|
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: It was never a rant. posted by Sordidman on July 27, 2005 at 13:04:52:
"What is it that makes you so angry and unhappy with reviewers? "Me? Pray tell, what reviewers are you talking about? Atkinson has said that his reviewers, and Stereophile magazine's, first duty is to the reader. I agree with that statement. You disagreed. Stereophile's reviewers actually post negative comments regarding components. Atkinson, on more than occasion, has stated in the measurement section that an amplifier in question acts as a tone control, and a recommendation must therefore be precluded. I agree with that statement. On the other hand, would the writer of the article make such a statement in a review? I do not know. One cannot be right, and the other wrong.
Atkinson's opinion would run contrary to your allegation that there are no universal truths, because the component may work pefectly well is some other system, and therefore the reviewer cannot pass absolute judgment. Well, he did. Fremer often determines that a product does not sound good enough at it's price point, and therefore is not recommended. Does he not violate the premise that the component may perform well is someone's else's system? Should he have recommended the component "for some systems."
I have read enough of TAS over the years to know that they have also not recommended components as well. So I am not sure what reviewers, plural, you are referring to. These reviewers seem to follow the belief that they can give a component a non-recommendation without worrying whether it is a good component for some "hypothetical" system in which it may perform better, or be more synergistic with.
I am not sure if I agree with the article or not. It simply does not provide enough information, and is too vague. I am not sure if he is writing that there are limits to a negative review, or negative reviews should never be published, or what he would, or has done, to avoid publishing a negative review. How much consideration is given to the manufacturer? I don't know.
Quite the contrary. You seem to agree with the writer of the article. Which is fine. But he is the only reviewer that I am aware of who has expressed that opinion, in that way. Perhaps you can name some others.
"being "loyal" to that manufacturer, - your erroneous interpretation." For the last time: I never used the word loyal. YOU DID. How can I interpret his statement to be loyalty when I NEVER USED THAT WORD, NOR MADE SUCH AN ALLEGATION. Double sheesh, with a cherry on top.
"What the reviewer tries to do, (as was clearly stated in the article), give the reader an impression of how the equipment sounds, go over its ergonomics, and describe his experiences with it. "
Again, specifically what reviewers are you referring to? I see them make judgments all the time. For respected publications. Occasionally, I see them say that the component cannot be recommended. Do they all subscribe to the article? Uniformly?
"Do you want certainty? Do you need everything spelled out in black in white? Wherein do your experiences lie? Do you want someone to tell you not to buy something vs something else? Do you need someone to tell you that Krell is great and McIntosh stinks?"
I believe in answering questions directly. No. No. God only knows. No. No. First question: I want to know if the reviewer thinks that the component cannot be recommended to tell me so. And why. If the consenus of opinion, plus my own auditions, tells me the reviewer is incorrect on numerous occasions, he or she looses credibility with me, and other readers. If the reviewer looses credibility with too many readers, the reviewer is not read. If they are not read, then they have little to no influence.
The question the article raises, but does not address in any concrete, meaningful way, is how an appreciation of the manufacturer's plight, whatever you call it, factors into that reviewer, and only that reviewers' published opinion. The writer of the article does not write for any reviewer other than himself, as no other reviewer that I am aware has taken his mantle, and Atkinson's prior writings would seem to run counter. Do you know what he has not written or reported about a component because of this "dilemma?" I do not, because he does not say.
"Do you need someone to tell you that Krell is great and McIntosh stinks?"
Why? Are you saying McIntosh stinks?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: It was never a rant. - jamesgarvin 07/27/0514:27:35 07/27/05 (2)
- Re: It was never a rant. - Sordidman 16:37:28 07/27/05 (1)
- Re: It was never a rant. - jamesgarvin 08:51:40 07/28/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
