HP- Why I Quit the Absolute Sound or: Path to Personal Revelation

[Elliot G.]

there is no financial positive outcome to a bad review. no reprints, no more advertisements, no more gear to listen too.
nothing to be gained ergo there are none

 

[caesar]

I really don't like it when a business attempts to promote their business by discrediting another business. This happens in all industries. I have never purchased audio gear from a dealer that touts his product by insulting another manufacturer's product. In the case of HP, it's not surprising that his magazine changed after he sold it. My only surprise is that he claims he couldn't see it coming.

I'm actually reading his comments a bit differently. I don't see any harsh insults. The impression I get, instead, is that promises were made to him and he knew the publication had changed without his input, but he did not have the courage to quit until a life-shaking event...

 

[NorthStar]

That is what I also read.

 

[Elliot G.]

I agree with both of you. I would have loved to see the contract of sale since it seems that if these promises were in it they wolod not have been able to do what he claims but alas that wont ever happen

 

[mep]

I'm actually reading his comments a bit differently. I don't see any harsh insults. The impression I get, instead, is that promises were made to him and he knew the publication had changed without his input, but he did not have the courage to quit until a life-shaking event...

I'm in complete agreement with Caesar and I will have more to say about this later.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I agree with both of you. I would have loved to see the contract of sale since it seems that if these promises were in it they wolod not have been able to do what he claims but alas that wont ever happen

That's really a moot point. What other options did HP have on the table at the time? Zero and none. It was either be purchased by Tom Martin or TAS was history.

'Course others felt like it was little 'Fi.

 

[Elliot G.]

What were HP's options at the time? Zero and none. It was either be purchased by Tom Martin or TAS was dead in the water.

'Course others felt like it was little 'Fi.

Myles, I think that you are correct. I have great difficulty believing that TM would purchase a sinking ship and then do nothing to change it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Why does that matter? Isn't the point of a business to make money? There's no need to nanny the so called "consumer"; the market will take care of that. People are smarter than you might think. If TAS sells out too much, then they will lose readers and others will take the TAS' place. There's no need to badmouth the competition. Why doesn't HP just focus on making his new website the best it can be and try to steal business away from TAS that way?

Why does it matter that a journalist makes a very serious attempt at objectivity? How can it not matter? That is the job. Allow for imperfection, even some prejudice, but without objectivity as, at least, an objective, it isn't worth the paper it is printied on. It's the only thing that matters if you want paid analysis and reporting to be worth more than just anyone's opinion, but we don't, really. We seek, instead, mere opinions that merely reinforce what we've already decided to believe. And when they do, we applaud them.

Tim

 

[dallasjustice]

but we don't, really. We seek, instead, mere opinions that merely reinforce what we've already decided to believe. And when they do, we applaud them.
Tim

Tim, It looks like there are 2 of you. Are you the "we" you are referring to?

 

[Priaptor]

Tim

What makes you think HP is so "objective" and not falling prey to the $$$ from manufacturers, etc he claims others are guilty of?

I see his point of view as kind of hypocritical on many levels.

 

[mauidan]

Then I got a look at some of the reviewers' rooms. Of course, this is a problem with most reviewers. For whatever reason, most reviewers don't have an acceptable listening room in which to make meaningful judgments.

You mean like this one:

 

[MylesBAstor]

Tim

What makes you think HP is so "objective" and not falling prey to the $$$ from manufacturers, etc he claims others are guilty of?

I see his point of view as kind of hypocritical on many levels.

There is no way a print magazine, especially today, can exist on subscriptions alone. In fact, print magazines actually lose money on subscriptions and a recent industry survey showed it costs magazines around $75 per subscription.

 

[mep]

You mean like this one:

View attachment 9417

I saw this picture before and was semi-mortified. This is REG's room right? Having read his reviews for many years, I would have never guessed this was his room. I think I asked someone if he fell on hard times.

 

[Priaptor]

There is no way a print magazine, especially today, can exist on subscriptions alone. In fact, print magazines actually lose money on subscriptions and a recent industry survey showed it costs magazines around $75 per subscription.

I understand.

His business model was wrong but that is not the point I am making.

He makes it sound like he was above what he accuses so many of. I have no issues with advertisements, what I have an issue with are the perks of manufacturers' equipment never leaving the homes of the reviewers etc. This introduces bias and not objectivity into the equation and taints HP's sanctimonious stand.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I understand.

His business model was wrong but that is not the point I am making.

He makes it sound like he was above what he accuses so many of. I have no issues with advertisements, what I have an issue with are the perks of manufacturers' equipment never leaving the homes of the reviewers etc. This introduces bias and not objectivity into the equation and taints HP's sanctimonious stand.

You make a valid point. The tradeoff is between having a stable reference system (and having the equipment around so as to judge newer gear against since our memory sometimes fails) vs. being a glommer.

Problem also is that there are few independently wealthy reviewers. And as I also mentioned in another thread, manufacturers have the right at any time to demand the return of their gear.

 

[mep]

You make a valid point. The tradeoff is between having a stable reference system (and having the equipment around so as to judge newer gear against since our memory sometimes fails) vs. being a glommer.

Problem also is that there are few independently wealthy reviewers. And as I also mentioned in another thread, manufacturers have the right at any time to demand the return of their gear.

Like right after you say something negative about it when comparing it to something you think is better?

 

[Andre Marc]

The way I see it, HP is really no different than any other reviewer who engages a company to place 100s of thousands of dollars worth of equipment into their homes for multiple months if not years. He has had the very same expensive equipment in his listening room for years really no different than those he criticizes in TAS. His current site has advertisements no different than TAS or any other, just less because his site is less mature. Truth is I am not sure what his point is in his essay.

I have no issue with a reviewer, particularly if they are part of a large organization picking a "reference system" against which all other gear can be compared, assuming, they or the company they work for pay for it. When they have these "extended" loaners, by definition, there is bias inserted into the equation. Alternatively, they should have this equipment for a limited time but then they lose the capability of a "reference system" against which all else can be compared.

For the record, you can count on ONE hand, not two, but ONE hand the number of reviewers who have entire reference systems on "loan". So in the greater scheme of things it is a non issue.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim

What makes you think HP is so "objective" and not falling prey to the $$$ from manufacturers, etc he claims others are guilty of?

I see his point of view as kind of hypocritical on many levels.

I don't. I think there is very little audio journalism, that it is almost all elevated fanboy fiction.

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

I don't. I think there is very little audio journalism, that it is almost all elevated fanboy fiction.

Tim

Audio reviewers are not journalists. They are columnists. They provide product awareness and entertainment. Period.

 

[microstrip]

Audio reviewers are not journalists. They are columnists. They provide product awareness and entertainment. Period.

It is why for the few last years 95% of my audio magazines were bought at railway stations or airports.
Did they influence my buying decisions? Not any more.