![]() Either report on the good and not so good about what you hear- or just leave out the subjective commentary altogether like other publications do. But when you consciously leave out any critical impressions- and there were many- do you not become guilty of deception by omission? I believe you do. We can understand room acoustics, setup challenges, etc. Based on my own notes and observations compared with those that were published, you have failed to be "accurate" ears for those readers who are hoping for honest accounts of the sound quality of these systems. In other words I challenge the accuracy of your magazine's descriptions about the sound quality of what was heard. Yet there was no mention of these issues in your reporting. Most of the issues I heard in some rooms were quite obvious- for whatever reason- room acoustics, etc. When I read Stereophile's opinions about the sound of the rooms I had attended it was obvious that you were being overtly polite about what you heard. I took notes and did my own reporting about what I heard, the good and the bad. This was the first year of my previous (4) years attending AXPONA that I was not on a mission to research specific components for audition- and I just wanted to attend as many rooms as possible. We attend the shows (at least I do) to hear how these systems sound, we expect to hear about how they sounded from the publications that report on them, since again they are "audio" shows. You are the ears for all of your readers unable to attend these shows. For most readers who are not able to attend the show, the main thing we / they to hear about is how they sounded. I am circling back on this because it is important to me as a fan of music, sound reproduction and your publication.īecause you are covering an audio show and reporting on the systems featured in these articles, the main function of what you are writing about is reproduction of recorded music. If you were at the show, you can draw your own conclusions. Stereophile's writers recognize the influence they have and take their obligations seriously. You will often see our reviewers comment negatively on the sound-but they are appropriately reluctant to draw unwarranted conclusions about ultimate quality from such a cursory experience to do so would serve neither readers nor audio companies. Setting aside the question of bad hotel room acoustics, that's impossible to do in 15 minutes of listening in an unknown system in an unknown room-often with unfamiliar music. That's fine-we'll criticize anyway-but only after we've evaluated a component over time in a methodical, systematic way. A negative comment even in a show report can have serious consequences for a company. The judgments of Stereophile's reviewers carry serious weight and so must be deployed responsibly. I'm sincerely puzzled by your response to our posts-why is it important to you that Stereophile writers post negative evaluations based on a few minutes listening under show conditions?Īs Editor, I'm responsible for setting policies like this. Avanti (I'll call you that for lack of a better name),
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |