AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Gl2Hc.41762$%_6.17984@attbi_s01

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article
JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01,
S888Wheel stated:

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it.

He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.

I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's
"job"
is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral,
lucid
account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.

I am wrong on one count. It isn't his job to defend WAVAC and that wasn't what
i meant. It is his job to defend his review. He is the one who used the amps.

Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to
go
in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
defend" what his writers say is simply wrong.

Not in this case. MF did not do anything in his review that went against
editorial policy that I know of. When all is said and done it is MF's opinions
that are being disputed and it is up to him to defend them.

He's responsible for what they
say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's
content
as much as the writer of that content does.

He is not responsible for their opinions on sound quality.

His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system
sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can
all
the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns
reviewing
equipment and giving their "opinions."

That would be up to JA. He chose the writers. The writers offer one person's
opinion in every review they write. This did not begin with the WAVAC review.
It is often stated in Stereophile that a review is just one person's opinion
and that it should not be taken as gospel. Stereophile recomends that readers
audition products themselves before making a purchase.

When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful
purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere
existence
of a particular product).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
to the amps in question.

And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
for the money.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?