Stereophile's refusal to review more low

years ago, s'phile made a comment about stereo review referring to there reviews alnog these lines: "of all the speakers i have reviewed, this speaker is definitely one of them." well, now that stereo review own s'phile, it's getting closer to that... s'phile, for all intents & purposes, now *is* stereo-review. most telling for me, was when jgh, s'phile's founder, left the magazine to write for tas. ya, i still read & enyoy s'phile, but i take it all w/a grain of salt re: the equipment... i'm more interested in the info about the direction the industry is taking. between the rags, this site, other sites (like arthur salvatore's), conwersations w/store owners, mfr's, etc., i come to my own conclusions about what's worth looking into... no *one* source should be used by anyone as a basis for seeking audio nirvana - spread out the feelers in as many different directions as possible.

doug s.

I think that we are expecting too much from a business for profit. I see the mags as being a source of cheap entertainment (if you enjoy reading about gear) and would not expect them to run as a nonprofit consumer mag (though I doubt that they are 100% either). Even if there is an occasional mixture of fluff and fact, how many reviews have you, out there, ever read that were totally off track? I personally feel that the rating systems are a bit ridiculous taking into consideration what it is that is trying to be judged/rated and all of the variables involved, but feel the same way about most rating systems involving sensate things (wine, art & film, music, Hi-fi, etc.), but the ratings are also somehow fun to read. Many of the writers are personalities on the same level of greatness as Orson Bean, so either enjoy the greatness that is there or don't subscribe, but in any case please lighten up if you will.

I think that those who think it is too much to expect integrity from Stereophile and others who would make delivery of advertising revenue a pre-condition for a review in the magazine help to lower standards for all institutions. If we think that any for-profit enterprise is incapable of integrity, then it follows that most of our institutions in the U.S. are rotten. Is the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal inherently lacking in integrity simply because they accept advertising? Would they know the dangers of having the editorial department "report" to the advertising department? Do the publishers of these papers set up checks and balances in their operations in order to prevent the kind of problem in which Stereophile appears to gleefully engage? Do these papers know the importance of protecting something intangible such as their "name" or reputation, since without it, their tangible assets might eventually disappear? If we have heard the stories that if you don't advertise with Stereophile, you can forget about getting a review, can we envision the possibility that those five or six companies who comprise a very significant part of the advertising revenue have access to what gets reviewed and to what is said in those reviews, even if their control as to what is said is by tacit understanding only? If what we have "heard" about Stereophile's dealings seems plausible, even likely, and we can project on to that additional "misdeeds" which are likely to have occurred and which would further jeopardize the integrity of the magazine, why do we bother to read it and why do we care at all about what is inside? (As well as you, I am asking myself this last question)

Very well put, Ray.

Rayhall: I have worked for quite a few companies (large ones) in my life and only one out of the many had what I would call integrity (I stayed with them for 11 years) and yes, I do think that it is too much to ask in the real world. In other words, I do not take any information for granted from any publication. Why would I expect more from a stereo rag? In addition, why would I care?