Audiogon/Asylum and magazine reviewers posts

Zaikesman, I think that your opinion was very well stated. From what I have seen, you are an intelligent, well written audiophile.

And, that is simply my point.

I would have to include you in my list.

While I respect your post greatly, I do disagree. I do not hold that the reviewers of Stereophile are in their position because they are the best at what they do. In my opinion, their position is a result of many factors. Love for audio/music, education, determination in following the path of being an audio reviewer, etc. Ability to write well, organize thought, develop the tools required for the job, etc. are skills that I believe many on this site have. And, as important as anything in life, some of it is fate/luck. Yes, luck.

One trivial example about this type of thing happening every day in life I have is about great high school friend of mine. Mickey Pergine. He was the quarterback on my high school football team. He came from a long line of quarterbacks, his uncle is John Pergine, who was a star at Notre Dame I believe. Mickey was one heck of a quarterback. A cannon for an arm, fearless in battle, the unique ability to make the right decision in the heat of the moment, 6'3" - 210 lbs. He was a Philadelphia Inquirer choice for All Area QB.

So why does no one on this site besides me know who he is? Well, Mickey wasn't the best of students. And, he kind of liked to have fun. Too much fun. Somehow, somewhere, along the way, all that he was the prototype for never materialized. Instead of talking of him in the company of QBs that came out of this area, Rich Gannon, Matt Blundin, Steve Bono, and Glenn Foley, he is just some obscure person I am using in my trivial example.

I am the first to admit I review the reviewers. I critique the critics. This is a hobby that I love. Stereophile is a magazine that I love. I have been a more or less loyal supporter/subscriber since 1987. I put my money where my mouth is. My current round of being a subscriber began in 1998, and is paid for until 2005. In my mind, I have earned the right to say what is right with the magazine. And, also, what is wrong with the magazine.

I have a very low tolerance for incompetance at what is the paragon of our hobby. I do not genuflect at a reviewer. I am upset when Michael Fremer does not have a balanced interconnect. I am dumbfounded when he expresses surprise that an Audio Research power amp is bright or forward. I complain that John Atkinson is a slave to his measurements. I do not understand how tube equipment is not a part of the ancillary components he uses to evaluate audio components. I wonder how Sam Tellig can describe the sound of a component if he evaluates it in a very small context(both system and music). I am amazed that the only piece of equipment that Jonathan Scull reviewed with a non - stratospheric price was lynched. I wonder how Kalman Rubinson can use a 1988 Pioneer PD-7100 CD player as reference equipment. I fall asleep when I read a review of his that robs every ounce of passion that this hobby fires within me, making a review sometimes feel like reading a legal docuement or textbook. I complain when people who make their living, and are held us as THE experts, make fundamental mistakes in terms of perhaps the most important aspects of audio, room interface with the system, and system synergy.

I guess me noticing these things is heightened when I read some of the insightful threads on Audiogon. As far as people not measuring up to the official reviewers, if they are anything like me, a great deal of their posts are hammered out during lulls in the action at work, or at home. I often use Audiogon, for better or worse, as a means to turn to something when I need a break.

I remain steadfast in my belief that no one at the magazines is indespensible, including Jonathan Scull, and that there are many here among us who could get the job done.

Trelja - I certainly agree with your point about the reasons for substandard writing quality often seen on A'gon, but feel that when it comes to the reviews in particular, this ought not to be an acceptable excuse. Thanks for including me on your 'list', but I would have to disqualify myself; I know I don't have what it would take to be a reviewer that *I* would want to read for long. I don't have the experience - or the interest, frankly - to imagine myself trying to pursue that kind of thing for real. I don't go to the shows, or even the dealers very often, I'm not 'widely listened' enough, I don't belong to an audiophile club or have 'audiobuddies', I don't have any actual writing credentials, I don't know enough about classical music in particular, I don't know enough about the technical side of the audio arts, or its history - I could go on.

But more importantly than any of those personal limitations (shared though some of them may be with other A'goners), I acknowledge what I think many of us would have to concede about "professional" reviewing, if we were to really be honest about it: that I simply wouldn't have the stomach for it. Talk about robbing passion - and never mind passion for audio, what about for music? Fun as it may be to daydream about constantly getting in new toys to play with, I can't imagine anything more dampening to the spirit of actually enjoying listening to music, than to have to continually tear apart the system, tweak new setups, substitute comparision pieces, make notes while listening, and always having to write a damn article on a deadline about what you heard, month after month after month. Maybe this just means I'm a 'music-lover' more so than an 'audiophile', but even as far as the equipment goes, I imagine it would be tough not begin regarding everything in somewhat of a blur, or to start becoming paranoid about really trusting yourself to maintain an accurate mental hierarhcy of all that you've been exposed to - or to keep caring as much as you would ideally want to.

And then there would be the very sorts of things alluded to above: people hounding you or following you around at audio shows; people emailing you with their takes, or why yours is right/wrong; people posting about you in less than glowing terms on internet forums. Who needs it? Some are going to be cut out for this sort of attention, but I definitely would not be among them. The whole high end hobby is too permeated with neuroses, agendas, inflamed passions, and simple BS for me to want to be that much a part of it, because what I like is to listen to music, first and foremost. Writing about gear and systems can be fun when you feel like it, and that's where the Audiogon forum comes in handy.

I, too, agree with your post, when you say that reviewers make mistakes, are not always terribly insightful or prepared or thorough, and are not to be believed 'sound unheard' 100% as though they were truly golden-eared - I realize that's a mistake many novices will make, but have encountered enough instances where I felt a respected reviewer must have had their ears in a jar by the bed that day to know better myself. But I also agree with Kirk when he says that not only are there skills to be mastered in order to be a great reviewer that will weed out most, but also that the very process could turn what is supposed to be a joy into a grind. And so I tip my hat, for at least the effort if not always the result, to those who are willing to shoulder the chore for our benefit and entertainment, and to take the flames as well as the hosanas, risking their own personal enjoyment of that which they presumably love as much as any of us (and don't get paid much for their trouble, I am sure).

Another sterling post, as usual, Zaikesman.

This time we agree almost uniformly(see below). Especially, in the area of the grind eroding the love of the hobby. In my own life, I live with this very same thing. Perhaps the only topic on the same level as audio to me is food. I love to eat, but love cooking maybe even more. Since I was a child, my family and friends have pushed me to get in the field, and eventually open a restaurant. I have standing job offers, and even financial backing. My reason for not doing so is just as you mentioned. I would never want my passion to become its own worst enemy, a job.

The one premise I have to disagree with you on is your opinion that you wouldn't make a fine reviewer.

Have a great day!
Joe

Trelja and Zaikesman: Your very well-written and very well-considered posts prove Mr. Rubinson's point -- he is not needed here. I don't necessarily understand why Mr. Rubinson prefers to spend his time "shooting from the hip" on the Asylum (which I take as indicating some need to reassure himself that he is more knowledgeable than others), but I will factor that in whenever I read one of his reviews.

As a newbie with a lot to learn, I appreciate your passion for the hobby and your willingness to share your knowledge. I respect your choice to remain committed amateurs, but I would prefer to read your thoughts to Rubinson's any day.

Trelja, as a fellow food lover, I have to ask -- have you read The Soul of a Chef, by Michael Ruhlman?

I did not say that I liked to spend my time 'shooting from the hip.' I ascribed that to the general style on AA which, I must admit, is often entertaining.