a constant stream of new products being launched that feeds the animal as well. Nothing wrong with that I say and the flow rate means you cannot review everything either.Quote:
While we have our fads and trends too, a review-based magazine constantly needs new products to fill its editorial pages and that generally means a broader selection of products within that magazine's catchment area over any given year.
In pure truth though Alan, how many products have been through your hands over the years that really did suck in sound terms? Not many I bet, so no wonder the reader has become a tad immune or a bit jaded to the stream of superlatives being ladled out in reviews too.
:eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
I get the irony, but feel free to show me the light! I'm asking & praying to be shown the light, or should that be the speaker? :scratch: :eyebrows:
By the way, they work even better with custom designed 36mm thick & braced to all hell enclosures..
Anyway, show me where I went wrong ;)
I don't give a rats ass about where DP is moving to as I don't read any of the mags, my own ears earmarked the NS for further investigation the first time I heard them.
While Focal/JM lab might be signing the praises about there Beryllium tweeter Yamaha did it back in the seventies :lol: That's 1970s to all the young ones on here.
I don't see too many Beryllium midrange units out there either & it has been a good 40 years... MartinT speakers as an exception ;)
So things haven't moved on much if at all :rolleyes:
Good luck to David Price, he has himself another job... I wish I could say the very same for a whole lot of people I know :cool:
Well Yammy sold the plant that made that technology a very long time ago.
Yes I'm sure by making a speaker enclosure that really could do justice to the internals, redesigns the x/over points so that the tweeter actually worked within in then performance parameters, careful construction of the x/over using parts now available (telfon caps, bybee's and trick air coils etc), and even updating the main bass driver to one that had a chance of matching the cone acceleration of the Be unit), mating to pair of stands worthy of all the lavishment, care and attention and you may have pair of speakers worth an earwig (possibly)
Now that mid range Be cone you mentioned, TAD possibly?
Tell how good Usher are then please, I'm all for a great story but I am good listener!
How high is that horse and do you need a ladder to get down?
Now the other burning question is can you fit a aftermarket word clock to a rats ass? will it mind?, will improve it its hand to eye co-ordination or possibly with the view to it's pre cursorsy post amble, with a class leading match toit's leading square wave form with no post echo or ringing, will it then reconstruct data stream to manage a total jitter quotiant of less than 0.0004 PPB? (before the quatiazation filter) find out on the next exciting episode of will my Krell handle a dylithum transplant without a level 10 force field in operation. on audiophile soap The cleaning substance you can believe in.
Take us deeper into the combat zone number 1............................
Just being a like playful this evening (can't help it the hormoans you see)
Ah that's it - Usher ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
I have no idea about them, talk to MartinT or Marco who has heard them on numerous occasions I gather ;)
Yes you are quite correct, rebuilt Yamahas with line level digital crossovers & seperate power amps for each driver do kind of rock :fingers: No matter what the music style ;)
There is always a way of making things even better than standard, it just needs a little ingenuity & a bit of cash :) DIY is better as it saves on the cash side :eyebrows:
:lolsign:
{Edit: Ah, Tony, you've gone and deleted the funny bit!!} ;)
Marco.
I will agree some equipment just cries out for some TLC, and you can make a very positive effect without question :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant
The main issue with Be tweeters is finding the mid and bass units that can actaully manage the transient cone speeds, hence Focal's Stella and Grand Utopia electromagnetic bass drivers.
No lets see if anyone can manage a 10 inch Be driver cone, mortgage or two sir?
Well I read the title and I thought someone was dying; prolly Vincent Prices son if he has one :lol:
A bit more reading and I discover a journalist has moved from one dodgy rag to another :doh:
Three and a bit pages with the trade swinging handbags; ffs, can we get a grip here.
I mean seriously who gives a f*ck. :mental:
Sorry Marco I've ben out of the loop for a while, all work and no play makes Jack inclinded to wander a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Now will Mr. Price cope with HFN work ethic or will the gimp ball prove too much :eek:
Either way should prove most illuminating
No where did I put my Robin Hood outfit............ Oh yes proping up my new deck, a nice man told me about cartridge break in time felt it would be best if I did the above...
How are you then Marco
:youtheman: But carbon fibre gets pretty close & is good for well over anything needed to sync with the BE mid, be it Yamaha or Usher ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
Actually this is getting rather off topic :o I think it was about DP :eyebrows:
As a consequence I'll shut up unless I can contribute about the man :D Which I find I can't really :lol:
Carbon fibre brings it's own issues to the party I'm afraid, it's tonal quality is bleached (compared top a quality paper cone), it's ability to accurately recrate trailing note decay is floored at best, I find them very 'cardboard sounding', yes they have the speed and the attack and they are very light and stiff great resistance to cone break up for sure, however (IMHO) not a good material for speaker cones, great for F1 suspension joints/ arms and bodywork and the inside of BMW M3's though. Carbon fibre has its own resonance issues that need addressing, I'm sure in the next generation with new super conductors, and materials the answer will be found, however personally I'd go for a cure to cancer first. thats just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant
I'm sure DP won't mind he has broad shoulders, after all he's put up with NK for over 10 years, surely he deserves a bloody knighthood for that dedication to the duty!
Hi Alan and thanks for the reply. I assure the comments I made were not directed at you personally and are based on my own thoughts and conversations had with others. Now you could call that chinese whispers, but I remember a certain someone who went to work for a large cable maker, a good while after his wife started working for the distributer of that company (?). Looking back over his reviews, there was an overbearing presence of said manufacturer despite the cable not being the subject of the reveiw! I call that despicable, and while I may be persuaded that this was an isolated incident, you cannot deny that revenue from advertisers would soon dry up if there were more honest, and if needed negative product reviews and this in itself must lead to products being reviewed with rose tinted spectacles. One instance in particular I remember concerns a manufacturer of shoe box sized components as well as speakers who advertise very heavily in one mag and as far as I can recall have never had a negative review of their kit in said mag. I personally prefer to hear kit if I can before taking the plunge, or if not I would value the judgement of people like Neil, who i have met and trust. As mentioned it was nothing personal and I hope I did not cause offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Sircom
Ok & gotcha, I wasn't thinking of much above 500Hz for good quality CF drivers anyway ;) As for Noel, well I just don't know :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
While he reminds me of Bishop from Aliens he certainly doesn't inspire confidence :cool:
Are you lot all on the funny stuff :scratch:
:scratch: Wassat Martin? Funny stuff :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinT
I can assure you that no Ronnie Corbett videos have been watched here this evening ;)
:eyebrows:
For a minute there, Mark, things were getting surreal. Fork 'andles...
I'm fine and dandy, matey... How are you? I hope business is good since you've moved to new premises :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. C
Aye, how true is that!! :mental: :eyebrows:Quote:
I'm sure DP won't mind he has broad shoulders, after all he's put up with NK for over 10 years, surely he deserves a bloody knighthood for that dedication to the duty!
What new deck have you got then, Tony?
Marco.
Roy's enthusiasm for 'coherent cable looms' and research into similar technologies has long been one of his USPs as a reviewer, and those enthusiasms carried over into his tenure as editor. Having got a complete set of Hi-Fi+ as part of the job, it's pretty clear where his enthusiasms lie, because two of the first five covers have cables on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by aquapiranha
Roy publicly recused himself from covering Nordost cables when his wife started working (temporarily) for the company. After she stopped working for the company, he started reviewing Nordost products once more. Unfortunately, in making these statements in public, those who see perfidy in everything had a target. Roy resigned his editorship in 2009. I believe his initial role was to work with Al Stiefel on Rocky Mountain Audio Fest and returning to his first love of reviewing, without the endless politics incumbent to editing a magazine. However, Al died suddenly not long after I'd taken over the magazine and Roy spent a couple of months with that 'what have I done?' look before he started working for Nordost. I highlighted the situation in an editorial in the magazine, and consider the matter closed. Unfortunately, history is easy to revise and distort.
My take on all this is Roy's enthusiasm for a foundational approach to audio leaves him exposed to criticism on many sides. The criticism is self-sealing, self-raising and highly contagious. No-one is whiter than white and even the most morally upstanding of us will look dodgy under the forensic gaze of the obsessive-compulsive. And let's face it, audio has more than its fill of obsessives.
If I thought Roy was on the take, he wouldn't be a reviewer for Hi-FI+ anymore. Ironically, because of his role with Nordost, he can no longer cover the products I think he did best - not just Nordost reviews, but his viewpoint on that whole foundational approach that separates the great from the merely good. If he ever decided to sever his connection with Nordost, I would potentially welcome his return to looking over such products again. In truth, I'm not sure he would ever be able to fully shake off his Nordost connection, but again that is would be down to public perception rather than any actual nefarious actions on his behalf.
If you look back at a body of reviews, you are going to see the same names coming up time and again, because people like to set the equipment in context, and because will use products we like in our systems. I remember the Flat Earth days when many reviews were written by people who used Linn turntables, Naim amplifiers and either Linn or Naim loudspeakers. Every review from those writers had a paragraph that began with something like, "I inserted the product into my system, comprising..." and the result was a magazine that had the word 'Naim' printed hundreds of time per issue. The people writing the magazine were (are) sincere in their enjoyment of Linn/Naim equipment and their enthusiasm for the Linn/Naim systems bubbled over in print, but just by listing the products over and over again made it seem 'bent'. It's one of the reasons why I don't tend to list the products in my system unless there are specific compatibility issues that call for a list of products.
Advertising does not buy good reviews. Advertising buys visibility and on an editorial perspective at best buys more of a chance to be put up for a review. The proliferation of brands and products at this time mean we have thousands of products vying for one of maybe 150 review slots per year, so that 'more of a chance' becomes significant.
This doesn't mean advertisers are protected or that non-advertisers are open to bad reviews. A product is given the same treatment, no matter where it comes from. Our lead time for reviews is generally long because I give the reviewer the chance to find out if they dislike the product, and whether that dislike is a clash of tastes (in which case, another reviewer might find the product more acceptable) or whether it's intrinsic to the product (as in, it's a bad product). If it's the latter, we end up sending it back. And yes, products - including products from major advertisers - do go back unreviewed, although I will not be drawn on what they are.
I'd prefer more of a dynamic range to reviews, making public those few bad reviews than simply sending the products back. That's what magazines used to do, and what I used to do when I first started reviewing. But, following a combination of the 1994 Yachting World vs. Walker Wingsail Systems libel case and a substantial out-of-court settlement within the industry itself in the same decade, even constructive criticism runs the risk of a magazine running up hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of legal fees and an open ended settlement if it goes against the mag (the Yachting World pay-out was in the millions). I have no desire to publish a review of a bad product, only to end up funding that company to continue to provide bad products thanks to draining the coffers of the magazine, so I reserve the right to decline to review that product.
That's fair enough. I take the view that most readers do not necessarily benefit from reviews about bad-performing equipment anyway. It just wastes the reader's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Sircom
Better to spend time reading about what is "good".
Also badly perceived sound quality could be due to a variety of reasons, including partnering equipment with opposing strengths and weaknesses. ....Accidentally reviewing a CD player with great sound-staging and poor timing in a system with great timing and poor sound-staging would produce an unfair result cancelling out the strengths of each.
Then there is the subjective side. What good is it for a reviewer to "roast" a product that does not meet their subjective criteria, if it would put-off many others from enjoying it. It does not do the customer, manufacturer or industry any good.
Andrew