Kal Rubinson;573310 Wrote: > Actually, I did it in July but there are substantial latencies in print > publishing. > > Kal
That is their undoing in this age of "Have to have it NOW". Other then prints silky pictures and the advertising dollars, web reviews have it all over print with one exception below. I did like the Editorial about Stereophile reviews being "Real and Accurate" in I believe the June 2010 issue. Very good point in being able to trust that the reviewer actually read the manual, unboxed the unit, used it, and tested and measured it's performance. Plus Stereophile reviewers have a documented history of reviews to read through, compare against, and if the unit/model has been reviewed in the past, make a direct comparison. What I would like to see happen: We need a middle ground between print and web. We also need a means to have 2 to 3 knowledgeable reviewers compare the same gear in a known range to get multiple views based on peers IE not memory of a reference. The problem in my mind with both TAS and Stereophile is the reviewers are hearing todays great gear while waiting on tomorrows with no reference point forward or backwards and devoid of direct peer comparison. Todays manufactures (except the one offs or they only build 12 a year types) have enough units to send out 3 amps to 3 reviewers working for the same magazine at the same time to be reviewed head to head with 4 other amps in its class. Same for speakers, source and pre-amp. I am of the option that a proper TAS or Stereophile would rotate the reviewers in 2 to 3 year shifts on specific price range gear to be compared to the Recommended Component in that class. These three reviewers do amps under $6K for 3 years then go to amps over $15K for three years to ... you get the idea. Reviewing appropriate sources, pre-amps, and speakers during those stints. As in no $150K speakers when one is reviewing amps under $6K. One guy each year gets the added duty (or only duty) to preview/announce all the hot, ultra expensive, or new gizmos so that the other reviews can have meaning. We the reader are keep abreast of all the new stuff (awaiting a real review next cycle) and have reviews of current gear that have comparison value. If I have muddied the water without being clear, my problem with both TAS and Stereophile is it is almost impossible to use the review for anything but leisure reading because there is almost absolutely no way to use it for comparison to anything IE its a review of a specific product based on the specific product with a small mention of an impression based off what the reviewer considers "His" reference. The reviewers references are not even the same so they aren't references after all are they? In fact, they are what the reviewer considers "His" reference and that is a dangerous thing IMO. They should be called the reviewers home system and not made out to be anything other then that because in most cases that is all they are. -- iPhone *iPhone* Media Room: Transporter, VTL TL-6.5 Signature Pre-Amp, Ayre MX-R Mono's, VeraStarr 6.4SE 6-channel Amp, Vandersteen Speakers: Quatro Wood Mains, VCC-5 Reference Center, four VSM-1 Signatures, Video: Runco RS 900 CineWide AutoScope 2.35:1, Vandersteen V2W Subwoofer Living Room: Duet, ADCOM GTP-870HD, Cinepro 3K6SE III Gold, Vandersteen Model 3A Signature, Two 2Wq subs, VCC-2, Two VSM-1 Kitchen: Squeezebox BOOM Bedroom: Squeezebox BOOM Bathroom: Squeezebox Radio Ford Thunderbird: Duet, Mac Mini Ford Expedition: SB Touch, USB drive ------------------------------------------------------------------------ iPhone's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=13622 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81346 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
