Editorial

Editorial for August 2011


Published on August 1, 2011






To be one of the dozen AUDIOPHILE AUDITION readers during this month who will receive the special 3-CD set of 11 varied works by the late composer Viktor Kalabis, all you need to do is register this month using our simple non-intrusive email-protected form Here. The works range from the sunny and optimistic piano concerto to a darker symphony and a lovely Divertimento for Winds. Performers include keyboardist Suzana Kuzickova and the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra under Vaclav Neumann. Most are recorded premieres in authoritative performances – all digitally remastered. The 12 winners will be announced here in September.

Here are the dozen lucky winners of the two Opus 3 SACDs which was our July drawing/giveaway:  Randy Hart, Cave Creek AZ; Alan Craig, Grand Junction CO; Richard Rogers, League City, TX; Gary Mintz, Washington DC; Fred Nick, Seattle WA; Michael Durio, Opelousas LA; Alan Norberg, Warwick NY; Larry Rau, Granbury TX; Teresa Goodwin, Reno NV; Roger Yin, Ft. Atkinson WI; Alan Fong, Stockton CA; Leonard Ray, Southgate MI. Congrats to all!


~ Guest Editorial ~
 
The Vinyl Anachronist, by Marc Phillips

Me, Myself and I, the Audio Reviewer

Would you believe me if I told you that I recently went for two years without reading a single audio magazine?

It’s true. When I moved to Texas and sold the bulk of my reference system, I focused my energy elsewhere for a while. I let my subscriptions–some of which I maintained since the ’80′s–lapse. But in the last few months I’ve re-immersed myself in the audio industry with a vengeance, and I grabbed a few months’ worth of my old audio mags and feasted on reviews of the latest gear. I came away thinking that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Computer audio has definitely changed the hi-fi landscape; most of these reviews contained the words "USB," "192 Hz" and "FLAC" in nearly every other sentence. Then again, a quick survey of introductory paragraphs yielded the same old same old: I still watched reviewer after reviewer discuss getting the assignment from the editor (was this ever an interesting way to begin an article?), and I witnessed the same well-worn discussions of tubes vs. transistors, direct drive vs. belt drive and floorstanding speakers vs. bookshelf monitors. I decided that despite my self-imposed hiatus from all things audio, I hadn’t really missed much.

I’m certainly not trying to diss the audio scribes. These are, after all, tough days for reviewers. A perfunctory glance through Internet discussion groups reveals that these poor souls don’t get any love from users, hobbyists, music lovers and old-fashioned audio guys. If you were an alien who landed on earth and tried, from a few discussion threads, to gauge the usefulness of audio journalism, you’d come away from your interplanetary visit thinking that most of these guys are crooked, misinformed… or both. I should know, since I did it for several years and took my share of scathing critiques.

Yes, Virginia, there is some hanky-panky when it comes to audio reviews. For instance, I know of one online mag that published reviews (usually touted as "World’s First Review!" or something equally hyperbolic) that were written from a chair in a room at an audio trade show. I know another that is basically a one-man show that fleshes out its masthead with pseudonyms to give the impression of a huge, distinguished staff of audio writers. But to be honest, that’s the distinct minority, and most audio journalists are knowledgeable, honest writers who know how to evaluate audio equipment.

All of this came to a head, however, when I heard one of these print reviewers trash his cyber-colleagues by dismissing online audio publications as a whole. "These guys are writing about themselves more than they are writing about the product. It’s ‘me, me, me.’" It’s just bad writing." Originally I was offended by this statement because I’ve been accused once or twice of doing the same thing (just check MY introductory paragraph above for a nice example). I was even more offended when I read the latest review from this individual and counted four "I"s and two "my"s in the first two sentences alone. In another review, I watched this same person insert an excited comment about being recognized at a concert, which had absolutely nothing to do with the product being reviewed. But I started thinking about what he said, and how it reflects the art of writing about audio.

When I wrote for audio magazines, I was often called–much to my dismay–a journalist. I didn’t like the moniker because it suggested a certain objectivity about the review process. To a certain extent, reviewers are journalists when they’re discussing what a product does and doesn’t do. When you’re talking about features, the history of the manufacturer or the technology involved, you have to get your facts straight (the vast majority of print publications have a fact-checking and editing department just as diligent as any magazine). But once you start talking about the sound of a product, it’s all about perception. Remember, our brains are wired different. Every person does not hear in exactly the same way. We all have different tastes in music reproduction as well. That’s when strict journalism flees from the room and op-ed makes its grand appearance.

I remember being told that when I wrote one column, I could talk about anything I wanted. When I wrote a review, however, I had to stick to the facts. "Listen and report only what you hear," was the mantra. But what if I had hooked up the product improperly? What if it wasn’t designed to work well with the other components in my system? What if I had just spent the afternoon mowing the lawn before I decided to listen to a product–with my utterly compromised hearing? Like I said, it’s hard to remain a journalist sometimes.

As I learned from my perusal of recent articles, the formula has remained the same when it comes to equipment reviews. Audio reviewers are presumed to be experts once they get past that introductory paragraph. Their personalities are no longer required. I’m not sure I agree with that. I want to know more about the person reviewing, such as their personal tastes in music or gear. Am I on the same page when it comes to expectations? There’s no way to know unless these writers drop the pretense of absolute objectivity and start inserting a little of themselves into the review. That’s when they become truly useful to their audience. They’re not robots, after all.

The best audio reviewers in my opinion–Corey Greenberg, Art Dudley, Sam Tellig and Michael Fremer–always include a little of themselves into every sentence. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, approaches his reviews with a foundation of technical knowledge and still manages to be entertaining and informative. So does Robert Harley of The Absolute Sound, as well as many, many others. A reviewer simply cannot remove themselves from the review process and still connect with the readers. They have to use a few me’s, myself’s and I’s in order to be honest. I know one reviewer who insists on using a second person narrative in his reviews–everything is "you place the needle on the record" and "you set the anti-skating." But you are not doing anything, he is. It comes off as stilted and bizarre.

I know that most of the writers I listed come from Stereophile, which makes me sound a little biased toward the publication. Frankly, there are some online publications–Positive Feedback Online and 6 Moons for example–that exercise the same high standards of writing. But Stereophile (along with The Absolute Sound and most of the British hi-fi magazines) has always been at the top of the heap when it comes to audio reviews, and therefore, they’re not as worried about making the advertisers in their magazine happy. If you don’t believe me, then check out the fireworks in the Manufacturer’s Comments section in a few selected issues. If you see a rave review of a product, and an advertisement of that same product on the next page–something you do see on some online publications–then you probably should be a little suspicious.

For the most part, audio reviewers do get it right. They’re not all dishonest hacks, like they’re portrayed on the audio forums. But they are not–in the strictest definition of the word–journalists. They’re human beings just like you. Like I mentioned in my column, Listen for Yourself, an audio review should be a starting point for your own search for the perfect audio component. It should, and never will be, the final word. It’s all about you, yourself and yours. 


[Reprinted with permission of Perfect Sound Forever]


EDITORIAL
 
AUDIOPHILE AUDITION began in 1985 as a weekly national radio series hosted by John Sunier, which aired for 13 1/2 years on up to 200 public radio and commercial stations coast to coast. In September 1998 its site for programming information was expanded to the present Internet publication.
 
August 2011 is our 149th issue, and features improved navigation and enhanced appearance. We’re also publishing more and more disc reviews. All of them – usually well over 100 – are added throughout the month as they are written and received, normally daily. The most recent reviews appear at the top of each Section Index. The Home Page lists the five latest published reviews, the Section Index lists the past two months of reviews, the Archive goes back to June 1, 2005, and for all reviews by month prior to that you need to click on the Old Archive, which goes back to 2001. The Disc Index lists all past reviews. We will soon be switching to an improved Word Press site.
 
You probably have some friends who would like to know about AUDIOPHILE AUDITION.  Please pass on our URL and help expand our elite group of readers and collectors. It’s easy to do at the bottom of every review, by just clicking on the "Email this page to a friend" link. Thanks in advance for getting the word out!
And
remember that every time you purchase a disc via our Amazon buttons,
you are also making a small contribution to AUDIOPHILE AUDITION.


We welcome your feedback, and we have a Reader Feedback section. Please send us your comments, and we will review and possibly post them. Check with us frequently for more reviews and news, and be sure to register for our monthly giveaways! When you do, please give us all the non-intrusive requested facts, and include your first and last name, Email and street address – otherwise we can’t send you your winning item!  We don’t ask financial details, and we never share your information with anyone else.

 – The AUDIOPHILE AUDITION staff


 
We have an affiliation with an exciting AV online forum for those who would like to share with others your views, news, questions and answers about music, audio and home theater. Currently well over 4000 register members participate; it’s like having your own AV club online. And it’s free! Have fun interconnecting!




STAFF WRITERS:
Dalia
Geffen, Laurence Vittes, Tom Gibbs,
Gary
Lemco, Brian Bloom, Clay Swartz, John Henry, Peter Bates, Ronald
Legum, Paul Pelon IV, Calvin Harding Jr.,
Birney Brown, Jeff Krow, Daniel Krow, Ethan Krow, Hermon Joyner, Bob Moon, Steven Ritter, Randy Haldeman, Max Dudious, Howard Herrnstadt, John Nemaric, Doug Simpson, Peter Joelson, Michael Birman, Patrick P.L. Lam, Brian Whistler, Lee Passarella,, Robbie Gerson, Daniel Coombs, Tim Taylor, Pierre Giroux, Robin Margolis, John Sunier.


  © John Sunier 2011 

AV Rant is a podcast featuring a guy and a girl discussing AV topics in an informative but entertaining show. Try it out – there is only one other AV-based podcast out there.
If
you appreciate the unique audio reviews and information we bring you
free of charge, please patronize our sponsors. Simply click on their
banners, find their Contact Us link, and leave a short message
expressing
your thanks for their continued support of AUDIOPHILE AUDITION





on this article to AUDIOPHILE AUDITION!

Email this page to a friend.   View a printer-friendly version of the article.


Copyright © Audiophile Audition   All rights Reserved