If they are not comparing gear/ differenting products , the yes, they are worthless to the audio fans. Just stroking their egos and getting free toys
AIAP: New Audio Industry Publications Association
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
@caesar Speaking of jokes that are readable between your lines of diminutive praise for the players and not this AIAP game.
I'm no longer going to look at a certain style of TT light without considerations given it potentially being one of the medical tools successfully crossing over into home audio use.
I'm no longer going to look at a certain style of TT light without considerations given it potentially being one of the medical tools successfully crossing over into home audio use.
I subscribe to some magazines, and casually read. i don’t feel as strongly as many here, but there is something like politics in the audio journalism. Many of them, even those who post here, talk like politicians: They write well and are articulate, declaring that the rumors are just conspiracy theories, nothing to see here and look, look at this marvelous document we have all signed with a bunch of promises, to which the uninvited politicians from the other party say: “We don’t need that document; our ethics were already better than that anyway.”
“Your words aren’t down to earth or real-talk. They don’t resonate as authentic.” Say the critics.
The political rsponse is: “Nay, we are the paragon of virtue and integrity.”
Not saying all the criticism is warranted, certainly some of it is too strong for my taste, but if I was an editor I would listen to any and all criticism, look for the perspective and wisdom in it and adapt if possible towards doing better. An example of what I would like to see more of in print magazines is an article like this one, which feels very “authentic” to me: https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/am...g-preamplifiers-in-a-digital-streaming-world/
That article discusses a real world issue and does so with context and offers me real insight, not just reviews that are all positive because “we only review great gear.” (And the ”we” is the royal ‘we,’ since Alan Sircom literally writes 90% of the reviews each issue…)
“Your words aren’t down to earth or real-talk. They don’t resonate as authentic.” Say the critics.
The political rsponse is: “Nay, we are the paragon of virtue and integrity.”
Not saying all the criticism is warranted, certainly some of it is too strong for my taste, but if I was an editor I would listen to any and all criticism, look for the perspective and wisdom in it and adapt if possible towards doing better. An example of what I would like to see more of in print magazines is an article like this one, which feels very “authentic” to me: https://www.hifi-advice.com/blog/am...g-preamplifiers-in-a-digital-streaming-world/
That article discusses a real world issue and does so with context and offers me real insight, not just reviews that are all positive because “we only review great gear.” (And the ”we” is the royal ‘we,’ since Alan Sircom literally writes 90% of the reviews each issue…)
Since you're making allegations I assume you know what you're talking about, and that you have evidence to support your allegations.
Exactly which reviewer got exactly which component for exactly free? Please tell us the details.
nobody HAS to read reviews, nobody MUST follow reviewers tips..no more than that reading reviews for dishwashers or cars means you HAVE to buy the nr 1 pick...I dare predict that with dishwashers and other consumer electronics the chances that a review is influenced by sales margins, advertizing or simply bought is higher than with a review in an audio magazine of long standing...heck I wish there were magazines reviewing dishwashers....putting together a new kitchen is a lot more work than my audio gear.
Ron, I know what he said above in #101, but I think he really meant what he said in #95 - "manufacturers who give them the free toys for months"
Thanks for the link to that article example, I agree it offers context that is often times lacking
Are writers recused from reviewing a product that they may have personally obtained beforehand via an accommodation purchase? If the writer obatins it during a review how is that addressed?
Also, the practice of purchasing via accommodation at any time is contrary to what is stated in the publication which states timing as after a review
You do realize your first and last sentences seem to be in conflict.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with these questions, why don't you just make your point.
The first questions are to the point , how are these handled? As far as the 1st and last being in conflict , the conflict arises in your stating that accommodation purchases can be made at any time, while the statement in the publication states that the industry practice is post review. Net net, relative to the conflict is the industry practice followed or not? Pretty straightforward in and off itself, more so if publications are going to subscribe to the publication's principles.
Last edited:
"The first questions are to the point..."
What point? What is your point in asking?
I assume the relevant sentence that you fail to cite is in item #4:
"Accommodation purchases after a review is completed is a well-known and accepted practice, generally representing purchase at wholesale pricing, and is allowable."
I do not represent the AIAP. The following is my understanding over the past fifteen years for the three publications for whom I've written:
It is true that accomodation purchase of a reviewed component is accepted practice. The quoted sentence is a statement of fact; it is not a definition of accomodation purchase. A reviewer can purchase a component on accomodation whether it is reviewed or not. A reviewer can purchase from anyone supporting industry accomodation. Typically a reviewer requests permission to make an accomodation purchase from his editor.
What difference does any of this make to you?
Question 1 -Are writers recused from reviewing a product that they may have personally obtained beforehand via an accommodation purchase?
Question #2 - If the writer obtains it during a review how is that addressed?
And, while I didn't restate verbatim the point in #4, I referenced it by stating that the principles stated post review.
What difference does any of this make to you?
You made the point that accommodation purchases can be made at any time, so given your experience with publications I was trying to understand how situations #1 & #2 are handled. And, the point, those situations could at a minimum lead to a perception of bias in the review regardless of editor approval. If you care to provide insight into questions 1 & 2 I'd appreciate it and I'll leave it at that. If not, feel free to not respond at all and move on to something of more interest to you; no harm no foul.
Question #2 - If the writer obtains it during a review how is that addressed?
And, while I didn't restate verbatim the point in #4, I referenced it by stating that the principles stated post review.
What difference does any of this make to you?
You made the point that accommodation purchases can be made at any time, so given your experience with publications I was trying to understand how situations #1 & #2 are handled. And, the point, those situations could at a minimum lead to a perception of bias in the review regardless of editor approval. If you care to provide insight into questions 1 & 2 I'd appreciate it and I'll leave it at that. If not, feel free to not respond at all and move on to something of more interest to you; no harm no foul.
I think that one way this organization can make a great contribution is by hosting a data base of all gear loans and purchases by the "audio journalists":
- Who had what
- for how long
- how much they paid for it
- when they can resell it
- what rules and conditions manufacturer puts on the piece reviewed, such as wilson can't be compared to others, etc., (so they can hold on to their power)
- etc.
As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Otherwise, all of this seems like virtue signaling and typical audiophile intellectual masturbation
- Who had what
- for how long
- how much they paid for it
- when they can resell it
- what rules and conditions manufacturer puts on the piece reviewed, such as wilson can't be compared to others, etc., (so they can hold on to their power)
- etc.
As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Otherwise, all of this seems like virtue signaling and typical audiophile intellectual masturbation
you have every right to 'love to know' anything your little heart desires. OTOH it's simply not relevant. other than for sh*t stirrers to stir.
if Fremer can choose any speaker he might want at an accomodation price, then he is making the same value, personal choice any of us are. and his choices are a significant data point for us to consider (if we care about what Michael writes or buys). with the added factor that his gear needs to be workable for reviewing and somewhat familiar to readers. and Mr. Fremer can certainly do that.
will you ever stop beating this drum? of course not, it's what you do. as silly as it is.
is every reviewer as able as Mr. Fremer to choose any gear? don't know, my guess is most Stereophile or Absolute Sound reviewers are able. but i can tell you i don't much think about it or care about it.
Last edited:
Mike,
thanks for the personal comments. I thought you were a better man, but ....
if you haven't taken an economics class in a while, incentives do drive human behavior
when you attack the hifi press i view your vitriol as extremely personal. you go too far and i don't care for it. i'm guilty of those feelings.
i am in the incentive business....retail.....my whole life. i'm use to finding high value in subjective/somewhat influenced opinions. i count on them. normal for me.
Here we are again.....same posts and vitriol, different year.
We lost a valuable member of this forum because of the same exact thing......and since then? He has passed on from this big, blue globe.
We now have new members of this forum that *may* offer us some insight to those who may wish to read it. That's all I have to say about that....I hope everyone has a great evening.
Tom
We lost a valuable member of this forum because of the same exact thing......and since then? He has passed on from this big, blue globe.
We now have new members of this forum that *may* offer us some insight to those who may wish to read it. That's all I have to say about that....I hope everyone has a great evening.
Tom
- Who had what: on Positive Feedback, click the author's name. It will tell you what the reviewer has and what gear is on loan to him.
- how much they paid for it: typically it is what a dealer pays. 40%--50% off msrp.
- when they can resell it: that can vary but 1 year is usually the minimum and it is not unusual for the manufacturer to set a duration. It's always been 2 years for me.
- what rules and conditions manufacturer puts on the piece reviewed, such as wilson can't be compared to others, etc., (so they can hold on to their power): none that I know of. I've never had any qualification put on me and I've reviewed Wilson among many others.
When you write about "typical audiophile intellectual masturbation" you describe your own post to a tee. You want sunshine? Start by posting your own gear in your signature.
Similar threads
