Hi,

I've got my meagre set-up pretty much as sorted as I need for personal use, and much as I love the tech articles in SOS, I feel the reviews section has gone a bit too 'top gear' for my requirements. Also given that I have no interest in synths, whilst some editions get read from cover to cover, others go pretty much unread. To be honest I actually miss nipping into town, flicking through the mag & deciding whether or not there's anything of interest to me in it.

I just wondered what will happen to my log-in/password when my sub expires, as I'd like to keep accessing the forum.

DM

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Hi,

Sorry to hear that you no longer want to subscribe to SOS. We'll of course be very sorry to see you go, but I know the editorial team read these forums and will take on board your comments.

With regard to your account, you will of course be able to continue to log in to the site and use it as you have previously - just without the added benefits of your subscription package. For example, the previous 5 months of eSub articles and Digital Editions will be locked. However any purchases you have made will still be downloadable via your My Downloads section.

--------------------
SOS Web Editor, Support & Social Media
Friend SOS on Facebook | Follow SOS on Twitter

Edited by Jennifer Jones (02/03/12 04:46 PM)

Hi Mike,

I'm sorry to learn that some of our reviews are missing the target for you.

To some extent the perceived drift upmarket in gear — certainly in terms of studio outboard — is a reflection of how the market has changed. With so much more being done in the box these days, and with audio interfaces offering pretty decent preamps (and even DSP effects) for the money, there just isn't as much budget gear around. Where there is, we should certainly be covering it — as we do with software.

Of course, it's your choice to subscribe or not... but whether you do or don't, if you feel we're neglecting some things in particular then do please let me know, as we're keen that we keep publishing for a broad readership. Its one of the things that has always set this mag apart — that it caters for everyone from newbs to seasoned pros working with all manner of different gear, environments and budgetary constraints.

In short, any feedback is always considered and appreciated.

Regards,

Matt Houghton
Reviews Editor

I've been a subscriber for past two years and a reader since about 2004. Most of my equipment buys have been partly-based on SOS reviews and I find that generally the products have been useful and good value - some higher end products are good investments both sonically and financially. Whilst respecting Dynamic Mike's views I wanted to add that from my perspective (low-to-mid-market) the SOS review balance is very good; some featured products are outside my price-range but it's good to have things to aspire to and I appreciate the educational aspect of the reviews. I find some of the 'cheaper' new products interesting too - partly for the advances in technology which often make them as capable as older, more expensive, products.

Some of the best reviews have been products I will likely never own - the AWS900 desk, Buchla, etc.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your response. To use a clichéd line from the break-up of many long term relationships 'It's not you, it's me..' My first purchase from a SOS review was a Sansui 6 track cassette! Obviously recording technology has changed immensely since them, but essentially my needs are still pretty much the same. With a Carillon PC, Cubase 6, Ozone, a 2/4 interface and a couple of mics for vocals & guitars, my requirements are pretty much boxed off. I rarely use samples or synths other than REX2 drum loops, which unfortunately means sometimes huge chunks of the magazine are of no interest to me.

I fully appreciate that as a progressive hi-tech magazine you need to reflect the current market, and I'm sure you do. However, as a hobbyist singer-songwriter with nobody to please but myself, I don't.

I love the articles on technique, basic theory, classic tracks, mix-rescue, studio SOS & Martin's PC notes. For a while I felt the mag drifted towards becoming SynthOnSynth for Mac users, (PC only was often listed in the Cons column, but never Mac only) which I think alienated a few readers, but seems much more balanced again lately. It's not so much that the items reviewed are beyond my means, it's more that they're beyond what I can justify for my needs. I think, and this possibly applies to many home-studios, equipment is no longer the limiting factor in the quality of my recording. Only knowledge, experience and a better acoustic environment can take me to the next stage.

I suspect I'll still be buying more editions than I won't, after all gear-lust is for life, I just won't be subscribing.

DM

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

(PC only was often listed in the Cons column, but never Mac only)

---

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/apogee-symphony.htm

There are a few of us here who still wave the flag for PCs and complain about those companys that refuse to support us...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

SOS is always my first port of call when looking for a review of something I am interested. Top marks to SOS for the excellent reviews but I too am fed up with reviews dominated by gear that is way beyond my budget. Yes its gear porn dreaming but come on, the bottom dropped out of the industry, there is little, if no money to be made from recorded music these days.

In another thread I suggested that a U87, as good as it is, should be able to be replicated for a fraction of the cost today. Look at what you get in any other industry. Look at the cost of computers 20 years ago compared to what you can get now. My point is, I believe there is a belief that unless you have a £1000+ mic/other thing, you'll never get the sound of the pros. Its all a bit snobby. So yes, I'd like to see SOS reviewing more products with realistic budgets and also more interviews with people who can get amazing results with these lower end products.
I love the articles on how classic songs were made in top world class studios but that doesn't really help me or, in my opinion, the vast majority of your readers to make better recordings.

Quote WiredUp:

---

I too am fed up with reviews dominated by gear that is way beyond my budget.

---

I don't know what your budget is, obviously, but perhaps your perception is at odds with the facts. In the current issue there are 27 product reviews. The cheapest is £2.49 and the most expensive is £6200. The average cost of all 27 is £699 (total £18, 892)

However, if you take out the three most expensive products (the Soundcraft desk at £6200, the Inta computer at £2649, and the Ingram preamp at £1522) which are arguably all aspriational products, the average cost of the 24 remaining review products is just £355.

Is that really beyond a realistic budget?

If so, twelve of the 27 reviews are for products that cost £250 or less, balanced against nine that cost more than £500. The production team really do try very hard to balance each issue with a full range of product types spanning a wide range of costs, but perhaps this is an area that should be revisited.

Quote:

---

In another thread I suggested that a U87, as good as it is, should be able to be replicated for a fraction of the cost today. Look at what you get in any other industry. Look at the cost of computers 20 years ago compared to what you can get now.

---

There are many mics on the market now that are as useful in specific situations as a U87 for a fraction of its cost, but even so I don't think your logic holds up to detailed scrutiny.

Virtually every household and every office in every technologically advanced country has several computers. The same can not be said of the U87 which sells in tiny numbers and involves small scale production with several elements requiring highly skilled hand assembly. The components for computers are produced on a vast scale and with extreme automation.

Quote:

---

My point is, I believe there is a belief that unless you have a £1000+ mic/other thing, you'll never get the sound of the pros.

---

We've run several articles in SOS debunking that very myth in the last year or two.

I take on board your comments, though, and thanks for the feedback.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

I too am fed up with reviews dominated by gear that is way beyond my budget.

---

I don't know what your budget is, obviously, but perhaps your perception is at odds with the facts. In the current issue there are 27 product reviews. The cheapest is £2.49 and the most expensive is £6200. The average cost of all 27 is £699 (total £18, 892)

However, if you take out the three most expensive products (the Soundcraft desk at £6200, the Inta computer at £2649, and the Ingram preamp at £1522) which are arguably all aspriational products, the average cost of the 24 remaining review products is just £355.

Is that really beyond a realistic budget?

If so, twelve of the 27 reviews are for products that cost £250 or less, balanced against nine that cost more than £500. The production team really do try very hard to balance each issue with a full range of product types spanning a wide range of costs, but perhaps this is an area that should be revisited.

Quote:

---

In another thread I suggested that a U87, as good as it is, should be able to be replicated for a fraction of the cost today. Look at what you get in any other industry. Look at the cost of computers 20 years ago compared to what you can get now.

---

There are many mics on the market now that are as useful in specific situations as a U87 for a fraction of its cost, but even so I don't think your logic holds up to detailed scrutiny.

Virtually every household and every office in every technologically advanced country has several computers. The same can not be said of the U87 which sells in tiny numbers and involves small scale production with several elements requiring highly skilled hand assembly. The components for computers are produced on a vast scale and with extreme automation.

Quote:

---

My point is, I believe there is a belief that unless you have a £1000+ mic/other thing, you'll never get the sound of the pros.

---

We've run several articles in SOS debunking that very myth in the last year or two.

I take on board your comments, though, and thanks for the feedback.

hugh

---

Thanks for your reply Hugh. I don't know about the latest issue, I've not purchased SOS for almost a year. I was finding it full of reviews of gear I cannot even consider due to price, there is really little point in reading them. Maybe things have changed. I've been reading SOS since the mid 90's, its still a wonderful publication and I take my hat off to you and the team but its not just me who is saying it.
By the way, the reason I've not purchased SOS for so long is because the nearest newsagents that carries it is an hours drive. Whenever I travel via an airport, my first priority is to get an SOS mag, I didn't want you to think I don't buy it out of choice. This is why I recently posted regarding a kindle/android version. I don't want to subscribe because there are times when some issues just don't have much to interest me. But if I see an interesting issue is out and I can get it on my phone quickly, I will!

Regarding manufacturing. The U87 was just one example. Can the same be said for interfaces and other hardware? They can be mass produced in China along with everything else. I'm not saying that is a good thing, it isn't, but I just don't see why audio products are any different. The U87 is a decades old design. I can't accept it cannot be reproduced and sold for profit for a much much lower RRP price than it currently sells for. When you buy a U87, its a status symbol and therefore an investiment. It holds its value because of what it is, not what it does.

Maybe you've done this and I missed it in SOS but I really value yours, paul's and other sos regulars opinion. You have access to the finest of tools that most of us never get the chance to try. How about an article where you look at budget alternatives to industry standards. I'd love to hear you tell me what, in your opinion, is closest to the U87 for a sub £500 budget. Pick a couple of options. Same for other gear.
My goal is to reproduce my music within a recording. To capture the sound of my Guitar as accurately as possible without selling my house to pay for a bunch of status symbol gear.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

(PC only was often listed in the Cons column, but never Mac only)

---

<a href="/sos/sep11/articles/apogee-symphony.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/apogee-symphony.htm</ a>

There are a few of us here who still wave the flag for PCs and complain about those companys that refuse to support us...

Hugh

---

Sinclair Spectrum 128 not Commodore C64...
Betamax ahead of VHS...
PC instead of Mac...
Blackberry rather than iPhone...
SOS preferred to Future Music...

I'm either destined to be the eternal bridesmaid or else it's a cry for help.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Edited by Dynamic Mike (02/03/12 05:45 PM)

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

To use a clichéd line from the break-up of many long term relationships 'It's not you, it's me..'

---

+1

I don't buy SoS that much anymore. Been buying it for a while but less so now. It's as great a magazine as it ever was, no need to change. Buy it now when there's a interesting feature or if there are some reviews of interest or passing through a news stand....

My music making set up and tastes have become very simple (two mics and a soundcard) opposed to the other things I used to have (samplers, drum machines, mixers, etc etc) so I don't need to read about new techniques and reviews as much as before....

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/earwighoney

With reference to the impression that the magazine focuses on pricier products, I wonder if that's more to do with page-for-page coverage than number of articles? Many of the cheaper items seem to be dealt with in short summary-like reviews, sharing the page with something else - the big spender items tend to occupy several pages. I have a pretty minimal budget but like to read some of these anyway for the technical stuff. However, I can see the benefit of a long, in-depth review for these things - if I was spending 6 grand, I'd want to have some idea what I was looking at before even asking to take a look at one in the flesh.

Personally I don't perceive any bias towards synths either, but then I am a synth nut... I'd quite like to see a few more head-to-heads, not in terms of "what's the best" necessarily, as I'm not sure that's very useful, but more in terms of "what does each of these bring to the table". It'd be good to have a round-up of similar items across a range of budgets with reasoned arguments for and against each. I don't recall any of that kind of piece lately.

I would just like to add to this thread by saying that after many, many years I recently stopped buying SoS.

This is due to the way this forum is moderated by certain individuals.

Perhaps if certain individuals went on a 'people skills' or 'team building' training weekend they might come back all the better for it. Such a transformation, as there would undoubtedly be one I'm sure, would guarantee my swift return to the fold.

Management should realize that the actions of the moderators on here, in front of and behind the scenes, ultimately reflects on the perception of brand and product.

I have also stopped contributing to this forum (been a member for 6-7 years) but many would say this is a good thing.

I thought James Lehmann stopped being a mod ages ago?

FWIW, I've only ever been an occasional dead-tree buyer. Not just here, but right across the board - Practical Wireless, Waterways World etc. - I now don't buy them at all, nor do I buy any newspapers or periodicals.

This is not through lack of interest or too high a cost but for the simple reason that I don't seem to have the time to read them anymore

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote Folderol:

---

FWIW, I've only ever been an occasional dead-tree buyer. Not just here, but right across the board - Practical Wireless, Waterways World etc. - I now don't buy them at all, nor do I buy any newspapers or periodicals.

---

Music Tech mag is very good and has come along way. You should give it a go - slightly more contemporary feel and the writers, instead of being a hobby moderator when not writing mag copy, are instead plying their trade at high levels in the industry. This experience shines through in their articles.

I should say though, as regards SoS, that I have always found Paul White's writing to be exceptionally good and own one or two of his books. Martin Walker and Craig Anderton are also superb writers whose contributions to the mag I shall miss reading.

Quote Dynamic Mike:

---

Hi,

I've got my meagre set-up pretty much as sorted as I need for personal use, and much as I love the tech articles in SOS, I feel the reviews section has gone a bit too 'top gear' for my requirements. Also given that I have no interest in synths, whilst some editions get read from cover to cover, others go pretty much unread. To be honest I actually miss nipping into town, flicking through the mag & deciding whether or not there's anything of interest to me in it.

---

This could have been me posting. I think, however that anyone following the trajectory of SOS will have seen this flow ebb in turn as the (audio tech and geo-economic) market develops.

The reflection of the inspiration and growth of Cockos Reaper has been an injection of the real world into the mag and forum, Mr Senior's contribution which has pointedly included the use of the best freeware and the reliance on technique over boutique has been a breath of fresh air.

I can accept the odd Rolls Royce (somebody's got to buy them) so long as there's plenty of interest to the rest. I would object much more to a Maplinisation of the mag (which I did worry about at the time the fora were being reorganized). This would be a loss.

I did have a subscription for a couple of years but let it go because I wanted to do as is suggested, read through the contents page and forum threads to decide if it was worth depriving the family of an evening meal yet again. So far I've not missed a copy but that's not written in stone.

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

I think that SoS is in a dilemma both because of its success and because of the coming-together of "professional" and "amateur" over the years.

WARNING! BOF reminiscences coming up... back in the 70s, the distinction between the two areas (pro and amateur) was very clear-cut. Us amateurs had the like of 'Home and Studio Recording' (edited by one P White in the 80's IIRC) and the pros had "Studio Sound". The distinction between the gear was pretty clear-cut too. If you wanted a decent mic that an amateur had a chance of affording then you really had a choice of three companies - AKG, Beyer and Sennheiser. When we BOFs met we talked about mics just by numbers - a 190, 201, 421 or whatever - because the choice was really very limited.

These days, particularly because of the Chinese factor, the two 'worlds' are much closer together and overlap in many degrees. The fact that many of the contributors to these forums are clearly respected true professionals towards the top of the heap illustrates the point.

SoS is read and respected across the whole range of experience, employment and budget.

Although I may rub shoulders with 'professionals', my "studio" and gear is still largely amateur. I've never earnt a living from sound and most of my "work" is voluntary or expenses only. Thus, my perspective on what is a reasonable amount to spend will be very different to a true professional. Being now a member of the buss-pas-brigade on a pension compounds the issue.

£200 for me is expensive and expenditure greater than that is a result of saving, gifts and very careful research

Hugh has previously stated that about 85% of the magazine readership regard themselves as non-professional. Of course, what that means in terms of available income for gear is another big question. There is a place for the expensive and I wouldn't want it to disappear. But in the mag and the forums do keep in mind the vast army of 'little guys'. F'r instance to see a comment that a mic that gives you very good results, costs over £350 and you've scrimped for is "not for serious recording" is disheartening to say the least.

Not wanting to appear any sort of paragon of virtue (ask my partner about that) but I have the online subscription primarily to support the forums which I value highly. The 6 month moratorium on article visibility doesn't affect me particularly; since I mostly buy second-hand kit I'm mostly looking at old reviews anyway. But if there wasn't a Sound on Sound magazine there wouldn't be a Sound on Sound forum and the magazine (whether paper or electronic) needs people to buy it.

CC

--------------------
Put the fun back into dysfunctional.
Mr Punch's Studio

Thanks for your support CC -- I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire team when I say that we really do appreciate it.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I am happy to pay for the mag, because I too value the advice of the wizards of the forum. I think of SOS amost as an on-line audio engineering course, and have had a great deal of fascinating and highly practical help. For the price of an annual sub, its a (swearword) bargain !!

The recent focus on acoustic treatments has made an enormous difference to my music, which I will soon be posting when the polishing is finally over....shudder....

And I do still think that Colin S should have had his own column...some of it was very funny...

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

And I do still think that Colin S should have had his own column...some of it was very funny...

---

I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire Mod Team when I say that they really don't appreciate that.

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

And I do still think that Colin S should have had his own column...some of it was very funny...

---

I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire Mod Team when I say that they really don't appreciate that.

---

Actually, you don't. I've said it before publicly, and I'm happy to say it again, a Colin S column in the magazine would be very refreshing. And I have made the same case privately in the mods forum too. At his best colin s was very funny, but even when he wasn't quite so funny he made some very valuable point's very well.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

For many years I nipped into WHSmith at lunch time when SOS was due out, flicked through the index & more often than not I bought it. If it was a sample/synth heavy edition I might put it back on the shelf. And that's basically what I want to go back to doing for a while. I'll still be supporting SOS more often than not, I just won't be subscribing. It appears from the debate it's triggered that I'm not the only one who would prefer the magazine to be a bit more 5th Gear & a bit less Top Gear. But all credit to the mods, I can't think of another publication/institution where the mods would even bother to respond, let alone give consideration to the suggestion.

I only really posted the question because when I took out my subscription all my forum log-in details & password changed. I just wondered if the same would happen when I unsubscribed because I wanted to continue posting.

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote zenguitar:

---

Quote ex-reid:

---

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

And I do still think that Colin S should have had his own column...some of it was very funny...

---

I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire Mod Team when I say that they really don't appreciate that.

---

Actually, you don't. I've said it before publicly, and I'm happy to say it again, a Colin S column in the magazine would be very refreshing. And I have made the same case privately in the mods forum too. At his best colin s was very funny, but even when he wasn't quite so funny he made some very valuable point's very well.

Andy

---

I can't agree more Andy. He would of been excellent doing the demo reviews or merely sounding off at the back on music biz matters.

I'm sure if the money was right he'd consider it. In fact I think he'd even do it for free.

I do not subscribe, I have a standing order with my newsagent from whom I have also had Radio Times for over 30years. This also automatically gets me the "specials" so SoS get a decent wedge off me every year but the little guy gets fed as well!

I have little complaint about the content or equipment choice of reviews and I love drooling over kit I cannot afford/justify (I did seriously consider an RME UCX a while ago following a small windfall but sanity eventulally prevailed and "she" got her windows!).

But I must comment about *&*&Y Betamax!Yes, the video quality in the begining beat VHS (sound was marginally worse!) but Beta was a lot more expensive, bit like comparing A&H with Phonic!
Then peeps never had to service them! Day's work changing a head and diagnosing the foil stop electronics drove one to drink!

Dave.

About 10 years ago I used to subscribe to 'Auto Express'. I seem to recall that there was then a weekly column by a 'Colin S' character. I enjoyed it and something like that in the mag would add another dimension. The reason that the 'Auto Express' column worked was that it was very cleverly done. The humour was such that even if you didn't 'get' how the column was written at first you were in no doubt by the end.

Some here will know that I was one of those who felt that the 'Colin S' contributions in the forum were out of place. Indeed a couple of current contributors took great glee in taking the p*** out of me when I commented on the whole business.

Colin's contributions were very much in the 'Auto Express' mould and were often very funny. My concern was for the Newbies and not-so-Newbies who didn't get the joke, responded thinking it was a serious post and then felt disgruntled or foolish when the situation was explained. IIRC some were not seen again.

So by all means let's have something like "The Secret Diary of Colin S aged 23.75" in the mag: good idea!

Quote Mike Stranks:

---

About 10 years ago I used to subscribe to 'Auto Express'. I seem to recall that there was then a weekly column by a 'Colin S' character. I enjoyed it and something like that in the mag would add another dimension. The reason that the 'Auto Express' column worked was that it was very cleverly done. The humour was such that even if you didn't 'get' how the column was written at first you were in no doubt by the end.

Some here will know that I was one of those who felt that the 'Colin S' contributions in the forum were out of place. Indeed a couple of current contributors took great glee in taking the p*** out of me when I commented on the whole business.

Colin's contributions were very much in the 'Auto Express' mould and were often very funny. My concern was for the Newbies and not-so-Newbies who didn't get the joke, responded thinking it was a serious post and then felt disgruntled or foolish when the situation was explained. IIRC some were not seen again.

So by all means let's have something like "The Secret Diary of Colin S aged 23.75" in the mag: good idea!

---

With respect, that's a bit late now Mike. You killed him off almost single-handedly.

I have visions of the poor chap wandering the streets of Chesterfield, homeless with a knackered M1 strapped to his back. He might be living under bridges and still holding that dream of a bright future. The light of this bright future that was so cruelly extinguished by a few individuals on here. Even Nacro liked him. Poor Colin, a talent wasted to the ether - like an Angle's wing floating away on an undercurrent. It looks beautiful as it fades into the distance but alas, we can't retrieve it.

Lost to the snads of time, we can only mourn its passing.

First rate bit of truckling there, Mike. A new benchmark in obsequious bandwagon jumping - bravo!

I will not bite... I will not bite... I will not bite.... I will not bite....

Phew! Managed it!

Quote Mike Stranks:

---

My concern was for the Newbies and not-so-Newbies who didn't get the joke, responded thinking it was a serious post and then felt disgruntled or foolish when the situation was explained.

---

I'm still not sure whether Ricky Steed really is some poor tortured soul with Aspergers (in which case some Mods here should be ashamed), or whether he's the greatest spoof in the history of the internet & I'm the only one not in on the joke!

Please don't enlighten me...not knowing is like still having an unopened Christmas present. Suprises are always tinged with a slight disappointment & my opportunities to feel foolish are all too rare these days.

DM

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote Arthur Stone:

---

Most of my equipment buys have been partly-based on SOS reviews and I find that generally the products have been useful and good value - some higher end products are good investments both sonically and financially.

---

If I KNOW I need a particular piece of gear to do a particular job, every manufacturer who can point to a good SOS review (has there ever been a bad one? :-) does so on their web site.

However, if there's money burning a hole in my pocket, SOS will give me LOTS of ideas how to spend it! Probably better not to subscribe. The technique and music-based articles will still be fresh after 5 months.

Seriously, prove me wrong? Who would like to point me to a SOS review (better stick to the publicly-available issues) that slated a product? You can include any of the other online-available magazines too.

The nearest I remember is a roundup of external clock boxes. The review very fairly states "you almost certainly don't need one". Doesn't stop it continuing into the details of different models though :-)

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Seriously, prove me wrong? Who would like to point me to a SOS review (better stick to the publicly-available issues) that slated a product?

---

This is a common accusation, but a baseless one. The fact is that very few reviews reveal a completely flawless product because there are few flawless products... but what might be perfectly acceptable in, say, a £150 preamp wouldn't cut the mustard in a £1500 model.

There is little point in 'slating a product' in the magazine for several obvious reasons, but firstly, and most importantly, people want to know what to buy, not what not to buy. What's the point in wasting two or three pages on a product that no one will end up buying? Much better to use the space for something more constructive, surely?

Secondly, there are actually very, very few products these days that warrant a 'slating'. The vast majority work properly as intended and will suit and appeal to a proportion of the potential market. Of course, there may well be limitations in the capabilities or suitability for some applications, and we endeavour to highlight those fairly and accurately as and when we find them. I can say with absolute honesty that if any of our reviewers can justify a negative opinion about a product, we will publish that view.

SOS has always valued its independence and integrity -- it's the foundation of its 26 year reputation. Unlike most of our competitors, we do not seek approval of review copy from the manufacturers before we publish. If they are unhappy with a review we generally offer to publish a 'right of reply' response, but we don't remove or water down reviewers' comments before publication.

Thirdly, if we do find disappointing issues with a product during a review we refer back to the manufacturer to check that it's a not a faulty unit, or has been damaged in transit, or is an operational error. If there is a genuine problem the manufacturer will usually recall units, upgrade them, release a new firmware version, or whatever, so that the review can be re-done later with a more positive outcome. This has happened with two of my reviews this year already, and there have been dozens more over the years.

Often, we see products before they are released to the public too, and can provide constructive feedback which directly benefits the buying public. I have a prototype preamp on my bench now for which I have just provided some constructive feedback to the manufacturer. I suspect the unit will be improved before it is released and reviewed...

Having said all that, there have been a few real howlers over the years. The Roland V-Mixer
was one review that comes to mind because (a) I wrote it, (b) it caused a very serious stink with Roland, and (c) they withdrew the product completely, worldwide, a few months later! I think saying that "...there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market" probably upset them a bit! My subsequent unfavourable review of a digital monitor didn't help either... it was years before they called off the Welsh Ninja contract on me

And talking of montors, the M Audio Studiophile SP5B was amongst the worst that I've had to review, concluding the review with "I find it hard to recommend the SP5B, and would suggest you saved up a few hundred pounds more to buy a more dependable monitoring system." That surely rates as 'a slating'! The Emes Owl was another that disappeared shortly after the review was published.

These are all quite old examples that I've chosen deliberately to spare the blushes of their manufacturers who, of course, have 'upped their game' considerably since... But I can assure you that, where warranted, I and my colleagues are still writing critical reviews and some have already appeared this year. I'm not going to say who, but there are at least two companies who are less than happy with me at the moment because of what they perceive as 'bad reviews', and at least one has withdrawn its advertising as a result. However, to the credit of the SOS management, which values integrity over commercial gain (and always have), the reviews remain in place.

Quote:

---

The nearest I remember is a roundup of external clock boxes. The review very fairly states "you almost certainly don't need one". Doesn't stop it continuing into the details of different models though :-)

---

... because for those specific situations I described in which a master clock is warranted, it is very helpful to know what is available.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Seriously, prove me wrong? Who would like to point me to a SOS review (better stick to the publicly-available issues) that slated a product? You can include any of the other online-available magazines too.

---

This is incredibly easy, womb

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug03/articles/hartmannneuron.htm
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb12/articles/behringer-c5a-c50a.htm< br />
If anyone would buy either product after reading the above then god help them.

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Seriously, prove me wrong? Who would like to point me to a SOS review (better stick to the publicly-available issues) that slated a product? You can include any of the other online-available magazines too.

---

This is incredibly easy, womb

<a href="/sos/aug03/articles/hartmannneuron.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug03/articles/hartmannneuron.htm</a >
<a href="/sos/feb12/articles/behringer-c5a-c50a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb12/articles/behringer-c5a-c50a.htm&l t;/a>

If anyone would buy either product after reading the above then god help them.

---

I stand thoroughly chastened! Yes, between 2003 and 2012 you found two bad reviews. (I seem to remember making rather more bad buys myself though over that period, even after reading reviews...)

What became of the Neuron? Did it ever get beyong the concept stage? Did they sell any? I'm reminded of the old computer story - bolt together some standard parts in a slightly novel way and advertise it at some ridiculously high price. The Post Office Engineering Department (yes, the story's THAT old) will buy at least one for evaluation purposes. If the price was high enough, you're winning. After a decent interval, lash up another, slightly different one...

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

I stand thoroughly chastened! Yes, between 2003 and 2012 you found two bad reviews. (I seem to remember making rather more bad buys myself though over that period, even after reading reviews...)

---

I didn't go through the entire archives, that's something you will have to do yourself. You asked for one bad review and I gave you two so you got twice what you've bargained for already!

Quote:

---

What became of the Neuron? Did it ever get beyong the concept stage? Did they sell any?

---

I don't know exact figures but yes it did sell and there are a few about. They go for a lot of money when they come up for sale.

The VSTi they released crippled them however. They had an argument with the distributors about money and (so they claim) the distributors sold out all their copies at a very low price and caused them to go bankrupt.

I had a copy on an old PC and it sounded amazing to be fair, but was totally unusable. The memory leak was so bad that every time you changed a patch it would significantly increase its resources, so crashing was inevitable over time. A real shame because it was a big notch above all the other bland synths going round at the time (and even today).

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

I stand thoroughly chastened! Yes, between 2003 and 2012 you found two bad reviews. (I seem to remember making rather more bad buys myself though over that period, even after reading reviews...)

---

I think what you meant to say was, "okay, I accept I was wrong, as these two reviews -- and all those Hugh mentioned -- have clearly demonstrated..."

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Well, sort of. Here's the summing up from one of the quoted reviews.

"The bottom line is that this is a fine-sounding system, with good onboard effects and processors, which offers a number of unique advantages in a live performance situation. However, I feel that there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market.".

Read that as "this is a great live mixer".

A long way short of "this is a turkey".

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Well, sort of. Here's the summing up from one of the quoted reviews.

"The bottom line is that this is a fine-sounding system, with good onboard effects and processors, which offers a number of unique advantages in a live performance situation. However, I feel that there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market.".

Read that as "this is a great live mixer".

A long way short of "this is a turkey".

---

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills. Its says the user interface has 'significant ergonomic shortcomings'. And because of them it cannot be considered a 'serious contender' in the market. For a mixer that is a quite a major failing.

And you cannot argue with the power of this review if it made Roland upset for years and caused them to abandon the whole system within months!

How blunt do you need the reviews to be? Perhaps a simple number system like in Future Music might be more appropriate for you. However, do bare in mind that they have rather low journalism standards and have been caught out stealing reviews from other publications.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound