A New Online Magazine
[For those of you who do not read the entire show report (no wonder why a few people got upset about the terseness of their room description, they had not gotten into the groove of the whole ‘audio noir’ thing) – specifically the main page with our list of favorites of show and pictorial index to all of the rooms – here is a copy of our pre-announcement of our new online high-end audio magazine]
A New Online Magazine
We are publishing a new online high-end audio magazine in hopefully a few weeks. This as-yet-unnamed magazine will use new technology that will allow us to do things other magazines and websites cannot. It will also be innovative in other ways in an attempt to better serve manufacturers and dealers on the one hand, and audiophiles on the other.
Why a new magazine?
Oh, there are so many, many reasons. 🙂
But the primary reason is that they are all so damn boring. ‘Reviewers’ focus way too much on regurgitating cookie-cutter equipment reviews in order to get loaned more free equipment. Bo-ring. Music reviews are written in a manner that has little to do with the way audiophiles actually listen to music. Snore.
The other primary reason is that the relationship between manufacturers/distributors/dealers and the magazines is like that of lobbyists and politicians. It is inherently corrupting to both. The result is that everybody distrusts and fears everybody else.
So, yeah, we gonna do things way different. We are going to focus on the fun and excitement of being an audiophile – all those reasons why we are doing all this crazy stuff in the first place. And we are going to provide several ways for manufacturers/distributors/dealers to get their message heard – without having to compromise their sense of ethics or take out a second mortgage.
To this end, then, …
We are talking with several people about writing for the magazine. If you are interested we would like to talk with you, too. We are not looking for and will not accept [most] reviewers – we will not even have traditional reviews, per se. We are looking for people who are extremely honest and can express themselves, who can bang on a keyboard a little [the Grammar Police have left the building], or use a video camera, or snap a few photos and share their perspective on why being an audiophile is so fucking intoxicating.
We are also accepting press releases, installation experiences, overviews of technological innovations, design perspectives, industry perspectives, biographies, factory tours etc. submitted by manufacturers/distributors/dealers [preferably full-page, but we will work with you], once per month, and will publish them for free. We are looking for serious submissions, in addition to the press releases, that respect the reader’s intelligence – something a reputable manufacturer/distributor/dealer would say to someone in their store or factory. We will also accept traditional ads, preferably full-page, but any size will work, for which we will charge standard prices.
We are also looking for one or more sponsors. Perhaps someone who wants to remind their readership each month that they are proud sponsors of the magazine. Or perhaps someone who wants to take more of an ownership stake. We will be contacting some potential sponsors directly, but if any of you want to contribute to the audiophile community in this way, please contact us as soon as is convenient.
For now, send email to me at: mike@audiofederation.com
*** Music reviews are written in a manner that has little to do with the way audiophiles actually listen to music.
Care to elaborate, Mike?
The Cat
Hi Romy,
Not to be insulting to audiophiles at all, but we often listen to the sound more than we do the music.
And there are many different ways we listen to the sound. And a review for audiophile should perhaps talk about some of those things instead of the biography of the musicians, prodgeny of the album, etc. [although stating the consensus on the ranking of an album on some absolute scale compared to its immediate peers is useful to all of us]
Some examples:
What type of minimal system is required to enjoy the sound? Big Band is notoriously bad sounding on inexpensive solid-state systems, for example. We have had audiophiles leave our room at shows when we play Big Band because their ears have been so conditioned to expect bad behavior that they are in a state of shell shock and at the sound of any upfront brass instrument they flee in a Pavlovian response [even though the sound was pure and no bad behavior was in evidence]. But we also have a Mel Torme album, Singing on the Moon, that is accessible Big Band music, and degrades politely as it is played on worse and even worse systems.
And, of course, this is why Patricia Barber and Dianna Krall etc. are played so much at shows, they are playable on systems that do not sound very good.
So that is one aspect of music that is not covered in music reviews. Maybe one could call it the ‘Politeness’ of the music. [Maybe not].
There are many other aspects of the sound of music of interest to audiophiles – freq range, weight, specific spectacular moments with respect to the sound, noise floor, was there any saturation of the tape, sucseptability to sibilance, how bad is the compression, how good is the separation, etc.
And then there is a lot to do with the music that reviews do not address. For Jazz: What is the abstraction level [Coltrane is a good example who spans the gamut]. What instruments were involved? Level of innovation. What other genres were borrowed from?
As for the sound of classical music – you would know more than I, but compared to the other genres, it is much more homongenous [FireFox’s spelling checker sucks – but at least it has one] in terms of sound quality and politeness level. Opera does like enough resolution in order for it to not sound like someone is screaming at the listener – but otherwise …
Anyway, the way audiophiles listen to music ain’t pretty… then again, if you go to a lot of shows, you know that audiophile’s ain’t pretty either.
Thanks for posting.
Take care,
Mike.
Mike,
You observed, in your response to Romy, “As for the sound of classical music – you would know more than I, but compared to the other genres, it is much more homongenous . . . in terms of sound quality and politeness level. Opera does like enough resolution in order for it to not sound like someone is screaming at the listener – but otherwise …”
I think you meant homogenous – “being similar throughout” – although, if you were referring to a truck load of homogenized milk, I suppose that might be humongenous – both huge and undifferentiated, but classical music, while sometimes huge, is scarcely homogenous.
Liszt, Mahler and Stravinsky, to name a few, would chafe at being characterized as polite (were they not deceased.) Playing Mozart and Wagner back to back should dispel any notion of the genre being similar throughout. Beethoven’s 9th or the 1812 overture taken singly will do the same.
There may well be proportionately less badly recorded classical music than is found in other genres. I would suggest that this is perhaps due to the fact that given scores, if not hundreds, of recordings of the more popular works, one is free to choose the blend of performance quality and recording quality that appeals most and leave the rest to collect dust. That is generally not an option elsewhere, live vs. studio and re-masterings not withstanding.
Hi Dave,
“…n terms of sound quality and politeness level. ”
Whereas the sound quality of most genres is hit-and-miss, especially if one averages over the last 4 decades, I would characterize the sound of classical as almost always ‘good’, but rarely great [do to the difficulty of recording so many instruments at once] and rarely poor [do to higher standards].
Politeness level: If a system is up to playing one classical piece well, it will likely be able to play most. And when they start to sound bad on worse and worse systems, they can still sound ‘OK’ on many of these systems..
Conversely, however, even if a system can play Pink Floyd well, it may not be able to play Zappa. Or Funkadelic. Or White Stripes. Or the B-52s. And when a system can’t play these more complicated pieces well, it usually sounds BAAAAAAAD [i.e. these songs degrade impolitely].
Take care,
Mike.
Hello
you say that because manufacturers advertise in audio magazine it corrupts the review
But your are selling audio equipment so you are yourself in a position of conflict of interest !
I am not sure that you are gonna trash some Lamm or Kharma equipment in your magazine
Hi Tomato,
Right.
Reviews in the magazine will be by dealers and manufacturers and about the equipment they sell or make. And only about the equipment they sell or make. Everybody will know where they are coming from.
If you ever went to a show and talked to the guy who designed or built the equipment, you know how useful this can be.
We will also have opinion pieces where other writers can express their dissatisfaction with Lamm or Kharma [they will have to explain exactly what makes them unhappy – otherwise we’ll have to move them on to one of those ‘factual’ sensationalist TV news networks – or back to the forums], just like I can express my opinion about VTL on Avalon, and in sufficient detail so that the reader can decide if they agree with me or not, and can also pass on the 2nd-hand recommendation for VTL on Sound Labs.
See, with enough description and care, ‘trashing’ is not trashing at all but information that a reader can use – pro or con.
Other magazines have reviews by ‘independent’ reporters many of whom are not all that independent and many cannot hear. But you can learn from reading them over time to determine which are independent, by and large, and which have ears.
Hopefully, people reading this blog, and the magazine, can determine if we are independent and only concerned about the quality of the sound, and not the letters on the component’s label – and whether or not we have ears.
Truthfully, at this level of gear, in my experience, it is people who do not have ears (they do not know how to listen and hear difference in components) that have the effrontery to diss other great sounding gear. And people with ears can tell if someone is lying about how something sounds – they can tell a person’s personal sonic prejudices, and they can tell if someone has ears.
Of course, on a good day, 50% of the population are clueless people believing the nasty things other clueless people say and not believing what the honest people with some grasp of reality say. Such is life.
In any case, our magazine is about the fun and excitement of the high-end audio adventure – not the angst-ridden, guilt-driven, information-free righteousness so popular on the forums.
Thanks for posting,
Mike
Hello Mike
At the end you will still make your living in selling audio equipment that you will review in your magazine
That means that i am pretty sure that the guys who will work for you will not critizise the equipment you sell
And you know it ;
And what to think about the equipment that will be reviewed and which is sold in a shop near your store ?
—–
Although i don’t want to only critizise and i would like to share some ideas :
-It should be intresting to hire guys that actually DO speakers and amps, i mean you have a way better understanding of Hi-FI when you actually construct yourself your speakers
You know the easy trick , it is important to have guys from the inside…
And it would prevent from the eternal blablabla that other magazine inflict on us
-Measurments are not the most important BUT it offer prrecious informations ; it should be mandatory to make measurments of the equipment
– I would love to hear/view interview of manufacturers and to listen what is their personnal approach of audio, this is more revealing than any review for me
—–
TomatoBangBang
Hi TomatoBangBang,
You are not getting into the spirit of the thing… 🙂
This is not TV. Writers do not ‘trash’ or ‘criticize’ or ‘cheerlead’ cream-of-the-crop lines, out of the 2000 or so listed on Audiogon – or any other lines for that matter – in order to raise ratings or gain them personal fame.
But they do compare and contrast equipment and describe how something addresses their personal preferences. Every visitor to our listening rooms every day does the same thing – they decide they like A over B and sometimes they even figure out why.
Writers are not working for me – per se – though I will be the editor, at least for the present. We encourage *everybody* to submit articles to the magazine [even you :-)] but the article has to say something intelligible and useful. The ‘Bash things because they are expensive’ or ‘Laud things because they are expensive’ articles go into the bit bucket. Along with ‘I like it because I own it’ and a host of other worthless bits.
But, still, I think you do not get the idea – writers are not writing reviews. There are other things in this hobby besides the traditional reviews that we have seen for the last 30 or so years.
——-
No, we will not make dealers and manufacturers submit measurements of their equipment – though they can if they want. Measurements contain little or no actual information with respect to sound quality and compatibility with other equipment. They are misleading at best – though they are fun to look at and I look at them with everyone else trying to see how often they correspond with the reality of the sound [about 5% of the time…?].
——-
Yes, that is what my previous posts are saying we want to do. Kind of like herding cats though…
Thanks for posting,
Mike.
Mike,
Backing up past a bushel basket of tomatoes . . . you said,
“Politeness level: If a system is up to playing one classical piece well, it will likely be able to play most. And when they start to sound bad on worse and worse systems, they can still sound ‘OK’ on many of these systems..
Conversely, however, even if a system can play Pink Floyd well, it may not be able to play Zappa. Or Funkadelic. Or White Stripes. Or the B-52s. And when a system can’t play these more complicated pieces well, it usually sounds BAAAAAAAD [i.e. these songs degrade impolitely].”
You seem to be saying that you think classical music has less variation and complexity across the board – is more a “one size fits all” kind of music than than rock/pop/etc. Following that line of reasoning, a system that can manage a string trio is very likely to do fine with the fourth movement of Mahler’s 8th Symphony. That is 180 degrees opposite to my experience, I must say.
Since classical music ranges from a solo instrument or voice playing at pppp to an orchestra of 120 plus a pipe organ plus a choir of 100-200 at fff and every imaginable variation in between, I don’t see how it can be classified as more homogenous and polite, less complicated than the usual line-up of several guitars, bass, drums, keyboard – heck, throw in a marching band a la Fleetwood Mac’s “Tusk”. Perhaps when you say classical music you’re only thinking of large symphonic works, but even then the orchestra routinely goes through dynamic variations that never seem to occur to pop/rock producers who tend to compress the daylights out of the dynamic range they have to begin with.
Hi Dave,
What you says makes sense – and I do tend to focus on symphonic works when I refer to classical music – but getting back to politeness… degrading politely on worse and worse-sounding systems.
If you know what to listen for, then perhaps worse-sounding systems do murder complex classic pieces like, say, Mahler or, for me, Stravinsky’s Firebird Suite.
But people do not think you are ‘trying to break their system’ when you have them one of these at a show – whereas if you hand them Tool, or Santanna, or sometimes even Radiohead – you get nasty looks if they think their system isn’t up to the task and that you’re trying to expose this fact to the public. Depending on your taste [some people do not care how bad it sounds – they just love the music as music], this music does not degrade politely.
This is [one reason :-)] why Peter Qvortrup plays [very unpolite] heavy metal at shows – because it only sounds listenable [so to speak :-)] on a great sounding system. And this is why so many rooms [and audiophiles] just play [very polite] jazz quartets with closely-mic’ed female singers – because they sound listenable [so to speak :-)] on anything.
If a room with a bad sounding system only played classical music – [most :-)] people would not be running out of the room holding their ears wondering about permanent ear damage.
I think you are thinking that by polite I mean ‘great sounding’. To make great sound one needs a great system. I am thinking more about the absence of, sonically, ‘bad behavior’ on a bad sounding system.
Perhaps a better word than polite is its opposite: ‘offensive’. It is hard for classical music to be rendered so badly as to sound offensive, per se, no matter what the system [yes – it is still possible, as we all know :-)]. Same for audiophile music [that is why it is audiophile music]. They don’t have a lot of hard transients, nor a ton of energy in the treble area – both of which make other kinds of music physically intolerable on many systems.
Anyway, your post made me think that our supply of smaller classical works was not on par with the rest of our collection – so I started a campaign here to remedy that. At about $2/LP, we at least won’t go broke.
Now if I could just find some Sun Ra LPs at a good price…
Take care,
Mike.