Mainstream reviews-why so few?

as a reviewer, i have complete control over what i review, so i review products i think i might like or products which are interesting.

i admit to my preferences. i like panel speakers, so i would pass up most box designs.

i suspect that i am in a unique position. my editor lets me review whatever i want.

i think that companies that sell direct get less attention than companies which have a dealer network.

i think its hard for a mainstream publication to ignore certain products even if the manufacture does not advertise.

as others have stated, the combination of no advertising dollars and going direct decreases the odds of a review.

as others have stated, the combination of no advertising dollars and going direct decreases the odds of a review.
Mrtennis (Threads | Answers)

You would hope that same combination greatly reduces the cost to the consumer creating a much higher value than conventionally marketed mainstream alternatives. In other words, if I can allow myself to make purchases without reviewer endorsement, I may very well get a lot more for my money.

"i admit to my preferences. i like panel speakers, so i would pass up most box designs" As the proud owner of GMA speakers (Europa's mentioned as the topic speaker and the new Calypso's) I can tell you in no uncertian terms that these are nothing like "most box designs" I'm relatively certian others who have heard them would wholeheartedly agree. In fact, they are quite "Stat-like" in the mids and highs as they are all first order crossovers, thus time and phase coherent, but have better bass. These speakers are designed from the sound molecules at your ear backwards to find the size of the drivers, crossover point(s) etc using peer reviewed physics, not a one-size-fits-all computer program. That alone should get them reviewed in the major mags, as I know of no other speaker designer doing this. The designers of "Most box designs" (not all) find drivers that they like, use a computer program to find cabinet sizes, slope and frequency of the crossover and basically hope they sound good in the customers room. They "smooth out" any major frequency deviations using additional crossover parts, which alter the original waveform. HUGE difference. HUGE! I'm hoping someday others will join 6moons.com in "discovering" GMA speakers. This company deserves to be heard. The designer deserves more publicity in my opinion. We cannot allow people in the audio world with great minds like Roy Johnson to stop making products because bigger company's have more capitol. I know we would all suffer if that happened. I am VERY passionate about that last statement. The company did have one review in Stereophile years ago of the "Diamante" model, a sub $5K 3way floor stander. They reviewed it very favorably, by the way. Since that time, Roy has cracked the time domain physics and his speakers have improved dramatically as a result.

I have a lot of respect for Roy Johnson but I am lost as to just what "sound molecules" might be.
Also find myself wondering about this new buzz about "time and phase coherent" being the result of first order crossovers. Aren't the many single-driver designs going to be perfectly time and phase coherent because they are point sources using no crossover?

Agree with Macro, seems the most 'well respected speakers:" I've heard (Big ad campaigns) can't hold a candle next to Tyler's , who spends not a dime on "promoting"
hehe
Now think about it. Isn't life, just like THAT.??
:-)

The mags are not our friends. I avoid the stereo mags like the plague.