Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
LATEST ADDITIONS
|
Dec 14, 1998 |
114 comments
A continuation of last week's question. Equipment reviews are <I>Stereophile</I>'s bread and butter. Do they strike a good balance between technical details and subjective impressions? Are the measurements, charts, and graphs useful to you?
How could <I>Stereophile</I>'s equipment reviews be improved? The listed choices are for your convenience; use the "Comments" box to make other suggestions.
More budget gear
13% (30 votes)
More mid-priced gear
20% (47 votes)
More exotic gear
4% (9 votes)
More photos of gear
4% (10 votes)
More bench tests
1% (2 votes)
More side-by-side comparisons
13% (30 votes)
More three-way (or more) comparisons
27% (62 votes)
More electronic and acoustic theory
3% (8 votes)
More consideration of compatibility with associated gear
9% (22 votes)
More emphasis on reliability
2% (5 votes)
More emphasis on upgradability
1% (3 votes)
Mention manufacturer's track record with similar products
2% (4 votes)
Total votes: 232
|
Dec 06, 1998 |
90 comments
Is it the reviews of hardware or music or both? Do you like to get technical or not? When you read about audio in magazines, no matter whose magazine it might be, what do you really like to see, and what would you like to see more of?
What types of articles do you most like to read in magazines about audio? Leave suggestions in the "Comments" box for articles you'd like to see.
Equipment reports
48% (105 votes)
Music reviews
6% (13 votes)
Industry news
2% (4 votes)
Technical features
7% (16 votes)
Industry interviews
1% (3 votes)
Music interviews
0% (1 vote)
Best of the year features
1% (2 votes)
An even mix of the above
26% (57 votes)
None of the above, here's my idea . . .
8% (17 votes)
Total votes: 218