Posted in this thread earlier;http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1313300093&read some participants said they are reviewers.
One said;
"I myself was once asked if I would be interested in reviewing for one of the publications mentioned above, by its editor. I wasn't, but also declined because I didn't feel that I was qualified: not as an audiophile, nor technically, nor as a writer."
Another said:
"let us consider what might "qualify" someone as a reviewer. Would it be an EE degree, years of experience in audio, experience as a dealer in audio, knowing many manufacturers, being wealthy enough to not be bought to give a good review to get the component at a good price, being articulate, hearing well in tests, etc.?"
And he goes on to make some other interesting remarks in the same post, in my opinion anyway.
Out of respect to the OP and not to further divert the thread from its' original theme, I began this thread.
So, what qualifications, experience, education, characteristics etc., do you believe one should possess and needs to be a reviewer?
It would be interesting to hear from everyone for I myself haven't really thought about it and can't offer an answer. Perhaps others ideas could help us form an opinion.
Best,
Dave |
