Audiogon/Asylum and magazine reviewers posts

I agree with Tireguy. I do check in at AudioAsylum, but am not enamored with the layout of the site.

Yes, the discussion there is often detailed, but the layout of the site makes it much harder to keep the thread in the forefront for more than a day or two. You have to go back to the date the thread was created. Maybe this sounds trivial, but it is not as good as how this site is laid out.

If someone tries to knock either the discussion here, or the members, I will take issue with them. I can drop 10 names off the top of my head of people who really know what they are talking about here. Albert Porter, Asa, Brulee, Carl_eber, Dekay, Eldragon, Jcbtubes, Megasam, Natalie, Sdcampbell, Swampwalker, Sugrabrie, Tireguy, Tubegroover, Vtvu, the list goes on.

In my opinion, aside from the layout, the discussion here is also more to my liking. I enjoy tech talk, but I also like to read someone's opinions. The discussion here is much more well written. Very often, members here will write quite a well thought out post. The length of the post shows the thought, experience, dedication, and passion of the person. I just do not see that on Audio Asylum.

Perhaps, the writers at Stereophile feel threatened by those on Audiogon. I mean, basically anyone I listed above is more than capable of displacing any Stereophile reviewer. Are they intimidated?

No, we don't have Sam Tellig here. But, his contributions to AA are on the same level as the content of his articles in recent years. 9 times out of 10, his posts on AA are just a title, with no text(NT).

As far as Kalman Rubinson goes, I am happy he doesn't frequent here. It would only get me into disagreements with him. His writing style is definitely the most boring and dry I have ever come across in an audio magazine. And, judging from most of his reviews, we disagree in taste as well.

I do have to defend Kal in terms of the NYC HiFi Show, however. I saw him all over the place, and he seemed to be quite gracious to the people he ran into. I didn't introduce myself, as I am no fan of his articles. But, I must admit, he seemed to me to be a gentleman. Of course, others have stated that he was a boor, so I cannot comment on that.

I also saw Fremer more than once, and he looked like a real sourpuss. But, that might just be the way he looks.

Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but Trelja's post prompts me to comment on a sentiment I've seen expressed around here before: That most of - or at least a lot of - us A'goners could be Stereophile-calibre reveiwers. While I don't believe that there's anything uniquely special about most of those who have written for the magazine, and neither do I doubt that there are probably a few around these parts who could succeed well in that job, I think the general opinion I've found about this subject at A'gon tends to short-shrift the skill needed - and often displayed in Stereophile - to be a good reveiwer.

Personally, I do tend to be increasingly critical of the direction that magazine is taking, for a variety of reasons that I have expounded on in other posts, and so won't go into here. And yes, some of that criticism does have to do with the writing and reviewing work of individual contributors. I just want to say, however, that as many A'goners seem to be discovering in their own "reviews", writing cogently and entertainingly about component sound is apparently no easy task - and especially month after month, I would imagine. KR, for instance, while maybe not a paragon of writing excitement or wit, does a basically thorough and honest job, I feel; you can tell he puts a lot of effort into his work, and he is never less than intelligent and competent in his reporting. Ditto Brian Damkroger. Obviously, Michael Fremer is a better writer, Martin Colloms a better technician, and Chip Stern a better music critic; all of them make valuable contributions in one way or another. At all the magazines and webzines, I have read good and not so good writing, and have had complementary and not so complementary opinions of aspects of all the writers' work; there is no such thing as a perfect reviewer.

The great thing about a forum such as this is that contributors need make no apologies for their own biases and tastes, and opinion-mongering and humorous clashes can be diverting and fun to read, not to mention thought-provoking. But even the most well-informed and passionate among us need to admit, I think, that it's a different thing entirely - a balancing act, I suspect - to have to write publicly, on record, for a wide audience. A reviewer needs to build a certain amount of predictability into their work if they are to establish a credible base of information with their writing that consumers can draw upon. This may lead to a perception of boringness compared to the web forums, but it is essential, I think, to be down-to-earth and consistent, even reserved in some degree, if both consumers and manufacturers alike are going to have reason to take a reviewer seriously. The writing itself must be linear and logical, as well as correct and comprehensible - qualities often lacking somewhat not only on the forums, but also in some Webzines and smaller magazines. While there is certainly room for personality and taste, reviewers must walk a fine line, if they are to be believed, and which is akin to an art form; at its best, their work will not be controverted by a careful reader's reaching a different conclusion about any particular review subject.

My hunch is that "professional" reviewing is probably a tougher row to hoe successfully than we often give it credit for being, and that the very qualities that can make for stimulating writing on a forum are not necessarily what is desirable for a wide-circulation magazine reviewer. I suppose in an ideal world, all magazine reveiwers would be full-time audio writers, with educational and professional credentials in the literary, musical, and technical electronics fields. This describes John Atkinson, but not too many others - nor will it ever in the real world (and nor is it saving JA from making what I feel are either grave mistakes, or grave concessions, at his magazine, BTW). In short, I think it's easier to criticize the critics than it is to do what they do (not that we should all want to!). We can always have our opinions and our fun, and that includes the areas of audio reviewing and reviewers, but we ought to be cautious about positing that our Audiogon ramblings might somehow automatically qualify us as potential expert practitioners ourselves. If we tried it, we just might find that we weren't any less fallible than those whom we frequently heap our scorn upon.

Excellent post Zaikesman - I think you really nailed it, that there are a lot of people on this site who are experienced enough with audio to be a reviewer, but that being a reviewer requires having the whole package, including writing skills, endurance (ie, month after month), etc. I generally agree that there are at least several and perhaps many that _could_ become reviewers for one of the magazines, but it wouldn't happen overnight.

Personally, I think many of the people here who could become reviewers wouldn't, as I think it would suck a lot of the fun out of the hobby. -Kirk

Wow Zaikesman, that was the best writing I've seen around here in a while. Thanks for the great perspective.
I was sure you were Albert as I read your thoughts, he's the only other guy I know who is so eloquent.

One reason I rarely comment here is that there rarely is a need since you guys seem to be able to take care of yourselves just fine. It has nothing to do with any past accusation of boorishness since, frankly, I do not recall it.

I simply find it more fun to comment on AA where there is more 'shooting from the hip.'