Re: S & T uses low end paper

Regarding reviews....

I think S&T doesn't want to blow off an advertiser. Period. And by bad
review, I don't mean to say I'd like to see snobby movie review type
slamming reviews---I mean, I would like a more accurate assessment of
performance, mechanics, optics---statements like "the moon was nice and
crisp" are crap. The moon is nice and crisp in cheap binoculars. "Minimal"
false color is often used---baloney. Anyway, it doesn't matter, having used
many, many scopes now, I understand that most of the junk written isn't
really suitable as a basis for buying. And, the cheap stuff is cheap stuff
and the good stuff is expensive. The Tak-like Meade refractor or the
Intes-like Celestron CAT doesn't exist. You truly get what you pay for----

Now, back to the topic...is S&T worth the $36 a year? I would say just
BARELY. If they had more focus on news and more details relating to
observing, yes. But, like most magazines, ads ads ads ads----even the
articles are mostly ads.

Doink

"Jan Owen" <janowen1z@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wQxGe.53633$4o.47783@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm not really sure why it worries me when I agree with Brian, more or
> less, but somehow, neither S&T or A seem to be able to do a good telescope
> review... Usually, it's NOT the fault of the telescope, good or bad, but
> the reviewer... Or the unwillingness of the magazine to say anything bad
> about their advertisers, for fear of losing them, or worse, being sued by
> them. Don't laugh; we've seen that possibility pop up before...
>
> Somewhere along the line, somehow, we need to establish a set of criteria
> by which all scopes must be reviewed by, and optical quality is VERY
> important here (I mean, in our hobby, if you're serious, what else IS
> there????)... Not any "gee whiz, I really liked this", but REAL
> quantifiable data that says this scope delivers, or it doesn't. No more
> BS... If the magazines, or even SAA, can't do that, then no point in
> bothering...
>
> --
> Jan Owen
>
> To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
> Latitude: 33.662
> Longitude: -112.3272
>
> "Brian Tung" <brian@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dce929$jd1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Doink wrote:
>> > I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever
>> > seen a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in
> about
>> > an hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't
> any
>> > better....
>>
>> I've seen a bad review (by which I assume you mean a review that pans
>> the product) of software and books. Not as much on mounts, and hardly
>> ever on telescopes. It is natural and human to want to emphasize the
>> good points of a product, and even to justify some of the bad ones by
>> pointing out, well, the product doesn't cost that much, once you make
>> a few tweaks it works very well, etc. I doubt that Sky and Telescope
>> have much of a role in that, if any; reviewers are perfectly capable
>> of doing that on their own.
>>
>> That it's natural and human doesn't mean that it's good, of course. I
>> would like to see more comparative reviews, but those are harder to
>> research and write, I suspect.
>>
>> I spend rather more than an hour to read everything I find of value in
>> Sky and Telescope. But I'm pretty broad in my interests. If there's
>> anything I don't read as much of, it's telescope reviews, anyway. I'm
>> more interested in finding out what to do with the telescope I already
>> own than I am in deciding what telescope I'm not going to replace it
>> with. :)
>>
>> That said, a good telescope review usually teaches me something about
>> telescopes I didn't know before.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
>> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
>> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
>> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
>> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: S & T uses low end paper
    ... less, but somehow, neither S&T or A seem to be able to do a good telescope ... Somewhere along the line, somehow, we need to establish a set of criteria ... >> seen a bad review? ... > Brian Tung ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: 5-6" f/5 Refractor?
    ... For my review of my 5-inch f/5 Syntha, ... Pinprick holes in a colorless sky ... this telescope hates cheap Synta/GSO barlows. ... > I brought it with an AZ3 mount with the idea to leave it set up and use it as ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: S & T uses low end paper
    ... Brian Tung wrote: ... > I've seen a bad review (by which I assume you mean a review that pans ... I doubt that Sky and Telescope ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: S & T uses low end paper
    ... You can read everything of value in the mag in about ... I've seen a bad review (by which I assume you mean a review that pans ... I doubt that Sky and Telescope ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Bipolar Transistors for Audio
    ... negative review remains unsubstantiated as you seem to ... have no idea on the status of this customer as an advertiser ... :there is no such thing as 'accuracy' of sound. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)