I Miss TPV Playback Sucks
sheepherder -- Thu, 04/17/2008 - 15:28
Sorry Playback sucks! Your jazz reviews and blues reviews are the worse I have read in 30 years of subscribing to TAs, Stereophile, Audio, Stereo Review etc. Your jazz and blues reviews are way to white for this middle calss white guy and jazz reviewed is awful and reminds of the European jazz record TAS and Stereophile reviews raved about in the 80's as the utlimate test record or CD.
Equipment reviews on dismal and the quality of your reviewers has gone done hill when compared to the TPV.
I read 4 issues to give you all a fair chance and Playback makes the old Stereo Review look like the best Audio publication ever.
Since HP writes and works from an assisted living community now I guess this is to be expected.
Whats next TAS going to podcasts eclusively. Get rid of the MBA marketing wizards please.
And one want to bet on a response from HP! Or from anyone. TAS and Playback have joined the mainstream media. Too bad!
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Sheepherder:
Thanks for the feedback, and sorry you are not happy. I am sure you mean "mainstream media" as an epithet, but you should know that we are very interested in helping more people discover great music and movies. That is the purpose of Playback. In that sense, I see mainstream as a good thing, and elitism as a bad thing.
Of course, we are not perfect, and we welcome input on how to make Playback better.
Re: TPV, you may wish to read this post from HarrisonS and my reply (to which HarrisonS has not yet replied):
Quote:
I would really like to get some feedback from the editors, regarding the changes made over the last year or two to TPV. The magazine abandoned its loyal high end readership in an effort to become the National Inquirer of A/V. For years I greatly prized TPV and held it as my very favorite of all of the magazines to which I subscribe. Here is a part of post that I made on another thread:
The tragedy actually seems to have begun a couple of years ago and grew worse as the magazine deteriorated. There seems to have been a concerted effort by the editors to abandon the high-end roots of TPV. Over time attention shifted to more low-end gear and to the dumbing down of the contents (example: the shifting of the more technical details of equipment reviews to the web). To add insult to injury, they began using titles using inane alliterations and extreme adjectives like "awesome" and "super duper". It seems as if The Perfect Vision was trying to compete with tabloids like The National Inquirer or The Midnight Star! It looks like TPV, in making these changes alienated its loyal readership base.
I certainly hope TAS remains true (as it has so far) to its high-end readership. If it made the same changes as did TPV it would be devoting the bulk of its reviews to things like boom boxes under $50, using inane titles like "Boom Box Blowout!" or "Blaster Bonanza!"
If these changes were made "to appeal to a wdier readership" it was certainly ill-advised! In so doing TPV abandoned its loyal core readership of high end users, and became just another also-ran among other established magazines that already appeal to this "wider readership". In doing this, TPV brought about its own demise!
_________________
Harrison S.
Back to top
My reply:
Harrison -- thanks for the comments.
From one perspective, the simple reality is that there weren't enough loyal high end readers of TPV, despite our regular investment of large (6 figure, which is big for us) annual sums in finding and enticing them to read the magazine. That isn't a message blaming the readers (which would be crazy), it is a statement about the size of the high end home theater market relative to the number of publications and sites serving it.
Perhaps this market size problem is understandable in the following context.
The last issue of TPV (Jan 2008) summarized our reviews from the past year or so to give Editor's Choice Awards; in those awards I find several ~$5000 flat panels, 6 video projectors (up to $26,000), a $6700 controller, a $10,000 speaker system, two video processors, a $3500 sub among other items. Many of the other products in this roundup are priced at premium levels relative to the market (e.g. the average flat panel in 2007 sold for a little under $1000; the least expensive editor's choice display was $2200). If such products are the home theater equivalent of $50 boomboxes in audio, then I can see where we went wrong. The home theater market may well have a small but passionate very high end, in which $5000 flat panels are "entry level", and $30,000 speaker systems are the norm. Then there may be relatively few people in the middle of the market, and a lot at the "low-end".
Anyway, it helps to be more specific about readers' likes and dislikes. Take a look at Scott Wilkinson's coverage of 47" flat panels in the TPV section of Playback (Issue 5):
http://magazine.playbackmag.net/playback/200802web/
Too low end? Not enough technical information? Too few displays? Wrong models?
Sheepherder, you could also look at:
http://magazine.playbackmag.net/playback/200804web/
And provide specific Jazz feedback.
That kind of feedback will help.
As for TAS being mainstream, I'll just assume your anger temporarily got the best of you, though if you have specifics that would be interesting too.
Thanks.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Is this getting to more people the reason the rollover buttons give info in Spanish, or just another screw up to make the magazine less useful?
As for the new content/format, you've made the old Stereo Review look useful.
Hold up a minute, olc.
The old Stereo Review often had lines that read something like "of all the speakers I have reviewed, the 'xxx' is one of them." In short, there wasn't much useful description or characterization of the products under review at all.
I hardly think the same can be said of Playback. We do offer very accurate, differentiated characterizations of the products we review, complete with practical, real-world observations that show how the products handle actual program material. What do you find problematic about that?
You may find Playback's relatively condensed and plainspoken style offensive, and I'm sorry if that's the case. But please understand that we are not writing purely for an ultra-high-end enthusiast audience (though I would contend that our more information-centric approach often conveys essential points more clearly than most enthusiast publications do).
As I see it, the acid test is this: can I show a Playback article to a veteran A/V enthusiast and ask, "Does this article have information you find insightful?" and then turn to a non-enthusiast/layman with the same article and ask, "Do you find this material engaging, understandable, and useful?" I don't claim we've found the perfect balance point that works for both audiences (obviously it doesn't work for you), but we won't rest until we do. It's an ongoing experiment.
Re: Spanish text on the Playback rollover buttons. I've just (re-) tested the magazine in two browsers (Internet Explorer and Safari) and on two platforms (PC and Mac), and cannot duplicate the problem you describe. On my screens, the rollover text invariably comes up in English. Is there any chance the problem might be on your end?
Chris Martens, Editor, Playback
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
While surfing around the AVguide/TPV/Playback site recently, some interesting observations struck me. I've read quite a bit of the bitching/moaning/screaming/complaining/hollering on these forums (along with the occasional 'kudos' here & there), and I'll make this my official 2 1/2 cents worth, whether invited or not. I've never posted prior to now, but as a fairly faithful reader for many years through all the various gyrations (dating back to AVguide, February 2004), it seems like a good time. The editors have made it known they appreciate all input, whether positive or negative, sooooo, OK, here goes....
First the bad - get it out of the way first; Yes, the new format is a backward step in some ways. I for one do concur with the sentiments of some who lament the loss of pdf downloads for the archives as well as current content. It's unclear who 'texterity' (apparently the new provider) is as a company, but I'm inherently distrusting of new technologies when it comes to the web and/or anything that is going to be downloaded to my PC (strong concerns over viruses, spyware, adware, malware - need I go on? It's sad, but truly the age we live in). While my instincts tell me that everything is surely fine and on the up 'n up, and that it was ultimately a cost-conscious business decision, simply put, Adobe systems has been around for eternity and is acknowledged worldwide - bring back the good 'ole pdf.
On a positive note, I will the commend the current site for its speed, snappy response times, and recent issues have certainly contained a tremendous amount of wide-ranging content. Keep in mind folks, this is an advertiser-funded site which has been delivered to us, at least until now, on a month-after-month and year-after-year at absolutely no cost to its readers. All of the people working hard (and I suspect they really ARE working hard) behind the scenes have mortgages and mouths to feed just like the rest of us. A remarkable achievement it is in this cut-throat, ever-evolving hi-tech world of ours to do what they do. I probably sound like a compensated endorser of the company writing this post, but most assuredly that isn't the case - I simply prefer to look at the whole picture (terrible pun intended), rather than nitpicking or focusing on the trite. Stop and think about business in the 21st century, particularly in light of the current economic climate, and imagine what's involved in delivering a quality product, on-time every month, which has to be profitable over the long term, and appeal to and satisfy as wide a subscriber base as humanly possible. Consider all that, and then (and only then) does one begin to grasp what must surely transpire behind the scenes.
Of course living in our world of instant gratification and 'what have you done for me lately' attitudes, one realizes that bad news travels 100 times faster, and 100 times farther than good news. Unfortunately it often is more along the lines of human nature to focus on the negative, rather than encouraging the positive. For many it seems so much easier to say something along the lines of "your jazz reviews suck", or "you guys must be on Sonys payroll", etc. etc. with what I'd suspect is very little thought behind the statement, or what ramifications it may have upon others. These broad-reaching, blanket comments serve little beneficial purpose to anyone other than perhaps the author pecking away at the keys. Picking up on certain patterns laid out by some, one could surmise that perhaps it's simply an extension of ones own personal feelings in general towards many aspects of life (never satisfied/chronic complainer, etc.), but that's speculative at best so no sense going any further there. For those with an overall negative slant, bear in mind, the current configuration is still in a 'Beta' or advanced testing mode, so clearly plenty of additional changes and tweaks are sure to be seen in the coming months. Providing some additional slack during this significant transitional period would seem to be beneficial before passing final judgement.
In any event, regarding the content of the magazine itself. There simply is not a formula, nor will there ever be, that satisfys all the people all the time. The reviewers themselves are human, and therefore prone to certain biases and opinions regardless of how effectively they attempt to remain neutral and impartial towards every plasma TV, new hip-hop record, or Blu-ray player that crosses their desks in any given month. In my opinion, it's that thought-provoking 'flavor' which each individual reviewer (or sometimes collectively) provides which makes reading a form of entertainment as well as education. Obviously it is also their job to provide the cold, hard facts such as specifications, measurements, etc. etc., but if a review were to never stray beyond the boundaries of fact, I suspect a publication would very soon dry up and blow away. We as readers then take that information we're provided as a whole and mentally distill it, then hopefully apply what we've processed in a manner beneficial to our own ultimate purchasing decisions. So, in a nutshell, I for one say... "keep up the good work".
This is a vote for AV Enthusiast's esssay. To expect any one magazine or pundit to cover all the nuances of opinion shaping for all reader's perspectives is just plain silly. Playback, like all the rest out there, is a mix of styles and editorializing that combines "interesting reading" with enough candor to retain some credibility. I look forward to it simply because I'm alerted to equipment and media worth checking out and some light reading which also conveys useful information. There are plenty of outlets these days for dead serious, academic, engineering analysis. Playback is about entertainment, it's free, and more credible than many.