Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Previous Winners Aren't Eligible (stupidly long)

Posted by Charles Hansen (M) on November 24, 2017 at 11:57:44

In Reply to: RE: Previous Winners Aren't Eligible posted by John Atkinson on November 23, 2017 at 04:08:01:

And by logical extension, we should also have speaker of the season (quarter), speaker of the month (issue), and so forth?

One may try to make an argument that after a full year that there is something of significance that deserves recognition. I only partially agree. There are far too many categories (with many new ones added since the awards were created).

In my opinion only about half of the products that win awards actually stand out in the overall scheme of things to even be worthy of special recognition. Due to the weight of sheer numbers, speakers are most likely. But since loudspeakers are also an extremely mature technology, the chances of something special coming out every single year are pretty small.

Here's an example of where "Component of the Year" can be misleading. Many people like the Brooklyn Manhattan II, which won "Digital Component of the Year". Yet by all accounts, the new Pro-Ject S2 offers equivalent sonic performance for roughly 1/6 the price, with the penalty being fewer features (no A/D, no phono input).

I think the bottom line is that many readers are "waking up" and becoming leery of the "consumer culture" in which we have all be inculcated. It seems to me that many of the things done by both manufacturers and the press alike play into and reinforce that consumer culture. It's not clear to me that it is sustainable - or even desirable.

I don't think it wise (or even possible) to change the consumer culture overnight. Yet slowly and working together, I believe that we can change this. In the case of Stereophile's "Products of the Year", I would make two recommendations that would both increase its relevance and meaningfulness, and also help the industry as a whole:

1) Rather than pretend that every single year there is some fantastic product in one of a dozen different categories that deserves special recognition, change the title of the article to "Products Worthy of Special Recognition". The rules could be different - rather than restricting it to things that have been reviewed in the last 12 months, something might be recognized as still being a top performer and lasting in the "Recommended Components" list for more than 10 years in a row. (Yes, I know that this would also require modifications to the rules of "Recommended Components" - which simply reveals how pervasive the consumer culture is.)

Furthermore if Stereophile wanted to truly help the industry (and indirectly itself), this list would be published in the summer - traditionally the slow season for audio. It is far easier to set up a manufacturing business when the demand does not fluctuate wildly. Printing articles that generate excitement and enthusiasm in the summer could lead to increased sales in the summer - helping to level out wildly fluctuating sales levels. This could be a way in which the magazines truly aid the manufacturers, rather than just mindless "boosterism" or products that really aren't very special, yet receive many awards - deserved or undeserved.

One only has to look at the other US print magazine focused on high-performance audio to see how dispensing *too many* awards make them nearly meaningless. It is reminiscent of a grade school teacher giving everyone in the class a gold star for the day - it loses all meaning. Worse yet is when a product receives an award that it doesn't deserve. It's like giving a "participation medal" to the student who comes in last. Studies have shown that it is damaging - especially to the student who receives it.

Obviously there are lines which should never be crossed. Yet I don't think there is anything at all wrong with the magazines collaborating ("colluding!") with the manufacturers to keep the industry healthy. I suppose the main thing required is utter transparency. The difficulty there is that (as human beings) we all have blind spots, and do things that we personally don't even recognize- yet everyone else does.

In high school a friend told me there are three parts to all people:

1) The part that the self sees and everyone else also sees.
2) The part that only the self sees and that nobody else can see.
3) The part that the self cannot see yet everybody else easily sees.

Obviously a simplification, but over 40 years later still rings true for me. Cheers!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---