Collective letter s to Stereophile

Joe: I agree that Kal's writing style is different than some of the other writers that we are used to reading in Stereophile. Having said that, i think that Kal tries to convey specific ideas more than he worries about making his words "float off the page", etc... It is always nice when you can find someone that can do both "convey" AND "entertain". Unfortunately, most that are good at "entertaining" aren't quite as good at "conveying" hard-core data and vice-versa. You have to remember, Kal is a Professor and he probably writes in the same manner that he teaches i.e. "just the facts".

As to your comments about having multiple people reviewing similar types of equipment, try taking a look at this Stereophile based thread over on AA. Pay close attention to my responses to "Grooves" as i say much the same thing that you do here.

I find it interesting that Mr Fremer, Kal and John Marks have all responded to this Agon / AA thread, but we've not heard a peep from the "head honcho". I would really love to hear his thoughts on the suggestions that i've made as to how to stream-line and "clean up" the reviewing process. I'm not holding my breath though... Sean
>

I find it interesting that several responses to this thread and to others have commended Audiogon for offering consumers the opportunity to give their non-biased reviews of their equipment. One post above reads, "Listen to the folks here on AudioGon who paid good money out of their pocket for their gear and have no vested interest."

I can't help but wonder, however, if those reviews are truly non-biased or without a vested interest. I find that there is a natural and understandable tendency for a buyer to support the gear that he or she has purchased. We do not like to believe that we may have made a mistake. Or, if we recognize that we made a mistake, we may not want to undercut the market value of our own equipment with a negative post, just when we are contemplating putting that equipment up for resale on Audiogon. In any event, like manufacturers, like distributors, like retailers, like the magazines, we all have a vested interest of some sort. I do not believe, however, that this in and of itself makes a review invalid. Every review by its nature is biased, whether of financial bias or simply based on the life experiences of the reviewer. The trick is to recognize the limitations as well as the value of every review.

I find it amusing that 'Grooves' chooses a path of righteous indignation when customers complain, rather than listening and responding thoughtfully. Way to go, Sport, put another nail in that Stereophile coffin!

Mprime: Cut Mike some slack. He came over here after getting worked up in another thread. As such, i'm sure that he was not "thinking elegantly". It's easy to spew "less than polite" responses when someone stepped on your "tallywhacker" : ) Sean
>

Sean,

Clearly, there are some harmonics I'm missing. While I examined the AA thread, my take was that it was a dogpile on you. Why you'd defend 'Grooves' is lost on me. So instead, I'll state it clearly, from my perspective.

These Sphile guys are confused on who their customer is. They may think it to be JA, but, in fact, it is us: the consumer. Hence, the credibility of their distribution outlet - whether they like it or not - reflects on them as content providers. Plainly said, Sphile has a *serious* credibility gap. In forums such as these, they have a chance to listen to a lead user group and adapt, or not, at their peril. At the end of the day, such online forums represent the future look of their distribution channel. They might want to consider this - especialy when they attack people of proven crediblity (such as yourself) on these forums.

Enough, I preach.

Peace,

Lee