Candy Coated Articles

[Maximo]

For years I have enjoyed such magazines as Stereo Review/Sound and Vision. I''''ve also sporatically picked up others as well as held (or hold) subsciptions to competing mags. I''''ve always thoroughly enjoyed every last page, except for one notion. The notion that reviewers are afraid to give a product too harsh of a review for the fear that they will no longer get samples from that company to review.<p>My most recent example would be Danial Kumin''''s article on the Anthem, Aragon, and Sunfire pre amplifiers. Not one negative thing was mentioned in the entire article. Now I will agree that they are all far superior a product to anything I will ever own. But there are faults to be seen and were not shared. Specifically, Mr. Kumin ends his article on how each of the three products would be great to own considering certain situations. But lets look at it like this, the Aragon Preamp had a LOT of less features and cost $500 & $600 more than the Sunfire and the Anthem, respectively. In that respect, the only situation where I would want the Aragon is if I wanted less and was willing to pay more, just because.<p>If they all sounded great, then using features, connections, and MSRP as a measuring tool between the three is a reasonable step. I think if a company makes a lesser product for a higher selling point then they should be chastized accordingly. In response they should (read: they''''d better) get it right next time. If I''''ve got four grand to spend on a preamp then I would prefer to buy something like the Anthem and two arms full of DVD''''s instead of just the preamp, and still didn''''t get as many features, connections, etc...<p>I''''m sorry, but I have seen this type of pandering for too long and I felt it needed to be brought out. Your magazine is, BY FAR, not alone in this. I''''m sorry, Danial that I had to use you as an example. Overall, I think you are great writer and this is not a personal fault, its an industry wide fault. Maybe I''''m alone in this, but I doubt it.<p>Scott Rohlf

[saea501]

Maximo: This is an EXCELLENT point. In all the years I have been involved in this business I have NEVER read a review that was other than glowing. Think about it, have you? And in all those years I have seen MANY products that were FAR less than stellar. Lord, I think of the CED player, the Rabco straight line turntables, quadraphonic. Yet as all of this stuff hit the market the magazines were slobbering all over it. This is precisely why I don''t read reviews any more because I know what they are going to say. It would be very refreshing to read a review that actually told the truth and said something to the effect that this particular product is tripe. This is certainly not to say that all new products are poor, but we all know that there have been some clinkers in the past and I''m sure there will be in the future. Try not to put much stock into reviews, as there is a tremendous amount of information BETWEEN the lines.

Don''t forget who the primary constinuencies are for these magazines: The advertisers. What worse way to lose an advertiser than to pan their products.<p>There''s definitely a conflict of interest in product reviews. Unfortunately, the interest tends to side where the $$$s are.

[Maximo]

Medina Huh? I''m originally from Ohio. How''s your weather?

[GreatDane]

I could be wrong, but I''m thinking that the review for the Apex universal player recieved less than favorable notes in the review.<p>Now I''ll have to dig out that issue.

[Captain_RJ]

If your referring to the Apex AD-7701 DVD-V/SACD/DVD-A player that David Ranada reviewed, that would be the February/March 2002 issue on pg 62.<p>Although SACD is a very loose term since as Mr. Ranada points out, the noise level performance was worse for SACD than it was for plain jane CD.

[saea501]

Maximo: Weather''s fair to crumby.......<br />It is interesting you are from Ohio. I used to live in Hendersonville.

[Steve-w]

I agree with the candy coated reviews , but they do point out flaws. If you can read between the lines you will almost always get the true view of the reviewer. <p> Among the best in its price point = good average<p> As good as some Ive heard that were much more expensive = excellent.<p> If they go out of there way to mention other brands in the same price range = below average<p>If they say this is a very poor performer in its price range and even below = sucks

[back alley]

my understanding of most consumer mags is that they do not review or print the reviews of lesser products.

[Yesfan70]

I just got through reading that article earlier today, and I feel the same way. Maybe you have to "read between the lines" as Steve suggests.<p>I felt the Aragon was no where near to what you would get with the Anthem and the Sunfire. The Aragon doesn''t even have an onscreen menu.

[Maximo]

Point 1). Yet it was the most expessive one of the bunch. I''ll agree you can''t sit there and say that it sucked. It didn''t. Its awesome. Just no in the same league as the other two.<p>Point 2). About the Apex. Yeah but it had to do everything but spew forth the proverbial smoke. I would have liked to see them say, this thing sucks, don''t waste your money. Other than, "It needs work."<p>Point 3). I should have to read between the lines. but I guess I am willing to do so to keep the manufacturers sending my reviewers the pieces that I want reviewed.<p>Oh, well. rolleyes.gif border=0

[MWP]

I reread the article over the weekend, & found it to be "light reading and enjoyable..."

[Yesfan70]

You have to admit Mrs. P. That Sunfire was a beauty to look at. I wouldn''t mind having that as my preamp.

[MWP]

Yesfan70: You know I''m a sucker for that neon blue look! -LOL- But I was quite surprised that the Sunfire III was offered without the new THX. Actually, I felt better about my Mac MX132 & decided I really didn''t need to upgrade to the MX134 for all the new bells & whistles...

[hifichip76]

I agree with the point of this thread. However, Home Theater Magazine has gotten much worse about this than S&V. Since Brent Butterworth left, that mag turned to a PR book. David Ranada is, I think, the most reliable reviewer around right now. He still uses a somewhat scientific method, and is pretty thorough. However, as I''ve said many times- a review is not worth much unless it tells you all the associated equipment used!! This is one thing I prefer about Stereophile and SGHT.

[Maximo]

Very good point! HTM has not been the same since BB has left. And you are equally correct about S&V being the best out there. That''s why I subscribe.

[Cargui]

I too read this article over the past week.<p>It is similar with the automobile mags. Just as with audio/video publications, advertisers float these publications, plain and simple. For most magazines, the cover price (let alone the significantly reduced annual subscription rate) does not even cover the cost of printing. The vast majority of the magazine''s revenue is derived from advertising. <p>This is why, in some industries, professional subscriptions are free. They make it clear: 100% of their revenues come from advertisers and they can afford to GIVE AWAY the publication to attract eyeballs that in turn attract more advertisers. <p>My personal mentliaty toward the A/V magazines is agenda settings. They are simply telling me that certain features are found on particular models and that these models even exist. I learn about new technologies and how they are being implemented, but not necessarily who is implementing them the best or who has some really lousy features. How did you learn about Dolby Surround? When was the first time you heard of Dolby Digital? DPL II? 5.1 surround? 7.1 surround? The Sunfire brand? Probably a magazine.<p>The paradox is the advertising scenario. If advertisers pay for magazines, there is obviousy an invisible pressure on the publications to not criticize their products. The same scenario exists in computer magazines. PC World and PC Magazine rarely say bad things about Microsoft software, a major advertiser. And when they do, it is kept to a minimum. <p>When I was a teenager, my father subscribed to several boating magazines (he was into sailing). He suffered the same problem: everything was great and no product had problems. He then found and subscribed to a newsletter that refused advertising. It was only 8-12 pages per month and very plain (no color whatsoever and mediocre photos), but it did *comprehensive* comparisons between products, from rope to deck cleaner to boat shoes. No product was ever described as perfect and rarely even great. Total (and refreshing) lack of hype. It was always, "this product is a bit better than this one based on X." The objective reporting and analysis was wonderful. This newsletter was relatively expensive: about $80 per year. This was in the early ''80s.<p>My question: are there similar types of newsletters for the A/V world? Publications that are relatively expensive and accept no advertising are the ONLY way to get objective reporting. Period. As long as I can subscribe to Road & Track magazine for $11/year, I can''t criticize their objectivity. <p>Cargui<p>< October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Cargui ></p>

[Maximo]

I would have to agree with you there Cargui. I would MUCH rather prefer to have to read between the lines then lose my $12 a year subscription price. After all it was these very same magazines that taught me to be able to do so. Point well taken.<p>Scott

[Barney]

Cargui, I couldn''t say it any better. These mags were my source for my hunger for info. I still went out to do hands-on. Have you checked out Perfect Vision? They sure knocked down a HDTV in the last issue. wink.gif border=0

[Bob]

I was just going to say that the Perfect Vision mag was more objective than any other that I have read. <p>In regards to the fact that the advertisers hold up the magazine, I want it for free then. We pay a subscription price, remember. I would be willing to pay more for more objective reviews so the mag didn''t have to pander to the advertisers as much or at all.

[Cargui]

Thanks, Maximo. Trust me, I share your sentiment. Sometimes the pussy footing around in the equipment reviews just makes you want to scream. I guess, for me personally, knowing WHY always helps. And being relatively new to home theater, I like most of the ads; they help me get a feel for the market. <p>It could be worst: we could be the journalist who reviews a lousy component and can''t say it totally sucks!<p>Barney, Bob: I''m going to head out this afternoon and pick up a copy of The Perfect Vision and a couple other A/V mags I''ve heard highly recommended. <p>I currently subscribe to S&V and Stereophile. I love Stereophile, but wish they would violate their name and cover surround sound and home theater. Like most of us, I can justify the money for little of what they review or advertise. I read it to gain an education and understand the entire market (turntables, tube amps, and all). Not what I pine for, but it''s part of the world of audiophilia. <p>Which leaves me with only one "usable" publication where I can actually purchase a DVD they recommend (like S&V''s promotion of Monsters, Inc.) or consider purchasing a component they review (for example, a Rotel component, a Mitsu RPTV, or some medium-level B&W speakers). <p>Cargui