clarkjohnsen wrote:

“Art Dudley said it best in Listener for Winter 1997: "Audio reviewing is dead."

Certainly anyone who has any brain, taste, understanding or juts a common sense (not to mention ears) disregards audio reviews and audio reviewing as it exists today, or use the reviews as an interpretive anti-guiding tool to navigate across the minefield of the industry traps. However, despite all reviewing absurdity the reviews do server a purpose. What purpose? Well, the very similar purpose as the  “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” played during the last president election 2004. I am not a big fan of John Kerry but the low-class whoreish intentions and actions of the Swift Boat Vets were too apparent to anyone. To anyone?. Still, the interesting part is that America is not just cultured and well-informed East and West coasts but also a huge wasteland of the white trashes who have developed Pavlovian reflexes to absorb like a sponge the Swift Boat Vets’ crap. Within THTA America the Swift Boat Vets are very effective… as well as the audio industry’s reviews are very affective among the industry brewed audiophiles-Morons.

So, is Audio reviewing dead? Not  really. Audio reviewing is the only alive entity in the industry and by assessing the state of THAT “life” is not difficult to judge the state of the entire industry. I do not know how about you but I’m pro abortions. I have no problems that some trash form Texas would consider it as a murder. I sincerely feel that there is a long list of people, in US politick as well as in the audio industry who deserved to be aborted long before they were born

Being me,
Romy the Cat

Thinking recently about reviewing I come upon to an interesting observation. No mater how subjective music is (or at least what they say) but still looking at the music review we see way more objective picture then in the world of audio reviews. Music reviews, no mater how artificially-sensational they might be in the public publication they generally very much on the target or neat target. Country to this the Audio review have no attachment to reality at all. The ONLY reason why an audio review is writhen is because a person receives a unit to review. Did you ever seem any “reviewer” who refused to writhe his dummy doodles because a component did not perform up to the level worth any attention? Not really. Those reviewing hoodlums swallow everything and nutshell any crappyly-primitive audio into abstract saleable literature….

The caT

Romy the Cat wrote:

The ONLY reason why an audio review is writhen is because a person receives a unit to review. Did you ever seem any “reviewer” who refused to writhe his dummy doodles because a component did not perform up to the level worth any attention? Not really.

We see two errors here also.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

Very often a reviewer will find an item at a show that he wants to review, or a manufacturer will approach him, of a friend will tell him about some thing. In fact, those happen more often than an assigned review.

Actually it is irrelevant who approach who, although it is not always as you describe. I know situation when products were taken under review to the reviewing houses and were found to perform very purely. So, what the administrators of the reviewing houses did? They dropped the review and gave the equipment to reviewers in this staff who they consider “lessen demands”, in order the equipment to receive a favorable press. As the result a crappy performing equipment get a drooling reviews from a “respected source”. This is very much explanation why the reviewing houses practically never has in this staff high demands, knowledgeable and “serious” reviewers – because the majority of audio equipment is joke out there and the poor level of audio should be matched in reviewing houses by a primitive and low demands reviewing workforce. I’m not talking about the satiations when “a reviewer approach manufacturer at the show”. This entire business is so screwdly well-oiled that any dirt-chip reviewer with audio IQ of a pterodactyl knows that he sit in the middle of extortion chain and any manufacturer by releasing a product is obliged to pay his dues to the industry marketing.

Continuing my observation about music reviews and audio reviews it is impossible do not mention that music reviews and audio review server completely different objectives. The music review, the theatrical reviews, even movie reviews or even car reviews are bitchy, demanding and made to filter our poor results and to deliver to a consumer better products. Contrary the audio reviews mean completely different: they mean to incentive and to encourage a consumer to buy into products “as is”, treating the consumer’s prospective benefits with immoral contempt and criminal arrogance.

clarkjohnsen wrote:

And if you don't see much mention made of equipment not worth reviewing, isn't that self-explanatory?

Quite opposite. I see a LOT of mentioning made of equipment not worth reviewing. Yes it is self-explanatory.

The Cat

A very interesting case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/business/media/12plain.html?_r=1

Mr. Rosenberg has lost his case

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/cleveland-critic-loses-lawsuit-over-reassignment/?ref=music

… but I still have no judgment of my own. A classical music critic was reassigned buy his newspaper in retaliation for negative reviews. The fact that Mr. Rosenberg lost his case means nothing; O.J. Simpson is not guilty as well.  I wonder if professional reviewers, not the armatures from audio, but payrolled musical reviewers have any contractual protection that would shield them and assure the impractically of their judgment.