[lane912]

why I have read this audio publication since 1995-



Positive Feedback Online is first and foremost a community, composed of writers and creative persons from around the world. Positive Feedback Online is an ongoing "work in progress," chronicling the efforts of audiophile listeners, reviewers, designers, manufacturers, distributors, and humorists to explore the possibilities of high end audio to the utmost. Any audiophile with something worthwhile to say is welcome to contribute to Positive Feedback Online. No false and misleading barriers are put up against "manufacturers," nor do we assume that individuals commercially involved with high end audio are automatically suspect. Informed members of the design/manufacture/distribution community have been enthusiastic and supportive contributors to Positive Feedback from the beginning, with no messy controversies about "conflict of interest."

Indeed, given the open and voluntary nature of the artistic and editorial community here, with its self-monitored standards of excellence, there is little opportunity for real conflicts of interest. This does not mean that problems have not occurred—they have, on several occasions—but that we know how to deal with them. Our international editorial group numbers some seventy or so participants, all dedicated to the spirit and content of Positive Feedback Online. I would stack them up against any audiophile editorial "staff" in the world. I say that with confidence and enthusiasm, for the Positive Feedback Online community is a truly remarkable group!

The mission of Positive Feedback Online is straightforward in statement, complex and rich in execution: It is the mission of Positive Feedback Online to EDUCATE and ENTERTAIN its readers as to the possibilities of high end audio. In our vision, this is a comprehensive task. It includes everything from an appreciation of live music, through the recording/audio engineering chain (both analog and digital), through the storage medium, to the audio reproduction chain, out to and including the listening room and the mood/biases of the listener. The spiritual/metaphysical realms are not neglected, indeed, we consider the spiritual, cultural, and ethical dimensions of music to be some of the most important areas for discourse. We believe that our readers will get more out of their music as they learn more about what goes into it.

The world doesn't need another dry, stuffy, pretentious journal! There are LOTS of those around. We are dedicated to the proposition that high end audio should be fun, and should be filled with good spirits. We have found that humor is the most important ally of the audiophile, and ought to be more characteristic of the ‘phile community. You will therefore find that satire, cartoons, humorous pieces, and witty surprises are common in Positive Feedback Online. Some people are put off by them, or are offended by the brash, the bizarre, or the satirical. Such people are not Positive Feedback Online readers, and are hereby directed to the audio publications that seem to be crafted just for them. (What else can I say?) For the rest of us, Positive Feedback Online fits rather nicely. Warning: We are widely eclectic, and very much interested in everything that we're interested in! In short, Positive Feedback Online is committed to quality, community, and collegiality. We will continue to pursue this commitment with any other person or publication of like mind. E pluribus unum....

Positive Feedback Online does not seek to be a consumer ombudsman or a consumer watchdog. Instead, we want to help our readers develop their own sensibilities and discernment by providing guides to quality and excellence throughout the audio chain.

For this reason, Positive Feedback Online is quite committed to the possibilities of "Do It Yourself" (DIY) projects, room treatments, construction projects, mods and tweaks for high-end systems, including power supplies. We see this as a major element in the re-invigoration of high-end audio.

Our Review Philosophy

First, the idea that a reviewer can insert a component into an audio system and discern its sonic value for universal applications is flawed for two reasons. The first is that a given component may or may not be compatible with the other components in the system. We feel strongly that it is impossible to review an isolated component, only an entire system. An audio component, in other words, is just that—a component of the bigger whole. Of course, aside from doing measurements, which we feel is of limited value, there is no way to evaluate an audio component other than by inserting it in a system. Nevertheless, having one reviewer evaluate a component, in one system, reveals only how it sounds in that system, and has limited universal application to the reader.

The second problem with the typical review procedure is that good sound means one thing to one listener and entirely something different to another. Some listeners value, say, timbral accuracy over other virtues, others may value detail, soundstaging, dynamic range, and so on. If a reviewer's priorities differ significantly from one's own, their evaluation of a component may not be particularly useful. Meaning that we all hear differently, have different biases and tastes, and well, so who speaks the truth? We determined that while we still had faith in the concept of subjective reviewing, there were ways to expand its utility.

First, we decided that each reviewer should actually own the components used in his or her reference system, and that the item under consideration is the only new element in a group of components that has been carefully assembled to reflect the reviewer's tastes (this does not mean that the item under review has to owned by the review [though it can], just the system it is being reviewed with, though there are obvious exceptions—like articles that deal with a reviewer building a system or going through drastic changes in their system where component combinations are in flux. Or where more than one cable or such is there and they are doing a round-up of similar products.).

Musical systems don't happen by chance. It takes plenty of effort and time to find components that will perform together synergistically. Because we know how our systems sound, inserting, say, another preamplifier for our own, we can easily tell you what the differences are and of what value they are to us. Have a stable reference! Along with this, comparisons can also be made against products we are familiar with, but do not own. Meaning how does it stack up against other similar products I have had in my system? And, if the product doesn't work for us, we'll tell you why. Without lecturing or pompous posturing, we will simply report, as truthfully, fairly, and as succinctly as possible, our perceptions of its value and performance.

Second, each component, whenever possible, will be reviewed by at least two members of our staff. Each is heard in different systems and different rooms, by people with different tastes in music and different preferences about how an audio system should reproduce music. To avoid influencing each other's opinions, we do not discuss our findings until all reviews have been completed. Do we always agree on what is musical or "right"? Do all of our systems sound the same? Hardly! We will lay out our biases for all to see. By the way, our systems range in price from $5000 to well over $100,000, with listening rooms ranging from the small to quite large, and tastes in music and sound all over the map.

When we review equipment, we concentrate on gear and combinations of equipment that have something worthy to offer. All price ranges, and both new and used gear are within our purview. System synergy is seen as of supreme importance. Equipment that comes in for review is as carefully matched with other components and with the preferences and predilections of the reviewer as possible. During the review period, writers are actively encouraged to discuss their progress (or lack of same) with the designer/manufacturer. Designers are also invited to write sidebars or accompanying articles describing the creative process of their work. We believe this furthers our mission, and will continue to work for this harmonious synergy with the creative community that produces quality equipment.

If we work hard, but cannot find the "magic," then the gear is returned without review. Read the above—if it does not fit into what we are after, fails in system synergy, or is simply not happening, we are not going to spend our time on it. This has happened on a number of occasions. It does not mean that the equipment is "bad," simply that we could not find a combination that did anything for us. Other settings might well yield excellent results. We wish to tell our readers where the gold is, not where it ain't. Those seeking "trash ‘em, gut ‘em" reviews will find several other high end journals to be more helpful. We believe that our procedures provide a much wider perspective of a component's performance and characteristics.