Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Magazines Revisited
Message-ID: <732@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Aug-84 02:44:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.732
Posted: Fri Aug 31 02:44:56 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Aug-84 01:25:55 EDT
References: <163@whuxl.UUCP>, <203@olivej.UUCP> <374@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 36

> Stereo Review is, admittedly, down on high-end equipment.

From what I've seen, they don't seem to be down on ANYTHING, at least in
what they review specifically.

>Their reviews admittedly, range from quite good to amazingly
>magnificently excellent.  They don't print reviews of bad equipment,...

The first statement is correct--the Pollyanna attitude is common among the
more popular hifi mags but more noticeable in Stereo Review.  The second
statement is questionable at best.  They don't print bad reviews--you have
to infer that a product is bad by finding a lack of exceptional goodness
noted in the review.

>...and I can see a couple of reasons for this: (1) They don't want to be
>sued by the manufacturers for poor testing and bad publicity, and (2)
>[which is their official reason] they can only print so many reviews a
>month (5 or 6), and they'd rather tell people what *is* a good buy...

Reason (1) comes closer to the mark, but still misses.  I can see a much
more obvious reason:  They don't want to lose advertising money from the
manufacturers.  If you made equipment, would you advertise in a magazine
that had panned your latest product?

Don't get me wrong...this is a big problem with ALL the popular rags (the
esoteric ones generally having different problems:-).  For a superb example
of another one, find the August '84 issue of Audio.  The cover features
"Accuphase Amp/Preamp:  Stunning Cosmetics...Hot Performance".  Now, if
applying the phrase "stunning cosmetics" to a $7100 combination isn't
damning by faint praise, I don't know what is.  Moreover, if you read the
report you find that they discovered some moderately serious misbehavior at
high power--"mutual conduction" in the output stage.  I suppose that gives
"hot performance"???
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.