Rules on Review...

I hope as this review formatt roles out we will see some less flattering reviews.<<<<

Funny you wrote that.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr_memb.pl?0&1&listrevs&zzJadem6

Ohlala, I'm not sure what your saying. I'm assuming it has to do with the reviews I've written so far are very favorable of the equipment I own. I have tried to be clear regarding equipment I've used that was not as good in my system.

In the future I and others (hopefully all of us) will be reviewing other equipment that is not part of "our" reference systems. I am in the process of evaluating a Cary 300B amp right now. I would be further along except one of the tubes needs replacing. That will be the first of a few less than flattering things I've found when compared to my system.

The intent I had was to first write a review of all my equipment. This is background for future reviews. Audiogon is trying to promote others to do the same so that equipment can be reviewed with no strings attached. I believe we at Audiogon have the oprutunity to be the first "honest" review site using the increadable depth of knowledge we have here. I incourage everyone to particapate.

Some reviews are fairly straight forward and provide great insight. If a reviewer is writing about a new CD player and all other components used in the evaluation are the same then I can reference other reviews and begin to form an opinion. So much of the performance of other components has to do with synergy. Power cords and interconnects all have a huge impact on ones impression with the product they are reviewing. This must be difficult to control. Therein lies the problem. At least a retailer has the opportunity to mix and match components from the display models to form their own opinions. Those of us with a single system are at a disadvantage to really compare.

I agree that the rags cater to the big advertisers. I also agree that the Audiogon review format needs improvement but I don't consider myself qualified to make suggestions. I read the Audiogon reviews and glean a few nuggets along the way. I'm writing a review that won't be all compliments and it's taking way more time than I thought it would because I'm being careful to make comparisons of three combinations.

If you are fortunate enough to live in an area with retailers that allow prolonged listening in their stores and encourage in-home auditions with pieces that are burned in then the job is made much easier. You can rely on your ears and focus your research on product reliability, etc. For us in the boondocks the reviews are very helpful even if not perfect.

Yes, you were clear on your other equipment, but to review a component you have to know how it does with a multiple other components(systems) in addition to comparing it to same-type components, including those that are better than it in certain areas, and in addition to unrecorded sound/music. If not you end up sounding like a child describing his/her xmas present, or S.T. Even some of the revered reviews are just better written, elongated, sugar-coated versions of what posters are complaining about. Everyone is still learning, though, and its not like mine is exactly quality. It will be mildly interesting to see the reviews a year or so from now.

Cynics will point their fingers at magazines but come on, does anyone really think they care so little about their own livelihood and credibility that they will write reviews to sell ad space. If a magazine reviews a piece that is not what it is claimed to be the consumer will hear it when they go to the store to buy it. Who cares what magazine got a big ad budget after, or before a review. That is completely off of the point. Magazines will go out of business if they adopt a policy like the ones suggested in earlier comments. Pure selfishness would prevent it. Magazine writers like to eat too. I don't read many of the HiFi mags anymore and when my last subscription to Stereophile expires I will not renew it. I can learn about as much from some of the knowledgeable people on AudiogoN as I can from the rags. The problem is knowing which people to ignore but I'm learning that too.
Another reason for the positive reviews in the mags might be the case that so much of what is available is really pretty good equipment. Whether the reader likes a piece by a company ultimately does not effect the quality of the product. Some stupid people will automatically trash a piece of gear because they don't like the company or their advertising budget but that trashing doesn't change the quality of the equipment it points out the trashers foolishness. I have never owned a CJ piece but I assume they make pretty good stuff since lots of other people like it.
Back to AudiogoN, reveiwers here are not paid for their writing. They paid to be able to write it. The reason for favorable reviews is fairly obvious to the wise: people bought the equipment because they auditioned it and thought it sounded good enough to spend their limited budget. It would be unethical to review something that the author has not spent a significant ammount of time auditioning in their own home. This precludes, for the most part, the possibility of reviews by people who have not invested their cash in the item. It has nothing to do with advertising budgets or magazine articles. Has anyone ever bought a piece of gear based on the quality of an ad??? I doubt it but I must concede it is possible.