# Sound & Vision Magazine - ATTN REW Users!!



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

I just opened one of the latest issues and I noticed that they were doing an article on diy audio correction. I thought to myself "Sweet! Home Theater Shack has got to be mentioned seeing as how that's where REW resides." However there was no mention of it at all. :rolleyesno: Why in the world would someone doing diy audio correction pay for software when REW is available here for free?!?! I have to admit that I'm not into the whole audio side of things like the majority of you folks are so someone please enlighten me. Do we need to send a letter to the editor? I find it ridiculous that REW and Home Theater Shack weren't mentioned. 

Maybe I'm over reacting? :rant: Or maybe they should change the title of their magazine to just 'Vision'? :whistling:

You can send feedback to Sound and Vision here: [email protected]

If you missed the article there's a scanned copy of it here, courtesy of Marshall.


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

As Hal Holbrook, playing the character "Deep Throat" in "All the President's Men" said, "follow the money."

Paul


----------



## Chester (Feb 19, 2007)

well, of course they did not talk about REW, as it directly (and more effectively) competes with the software they are selling in the article... Quite clearly it is an ad 

"you can download a free copy of True RTA, but the resolution of the free version is only 1 octave, so instead of getting 12 or 24 discrete bars between, say, 40 and 80 Hz, you just get one bar that tells you the total energy in that band. the 1/8 octave version of True RTA ($69.95) is adequate for the mesurements you'll be making, but the 1/24 octave version ($99.95) is a worthwhile step up"

taken from the header of the authors's website (www.brentbutterworth.com) "BrentButterworth.com technical and *marketing writing*, consulting, and photography" (the bold was emphasized by me)

From looking at the True RTA website, REW appears to be WAY more featured, especially considering all of the non-rta based features provided. Perhaps if I wanted to Pink a room I could use True RTA.... but why would I want to do that  ? REW offers significantly more capability, and much better impulse analysis features.

You could write the editor (I would if I were you) just remember that this was effectively a marketing tool...


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

I will keep up with this thread as I have noticed (and disagreed with) the way that a publication whose articles are "geared" toward the advancing of peoples knowledge on certain subjects only to be cleverly involving a product they are either selling themselves or for an advertiser. If it is a proven product then I have no problem with it. But if there is a more advanced and more cost effective product then it should be highlighted instead. Going on the first few post it looks clear that either its a case of the first scenario or possibly the author not being as informed of products available as he should be.


----------



## jtalden (Mar 12, 2009)

Yep, I agree.
This article is intended to lead interested readers to the products and web sites referenced. It was not an oversight that REW was not mentioned. It's too bad though. 
I briefly evaluated the free starter version of TrueRTA a while ago and chose REW at that time. I’m confident that REW and the support provided in the HTS forums is a much better way for a new enthusiast to get started measuring. 
Now, with the new Beta version, REW also has the power and flexibility for more advanced users.


----------



## ddgtr (Nov 1, 2009)

It is pretty disturbing that REW has been overlooked like this, either on purpose or by mistake. I tend to believe it was on purpose. A huge number of people out there, including folks over at avs forum are using REW and are thrilled with it. That's how I found out about it. 

I find it hard to believe that the staff at sound and vision have never heard of REW... I guess I'll be sending them an email...


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

ddgtr said:


> I guess I'll be sending them an email...


That's what I like to hear Danny! :clap:


----------



## kflory (Feb 6, 2010)

The article definitely was limited to just True RTA which did make it come off more like a an advertisement than a piece of journalism as it did not mention any other options (other than that they existed out there).

A few nice letters to the editor might make print if not able to invoke a more in-depth article.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

It completely escaped me that it was basically advertising, but it certainly makes perfect sense now. 

As well as I am able to spot spammers and their posting craftiness, you would think I would have learned something. :dontknow:

If TrueRTA advertises with them or participated in paying them for the article, no way they can mention REW. This is very understandable from a marketing point of view... although unfortunate for their readers who may not know about REW.


----------



## paulspencer (May 11, 2007)

It's difficult to cover that topic without leaving important things out. I have many posts on my blog on related issues, and I'm still really just scratching the surface. Advertising issues aside, why mention a fairly limited cut down version where a free option exists with no corners cut?! I also wonder if their suggestion that a mic preamp is optional may mean some will buy a phantom power unit only to find they can't get the right signal level for decent measurements. They also didn't mention the importance of individual mic calibration. Were I to write such an article for a magazine, my goal would be that readers can buy the parts and start learning to use them right away. Based on this article, they could well make some purchases they will regret. In that regard, I'd say it falls short.


----------

