RobHolt
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2004
- Messages
- 4,126
- Reaction score
- 12
I did try it once, and it did work reasonably well!
The future of the hi-fi press
- Thread starter RobHolt
- Start date
I did try it once, and it did work reasonably well!
Crystal ball time
In the UK, magazines like 'What Hi-Fi' now seem to be inhabiting some strange, insular little universe of their own: a bit like a monthly Richer Sounds catalogue.
Every medium has its tropes: just as the magazine format created a well-worn rut of convention, so web reviews tend to run along similar lines.
But it's hard to see a major place for printed media of this particular type in the future, as a generation of digital media consumers mature and an older generation dies out.
There will always be a place for authoritative voices and credible reviewers, though: they can be heard equally online and in print, through the promotional static.
In the UK, magazines like 'What Hi-Fi' now seem to be inhabiting some strange, insular little universe of their own: a bit like a monthly Richer Sounds catalogue.
Every medium has its tropes: just as the magazine format created a well-worn rut of convention, so web reviews tend to run along similar lines.
But it's hard to see a major place for printed media of this particular type in the future, as a generation of digital media consumers mature and an older generation dies out.
There will always be a place for authoritative voices and credible reviewers, though: they can be heard equally online and in print, through the promotional static.
It will be such a pity if Hifi Critic disappears - at least PM and MC are making a much better stab than others at reviewing in an intelligent way. But with little exposure to attract new subscribers and a move from 2 monthly to 3 monthly publication, it wouldn't surprise me to see it cease in the next year or so.
I think hi-fi reviews are out-of-step with modern life. Magazine reviews doubly so. Magazines not constrained by the demands of having to compete with other titles at WH Smith exponentially so.
Online written material has ruined many people's ability to follow writing of any complexity. But, those who read hi-fi reviews want them to be authoritative and thorough. I suspect we're all somewhere between the two points now; we want to see long, thorough reviews, but skim-read them because we have lost the power to sit through a 2,000 word review from beginning to end.
Reviews are also from a time when we respected the opinions of 'experts', because they knew their subject matter and were privy to 'insider' information. Now, anyone with Google can access most of the same information and their opinion is now just another voice. Even their expertise is challenged because there's always someone smarter on line... and even when they aren't smarter, they shout louder.
I don't know where that leaves the hi-fi press. Even migrating online is not the answer, because the review and feature model doesn't work there; 6moons is impenetrable, while Soundstage is thorough, but is read as being both too brief (by traditional audiophiles) and too long-winded (by everyone else). I suspect what will work is the What Hi-Fi micro review (its website is absurdly popular, it seems), and that leaves us with arguably the worst of both worlds.
Online written material has ruined many people's ability to follow writing of any complexity. But, those who read hi-fi reviews want them to be authoritative and thorough. I suspect we're all somewhere between the two points now; we want to see long, thorough reviews, but skim-read them because we have lost the power to sit through a 2,000 word review from beginning to end.
Reviews are also from a time when we respected the opinions of 'experts', because they knew their subject matter and were privy to 'insider' information. Now, anyone with Google can access most of the same information and their opinion is now just another voice. Even their expertise is challenged because there's always someone smarter on line... and even when they aren't smarter, they shout louder.
I don't know where that leaves the hi-fi press. Even migrating online is not the answer, because the review and feature model doesn't work there; 6moons is impenetrable, while Soundstage is thorough, but is read as being both too brief (by traditional audiophiles) and too long-winded (by everyone else). I suspect what will work is the What Hi-Fi micro review (its website is absurdly popular, it seems), and that leaves us with arguably the worst of both worlds.
> The future of the hi-fi press
> Is there one?
Of course. People are always going to want "independent" guidance for their purchases of home audio equipment. Of course, home audio is becoming less and less independent of other consumer sectors like TVs, computers, mobile and such and this is being reflected in the organisation.
> So where are we today, and what is the purpose of a modern audio magazine?
As it always was, to make a profit. The dominant approach is to become an attractive vehicle for advertisers. Although the size of the stereo-orientated mainstream is shrinking there has been growth in wacky audiophile products and this has been reflected to a fair extent in the emphasis of the newer audiophile press.
> Are they responding correctly to changing markets and what would you like to see them
> doing differently?
If they remain profitable then it is easy to argue that they are responding correctly. Personally, I would like to see an attempt at a technically competent home audio publication. This will inevitably be of modest size in a luxury goods sector but I would expect it to be relatively stable if there is enough interest to reach a viable level of income. Of course, there may not be.
> Anyone have a view on the model as used by Hi-Fi Critic?
Doomed. They offer the same type of information that is freely or cheaply available to readers elsewhere. To make this approach work you have got to supply something different and valuable to the reader.
> Is there one?
Of course. People are always going to want "independent" guidance for their purchases of home audio equipment. Of course, home audio is becoming less and less independent of other consumer sectors like TVs, computers, mobile and such and this is being reflected in the organisation.
> So where are we today, and what is the purpose of a modern audio magazine?
As it always was, to make a profit. The dominant approach is to become an attractive vehicle for advertisers. Although the size of the stereo-orientated mainstream is shrinking there has been growth in wacky audiophile products and this has been reflected to a fair extent in the emphasis of the newer audiophile press.
> Are they responding correctly to changing markets and what would you like to see them
> doing differently?
If they remain profitable then it is easy to argue that they are responding correctly. Personally, I would like to see an attempt at a technically competent home audio publication. This will inevitably be of modest size in a luxury goods sector but I would expect it to be relatively stable if there is enough interest to reach a viable level of income. Of course, there may not be.
> Anyone have a view on the model as used by Hi-Fi Critic?
Doomed. They offer the same type of information that is freely or cheaply available to readers elsewhere. To make this approach work you have got to supply something different and valuable to the reader.
sq225917
Exposer of Foo
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 0
It's funny that out of all the magazines, Critic is the one that would transfer best to a fee paying download basis on the web, and therefore cut the huge print and distribution costs. They would do well to look at this model.
Whichever magazine makes the first full transition to the web will be the one that survives most intact as things change.
I can't take 6Moons seriously, Srajan is the progeny of a religious nut job, mass murderer. and all the reviews are just preposterously positive even on the most outlandish pieces of shit.
Whichever magazine makes the first full transition to the web will be the one that survives most intact as things change.
I can't take 6Moons seriously, Srajan is the progeny of a religious nut job, mass murderer. and all the reviews are just preposterously positive even on the most outlandish pieces of shit.
Indeed. It might be a way to add value for some readers and distinguish themselves from other audiophile publications. Possibly a bit desperate though given the reasons other publications don't do it. Probably need to choose with care which products/companies to give poor reviews. Interesting though.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,198
- Reaction score
- 0
Time for Critic to give up paper and go on line. Even the nationals are now doing it and charging for content, it is such a logical step I really don't understand why they haven't done it yet.
mick parry
stroppy old git
Chaps
Most of the magazine articles are written by people "in the trade" which almost certainly results in stupid, high tech, over wordy rubbish that fools no one and bores most of us rigid.
On the internet, most people "in the trade" are either embittered or egotistic and are screaming PLEASE LISTEN TO ME PLEASE LISTEN TO ME I NEED TO BE IMPORTANT WITH SOME SO PLEASE LISTEN TO ME.
Most of the sensible stuff comes from Joe Public because they don't have an agenda to worry about.
Regards
Mick
Most of the magazine articles are written by people "in the trade" which almost certainly results in stupid, high tech, over wordy rubbish that fools no one and bores most of us rigid.
On the internet, most people "in the trade" are either embittered or egotistic and are screaming PLEASE LISTEN TO ME PLEASE LISTEN TO ME I NEED TO BE IMPORTANT WITH SOME SO PLEASE LISTEN TO ME.
Most of the sensible stuff comes from Joe Public because they don't have an agenda to worry about.
Regards
Mick
Last edited by a moderator:
TonyL
Club Krautrock Plinque
I've never noticed the word please.
Tony.
Tony.
mick parry
stroppy old git
Tony
I included the word please because I have mellowed over the years.
Mick
I included the word please because I have mellowed over the years.
Mick
Putting up a paywall is one thing. Having people pay is another.
Rumour has it putting an online site behind a paywall loses as much as 95% of site traffic. That would work if audio websites were getting millions of hits per day. If Critic's content went paywall, it would vanish. It would end up with more people writing the e-zine than reading it. At least print subscriptions bring in some money.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 0
I've not bothered much with the "comics" for some time now. These days the standards have dropped so far that much of what some of them write is not even technically correct 
Well they do offer a decent set of measurements.
