Kal, do you not actually read the magazine?
Larry, I can certainly empathize with your position. Over the past several months, I have noticed your ads on the "3rd cover" - a new term for me. I can understand it does take up a considerable investment of yours.
It's a difficult question to address, as I can see the benefits of each side - should the companies who advertise, at considerable expense be given reviews? Or, is it best that the reviews are completely independent of the influx in advertising dollars?
I prefer the reviews to be independent of the advertising into the magazine, but were I an advertiser, would certainly want reviews and folks from the magazine stopping by my room at shows. I'm sure Coincident and Art Audio also feel like you.
To be honest, apart from the overabundance of some manufacturer's products being reviewed, I do not have much of an issue with what gets reviewed. My biggest problems lie with there seeming to be no checks and balances on the reviewers choosing which gear to review (I do hope I am wrong on this account), and the content of the reviews themselves.
Sam Tellig and Michael Fremer are mostly responsible for Musical Fidelity being totally out of proportion with the rest of the manufacturers in terms of how many of their products make it into the reviews. Sam's credibility certainly seems to be questionable when it comes what gets represented in the magazine. A dinner, a phone call, buddying up to him looks to produce ink for your product. Forget about no real information being contained therein - which most of the writers are more than guilty of. That being said, he is an entertaining writer, which the magazine certainly lacks. Would it not be easy to right the Sam Tellig ship? "Uh, Sam, no, I think maybe we should not do another MF preamp review. How about this ASL 1009, though? Oh, and about this CJ power amp review, it's pretty good, but I need a bit more in terms of what it did resolutionwise. Also, I know you glanced over this, but can you flesh out its 'relaxed nature' a bit more? Thanks so much..."
As part of this, the pigeonholing of reviewers to the equipment is something that doesn't appeal to me in the least. I'd like to see Kal review a turntable, Bob Reina do a $20K loudspeaker, Paul Bolin a $500 CD player, and on and on.
Again, my other issue with the reviews is what is contained in them. First, I must complement them on what they do well - physical description of the component, often with background on the company and/or product. From a sonic perspective, I come away with almost no idea of what the product is when all is said and done. Not only that, but so many times, what little conclusion that was reached has been the antithesis of what I hear (not as much of an issue, as we all hear different, but it does raise the issue of my confidence in their ears).
Further, the writing, for the most part, is flat out boring, Sam and Art Dudley excepted. Say what you will about Art, and I happen to think he is currently the best thing at Stereophile by far, but his writing engenders some sort of reaction from the reader - for or against him. While I have heard the argument, ad infinitum I might add, that reviews should contain "just the facts, ma'am", no editorializing on politics, personal things, the weather, etc., but I feel those who miss out on magazines being entertainment miss out on the big picture.
Just me, but Stereophile would do well to find more writers like Art Dudley, maybe throw the constipated right wingers whose faces grow red every time they read him a bone by hiring one whose leanings are more toward their bent. Do things that provoke some sort of emotion out of the reader beyond, "Oh, a JMlab/Triangle/CJ/Mac/MF review by Sam this month? Haven't seent that since last month..." And, push the writers to really focus on providing a picture for what the component actually sounds like.
Never thought I'd say this, but I kind of miss Jonathan Scull. While I have had my run ins with the prima donna, and have given him faint praise, he was informative, well written, entertaining, emotional about what he was doing, and most of all, he seemed to be able to describe a component very well sonically.
For what it's worth, my subscription is good until November, 2008. After which, presuming the magazine is still here, I'll re - up for another three years.
