Stereophile and A/V mags

[Ric_Flair]

When I found this site I immediately bookmarked it. I have been listening to, buying, reading about, and messing around with audio and video stuff since I got a paper route when I was eleven. I am 28 now and I have a very nice and modest 2 channel set up in my apartment. A house is on the horizon and so is a home theater (I love film, I even try to make some of my own...though they are terrible). I have read Stereo Review (RIP) and its successor. Recently I got a huge collection of back issue Stereophiles. It finally dawned on me after reading this site and CNET (for gadgets) that those magazines and their style of reviews are dying. Good riddance. Stereophile, while having great pieces on music, has the WORST reviews I have ever read. The magazine is fundamentally compromised and to call its writers journalists is like relying on the Bush administration for a neutral perspective on the world.

We, as a hobby, have moved beyond the garbage reviews of Stereophile and its automotive companion Motor Trend. Nothing they review is awful. Nothing they review is flawed in design. They hide behind the subjectivism and state that nothing is bad, but "appeals to a particular kind of person." In a review last year in Stereophile the reviewer mentioned how blissful the $18,000 amp he was testing sounded, but also let a secret go--he replaced fuses at an alarming rate. The end analysis of this wastefully expensive item at home in the wardrobe of the naked emperor was that the item was great, if you didn't mind swapping out fuses. Yes, that is exactly what I want to do while settling into my couch with a warm cup of tea to listen to a new recording of the Flying Dutchman--switch out fuses.

At this point I realizes that Stereophile's reviews were a waste of time. Their thesarus mining to describe interconnects and jewelry priced speaker cables is utterly pointless. They stubbornly refuse to use scientific measurements to judge equipment because they are subjectivists and only the sound matters. Really Mr. Atkinson? Only the sound? How about a few dozen double blind tests so you and your cadre of crazies can judge items without any bias whatsoever?

We read reviews to figure out what to purchase and these old guard review sources do not have the independence and intelligence we more educated and demanding consumers expect. Audioholics and its engineering seriousness is a welcome part of the sea change. Reviewers like those in Stereophile are too comfortable with the items they are judging. They are in bed with the manufacturers and sales people that comprise a thankfully dying part of the AV business. Proof is the section of the magazine dedicated to the praises that manufacturers shower on Stereophile after a good review.

A review of Stereo Review shows a similar problem. Motor Trend is also fatally flawed (heaping praise on Ford's SUV idiocy as gas prices tripled). Game Informer is the Stereophile of video game reviews.

Folks its time we recognize two truths: old style reviews are really sales literature that we paid for; new style reviews like those here at Audioholics, are the only ways to go for a person that is a critical consumer.

 

[highfihoney]

reading stereophile is a total waste of time & your right about the reviews there too"its all good" according to the reviewers there,readers are forced to read between the lines just incase the reviewer has an attack of honesty & lets a tid bit slip out about the true performance of the gear.

i used to subscribe to stereophile just to see new gear,my wife picked up an issue one day & started to read some reviews & she kept asking me what the hell they were talking about in the review,she couldnt make any sense out of anything,i just laughed & told her it was basicly a comic book for really big kids

 

[W_Harding]

Stereophile

I have enjoyed reading Stereophile for a number of years. It seems to be the only magazine that still MEASURES the equipment that is reviewed. The loudspeaker measurements are particularly interesting. Some of the music reviews introduce me to new music that is appealing. I really enjoyed the article in this months issue about the "Kind of Blue" listening session including the historical background of that landmark recording. There is always enough in the magazine to warrant continuing to subscribe.

 

[mustang_steve]

Yeah, the only good stereophile issues, are the ones where they review a product you made.

...sadly I have never made a audio product outside of a few speakers out of experimentationl....so I never got to see a review in there.

...I am however amused at the thought to build an utterly craptacular set of speakers, and see what they say if I can get them to review it.

 

[mike c]

they would probably say that for the money, those crapticular speakers are pretty good.

 

[wilkenboy]

I've given up on the mags altogether. A bunch of sponsored cheerleaders. Not that some forums or websites aren't, its just the forums tend to contain some snippets of honest personal evaluations that the magazines lack.

And, they almost never review stuff in my price range!

~Josh

 

[wilkenboy]

they would probably say that for the money, those crapticular speakers are pretty good.

Bravo, that's EXACTLY what they would say. You should apply, you could get paid for writing stuff like that, then reviewing the system with some obscure CDs and claiming the mids to be smooth, and the highs to be a bit "laid back" for your tastes, but overall producing a room-filling sound with wide sweet-spot.

And they would give it a rating like 84%. Anyone ever seen a mag give anything less than an 80%? That should say something there.

I'd love it if these mags were more like gaming review mags, where the editors will freely give out 20% or worse if the game sucks.

~Josh

 

[wilkenboy]

Folks its time we recognize two truths: old style reviews are really sales literature that we paid for; new style reviews like those here at Audioholics, are the only ways to go for a person that is a critical consumer.

Amen.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

...It seems to be the only magazine that still MEASURES the equipment that is reviewed...

Except that the measurements are bascially there as "window dressing" and the written reviews do not bother to correlate their observations to the measurements.

And often, at least in the past, the measurements have been simply wrong due to ignorance of test protocols and/or test equipment.

Don't know if David Ranada is still with Sound & Vision but his measurements/comments are/were informative.

In defense of the old Stereo Review: I had read that their policy was to only <i>publish</i> good reviews which is not the same thing as giving everything a good review. Poorly reviewed equipment simply didn't get results published. Tom Nousaine once characterized it as "not wasting ink on turkeys". A defensible, if arguable, policy. Anyway, I grew up in this hobby with Julian Hirch as my guide.

Otherwise, Ric pretty well nailed it.

 

[mike c]

but the problem is ... the reviews become useless when all of them are "great"
I've seen reviews that say "this 1000USD sub beats anything under 2000USD" and then the next review, "this is the best sub you can get for 1000USD" i mean, make up your frikkin mind! and its from the same reviewer!

there should ALWAYS be references on the current item with previous reviews of other items

subjective reviews are ok for me but I'd like to hear stuff like, this SVS will beat the hell out of that Axiom or vice versa. readers can then gauge the comments of that writer if us and him have the same tastes.

and yes, what's up with those obscure CDs? who the hell are those?

 

[BMXTRIX]

I gotta say that a lot of reviews must be tough because so many products from so many manufacturers really is SO good. It is the personal preferences that set them apart.

In projector world, the Sanyo Z4 and Panny AE900 are two examples of top notch, similarly priced projectors, yet some will swear that the AE900 is better, some will say that the Z4 is better. They both have good points and bad points and some people think that the good points of one are actually a BAD point.

This leads to some serious issues with how bad almost any product is when you really don't know your readers, and can't know them all anyway. Klipsch is a great example of a brand that is all over the map with people liking them. So, do they suck or are they great? All that really is left, in many cases, is checking out the quality of the build, putting down some BS on how it sounds, and taking a dB measurement. Have a nice day.

I'm not a fan of reviews not being published, but magazines looking to make money aren't trying to make us happy, and are trying to make money. That is, a manufacturer who makes a serious design mistake is not given the press they want and is given the chance to make their product better. No lawsuits about defamation can be brought when no articles are printed that are bad.

I like Projector Central where they say something simple like: We received a test Brand 'X' projector, model 'X' and it seemed to have some flaws with the sample we received so we sent it back and are waiting for a new review sample.

It definitely makes a person wonder what was wrong, and sometimes the review never comes... Much better than not mentioning it at all.

It has been brought up before that it would be good to see some poor reviews HERE as well since so many reviews are glowing. But, we have seen a few poor reviews. I just like the concept of having a 'currently being reviewed' area of the site or 'upcoming reviews'. Then a blurb on initial reaction. Finally a link to the blown out review. Might be cool and very informative when products show up 'defective'.

 

[ruadmaa]

Stereo Review

Except that the measurements are bascially there as "window dressing" and the written reviews do not bother to correlate their observations to the measurements.

And often, at least in the past, the measurements have been simply wrong due to ignorance of test protocols and/or test equipment.

Don't know if David Ranada is still with Sound & Vision but his measurements/comments are/were informative.

In defense of the old Stereo Review: I had read that their policy was to only <i>publish</i> good reviews which is not the same thing as giving everything a good review. Poorly reviewed equipment simply didn't get results published. Tom Nousaine once characterized it as "not wasting ink on turkeys". A defensible, if arguable, policy. Anyway, I grew up in this hobby with Julian Hirch as my guide.

Otherwise, Ric pretty well nailed it.

Julian Hirch did excellent and respectable testing. In my book he is sorely missed.

 

[gene]

Tribute to Julian Hirsch

 

[Geno]

I, too, got my start in this hobby reading Julian Hirsch's articles. I think he must have been the guiding force in the demise of "console stereos" of the 50s and 60s. (Remember "Magnavox Astrosonic" boxes with the screen door spring reverbs?)
The last article I read in Stereophile on cables had me shaking my head in numb disbelief. That this kind of blather is still believed by people of ostensibly educated, cultured backgrounds is a testament to the power of these snake-oil drummers. Ol' Julian must be turning in his grave.

 

[Pat D]

I have enjoyed reading Stereophile for a number of years. It seems to be the only magazine that still MEASURES the equipment that is reviewed. The loudspeaker measurements are particularly interesting. Some of the music reviews introduce me to new music that is appealing. I really enjoyed the article in this months issue about the "Kind of Blue" listening session including the historical background of that landmark recording. There is always enough in the magazine to warrant continuing to subscribe.

Yes, on the whole, I have not too much reason to doubt Stereophile's measurements. The main thing there I can think of is that John Atkinson's speaker measurements often emphasize the bass--a comparison of the same speakers with the NRC measurements done by Soundstage.com will show some significant differences there. As well, JA's methods don't work so well for large speakers, nor for dipoles. He admits these limitatations, BTW. Anyway, the first thing I look at in a Stereophile equipment review is the measurements.

If you want to find out why tube amplifiers are likely to sound different, well, Atkinson provides the frequency response into a simulated speaker load, just as the old Audio magazine did and BHK does for Soundstage. It isn't usually pretty, but that doesn't mean they will sound unpleasant.

They don't typically do any measurements for reviews of interconnects and speaker cables--I think the reason is obvious!

I read some of the articles on music, too, although I usually just check my Penguin Guide if I want critical reaction (yeah, I listen mostly to classical music)--I may or may not agree, but that's par for the course.

I don't subscribe to S'phile, but they have a lot of stuff on line.

 

[lbjazz]

You are all right on target. S&V has been getting especially bad about rating everything well in their reviews the past year or two. I'm probably not going to renew the next time they want money because I don't learn anything from it anymore.
A few months ago I saw something online about a new internet mag called ToneAudio. I decided to check it out, and I have to say that it is by far the worst with regard to the snake oily subjectivism.
Overall, I have found audioholics and various online forums the best place to learn about products. In some cases, manufacturer sites are more informative and accurate than many magazines. I wish that audioholics could review as much as all of the mags put together so we'd never need another resource.

 

[tbewick]

I don't see why Stereophile is singled out for criticism. To be honest, there is very little in the way of rigorous evidence provided by any home cinema/hi-fi magazine.

If people are presented with objective test data, then there wouldn't be any need for many of these magazines! A lot of the time, I feel that all of these magazines are always trying to push sales of one product or another. This is probably why USEFUL objective data is rarely published. One other reason is probably that producing useful test data is quite difficult - for example, rigorous testing of loudspeaker performance would require an anechoic chamber. Subjective test data is far easier to do and is far more difficult to criticise without objective data.