|
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: Stereophile's policy of allowing immediate re-test of gear that initially disappoints posted by hifi heretic on March 19, 2010 at 14:39:53:
heretic on March 19, 2010 at 14:39:53
hifi heretic,
I don't imagine I'm alone in reading some degree of anger and mistrust of audio reviewers in your post. My view of the events you describe- that "Stereophile", by amending reviews apparently at the last minute revised to reflect new measurements from correctly operating gear, is actually being conscientious. If the opinions and measurements included in a review were made from listening to defective stuff- the error should be corrected as soon as possible. Reputation can be made or lost from first reviews because audiophiles are impatient and fickle- always poised to jump at the Next Hot Thing. It would be irresponsible of Stereophile not to correct information. Of course, the reader is still free to decide how revealing this is of the makers' quality control,.. the reader might also decide that if a magazine review sample is defective, the magazine must not be receiving any specially prepared piece tweaked for review purposes.
Your view is on the cynical side that assumes all critics are corrupted by the needs of advertising revenues. This distrust of commercial media I think is not only understandable but is healthy. Yes, while corruption and agenda predominates in the mass media, I've never felt this strongly present in high end audio reviewing- or indeed in any of the other "small Worlds" I've visited- early keyboards, old cars, painting. Those experiences have help develop a fairly reliable bullshit meter- and though universally loathe the corrupting influence of advertising in general, I still don't really sense noticeably corrupt audio reviewers. My proof of this is that I could find reviewers in all those realms whose comments generally agreed with mine. ***
*** The notably corrupt exception in art was Anthony Berenson who by his analysis and writing created fads and authenticated very expensive Renaissance and Baroque Italian art- on sales commission- to gullible robber barons' wives.
One of my favourite reviewers years ago was Stereophile's Anthony Cordesman. I had heard Cordesman speak on C-SPAN on the Middle East before I ever knew he was an audiophile. And, as I trusted the integrity, intelligence, and comprehensiveness of his ME analysis more than any of his contemporaries, I was inclined to trust his audio criticism. He also was not dependent on audio for his living,..
Sam Tellig was another favourite- he had the cheapskate column and I liked his "bang for buck" attitude and casual style. Tellig was accused at one time for being a shill for Musical Fidelity, but again, I believe he was honestly more interested in their sound to cost ratio. I remember that he was even criticised for "hiding" behind a pen name- pure paranoia!
John Atkinson I like and trust because he is seems particularly thorough and balanced- a good proportion of what I call "Bambi B's Three Critical Things". My favourite kind of audio criticism- and I like Stereophile in these aspects- is a blend of three components: the subjective - how real does it sound, combined with the objective- what are the physical qualities that create this particular sound, with the comparative- the reviewer can communicate from a confident viewpoint of sound references- live sound and reproduced plus a great aural memory. I stumbled on this first-hand when studying instrument making- those same three basic skills were necessary and needed to be proportioned.
Corruption in the audio world though would seem dificult to sustain. Audio is another of those "small worlds" and accordingly, is surprisingly small- everyone eventually meets or has at most three degrees of separation. And, like other petty, closed societies like academia, art dealers, and the priesthood, reputations are precious things easily broken. And in small worlds, the marketplace will sort the wheat from the chaff in a hurry. If for example, Stereophile gave universally positive reviews to advertisers and we later always found the glorified thing was shite when we heard it at the shop, the skewing of opinion for commercial reasons would become well-known- and known quickly.
Instead of speculating about reviewer corruption you would be better to ask yourself, how often you've felt very differently about equipment as reviewed in "Stereophile". If this is often enough to put you off, find the reviewers that express a similar response to yours. You can't change the reviewers so change reviewers. Also, give a little allowance to the complexity of audio reviewing- deep issues aesthetic, perceptual, and technical- sometimes bordering on the political. Criticism is a really difficult task that has to be performed by mere mortal human beings- no matter what kind of criticism- literature, art, cars, and so on.
Cheers
Bambi B
On the other hand,.. Voltaire: No one ever erected a statue to a critic.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You appear to distrust audio reviewers in general - Bambi B 03/20/1021:33:44 03/20/10 (2)
- RE: You appear to distrust audio reviewers in general - hifi heretic 11:11:41 03/21/10 (1)
- RE: You appear to distrust audio reviewers in general - John Atkinson 15:02:22 03/21/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]