Mag editors and interviewers could do better


Is it just me or are there others who find the typical interviews with audio designers in the paper mags to promise more than they deliver? I'm not out to try and learn the intimate details of the people who design truly state-of-the-art gear, but I guess I’d like to know more that the predicable questions in the mags. But is this wise though? Is it better to not ‘meet’ your heroes. I'm just not sure.

For example, what design process led to the magnificent Vandersteen 7 product? Not just ‘we wanted better’ or ‘we didn’t cut corners’ and stuff like that. What did Beveridge use as his benchmark? Not just ‘try to recreate the live sound’ and so on. So, despite my uncertainty if this is a wise cause, I will be very interested to know the questions that people like us would like answered – if indeed there was an opportunity to ask them?
Thanks.

My system (passive)
Vandersteen 2Ce Signatures
LFD PA2M (SE) power amp
Benchmark DAC-pre
XTZ Cd player
Kenwood / Trio KT917 FM tuner
Nakamichi 682 tape
Pink Triangle PT Too
Breuer 8 Dynamic arm
Van den Hul MC1
LFD phono stage
Speaker cables – various LFD Audio
Interconnects – vintage Stereovox and LFD
Power cords – Black Rhodium, PS Audio
Power regeneration – PS Audio
128x128bigaitch

Showing 1 response by syntax

... that they mentioned issues on the older ones.

Why don't they comment on a products noise and other real world issues?...

This business runs different. Any reviewer writes for the manufacturer, not for the customer. They don't want to write something negative (and they don't hear it anyway).
The normal way is to write something positive about a given product. When the manufacturer does an update, for example a new high frequency chassis, THEN you can read that the former model was aggressive in that area.
When you have still have the former -old - review you will never read something about that "problem", all was great.
A kind of deafness is mandatory in this business. There is only one rule (only one!): The next is always better.