Journalism or public relations?

[sq225917]

I'm with Tony Stereophile is the gold standard for me with in depth technical and subjective reviews presented together with neither taking priority over the other. When a product only gets a subjective review with them I know it's below par in some manner. Obviously the reviewers are given their own personal space to spout their fluff lines and for Fremer to advance those brands he takes an accommodation from, but it's still the standard for me.

The real problem with HIFI is simple. Once true high-fidelity reproduction was available for a few hundred quid in the late seventies/early eighties it was largely over in terms of sound quality barring the continued development of digital. It amazes me that it has taken hifi companies so long to realise that they are simply in a 'user interface and appearance arms race' with the computer industry and act accordingly- something brands like B&O and Bose realised decades ago.

 

[Purité Audio]

+1 any future paper/web based magazines must be based on measurements.
Keith.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Some problems:

1. A lack of context or frame of reference: unless you've heard a reviewer's system you have no idea where they're coming from in terms of what their reference for an enjoyable music system is and whether it accords with your own

I agree. However, if you find yourself regularly agreeing (or regularly disagreeing) with the findings of a particular reviewer, you can extrapolate that what they say is in accord with your own experiences.

2. Aside from some 'group tests' for more relatively modest priced gear there is very little discrimination. Pretty much everything is favourably reviewed.

Again I agree. The problem arises that there aren't that many duff products anymore. And generally the more expensive the product, the less the likelihood of problems arising. At the top end, you do get 'designer-led' products, that are strongly flavoured. This isn't good, or bad, it's that if you like valves, it leads you down one direction, if you like solid-state, it will lead you down another, where at the low end, things are more uniform.

We have to set these in context. We give the valve equipment to those who are not antagonistic toward valves and solid-state to those who like solid-state. Because those are the people who end up buying the stuff.

We could make a point of giving things to people who active dislike the DUT, but what would be the point of that?

3. The descriptive language of reviews trots out the same old cliches over and over again - example 'the system was fast and detailed'. WTF does that mean?

Again I agree. In part this comes from over-familarity and people going over the same ground time after time after time. I must have reviewed maybe 450-500 amplifiers in my time, and there is ultimately only so many things you can say about an amplifier, so the same things get said.

The vocabulary of audio is very odd. It is seemingly set in aspic, based on what J Gordon Holt put in his dictionary of audio terms in the 1970s. If you try to break these terms out, your reviews are dismissed as 'out of kilter' (in 2010, I tried to replace terms out of 1970s studio engineering with terms out of music, because I believe 'tenor' makes more sense to more people than 'upper mid-bass'. "Tenor is a singer, not an aspect of a loudspeaker's performance" came the response.

Any specialist topic has its vocabulary. We know some of them better than others because they fall into common parlance. Food and wine writers need to use flowery language to describe something as abstract as flavour in written terms. We have to do the same.

 

[Werner]

We have to be the promoters of the audio industry because no-one else is doing that.

The 'press' (quotes because I perceive a certain difference with that other press that is in the field taking pictures of napalmed girls and other such rather more important events) has to promote the audio industry by being critical of it, pointing it into the directions where true gains can be had, and punishing where it strays.

The enthusiast audio press fails miserably on all three accounts.

 

[Alan Sircom]

+1 any future paper/web based magazines must be based on measurements.
Keith.

Why? Why should hi-fi be the exception here? Most other magazines in other fields are actively abandoning or sidelining measurement because the majority of readers either no longer care or understand what the measurements do. And few understand how measurement relates to real-world performance, even if its explained to them time and time again.

 

[Mick P]

Chaps

I agree stereophile is good, as is Hifi plus but my own view is that they are on a dodgy wicket to say the least.

The simple fact is that the internet is a massively convenient way of gleaning information, be it on hifi, cameras, cars or whatever.

Yesterday I spent 20 minutes surfing the net on how to prune a Wisteria.

Youtube clips were brilliant, a head gardener went through the process and I am now ready to prune. The gardening magazines are full of pruning articles, but a youtube clip is better and cheaper than buying a mag. A clip is worth a thousand words etc.

I used a run a MK2 Jag a few years ago and am thinking of buying another as a big boys toy. Again an hour on the internet gave me about as much information as I can absorb. The magazines, assuming they write an article on a MK2 Jag this month, just cannot compete with an electronic information highway. I read articles from owners, got a good idea of prices, state of the market, spares availability, and specialists in my area etc. Also there are forums that are useful and no mag can compete with that.

I have two large book cases crammed up with books and a collection of classic motorcycle magazines built up over 20 years as well as Hifi plus. I constantly ask myself why do I keep all these books and mags, they are out of date whereas the internet is current. I will probably end up dumping them.

Hifi has an additional problem, back in the eighties, owning Hifi was cool and trendy, today is it seen as an old mans hobby and usually grumpy old men at that. This forum is living proof of that, a load of old men throwing tantrums over everything from blind testing to gay marriage.

How a magazine is going to cope to retain this old lot as a customer base and especially with the younger generation using the Ipad for information as a matter of course, leads me to the conclusion that magazines will just slither along until us lot either go deaf with age or die off.

I certainly would not buy shares in a mag.

Regards

Mick

 

[Alan Sircom]

The 'press' (quotes because I perceive a certain difference with that other press that is in the field taking pictures of napalmed girls and other such rather more important events) has to promote the audio industry by being critical of it, pointing it into the directions where true gains can be had, and punishing where it strays.

The enthusiast audio press fails miserably on all three accounts.

I agree. But it's seen as hectoring by the high-enders (not necessarily the manufacturers, but the people who buy the magazine as a guide to buying their next device).

The role of the reviewer is frequently seen as being impassioned über-enthusiast, rather than dispassionate observer. That is changing, but changing slowly.

Too many critical pieces and the magazine is effectively locked out by the community entire, not just the industry.

It's also worth bearing in mind that many reviews are read in retrospect, where the reader uses them to assuage buyer's remorse. These are the ones we as writers and editors have the most difficulty with when it comes to less than gushing reviews, because you end up with a reader going thermonuclear on you because they feel not only that you disagreed with their tastes, but you effectively killed the resale value of the product they now want rid of.

 

[Tony L]

Yesterday I spent 20 minutes surfing the net on how to prune a Wisteria.

Doesn't one just get the hired gardner to do it and then put it on expenses?

 

[Mick P]

Doesn't one just get the hired gardner to do it and then put it on expenses?

Tony

You have heard me on the phone - I be a yokel.

I have a 55 ft long pergola at the back of the house and the wisteria covers it as well as two walls.

It is a 5 hour job to prune it, but I do a Prince Charles and talk to the plant as I am pruning it. Gardening purifies the soul.

Regards

Mick

 

[AndrewM]

Sopmetime in the future some poor bloke is going to google on how to prune his wisteria and wonder how the hell he landed in a thread about the ethics of hi-fi journalism, Aint't the internet wonderful!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The simple fact is that the internet is a massively convenient way of gleaning information, be it on hifi, cameras, cars or whatever.

Problem with the internet is the large amount of dross which is just as easily available as the gems. The lack of editorial control, or even basic self-censorship in some cases, means that any idiot with an opinion can gain as much attention as anybody with actual knowledge and relevant experience.

OK, so it's probably easy enough to play spot the nutter when you're looking for info on pruning Wisteria (he's the one in the You Tube clip with a chainsaw and a gleam in his eye...), but less so if you're looking for consumer advice. The anonymity of online fora means you don't know if a bad review is an honest opinion, or a work of an ex-employee with a grudge.

And then, there's the topics which daren't speak their name. How much useful information about Nordost cables, or pretty much any sort of expensive mains leads, would you expect a new poster to get if he put a query up on here, for example? Oh, he'd get shedloads of replies, but if he didn't get maimed in the crossfire, he'd no doubt end up retiring hurt.

Magazines, at least, have an editorial stance, and real, identifiable individuals who are answerable for their words and may be called upon to justify them, if necessary. That puts them at least one step up the food chain from PR touts.

 

[paskinn]

Full marks to Alan Sircom for having the guts to state his case....he doesn't get paid for it after all.Personally I think he is making a rod for his own back in seeing himself as some sort of 'defender' of the economic status of audio manufacturers.There are many reasons for the decline in the hobby, the main one simply being that there are a lot more rivals for people's time.The hobby is retreating into a small niche, but so what...much of modern life will be 'niched'.The internet does that, together with powerful economic trends. Embrace it, as has been pointed out, your forum writing is more interesting than the reviewing, where the press has been hijacked by an over-demanding industry.It's a kind of 'praise inflation'which undermines both press and manufacturers.
As for the vexed question of the ethics of some cable companies, supported by fawning journalism, never has the comment 'buyer beware' been more apt.That's freedom of choice, it's the freedom to make both good and bad choices after all.But you won't find this particular hobbyist spending his money like that.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan why not try and gain back some credibility by actually putting audio myths to the test, you know like you promised you would on your first week on the job then patently failed to deliver over the next 12 months...

Or maybe do something to help out those fledging brands in audio, the small guys just scraping by based on ingenuity and service quality, rather than those making it big and leaving a mark of your monthly advertising budget.

Honestly just think what what you could do for the UK hifi industry if you covered one small brand each issue. Go on do it for the UK, let's make Britain Great again...

I tried debunking audio myths with the "HiFi Heretic" column, as a kind of stalking horse. Sadly, less than a year in, I had to drop the column because too many readers complained, and did so above my pay grade. Grumpy old men know how to complain, and wealthy grumpy old men got wealthy by knowing precisely whose chain to yank.

Where possible, I do try to include new brands that don't have the recognition and advertising spend, although I try to include them at price points that reflect the balance of the magazine. The CAD 1543 DAC is a perfect example of that. I tend not to review products from brands that are openly hostile to the magazine, however.

The difficulty we face with some of the very small brands is they perceive hostility where there is none. I'd like to review one of the 'Class T' micro amplifiers, but the companies behind them are convinced that we'll use their products to promote more high-end devices. This isn't the case, but I stand to lose whatever the conclusions from such a device - if it's a giant killer, those who still like their giants get upset, if it isn't, I'll be accused of maintaining the status quo.

But to that end, I'm also trying to expand that remit beyond the high-end in discovery products. The next one I have lined up is the excellent Just Audio PHA-120D portable USB-DAC headphone amplifier. It's these products where the excitement lies; small, cheap, British-made products that use surprisingly good parts and sound excellent. We need more of these, and I'm happy to test them. That we also need the patronage of regular advertisers and the reviews they require to stay regular advertisers is a function of modern commercial reality.

 

[Teddy Ray]

I'm sticking with HIFI+ till they reach issue 100 then calling it quits. The quality of writing took a nose dive when Gregory left. Even though I could never trust a word he said his writing was exquisitely constructed and always a joy to read.

i prefer audio eXpress. no nonsense.

 

[Singslinger]

Just a small postscript about Stereophile - I have no technical knowledge so measurements are lost on me, but I value that they allow manufacturers to respond and in many cases, include additional information for potential end users. So yes, I am a subscriber.

 

[Teddy Ray]

You can chase your idea of quality all you like but magazines have to survive, or you get nothing. They have to keep all sides reasonably happy.

I don't view any of them as comics.

Maybe not comics, but definitely not anything other than entertainment...well save for the stereophile measurement section.....which is what all mags should do.

 

[Tony L]

I find it disappointing how little measurement pro-audio magazines do too - I spent ages trying to read-up on active speakers a year or so ago and if anything they are flimsier and less informative than the typical hi-fo rag. Lots of words, but little actual information beyond what colour it is and what socket it has on the back. No measurements at all.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Full marks to Alan Sircom for having the guts to state his case....he doesn't get paid for it after all.Personally I think he is making a rod for his own back in seeing himself as some sort of 'defender' of the economic status of audio manufacturers.There are many reasons for the decline in the hobby, the main one simply being that there are a lot more rivals for people's time.The hobby is retreating into a small niche, but so what...much of modern life will be 'niched'.The internet does that, together with powerful economic trends. Embrace it, as has been pointed out, your forum writing is more interesting than the reviewing, where the press has been hijacked by an over-demanding industry.It's a kind of 'praise inflation'which undermines both press and manufacturers.
As for the vexed question of the ethics of some cable companies, supported by fawning journalism, never has the comment 'buyer beware' been more apt.That's freedom of choice, it's the freedom to make both good and bad choices after all.But you won't find this particular hobbyist spending his money like that.

The big point is "I don't get paid for it". It's a nice idea using my powers for good, but becoming the audio version of Batman is only possible if you have Bruce Wayne's bank balance. So, I get to be the Joker, instead.

The commercial constraints of running an audio magazine in today's climate (especially, paradoxically, in the UK because we have a culture of buying at newsstand rather than on subscription, and that means paying healthy financial tribute to WHS) make it all-but impossible to deliver a product that does anything different in print and online. Wigwam appears to be beginning to struggle under these demands - reviews bring site traffic, which bring increased hosting costs, which bring a greater demand for advertising to cover those costs, which bring with them horse-trading requests for reviews to support advertising. Naturally, if the reviews are strongly negative, the advertising support disappears and if too many reviews are too negative, all advertising gets hard to come by.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I find it disappointing how little measurement pro-audio magazines do too - I spent ages trying to read-up on active speakers a year or so ago and if anything they are flimsier and less informative than the typical hi-fo rag. Lots of words, but little actual information beyond what colour it is and what socket it has on the back. No measurements at all.

One of the other things to bear in mind is measurement costs. The magazines that measure tend to have the measurement at the logistical core of the magazine. Products are delivered to the head office, where they are measured by the editor/publisher and often photographed, before being sent to the reviewer, and then collected by the manufacturer.

The wheels come off the wagon because in most magazines, the logistics budget has been cut. We no longer have a regular courier company because of this, and products are sent straight from manufacturer to reviewer and back again. I don't see many of the products reviewed by the rest of the team, they don't even arrive at the office, because we'd incur additional costs of shipping them to the reviewer. Unless each one of your reviewers has their own test gear and knows how to use it, and use it consistently, you are unlikely to get many products measured.

Given also the general 'huh?' factor toward measurement in the wider readership (which has reached the recording industry, because a lot of it now is bedroom studio stuff), it's a cost most publishers try desperately to cut because they fail to see the benefit. Unless, that is, the publisher is the measurement guy. But that only happens in audio now.

 

[Alan Sircom]

I was referring to the article as a whole. You try and give the impression of being objective/critical, with minor comments like the above about a non-DR hicap, but overall the article is just a big PR/propaganda piece for the Naim DR. I found the entire article a blatant piece of propaganda to be honest. Strong on one sided opinions and completely lacking in any substance. Just a lot of rhetoric.

So precisely how would you approach the same review? Given you came up with the same conclusions I did, what would you do differently?

Seriously. I'm intrigued to see what you would do differently.

I was told not to review the product not long after I received it because of unprecedented response by Naim people. I even credited the modders with getting there first (and that has really, really pissed off one of the Naim faithful). I guess I could have compared it to one of the aftermarket PSUs, but given the reaction to even mentioning the nodders, I'm not sure I'd benefit from comparing one to the vaulted Salisbury one. Not in a financial way, more a some random flat-earther stitching my testicles to the inside of my mouth way.

I'd like to see what you'd do, under the circumstances.