Audio Mag.

[Bernd]

What would you like to see in a new Audio Magazine and what not?

I would like to have more smaller manufacturers reviewed. Also a Dealer intro page. And no advert related reviewing.

Peace

Bernd

[Florian]

That sounds pretty cool! I would like quality to be reviewed and no commericial junk that change their products ever week :-)

[JohnMichael]

Listener which was Art Dudley's magazine has always been my favorite. Art did an excellent job of covering equipemant that was not always mainstream. I now have to buy Stereophile to read Art's writing and reviews. Art is the man and I am a fan.

[Feanor]

What would you like to see in a new Audio Magazine and what not?

I would like to have more smaller manufacturers reviewed. Also a Dealer intro page. And no advert related reviewing.

Peace

Bernd

I'd like to see more consistency in reviewing; specifically, a standard approach for all equipment of a given type. Let's see!! For example ...

• A standard listening room with allowance for the special needs of given components, (e.g. Audio Note speakers' notorious need to be placed in corners).
• Standard reference system where only the component under review is swapped -- reference components would have to be fairly tolerant & non-idocyncratic, of course.
• Standard evaluation repertoire of music.
• Standard sets of evaluation criteria and a standard vocabulary for describing critical aspects of performance.
• An rating scale, (say, 1 low, 10 high) for key criteria
• Value ratings on all reviewed components
• Review by at least two reviewers, with separate and consensus ratings & comments.
• Recommended components listings within price ranges.

This would would go some ways to ensure consistent, dare we say almost "objective" reviews.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Having two reviewers review the same equipment would be a rather interesting idea. Especially in Stereophile where all of the gushing over ultra expensive equipment can sometime be a bit of a bore

[Bernd]

Good points. I agree with the two reviewer/one item idea. Wouldn't you rather have fewer reviews but mor accurate ones? I certainly would.

Peace

Bernd

[JohnMichael]

I would like the two reviewer format and I would also like them to list their biases. If they are reviewing a box speaker and one of the reviewers only likes planar speakers I would like to know that up front. Same idea with sources and amps. Are they tube or solid state fans? Do they like analog or digital? I could balance my overall opinion of the review if I know their likes and dislikes.

[E-Stat]

Having two reviewers review the same equipment would be a rather interesting idea.

That's exactly what The Absolute Sound did under HP's watch for over twenty years.

You get similar observations, but different conclusions based upon their (stated) biases and priorities.

rw

[nightflier]

Feanor,

I like your points, kind of like asking for a baseline. The reason so few reviews are respected anymore is because they deviate too far from the scientific method. This doesn't mean they have to be overly technical or dry & boring. It just means that part of the review has to be. Maybe the technical / scientific stuff can be in a sidebar or a link off the main page, but it has to be there.

The other thing that always drives me bonkers is when they say something like "I don't have anything to compare it to, but if I compare it to my own wiz-bang system that I've listened to for years and costs x amounts more, then I'd have to say the product blah blah blah..." If you don't have something similarly constructed and in the same price range to compare it to, then don't compare!

I also agree with the minimum of two reviewers. When we read online reviews (w/o hearing the product ourselves) we evaluate a product on an average opinion from all the reviews we read. Ironically one very bad review or a completely contradictory opinion will make me weigh that last reviewer much more heavily than the others. I suppose it's a psychological effect of reading reviews. I don't know, but there should be a control for that. If a magazine has two widely contrasting reviews, then where should the reader stand? Maybe there should be three reviews to break the tie.

I also don't think a tube fanatic should be reviewing solid state gear, or a planar guy reviewing box speakers. This is the classic problem of pre-existing bias in science. You can't get rid of it entirely, but you can ask the tube and planar guys to stick to what they do best.

I won't say anything about the music selection because I've been asking for a baseline in several threads already and there just doesn't seem any interest in that. Maybe for part of the evaluation or comparisons, the reviewers should just listen to test tones & effects; again, not for the whole review but for a portion of it.

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. Great thread.

[kexodusc]

I would like relative comparisons to be made with other equipment, not just reviews full of buzz words and fancy prose. If you're reviewing a speaker model, compare it to at least 2 other "comparable" models in terms of either price or performance. Be decisive...definite winners and losers. Any review in isolation is worth only the paper it's written on.

I'd love more objectivity to accompany this added subjectivity. Throw in some DBT's and ABX testing. Always include impedance charts with FR charts for speakers.
Include Cumulative Spectrum Decay, as well as Harmonic Distortion sweeps. Add a link to a webpage that tells the reader how to read them, too....there's no reason not to.

[audio_dude]

i'd like to see a more broad range of components tested, like me, i'm interested in stuff thats very inexpensive,

the mag should also print a "best-of-best" section in each issue, regarding amps, speakers, etc...and one selection for each price range

[musicoverall]

That's exactly what The Absolute Sound did under HP's watch for over twenty years.

You get similar observations, but different conclusions based upon their (stated) biases and priorities.

rw

I think that's a great idea! Also, I'd like to see reviews where the reviewer plainly and unequivocally calls a POS a POS... or at least something he doesn't care for. Art Dudley was a reviewer (while at Listener) that I could really count on. If he liked it, I usually hated it. If he hated it, I at least thought it sounded better than the stuff he liked, even if I didn't exactly like it. Consequently, his reviews were extremely valuable to me, as much as someone who's likes and dislikes are similar to my own. Art was honest with his appraisals and integrity is always appreciated.

Nothing against Art, you understand, we just obviously had a different set of biases and priorities. I never could get anything sounding remotely real from a single point source Lowther-based system (GAG!) and he just wasn't into planars or 'stats.

I think the two reviewers on the same component is a fantastic idea. I might just take up a subscription to an audio mag if that happened!

[nightflier]

Of course a subscription to an audio mag that fullfilled all these requirements would cost a lot more than what StereoReview charges per month.

[JoeE SP9]

I thought Stereo Review was no longer published.

[MikeyBC]

I still prefer UHF magazine even though they are very slow getting each new issue out, each review is done by 3 people..always the same people at that with the same listening environment and system components. They do review some inexpensive stuff but its "GOOD" inexpensive stuff. I gave up on stereophile long ago when they pushed their price per issue insanely through the roof here in Canada, like hell i'm gonna pay more than 10 bucks for a magazine!!

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Direct comparisons between two like-priced items.