In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by TomLarson on April 28, 2007 at 13:59:00:
"....even if Stereophile doesn't pay some of their writers big bucks (or any bucks) they have the circulation and advertising to pull in equipment for review...."All you have to do to clearly see that e-zines like 6 Moons, Soundstage, Enjoy the Music, PF, even Stereo Times have no problem getting equipment in for review is to go to those sites. Not only have they already reviewed a lot of equipment and have an endless stream of gear coming in, they often review interesting components/spkrs which due to JA's policies (5 U.S. dealer rule) S'phile ignores. You may find some reviews of products like the Mini Max, vintage turntables, and various TVC's etc. in print mags a year or two *after* they were reviewed in established e-zines. But unless things change, your grand-children will never see reviews of relatively inexpensive high quality products (NOT just kits) from well established companies like DIY HiFi Supply or Vacuum State in S'phile.
"The paper rags obviously were here first. Anybody can start a web site with very little cash and publish his ideas."
What difference does it make who was here first? A number of hifi print mags have died. There is certainly no sign that the e-zines I mentioned above are in danger of going under. Comparing established on-line audio publications to Uncle Joe's blog is silly, as even a cursory look at their archives, the products in for review, coming "attractions" and their advertising displays.
I'm not looking for Faulkner-esque prose in audio mags. Other than Marks and Dudley, nobody writing for print hifi mags is a particularly good writer anyway. I gag on lame "prose" and/or inept reviewing procedure displayed in print as well as on-line. Neither has a monopoly.
"....if I could only read one mag--Stereophile--or one onliner...."
There is no need to choose one or the other. I'm a long-time subscriber to S'phile and TAS, and usually either read HiFi+ in B&N or buy it. But I'm happy to have a variety of sources for audio info, including the e-zines I mentioned and AA.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You're entitled, but I disagree. - Rick W 09:04:28 04/29/07 (17)
- Re: You're entitled, but I disagree. - TomLarson 09:31:36 04/29/07 (16)
- Ahh, you ought to check facts before you type. - Rick W 11:27:24 04/29/07 (2)
- Re: Ahh, you ought to check facts before you type. - TomLarson 16:10:07 04/29/07 (1)
- Re: Ahh, you ought to check facts before you type. - jdouglas51 14:06:05 04/30/07 (0)
- Here is one reason why most reviews are postive & still readable - AmanteDiMusica 11:07:38 04/29/07 (12)
- Re: Here is one reason why most reviews are postive & still readable - Posy Rorer 09:44:44 04/30/07 (0)
- My point exactly--please the manufacturer or you're cut off. What good is that to a reader? nt - TomLarson 11:12:36 04/29/07 (10)
- Most of the reviews I read take the time - Bruce Kendall 11:47:59 04/29/07 (9)
- Re: Most of the reviews I read take the time - TomLarson 16:05:27 04/29/07 (8)
- Polk only has their high-end stuff submitted for review. - Bruce Kendall 16:24:12 04/29/07 (7)
- Re: Polk only has their high-end stuff submitted for review. - TomLarson 18:13:12 04/29/07 (6)
- In a nutshell - Bruce Kendall 11:17:04 04/30/07 (0)
- Your points aren't news. - Rick W 19:20:49 04/29/07 (2)
- the reviews aren't news. - jdouglas51 14:11:08 04/30/07 (0)
- Re: Your points aren't news. - TomLarson 19:26:18 04/29/07 (0)
- Polk... - David Clark 18:23:47 04/29/07 (1)
- Re: Polk... - TomLarson 19:28:37 04/29/07 (0)