Samc wrote on Thu, 27 January 2005 03:19 |
I think it would be interesting if lee or KK (or both) would explain the nuts and bolts of the review process in detail. I don't think most people knows what happens behind the scenes so to speak.
|
I'd be happy to talk about it... thanks for asking and not just presuming.
Quote: |
How are the pieces selected for review, do you or the magazine(s) only review equipment that are submitted by the manufacturer and/or do you/the magazine approach a manufacturer if you think a particular piece of equipment might be interesting?
|
Both. If they submit something, the editors look for someone who's interested in doing a review, and if anyone at the magazine is interested in something specific, the editors contact the manufacturer and try to get hold of a unit.
The editors and a lot of the writers of course frequent the trade shows to get an idea what's coming down the pike and network with each other. I don't get very involved in that part personally, since I'm a freelancer. I figure the editors and other folks I talk to regularly will let me know what's coming out that might be cool. EQ specifically also has a policy that they don't review vaporware; if you can't go into a store and buy something, it won't be reviewed. They might send advance stuff for review but the review won't be published until the product is on the market.
Quote: |
Do you try, and if so how do you verify claims made by the manufacturers regarding the technical performance of said equipment?
|
Well it's impossible to verify EVERY claim, but I personally read the manual from cover to cover and attempt to 1) try out every feature and verify that it works as they describe, and 2) if something doesn't appear kosher in terms of the specs, I'll say something to the editor first so that we can verify that I don't have a defective unit (in which case they'd get me another one), or an incompatibility with my setup (which would be mentioned in the review).
When I say something "doesn't appear kosher" it's a fairly gut level judgement based on experience. If a manufacturer claims a mic is flat out to 22K and it isn't, I can hear it and I'll say so. I don't generally sit there and actually measure specs myself (or ask my editors to if I don't have the test equipment) unless I have good reason to think the manufacturer is full of it. There just isn't enough time to do that, and in any case I don't think I've ever come across a case where the manufacturer outright lied. They might (and often do) say something misleading in their marketing, which is usually something subjective or misleading by omission, in which case I may well attempt to fill in the blanks. If something doesn't work as advertised, that should become apparent during the evaluation process. And we do try to beat stuff up pretty well - that's another benefit of doing this, we get to abuse gear in a way that somebody who paid for it probably wouldn't dare!
Quote: |
What are your obligations to the magazine and to the manufacturer when doing a review?......etc etc.
|
My obligation to the magazine is to do an honest and thorough review, of the length and format we've agreed upon, and to turn it in on time.
Our obligation to the manufacturer is that we send the review to them before it is published for fact checking. Basically that means if we've misstated anything they have the chance to point it out. And as KK and I both mentioned, oftentimes when they read a review they will hasten to correct something before it goes to publication, in which case we will amend the review. I think this is a valuable part of the review process which most of the buying public isn't really aware of - I know I wasn't before I started reviewing.
And that's about it really.