|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: ... don't care about finding the next big thing posted by DAP on November 5, 2017 at 21:08:23:
> > It seems to me that the appropriate thing is to just accept that this particular reviewer doesn't care about the next big thing. Along with some other reviewers, as Rick W suggests below. You could add up the numbers, and find out how many care, and how many don't. < <
Hi Daniel,
You are right and I was wrong. I made the above post before I had a chance to read Rick W's response. Again apologies to all.
> > The idea that obsessing about the Next Big Thing explains Stereophile and TAS promoting and evangelizing MQA doesn't seem all that plausible, though. < <
I think for TAS, the core group will promote anything plausible - provided enough money is thrown at them, which I think explains their promotion of MQA. I don't think the same is true at Stereophile, so the question then becomes one of what motivated JA? It seems to me that he was the first to latch onto MQA, and then just as MF is seen as Stereophile's analog expert (internally and externally), JA is seen as Stereophile's digital expert (internally and externally). Once JA decided that MQA was "the birth of a new world", it seems that many on the Stereophile staff followed their leader. All of the latter makes sense to me - MQA conducting controlled and unfair comparison "demos" while the resident "expert" agrees with the "science" put forth, that the other Stereophile writers would fall in line.
Where I get confused is why did JA fall for the MQA story? I don't think there is one single factor, but instead multiple elements falling into alignment. And I think that on some level Mike Kuller's postulate about "finding the next big thing" did play a part. It isn't hard for me to imagine the "highly lauded" Bob Stuart offering JA a "sneak preview" of the "future of recorded music", which is pretty much what Kuller was describing as "the next big thing".
> > Contemporary reviewers praise almost everything that passes through the pipe, candidate for Next Big Thing or not. Everyone here must have listened to at least one piece of equipment that they know is mediocre, but that got a recommended in Stereophile and TAS. < <
This is more of what interests me. In the case of TAS, it is relatively easy to understand in terms of simple "pay for play" (with a few exceptions). I don't think that any of that exists at Stereophile - at least explicitly. I don't think that Harman (or now Samsung) writes a check to JA to have Larry Greenhill review all Levinson products, for example. But why does JA assign all of the Levinson product reviews to Larry Greenhill? With LG and Levinson, the outcome of the "review" is never in doubt - it will always be a positive one.
It seems to me that something wrong is going on. While I truly believe it is not simple corruption (which is easily understood), then the only other explanations must be subconscious ones. (Which is what got me with my foot in my mouth with Sue Kraft.)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: ... don't care about finding the next big thing - Charles Hansen 11/5/1722:23:40 11/5/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
