Reviews and reviewers - are they necessarily bad?

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

The first one where it did well was blind, the second one was an individual test, factually incorrect and an obvious hatchet job by the guy who is an objectivist pianist, sorry I forget all their names.

I think you must be wrong about the end cost as there was no court action and only a few letters back and forth. I don't think you even had solicitors involved, you just stone walled it until you realised it wasn't going to go away.

[Alan Sircom]

The first one where it did well was blind, the second one was an individual test, factually incorrect and an obvious hatchet job by the guy who is an objectivist pianist, sorry I forget all their names.

I think you must be wrong about the end cost as there was no court action and only a few letters back and forth. I don't think you even had solicitors involved, you just stone walled it until you realised it wasn't going to go away.

Ah. That might explain why I didn't register the AP30 test. Most of my involvement at the time was administrating those large blind tests.

I might well be wrong, but it was what I'd been told, both by my publisher and the Grim Reaper who got rid of all those magazines.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I must admit I miss those tests from a social and amusement point of view. I was only on Paul Miller's ones a couple of times and found him IMO to be an arrogant prick (tell it as it is). My favourites were of course Paul Messengers which were a giant laugh as well as a decent lunch. You get used to the process which is why you need regulars, and well over 90% of the time I guessed right what was on. Though speakers are a lot easier than some other things as they are not often subtle. What gave me the biggest laugh and the subtle occasional piss take, which only Paul seemed to pick up on and tried to keep a straight face, was the big company marketing men in their suits, who hadn't a bloody clue what was going on and couldn't tell their speakers from a fried egg, really funny and the occasional clueless designers as well. You discovered some real musical bargains as well, which is how I cottoned on the Royd and JPW.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I might well be wrong, but it was what I'd been told, both by my publisher and the Grim Reaper who got rid of all those magazines.

Well maybe the solicitor stitched me up and kept the major share of it for himself, I wouldn't put it past them.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Anyway, back on topic, reviews and reviewers. So which was the most corrupt and bad magazine and its reviewers ever. My vote goes to Chris Frankland and Hi-fi Review. Now it predecessor the Flat Response was even worse as a hi-fi mag but it was so funny due to some of the fringe elements the shear entertainment outweighed the stupidity. Best part was The Curse Of The Claw, written by Doug Hewitt of Manticore fame, it was a hilarious piss take of the industry.

Anyway the publishing company was so corrupt it was prosecuted for VAT fraud and Chris Frankland went to prison for 6 months and hasn't been seen in the industry since.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I can't believe no one has been willing to post on this. What about Haymarket publishing with their multiple Hi-Fi titles going back to the 1970's, with their wandering pool of young cheap semi literate so called reviewers, which has now left us with the joke that is called What Hi-Fi. Surely there must be opinion.

[Daniel Quinn]

I would but i've nothing interesting to comment.

i was a young naive idiot when I read magazines between 87-93 ish and have only recently started buying/reading, all I can say is I bought a pink triangle in 90 in opposition to hi-fi review. You are the oracle of the magazine shenanigens, though some older members must have some info :D

[Sovereign]

We were all naive in our youth soaking up and believing everything we read.
We all get synical, or should I say wise, with age.