You are correct, I am saying that JH's review certainly
could be 'colored' by this aspect. Plus, this would apply to all other reviewer's who are doing exactly the same thing...
Why should I be mad at a reviewer who never buys gear at accommodation pricing?? I'm not following you there. Skin in the game ( which is what I think you are getting at) is not really that
important an aspect to me in the reviewing field. A reviewer can easily give his opinion of a piece of gear under review accurately and 'honestly' regardless of whether he owns the gear or not.
In fact, I might question if he owns gear from the same manufacturer and is now reviewing another piece, ( without disclosing that he actually owns the first piece-- and without also disclosing
whether he is getting 'accommodation' pricing on the subject) if he is in fact again biased.
My point here is that I believe it is a bad precedent for a reviewer to be accepting accommodations from manufacturer's of gear that he is reviewing, regardless of the amount, without disclosing
this aspect so that the reader of said review can decide for themselves how much of an impact that disclosure has. That's my point, not whether JH is incorrect in his findings of the Technics TT, just how he got to them. That is unless we believe that 'accommodation' pricing has absolutely NO influence on the outcome of a review.