hpsoundings II
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Thank you. I think there were a number of legitimate issues raised, including:
- what role can HP play in the current audio mag/e-zine business?
- what is the ultimate responsibility of a reviewer- that thread about Fremer laid an egg picked up on his comments on the 'Gon about taking all reviews as informed entertainment, rather than some exhaustive scientific or definitive last 'word' on the equipment under review;
-to what extent should publishers solicit multiple reviews of the same product, and is that logistically possible within the time frames for publication;
-what role does break-in have, do manufacturers have a responsibilty to deliver fully 'pre-conditioned' equipment;
-to what extent is the reviewing press beholden to the manufacturers, for any variety of reasons, from long term loans, to being able to get another piece for review if a particular product gets panned (witness the controversy over that ARC DAC that got panned recently in one of the magazines);
A few more, just for discussion sake.
We all seem pretty dismissive of the magazines to one degree or another, but it seems like an awful lot of us read them. (I've gone to e-zine, and rarely buy hard copies). I suspect that, for the same reason a lot of us participate on this forum, we read them because it is about something we love, even if we disagree with the conclusions, or take issue with a particular reviewer's biases, or even the overall slant of a particular magazine.
Is this a hobby that will have 'new blood'? I don't know the demographic here, but the one industry show I went to recently (first time in a long time) was the same old guys, who just got older. And, if we have the same lament- that the industry, including the magazines, are not reaching the new generations who aren't especially interested in spending 5 or 6 figures on hi-fi, is the high end ( a term which I think HP claimed to have coined as applied to hi-fi) really destined to remain an increasingly niche market, dwarfed by consumer electronics, iPods and compressed files played over computer speakers?
That's all I can think of, off the top, just to get the ball rolling.
I did find this an interesting discussion, in large part because I think HP was a very influential figure in my formative years in this hobby and I believe he remains relevant, perhaps even more so than ever.
- what role can HP play in the current audio mag/e-zine business?
- what is the ultimate responsibility of a reviewer- that thread about Fremer laid an egg picked up on his comments on the 'Gon about taking all reviews as informed entertainment, rather than some exhaustive scientific or definitive last 'word' on the equipment under review;
-to what extent should publishers solicit multiple reviews of the same product, and is that logistically possible within the time frames for publication;
-what role does break-in have, do manufacturers have a responsibilty to deliver fully 'pre-conditioned' equipment;
-to what extent is the reviewing press beholden to the manufacturers, for any variety of reasons, from long term loans, to being able to get another piece for review if a particular product gets panned (witness the controversy over that ARC DAC that got panned recently in one of the magazines);
A few more, just for discussion sake.
We all seem pretty dismissive of the magazines to one degree or another, but it seems like an awful lot of us read them. (I've gone to e-zine, and rarely buy hard copies). I suspect that, for the same reason a lot of us participate on this forum, we read them because it is about something we love, even if we disagree with the conclusions, or take issue with a particular reviewer's biases, or even the overall slant of a particular magazine.
Is this a hobby that will have 'new blood'? I don't know the demographic here, but the one industry show I went to recently (first time in a long time) was the same old guys, who just got older. And, if we have the same lament- that the industry, including the magazines, are not reaching the new generations who aren't especially interested in spending 5 or 6 figures on hi-fi, is the high end ( a term which I think HP claimed to have coined as applied to hi-fi) really destined to remain an increasingly niche market, dwarfed by consumer electronics, iPods and compressed files played over computer speakers?
That's all I can think of, off the top, just to get the ball rolling.
I did find this an interesting discussion, in large part because I think HP was a very influential figure in my formative years in this hobby and I believe he remains relevant, perhaps even more so than ever.
At the last RAMF's there were plenty of both exhibitors and attendees younger than I am (59), so there is hope on that front.
We are often dismissive of the magazines (print and online), which doesn't make too much sense; in general, contributors/reviewers have exposure to a much wider range of products than the average enthusiast/consumer. The real question here (I think) is how much influence advertising dollars or manufacturer accomodation might have on the content of the review. A skeptic might suggest another confounder, i.e. the fact that many of the sonic characteristics we discuss are "all in our head", so the reviewer is just making things up to entertain the audience
Let's not go too far with that one here, please.
We are often dismissive of the magazines (print and online), which doesn't make too much sense; in general, contributors/reviewers have exposure to a much wider range of products than the average enthusiast/consumer. The real question here (I think) is how much influence advertising dollars or manufacturer accomodation might have on the content of the review. A skeptic might suggest another confounder, i.e. the fact that many of the sonic characteristics we discuss are "all in our head", so the reviewer is just making things up to entertain the audience
Let's not go too far with that one here, please.
Last edited:
How do we deal with this? I received an industry price and I could sell it now and make a profit.To me that is a conflict of interest impacting severely on ones credibility.
Just as problematic is the notion that technical issues are influenced by those same conflicts
Just as problematic is the notion that technical issues are influenced by those same conflicts
All accommodation sales are generally done with an agreement that the piece can not be sold within a certain amount of years.
If a manufacturer sees a violation of this they will cut off that reviewer, and possibly all reviewers from that publication.
I bought my Thiels, McIntosh, and Byrston pieces at industry prices and have zero plans to sell them and probably never will.
I would love to know the kind of pricing MF is getting for his new pair of XLF's.
Well I guess it comes down to the old saying, "IF you can't beat 'em, join 'em"... i need to become a reviewer, LOL.
Well I guess it comes down to the old saying, "IF you can't beat 'em, join 'em"... i need to become a reviewer, LOL.
I quoted the reviewer.
Your claim still represents a significant windfall. In any ethics class it would be judged a conflict of interest.
A reviewer would be lucky to get back what they paid.
Very little to gain, too much to lose, and way too many machinations to make it worth it.
I know many of the celebrity reviewers out there pretty well and I don't know a single one who sold an expensive pieceof gear in anything less than 3 years, and the value had gone into the toilet after a new model had supplanted the previous one.
Really think this through and do the math.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes friends ,
It's why objectivism is not their friend , testing shows warts , warts have to be explained conflict of interest abounds , now this is not to say an item which measures poorly cant be entertaining or measures excellent and leave one cold , or all reviewers are not trust worthy, not so, I'm sure Most are giving you their subjective reasoning as they see it , against their reference , with their particular biases , understanding this is what helps one determine if a product is for you or not, without objective testing one has no way of evaluating the Johnny come lately fly by night reviewers , without testing one has no way of determining the integrity of the manufacturer , fingerprints gentlemen ....!!!
Case in point :http://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-o96-loudspeaker-measurements
Now here is a poorly designed product , obvious flaws , Yet the product is recommended due to its subjective beauty , now for the record and to be clear , Im a big fan of JA , he brings alot to the table , yet he will have to take a lot of heat on this one , there is obvious tap dancing involved , not only did the product not meet the manufacturers published specs , but there are obvious technical flaws, again the subjective beauty of the product as reviewed , may or may not be as good as suggested , but who here would not want to know about a 12K product not meeting published specs from the builder and with obvious technical flaws ...
Hence we test ...!!!
And for good reason , now imagine if this review was done by one of the fly by nighters , were most of us would have no reference to their sonic biases , worst , any conflict of interest and just as bad their poor reference system and space .....
Cartridges should be tested , all should be tested , we did not get from their to here without science and testing , we csnt have designers using science to prove their products superiority and in the next minute denouncing it has nothing to do with sonics , after testing poorly ...
Its the careful application of both objective and subjective reasoning which gives us this balance, too much either way may fail to deliver , but which of the two is the most important in moving us forward ..
Regards ,
It's why objectivism is not their friend , testing shows warts , warts have to be explained conflict of interest abounds , now this is not to say an item which measures poorly cant be entertaining or measures excellent and leave one cold , or all reviewers are not trust worthy, not so, I'm sure Most are giving you their subjective reasoning as they see it , against their reference , with their particular biases , understanding this is what helps one determine if a product is for you or not, without objective testing one has no way of evaluating the Johnny come lately fly by night reviewers , without testing one has no way of determining the integrity of the manufacturer , fingerprints gentlemen ....!!!
Case in point :http://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-o96-loudspeaker-measurements
Now here is a poorly designed product , obvious flaws , Yet the product is recommended due to its subjective beauty , now for the record and to be clear , Im a big fan of JA , he brings alot to the table , yet he will have to take a lot of heat on this one , there is obvious tap dancing involved , not only did the product not meet the manufacturers published specs , but there are obvious technical flaws, again the subjective beauty of the product as reviewed , may or may not be as good as suggested , but who here would not want to know about a 12K product not meeting published specs from the builder and with obvious technical flaws ...
Hence we test ...!!!
And for good reason , now imagine if this review was done by one of the fly by nighters , were most of us would have no reference to their sonic biases , worst , any conflict of interest and just as bad their poor reference system and space .....
Cartridges should be tested , all should be tested , we did not get from their to here without science and testing , we csnt have designers using science to prove their products superiority and in the next minute denouncing it has nothing to do with sonics , after testing poorly ...
Its the careful application of both objective and subjective reasoning which gives us this balance, too much either way may fail to deliver , but which of the two is the most important in moving us forward ..
Regards ,
Would you also consider a Magneplanar or a Soundlab speaker a poorly designed product? I can assure you that their measurements are much worse than those you quote.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not true ,
Both are not point source speakers , so why the deflection and for a great boomerang response.....
What makes Magnapan and Soundlab good speakers , poor measurements ...?
Not true ,
Both are not point source speakers , so why the deflection and for a great boomerang response.....
What makes Magnapan and Soundlab good speakers , poor measurements ...?
You just spotting my point - it seems that for some speakers we generally accept they sound very good and do not ask for measurements.
Well some of us do , we can examine their measurements and add to their subjective evaluation , i will start with the 3.6 and the soundlabs A3 as stereophile has data on both models..
We can compare all 3 ....
Actually after reviewing the A3 article , you can see the dramatic improvements made by SL, where in the original test , the speaker never managed to meet their printed specs ...
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-lab-3-loudspeaker-j-gordon-holt-january-1992
With the 3.6 you can see and understand why Magnapan would not allow JA. To measure the 3.7 ..
In fairness and i have discussed this with JA in the past as to why he did not drag panel speakers outdoors for measurements , I myself favor GP measurements and do feel that current method of nearfield gated and spliced measurements as currently done by JA , don't give an accurate portrayal of the FR CURVE , when measuring panel speakers, in fairness logistics and weather can be an issue ..
Regardless there is still important info generated as to xover points, phase , etc ...
We can compare all 3 ....
Actually after reviewing the A3 article , you can see the dramatic improvements made by SL, where in the original test , the speaker never managed to meet their printed specs ...
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sound-lab-3-loudspeaker-j-gordon-holt-january-1992
With the 3.6 you can see and understand why Magnapan would not allow JA. To measure the 3.7 ..
In fairness and i have discussed this with JA in the past as to why he did not drag panel speakers outdoors for measurements , I myself favor GP measurements and do feel that current method of nearfield gated and spliced measurements as currently done by JA , don't give an accurate portrayal of the FR CURVE , when measuring panel speakers, in fairness logistics and weather can be an issue ..
Regardless there is still important info generated as to xover points, phase , etc ...
Last edited:
You do have me at a disadvantage. I do not know what the accommodation discount is. The formula for the initial windfall is MSRP minus accommodation price. Used equipment does depreciate. However that is offset by the fact that you received the beniefit of use. No one expects you to get back what you paid for it.
I've been a member of Audiogon long enough to have seen reviewers not only sale their review sample at a profit but to use their status to facilitate the sale. Not all reviewers keep review samples for an extended period. Indeed one of the WBF members offered Wiison Sashas for sale in the Trading Post
Concerning engaging in transgressions that ruins ones career or reputation for little or no gain, you'd be surprised what people will do.
So I've done the math and thought it through. Conflict of interest is not a fatal flaw. Like real estate dealing with such things involves disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
from what I understand he lost his reviewer's status at PFO for selling cables on Audiogon that he was reviewing
Accommodation prices for 95% of all items sent out for review, is roughly dealer prices..which is 40-60% of retail.
Again, do the math. After 3 years, you are already down 50% in value, to be conservative.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
The scenario you describe of getting use out of said products and selling them for what was paid is HARDLY a "windfall". That
is the term you used. Clearly, you were being dramatic.
There are perks in every industry, and most far, far, far more lavish than ones audio reviewers get.
Conflicts of interest abound everywhere. It is far more outrageous and disconcerting in just about every other
industry..financial services, auto dealerships, and as you noted, real estate.
I can only speak for my self. I describe what I hear, I don't buy my equipment on the cheap and flip it etc.
But don't take my word for it, other reviewers can chime in here.
Similar threads
