Rude and CRAZY Custom Transformer guy....
- Thread starter cannikin
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Michael Krusch
Well-known member
Write what manufactures expect you to write and anyone will be nice. :green:
[quote author="Rossi"]Seriously, if that guy appears rude and crazy to you, don't ever get into the reviewers business. This looks totally normal compared to the bizarre interactions I've had in the past.[/quote]
Funny I've been more offended by magazine reviewers who came up with dramatically different reviews of the exact same sample product. But after the review is written no amount of jawboning will undo the damage, or good.
I escaped from that market because of the disconnect between actual and perceived value. While I guess the real problem is what I perceived of value and my inability to effectively communicate that. I expected the product to talk for itself and it doesn't quite work that way.
I found professional sound reinforcement markets a little more rational due to the laws of physics leaving less room for spin and mumbo jumbo, while there's fashion there too in the margins.
JR
Funny I've been more offended by magazine reviewers who came up with dramatically different reviews of the exact same sample product. But after the review is written no amount of jawboning will undo the damage, or good.
I escaped from that market because of the disconnect between actual and perceived value. While I guess the real problem is what I perceived of value and my inability to effectively communicate that. I expected the product to talk for itself and it doesn't quite work that way.
I found professional sound reinforcement markets a little more rational due to the laws of physics leaving less room for spin and mumbo jumbo, while there's fashion there too in the margins.
JR
bcarso
Well-known member
I'm girding my loins, and reminding self to be "philosophical", as I anticipate reviewer feedback on some quasi-high-end "comsumer" products that should be finding their way to market not too long from now. It's something of a crapshoot I think, with some preliminary political groundwork sometimes assisting, but still wildly uncertain.
Happily there are some marketing points that should give the reviewers something to write about, and of course hear what they expect.
In preparation I've been reading more reviews of somewhat comparable equipment. It's amazing how indulgent some reviewers can be. I just finished one review and manufacturer's followup, for an 18.5k$ preamp. And at least one channel was D.O.A. when it reached the objective measurement person, but this was passed over as if almost de rigueur for hollow-state equipment (!). More troubling was IIRC the 100dB S/N claimed. Not a bad number, until I realized that the stated performance was referenced to the maximum output level of 50V rms! I wonder if the RCA outputs have safety warnings adjacent?
Whaddaya want for only 18.5k I thought...
It's difficult not to get a bit cynical.
Happily there are some marketing points that should give the reviewers something to write about, and of course hear what they expect.
In preparation I've been reading more reviews of somewhat comparable equipment. It's amazing how indulgent some reviewers can be. I just finished one review and manufacturer's followup, for an 18.5k$ preamp. And at least one channel was D.O.A. when it reached the objective measurement person, but this was passed over as if almost de rigueur for hollow-state equipment (!). More troubling was IIRC the 100dB S/N claimed. Not a bad number, until I realized that the stated performance was referenced to the maximum output level of 50V rms! I wonder if the RCA outputs have safety warnings adjacent?
Whaddaya want for only 18.5k I thought...
It's difficult not to get a bit cynical.
Don't take it all personally. I'd tell you what worked for me in that market... if something ever did. Instead, I voted with my feet.
I will occasionally think about how to do something ever so slightly better than remind myself that marginal performance is not really the contest.
I recall years ago looking at a Mark Levinson preamp review in of all places, Stereo Review. Julian wrote his typical matter of fact description, but I found the frequency response chart revealing. Not very flat. I expect a close listening test with all else equal might hear that slight difference. Of course the one with the extra zero in it's price tag must be the winner.
Good luck,
JR
I will occasionally think about how to do something ever so slightly better than remind myself that marginal performance is not really the contest.
I recall years ago looking at a Mark Levinson preamp review in of all places, Stereo Review. Julian wrote his typical matter of fact description, but I found the frequency response chart revealing. Not very flat. I expect a close listening test with all else equal might hear that slight difference. Of course the one with the extra zero in it's price tag must be the winner.
Good luck,
JR
ASK THE GUY FOR A GRID STOPPER.
BUT YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH A GRASSHOPPER.
BUT YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH A GRASSHOPPER.
okgb
Well-known member
Hey i don't understand , why you wanna stop the grids all the time ?
i can see fighting the man , Hell can
get off the grid , oh yeah , but we need to feed the tube
i can see fighting the man , Hell can
get off the grid , oh yeah , but we need to feed the tube
indigom
Well-known member
[quote author="kazper"]If I was willing to pay $400 for a wooden knob, a $350 transformer is probably cheap compared to $1k Caps.[/quote]
If you were willing to pay that for a miracle audio and space enhancing knob, you wouldn't be here, I reckon.
cheeeeers~
-J
If you were willing to pay that for a miracle audio and space enhancing knob, you wouldn't be here, I reckon.
cheeeeers~
-J
wow.
emerson could say less.
emerson could say less.
[quote author="JohnRoberts"][quote author="Rossi"]Seriously, if that guy appears rude and crazy to you, don't ever get into the reviewers business. This looks totally normal compared to the bizarre interactions I've had in the past.[/quote]
Funny I've been more offended by magazine reviewers who came up with dramatically different reviews of the exact same sample product. But after the review is written no amount of jawboning will undo the damage, or good.
JR[/quote]
Well, there's lots of problems in communication. Certainly not with all manufacturers, but there are some. Some won't take you seriously. For instance there was a channel strip by a British manufacturer that had 48 volts on the TRS line jacket, when you activated phantom power on the mic input. I asked the manufacturer about it, and after a while got a reply that frankly this was a something only MI reviewers find problematic, none of the Pro reviewers ever complained. Removing the phantom power from the TRS jacket would introduce phase shift in the low frequencies.In other words, I'm a dumb little reviewer. I then sent them a little schematic that showed how to wire the phantom power switch correctly without affecting sonics. Which took me (or anyone) about 2 minutes to figure out.
The point being, some manufacturers think of reviewers as flies on a turd (hmm, what does that make their product?). Some think you're not qualified to judge their work, some promise stuff they have no intention of ever doing (debugging, additional features, upgraded components, a manual/datasheet). Some think you should be objective and only look at their superior specs. Or those who don't have superior specs tell you to ignore specs altogether, just listen! Sound is subjective, and their sound is the best by any standard, and nobody ever complained about that background hiss.
Luckily, that's a minority, and those who know my work usually respect me. So I'm not complaining.
Funny I've been more offended by magazine reviewers who came up with dramatically different reviews of the exact same sample product. But after the review is written no amount of jawboning will undo the damage, or good.
JR[/quote]
Well, there's lots of problems in communication. Certainly not with all manufacturers, but there are some. Some won't take you seriously. For instance there was a channel strip by a British manufacturer that had 48 volts on the TRS line jacket, when you activated phantom power on the mic input. I asked the manufacturer about it, and after a while got a reply that frankly this was a something only MI reviewers find problematic, none of the Pro reviewers ever complained. Removing the phantom power from the TRS jacket would introduce phase shift in the low frequencies.In other words, I'm a dumb little reviewer. I then sent them a little schematic that showed how to wire the phantom power switch correctly without affecting sonics. Which took me (or anyone) about 2 minutes to figure out.
The point being, some manufacturers think of reviewers as flies on a turd (hmm, what does that make their product?). Some think you're not qualified to judge their work, some promise stuff they have no intention of ever doing (debugging, additional features, upgraded components, a manual/datasheet). Some think you should be objective and only look at their superior specs. Or those who don't have superior specs tell you to ignore specs altogether, just listen! Sound is subjective, and their sound is the best by any standard, and nobody ever complained about that background hiss.
Luckily, that's a minority, and those who know my work usually respect me. So I'm not complaining.
Hi Rossi.. I am impressed by what I've seen of your work and in general I find the equipment reviews in European magazines better than what I've seen in the American magazines, still standing. At least for professional gear. I stopped reading the hifi rags decades ago.
The incident I mentioned was obviously the reviewers hearing the rest of their systems through my uncolored preamp. The reviewer with a good system liked it, the other not. There was also the matter of properly terminating the phono cartridge capacitance which was left to chance.
I had plenty of less then rewarding experiences with reviewers and pro gear. Since I did a 15 year stint with Peavey I had to deal with a lot of prejudice and low "good for the money" expectations.
One particularly annoying review involved a power amp series. Since power amps don't have much sonic character to speak of I tried to provide the reviewer with something to actually listen to. The amp had a plug in input/output module bay, so I tried to get him to listen to very sweet universal fixed 2-way crossover module and a speaker to make it harder for him to screw up the review. Of course this guy was a "name" reviewer and instead insisted I supply him with a variable 2-way module that was clearly inferior. I couldn't even get my transducer engineers to give me recommended presets for the variable. Long story short the reviewer ignored my suggestion and wrote his dismissive review without listening to the fixed crossover I recommended. After the review was printed but before he returned the gear he listened to the good crossover and ended up buying the gear for his personal use.
Arghhh, I get a crap review from a review who actually likes the gear enough to buy and use it.... but his pro reputation wasn't tainted by publicly admitting Peavey doesn't suck.
I agree, if a TRS line input has phantom voltage on it, that is a flawed design and should be reported. The manufacturer, probably some marketing wonk, was just playing defense, reviews matter whether they're accurate or not.
In my experience being abusive to a reviewer is just plain stupid. How does the old saying go, "don't argue with folks who buy ink by the barrel".
JR
The incident I mentioned was obviously the reviewers hearing the rest of their systems through my uncolored preamp. The reviewer with a good system liked it, the other not. There was also the matter of properly terminating the phono cartridge capacitance which was left to chance.
I had plenty of less then rewarding experiences with reviewers and pro gear. Since I did a 15 year stint with Peavey I had to deal with a lot of prejudice and low "good for the money" expectations.
One particularly annoying review involved a power amp series. Since power amps don't have much sonic character to speak of I tried to provide the reviewer with something to actually listen to. The amp had a plug in input/output module bay, so I tried to get him to listen to very sweet universal fixed 2-way crossover module and a speaker to make it harder for him to screw up the review. Of course this guy was a "name" reviewer and instead insisted I supply him with a variable 2-way module that was clearly inferior. I couldn't even get my transducer engineers to give me recommended presets for the variable. Long story short the reviewer ignored my suggestion and wrote his dismissive review without listening to the fixed crossover I recommended. After the review was printed but before he returned the gear he listened to the good crossover and ended up buying the gear for his personal use.
Arghhh, I get a crap review from a review who actually likes the gear enough to buy and use it.... but his pro reputation wasn't tainted by publicly admitting Peavey doesn't suck.
I agree, if a TRS line input has phantom voltage on it, that is a flawed design and should be reported. The manufacturer, probably some marketing wonk, was just playing defense, reviews matter whether they're accurate or not.
In my experience being abusive to a reviewer is just plain stupid. How does the old saying go, "don't argue with folks who buy ink by the barrel".
JR
John, I'm not arguing with your response and your experience with reviewers. Some are just plain jerks, no question. But there are lots of good people around, as well. Hugh Robjohns is a good man and I sure wish I could get a hold of Paul Stamler's work.
In my personal experience, the best manufacturers usually give the best responses and are more than willing to share knowledge. The ones that give you crap, talk about trade secrets all the time or give weird responses are usually those who simply don't know very much about their own products, let alone technology in general. Also, it's sometimes a little unfortunate that you can't just ask the people in the know, i.e. the developers, because the PR guys are responsible for press inquiries. I often ask technical questions that PR guys can't answer. Sometimes I'm lucky and they defer me to the designer. :wink:
In my personal experience, the best manufacturers usually give the best responses and are more than willing to share knowledge. The ones that give you crap, talk about trade secrets all the time or give weird responses are usually those who simply don't know very much about their own products, let alone technology in general. Also, it's sometimes a little unfortunate that you can't just ask the people in the know, i.e. the developers, because the PR guys are responsible for press inquiries. I often ask technical questions that PR guys can't answer. Sometimes I'm lucky and they defer me to the designer. :wink:
bcarso
Well-known member
One of the fascinating things uncovered by Toole and Olive from work done at Harman is that a number of big-name hifi reviewers* have abnormal hearing---and I don't mean higher acuity, but serious issues of hearing loss at different frequencies. Obviously names could not be named, or has even this observation been published anywhere that I know of (OOPS... :twisted: ).
This emerged when the subjective evaluation system was fully functional and a lot of listeners were given hearing tests before participating, including some reviewers.
There's also a line in the article linked by mediatechnology in another thread that is apropos: "I re-learned that it is important to listen — the eyes, a stubborn brain and an ego can easily get in the way of sonic perception..." (Eddie Ciletti)
*present company excepted AFAIK :razz:
This emerged when the subjective evaluation system was fully functional and a lot of listeners were given hearing tests before participating, including some reviewers.
There's also a line in the article linked by mediatechnology in another thread that is apropos: "I re-learned that it is important to listen — the eyes, a stubborn brain and an ego can easily get in the way of sonic perception..." (Eddie Ciletti)
*present company excepted AFAIK :razz:
AnalogPackrat
Well-known member
Deleted...
I though Hugh Ford (RIP) of studio sound was quite good.... consistent and obviously knew what he was talking about. Julian Hirsch never got much love for his bland reviews but he often put a lot of truth between the lines if one knew how to read him.
I guess I still have a chip on my shoulder from my early personal experience as a small company, then later as a big company with an "un cool" brand association due to success with entry level players.
I hope reviewers are big enough to admit when a value product is exceptional but the best I ever got was the old "good for the money" which in a review is like kissing your sister on a date. (Just because I live in MS I still don't think kissing my sister was good.)
I take most reviews with a grain of salt and one thing I liked about several of the Euro magazines was they would spend the pages on multiple charts and graphs. I could learn more about a product by looking at those graphs without understanding one word of the language.
As I've said before I like what I've seen of your writing so keep up the good work.
JR
I guess I still have a chip on my shoulder from my early personal experience as a small company, then later as a big company with an "un cool" brand association due to success with entry level players.
I hope reviewers are big enough to admit when a value product is exceptional but the best I ever got was the old "good for the money" which in a review is like kissing your sister on a date. (Just because I live in MS I still don't think kissing my sister was good.)
I take most reviews with a grain of salt and one thing I liked about several of the Euro magazines was they would spend the pages on multiple charts and graphs. I could learn more about a product by looking at those graphs without understanding one word of the language.
As I've said before I like what I've seen of your writing so keep up the good work.
JR
One problem that reviewers are facing is a misperception on the readers' part, who often confuse a reviewer's reputation with the product's reputation. Reviewing an expensive product enhances your reputation. Dropping expensive names makes you even more respectable. Reviewing inexpensive products makes many readers think that's your level of experience. You become the cheapo guy. Another problem is that most entry level products are "good for the money". It's hard to write an exciting review about a product that's neither bad nor really good.
I kind of beat the system. I write a lot of reviews of entry level gear, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it's become a niche for me. I always look for stuff that a particular unit is particularly good at or user profiles that fit this unit. And once in a while I do find stuff that represents an exceptional value. I have no problem communicating that, in fact, it makes me the guy who started the craze. It also keeps readers interested in my reviews in general.
Another thing I find important is to explain stuff to the readers. A reviewer shouldn't be a guy who just judges, who says this is great, this is crap but explains why this is so and in what respects. A lot of so-called reviews are just stories of a guy doing this and that, using expensive stuff as a reference and recording high profile players. It's more or less just name dropping supposed to make the reviewer look ultra-professional. "We tested the xxx microphone on solo cello played by [famous virtuoso], using my coveted Heyne-modified U67 as a reference. The Neumann U67 has been my go-to cello microphone for the past 15 years, I usually point it at the bridge at an angle of 17 degrees from a distance of 4 to 7' depending on the room. On solo cello I tend to use an additional room mic. As my pair of vintage KM56 turned out to be a bit too bright for [famous virtuoso]'s Stradivarius - a exceptional instrument and by far the fullest sounding cello I've heard in the past 20 years - I decided to use my AEA R88, a stereo ribbon microphone, which turned out to be the perfect match for the close up U67 and this particular room. blah blah blah." Surprisingly that technique seems to work for many readers, although they learn very little about the unit under review.
I kind of beat the system. I write a lot of reviews of entry level gear, and I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it's become a niche for me. I always look for stuff that a particular unit is particularly good at or user profiles that fit this unit. And once in a while I do find stuff that represents an exceptional value. I have no problem communicating that, in fact, it makes me the guy who started the craze. It also keeps readers interested in my reviews in general.
Another thing I find important is to explain stuff to the readers. A reviewer shouldn't be a guy who just judges, who says this is great, this is crap but explains why this is so and in what respects. A lot of so-called reviews are just stories of a guy doing this and that, using expensive stuff as a reference and recording high profile players. It's more or less just name dropping supposed to make the reviewer look ultra-professional. "We tested the xxx microphone on solo cello played by [famous virtuoso], using my coveted Heyne-modified U67 as a reference. The Neumann U67 has been my go-to cello microphone for the past 15 years, I usually point it at the bridge at an angle of 17 degrees from a distance of 4 to 7' depending on the room. On solo cello I tend to use an additional room mic. As my pair of vintage KM56 turned out to be a bit too bright for [famous virtuoso]'s Stradivarius - a exceptional instrument and by far the fullest sounding cello I've heard in the past 20 years - I decided to use my AEA R88, a stereo ribbon microphone, which turned out to be the perfect match for the close up U67 and this particular room. blah blah blah." Surprisingly that technique seems to work for many readers, although they learn very little about the unit under review.
living sounds
Well-known member
Like many inexperienced and financially challenged youths I've wasted lot's of money in my earlier recording days on gear that is "good for the money". What this phrase really means is: "It's not good, but it doesn't nearly cost as much as the good stuff". I want a reviewer to make this very clear to the readers. Most reviewers don't do this at all.
People starting out must be educated to look beyond the marketing and not be fooled. An ideal reviewer should thus communicate to them the need to concentrate on quality rather than quantity. If he has the technical expertise he should also point out the weaknesses of a unit to the reader, to put pressure on the manufacturer not to cut corners where it should be avoided. That's the only way to get the engineers to do what's right and prevent the business people from screwing things up IMHO. The amount of crap out there in pro and consumer audio has a lot to do with the press not doing it's job properly.
BTW, this wasn't aimed at Rossi, of course.
People starting out must be educated to look beyond the marketing and not be fooled. An ideal reviewer should thus communicate to them the need to concentrate on quality rather than quantity. If he has the technical expertise he should also point out the weaknesses of a unit to the reader, to put pressure on the manufacturer not to cut corners where it should be avoided. That's the only way to get the engineers to do what's right and prevent the business people from screwing things up IMHO. The amount of crap out there in pro and consumer audio has a lot to do with the press not doing it's job properly.
BTW, this wasn't aimed at Rossi, of course.
OK, I will preface this with the fact that I am being defensive but there is apparently some confusion between features and quality. "Good for the money" should be a consideration for purchase decisions at any price point, but implies some lower standard of performance or feature set.
I have 15 years of first hand experience into the amount and level of engineering that goes inside some value products. It's far harder to engineer a VW bug to meet a price point, than a "cost no object" Ferrari.
Many of the things that customer perceive as quality are really features. Features that get negotiated down in the price sensitive marketplace where side by side competition quickly favors the visible features, like number of knobs, vs. the less visible "what are the knobs connected to?".
I recall how in '85 when I first started working at Peavey, I had the luxury of being the relatively low cost manufacturer so I could afford to put some extra features inside the box that weren't visible at point of purchase. Customers count the knobs then buy based on cosmetics and vague brand image. By the end of my tour, competition had forced us to set up offshore manufacturing or lose market share, but we still used the same US engineered designs and exact same components, many of which were already coming from over there.
I have been studying how consumers think for decades, and the best advice I can offer is don't listen to what they say, look at what they do. What they spend money on is the only marketplace reality. While very vocal dealers and customer's argued against offshore manufacturing, Behringer went from a sleepy rack efx company to a force in the market place, with the single advantage of taking other peoples proven designs and bringing them to the marketplace cheaper.
I will argue that domestic manufacture vs. made in China is a feature, with a cost component that the majority of customers will not pay for, as evidenced by the marketplace (think Mackie). Quality more correctly is about how well a product meets it's design goals, not your opinion of what those design goals should be... that falls into the features realm.
I understand the reviewer's horror to be tainted by reviewing a "value" product. While not politically correct for some products, I'd refer the reader to the original design that was copied, and maybe point out the differences, like what corners were cut (transformer size and shielding in direct boxes for one example).
If reviewing a well engineered original "value" product, there are probably stories inside the box that are not immediately apparent and could inform the customer. I got a half dozen or so patents while engineering value products, so I know there are stories there at least inside products from some companies. (Note to Rossi: Insist on talking to lead design engineer to get inside dope on a given product. If that search leads to a Xerox machine your work is done. :roll: )
Unfortunately the race to the bottom in the value segment makes it harder to put content inside any box that the customer doesn't count in his point of sale calculus. The modern disposable product mentality doesn't favor design for easy repair, another invisible feature. I recall the first mixer I developed for Chinese build had some unique features. It was soon copied.
JR
I have 15 years of first hand experience into the amount and level of engineering that goes inside some value products. It's far harder to engineer a VW bug to meet a price point, than a "cost no object" Ferrari.
Many of the things that customer perceive as quality are really features. Features that get negotiated down in the price sensitive marketplace where side by side competition quickly favors the visible features, like number of knobs, vs. the less visible "what are the knobs connected to?".
I recall how in '85 when I first started working at Peavey, I had the luxury of being the relatively low cost manufacturer so I could afford to put some extra features inside the box that weren't visible at point of purchase. Customers count the knobs then buy based on cosmetics and vague brand image. By the end of my tour, competition had forced us to set up offshore manufacturing or lose market share, but we still used the same US engineered designs and exact same components, many of which were already coming from over there.
I have been studying how consumers think for decades, and the best advice I can offer is don't listen to what they say, look at what they do. What they spend money on is the only marketplace reality. While very vocal dealers and customer's argued against offshore manufacturing, Behringer went from a sleepy rack efx company to a force in the market place, with the single advantage of taking other peoples proven designs and bringing them to the marketplace cheaper.
I will argue that domestic manufacture vs. made in China is a feature, with a cost component that the majority of customers will not pay for, as evidenced by the marketplace (think Mackie). Quality more correctly is about how well a product meets it's design goals, not your opinion of what those design goals should be... that falls into the features realm.
I understand the reviewer's horror to be tainted by reviewing a "value" product. While not politically correct for some products, I'd refer the reader to the original design that was copied, and maybe point out the differences, like what corners were cut (transformer size and shielding in direct boxes for one example).
If reviewing a well engineered original "value" product, there are probably stories inside the box that are not immediately apparent and could inform the customer. I got a half dozen or so patents while engineering value products, so I know there are stories there at least inside products from some companies. (Note to Rossi: Insist on talking to lead design engineer to get inside dope on a given product. If that search leads to a Xerox machine your work is done. :roll: )
Unfortunately the race to the bottom in the value segment makes it harder to put content inside any box that the customer doesn't count in his point of sale calculus. The modern disposable product mentality doesn't favor design for easy repair, another invisible feature. I recall the first mixer I developed for Chinese build had some unique features. It was soon copied.
JR
okgb
Well-known member
The bigger the ad , the better the review ?
Don't bite the hand that feeds you ?
Nothing is perfect , so a review which only says good things
or doesn't lay out all the facts or the lame ending , that it is
worth checking out or worthy of consideration , [ says what ? ]
I find hard to trust , without saying that , you should be able to
draw your own conclusion if it is worth checking out .
Just like the mags rerunning how to , articles every year in a cycle
so new names pop up " telling us " about new gear not much different
than the drug companies sending posters & samples to Doctors .
Comparisions or at least sounds files is a little more helpful , but
subjective
Don't bite the hand that feeds you ?
Nothing is perfect , so a review which only says good things
or doesn't lay out all the facts or the lame ending , that it is
worth checking out or worthy of consideration , [ says what ? ]
I find hard to trust , without saying that , you should be able to
draw your own conclusion if it is worth checking out .
Just like the mags rerunning how to , articles every year in a cycle
so new names pop up " telling us " about new gear not much different
than the drug companies sending posters & samples to Doctors .
Comparisions or at least sounds files is a little more helpful , but
subjective
[quote author="living sounds"]The amount of crap out there in pro and consumer audio has a lot to do with the press not doing it's job properly.[/quote]
No, that's not true. I for one have quite frequently made manufacturers aware of problems and the manufacturers have reacted in a number of cases. For instance upgraded inadequate power supplies or fixed stuff that simply didn't work as advertised. Apart from instances like that, i.e. fixing a problem, the manufacturers don't react to the press very much. I have frequently called for a decent monitor controller, and still nobody offers one. Given the sheer volume of my writing (the quality is for others to judge), one might think I have some pull. But that's not really the case.
Also, good for the money usually just means what it means: good for the money. If a cheap product does what it's supposed to do and is useful, it is good for the money. For instance, I just reviewed the Zoom H2 mobile recorder. It is €200 and at that price I don't expect it to perform like a €2000 unit. It is a tremendous value for the money, and I bought one myself. Why should I buy a more expensive recorder, if this one is adequate for my needs? It's easy to be hard on the cut-corner guys, but sometimes they actually do a decent job.
Of course there are reviewers who declare almost anything "good for the money". That's mostly, I think, because it facilitates a reviewers life considerably. But in my case and the same goes for the other reviewers of the magazines I write for, good for the money means good for the money, and if it's not good at all, I/we won't call it good for the money, either.
No, that's not true. I for one have quite frequently made manufacturers aware of problems and the manufacturers have reacted in a number of cases. For instance upgraded inadequate power supplies or fixed stuff that simply didn't work as advertised. Apart from instances like that, i.e. fixing a problem, the manufacturers don't react to the press very much. I have frequently called for a decent monitor controller, and still nobody offers one. Given the sheer volume of my writing (the quality is for others to judge), one might think I have some pull. But that's not really the case.
Also, good for the money usually just means what it means: good for the money. If a cheap product does what it's supposed to do and is useful, it is good for the money. For instance, I just reviewed the Zoom H2 mobile recorder. It is €200 and at that price I don't expect it to perform like a €2000 unit. It is a tremendous value for the money, and I bought one myself. Why should I buy a more expensive recorder, if this one is adequate for my needs? It's easy to be hard on the cut-corner guys, but sometimes they actually do a decent job.
Of course there are reviewers who declare almost anything "good for the money". That's mostly, I think, because it facilitates a reviewers life considerably. But in my case and the same goes for the other reviewers of the magazines I write for, good for the money means good for the money, and if it's not good at all, I/we won't call it good for the money, either.
