or if it bothers you dont open the thread and chat in it 4 times out of 20 chats, just a thought
Bias, Ad dollars, and the status quo…
- Thread starter Ted Denney III
- Start date
A suggestion meant to help the forum taking everyones needs into account. Strange huh.or if it bothers you dont open the thread and chat in it 4 times out of 20 chats, just a thought
Interesting. You assume to speak for the group as a whole? To protect the group? From what exactly? Honestly, if you don’t like my posts, keep scrolling. The points I’m making are valid and receive different receptions depending on the forums where they are posted. In the weeks and months to come, I will be posting numerous thought-provoking topics. This is just the beginning.
No mention of protection anywhere I can see. I speak for myself. I will take your advice.Good luck.
On the other hand, the valuing of some particular performance metric in itself or vs some other metric strikes me as a subjective preference. I would think the value of some so-called objective performance metric is in its utility, its explanatory capability. That is, the measurement's ability to explain or account for so-called subjective preference. I see only a few designers trying to make this connection or laying out what they believe are the rules of human hearing.
The purported friction seems like a false dichotomy, a type of misinformation laid upon us, resulting from the mis-use of performance metrics as some sort of contra or contrast to sonic evaluation.
Assuming for the moment that all of your predicate facts are correct, if a company is prominent then it likely has the financial wherewithal to establish an advertising relationship -- and thus a review relationship -- with the "gatekeeper" magazines, no? Anybody who can afford the advertising can play the game, no?
As someone who has been made aware of gear by owners not reviewers and has never purchased based upon a review, your approach of "try my stuff and you decide" appeals to me. That is how I ended up purchasing your switch.
That is why I'm interesting in further explanation of your designs, but don't really care about the official caste system.
I think you have a good, positive story to tell about how you develop products and how the designs evolve. That is much more appealing (to me) than emphasizing the obvious limitations of the professional review business model, which several threads on WBF have already covered.
I think my original post makes this point pretty clear, when a company so disrupts the status quo, that reporting on it would undermine their relationship with the majority of their advertisers who can’t keep pace, this creates a conflict of interest for the magazines. We’ve had reviewers from The Absolute Sound approach us at trade shows last year extremely interested to review various Synergistic Research products. They were blocked by Robert Harley. I have other such stories I am happy to share.
Hasn't Valin been reviewing your products, along with Crystal Cables?
Seems like Harley has been pumping up Audioquest recently
I can understand you wanting to access their reader base in hopes of getting a share of the wealth, but I (for one) don’t believe anything they (TAS, Stereophile and that ilk) write at all. The last journal I thought was worth the cost was Sound Pactices because it was about sharing knowledge about our hobby, not making money.
During the last tradeshow cycle, reviewers from The Absolute Sound approached us, wanting to review Synergistic Research products. They were rejected and turned down by Robert Harley. If you recall, Robert Harley proclaimed the Shunyata ground filter to be “a new product category that will be unfamiliar to most audiophiles;” this while we were in discussions with the magazine to get the Galileo Active Ground Block reviewed and on their cover. The following month, our competitor practically invented a technology (according to TAS) that we had pioneered 10 years earlier. And the ‘reviewer’ was Robert Harley.
Last edited:
IIRC, the competitor's designer said in a video that he had originally been skeptical about grounding gear and acknowledged (without naming names) that others had cut the path for him. In that video, he didn't claim the superiority of his design, just that it was effective. RH could have reflected those views in his statements. He seems to prefer grand statements and generalization in his writing.
Last edited:
However, he most certainly did not. He is the holdup to Synergistic Research receiving further coverage in The Absolute Sound. Lots of reviewers love our products and would like to share their experience, but RH says no. Ironically, when we were angling for the cover of the magazine with the Galileo Active Ground Block—to that point, the single most impressive piece of audio porn in the history of high-end audio (that is, until the PowerCell SRX came along)—we were told they don’t put products like that on the cover. While he said this, the magazine was in print with the #metoo product on the cover. We will now bypass the magazines, and take control of the narrative.
Attachments
Last edited:
Agreed. He chose not to. He seems to take on the mantel of high priest of audio. That requires grand statements and overgeneralization, unfortunately.
That would have made a great cover! [I was tempted to add: And who doesn't like audio porn?]
if you somehow mention audio circuit porn on your website, I think the search engines will send a lot of eyeballs your way.
Perhaps this is the way to get more folks interested in audio!
Similar threads
