I see you've raised some interesting points about long-term equipment loans to reviewers. It's a complex topic with different perspectives. While self-financing reviewers can provide unbiased reviews, long-term loans may raise concerns about potential conflicts or bias.
"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I make clear what I own, which are my speakers, turntable, phono pre, preamp, amps and cartridges. But snarky comments abound nonetheless from the peanut gallery. So tiresome
Well, kudos to you for making this clear and my post was not intended for you either. One of your new colleagues in TAS on the other hand has equipment "on loan" for several years which I personally find somewhat problematic. This equipment has been listed for years as "reference products". Why aren`t these products returned after the review that was printed years ago? I know because I am a very long time subscriber to TAS, a magazine I value very much.
I am not losing any sleep over this, but as a long time customer and subscriber I am allowed to have an opinion about it.
Proof is a difficult concept
One then would have to take the leap from conflict of interest to bias in fact
Just as suspicion is not proof of criminal activity. Investigation of the guilty and innocent is nearly identical.
Generally where there is the potential for bias the appearance of impropriety, revealing conflict of interest interest is the first step. Monetary gain is a strong potentially corrupting influence.
Perhaps the term loan is a misnomer. Loan implies repayment of some sort.
Conflict of interest or lack of credibility are not automatic disqualifiers. The greater those two things are,the more objective facts and independent corroboration is required. A proven track record is helpful.
Rarely are you going to dind a completely neutral arbiter. Indeed experience breeds bias. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
In order b to prove bias in fact one would have to prove a link between an arguably corrupt or incompetent opinion/review and the potentially corrupting influence.
That is easier said then done.
One then would have to take the leap from conflict of interest to bias in fact
Just as suspicion is not proof of criminal activity. Investigation of the guilty and innocent is nearly identical.
Generally where there is the potential for bias the appearance of impropriety, revealing conflict of interest interest is the first step. Monetary gain is a strong potentially corrupting influence.
Perhaps the term loan is a misnomer. Loan implies repayment of some sort.
Conflict of interest or lack of credibility are not automatic disqualifiers. The greater those two things are,the more objective facts and independent corroboration is required. A proven track record is helpful.
Rarely are you going to dind a completely neutral arbiter. Indeed experience breeds bias. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
In order b to prove bias in fact one would have to prove a link between an arguably corrupt or incompetent opinion/review and the potentially corrupting influence.
That is easier said then done.
I haven’t read this thread, but I recognize some of the players, and I did read the original editorial.
One of the most mislabeled member categories here is “industry expert.” It would be more correct to label them as “industry insider.”
I saw an article in PS Audio’s free magazine (Copper Magazine) on the resurrection of cassettes the other day. I forwarded it to one of my sons who is a recording artist. He’s 43, and in the final stages of a vinyl project.
It had been written by a famous “industry expert.” But my son doesn’t travel in audiophile circles, so he had never heard of him.
He said “That guy’s a pompous ass. He dismisses the most important quality of a mix tape, ie that unlike a play list, it is like an intimate letter shared among close friends.”
I see this a lot with so-called industry experts. They are taken with themselves. They see themselves sitting above the lowly denizens of the peanut gallery … the very people who support their own lust for peanuts.
One of the most mislabeled member categories here is “industry expert.” It would be more correct to label them as “industry insider.”
I saw an article in PS Audio’s free magazine (Copper Magazine) on the resurrection of cassettes the other day. I forwarded it to one of my sons who is a recording artist. He’s 43, and in the final stages of a vinyl project.
It had been written by a famous “industry expert.” But my son doesn’t travel in audiophile circles, so he had never heard of him.
He said “That guy’s a pompous ass. He dismisses the most important quality of a mix tape, ie that unlike a play list, it is like an intimate letter shared among close friends.”
I see this a lot with so-called industry experts. They are taken with themselves. They see themselves sitting above the lowly denizens of the peanut gallery … the very people who support their own lust for peanuts.
Long term loan lol . LLLL
Listen till you love it.
I wish all reviewers a happy and long extended loan.
Listen till you love it.
I wish all reviewers a happy and long extended loan.
I’ve read the thread now. Really I think that magazines and reviewers are for entertainment, not for serious guidance. There are pictures and specs. There are impressions about how the gear performed in the reviewer’s system. There are witty remarks and comparisons. By subscription the cost per issue may be as low as a buck. Anyone who spends five or six figures based on a review is the reviewer’s lawful prey.
Read reviews knowing full well that you are getting a clever writer’s story about how he or she reacted to the gear … nothing more, or less. It’s fun to read. It’s lots of fun if the reviewer’s observations agree with your own. But if they don’t, so what? Don’t seek validation of your choices based on someone else’s ears.
Read reviews knowing full well that you are getting a clever writer’s story about how he or she reacted to the gear … nothing more, or less. It’s fun to read. It’s lots of fun if the reviewer’s observations agree with your own. But if they don’t, so what? Don’t seek validation of your choices based on someone else’s ears.
Last edited:
Jay Leno’s Garage offers expert observations on cars but is less reliable on audio gear.This is not a official reviewer Tima, you are alway above board and official ! And yes i am making trouble as always !And i am not talking about Jay's garage !
I don't expect a review to offer guidance. I expect a review to be expository.
That’s where pictures and specs and impressions come in. The functional stuff is pretty objective. Either it works or it doesn’t… or maybe it sort of works.
But regarding “how does it sound?” … well, there are just too many uncontrolled variables, not the least of which is the Fletcher and Munson work that shows that we do not all hear alike.
Still, reviews can be fun to read if they’re written by a fellow who is thorough but does not take himself too seriously.
Expository reviews are better than exegetical reviews.
In my view they should stick more with the technical stuff.
J atkinson for example has a nice database
Listening i can do myself,i dont need a reviewer for that.
Just describe the products technical features etc .
J atkinson for example has a nice database
Listening i can do myself,i dont need a reviewer for that.
Just describe the products technical features etc .
I'm not following what you're saying here: "But regarding “how does it sound?” ... there are just too many uncontrolled variables" for what ?
Exegesis as interpretation largely comes out of the study of ancient languages where someone applies an interpretation into modern meaning of an obscure word from the past.
If by "exegesis" you mean explanation or analysis, I enjoy a review where the author explains or analyzes how a thing works -- when the explanation is done well. For example, an exegesis of how the drive unit works on an Esoteric Grandioso turntable.
To expose vs to explain -- I see these as closely related activities, often with the same goal.
I'm pretty confident most of us agree that reading a review or an audio forum is not a substitute for hearing a component for yourself. Sadly, the demise of audio stores makes it more difficult to listen to specific components. A review can introduce an audio component you may have never heard or did not know existed.
All it takes is reading audio forums to realize a large number of participants are unable or unwilling to describe sound much less music. WBF for example is a gear oriented forum not a sound or music oriented forum. Useful reviews tend to cover both.
Granted there is too much hyperbole in modern reviews and nowadays anyone with a word processor and a Web platform can call themselves an audio reviewer. It is up to the reader to choose what they read and gauge veracity for themselves. I believe it is up to the listener to know how real music sounds, not just how components sound.
Under my post that mentioned the research of Fletcher and Munson, you asked for specifics.
In 1933, after an extensive empirical study, Fletcher and Munson published their work on experimentally determined loudness contours. The concept of equal loudness, which shows the average human hearing sensitivity across the spectrum at different levels of volume, is well known … and used to this day in mixing. But what people often forget is that their family of curves is an average of what many different human subjects heard.
We do not all hear alike. As individuals we have our own sensitivity to different frequencies and volume levels. We have our own “personally correct” set of equal loudness contours.
Accordingly, when a reviewer describes what he’s heard, it is not likely to be the exact same thing that another person hears. We paint with a broad brush … two people may agree that the bass is good, or the presence is palpable. But neither knows to what degree the other has heard specifically what he heard.
Regarding reviews, many listeners have limited confidence in their own ability to judge, so they lean on the opinions of the professional listeners. Maybe this is good early in the hobby. But eventually we all have to listen to our own system in our own space, and we’ll be happiest if we genuinely enjoy how it presents the performance. Our own ears for our own system.
I don't believe you answered my question but instead discussed the F and M work from almost 100 years ago as an example of something.
AJ: "But regarding “how does it sound?” … well, there are just too many uncontrolled variables"
'Too many variables' to do what?
And to add: reviews are not predicated on identical hearing
We’re talking past each other.
A major variable is that we all hear with our own ears and brain, not with someone else’s. This is the Fletcher Munson revelation.
The extent to which what you describe is useful to me is strongly tied to how closely your hearing algorithm maps onto mine.
After the physiological and psychological differences issues, the variables are simple and obvious. You know this.
There are performance tolerances even if we both have the same gear of the same amount of use. But we don’t have the same gear.
Room differences are always a factor. We do not have the same room, or the same room treatments.
And we rarely have the same value systems. One guy ponders whether he’ll hear the difference between a $200 interconnect and a $2000 interconnect. Another is wondering about the $10k interconnect vs the $25k interconnect. The first guy may decide a small difference is not worth the jump in price. The second guy might flip out over how worthwhile the price jump is in the second case.
I don’t have anything to say on this beyond :
I don’t care if reviewers get deals. I like deals myself.
I would NEVER consider a reviewer’s opinion to trump my own in my system.
Reviews are often entertaining, sometimes exasperating, and occasionally informative. Reviews are most useful as the introduction to a product … more useful than their cousin, advertising.
Lol, back in the days of my “professional musician-ism” (playing in bands for a living) our running joke to our audiences was “The more you drink, the better we sound“ ….. I cant Help you with the Diana Krall thing though!We should probably also be doing some alcohol random breath testing during our listening sessions
A couple of glasses of red with horns and SET and good music… the secret for the suspension of disbelief… the drink is apparently every bit as effective as room treatments or good power
Last edited:
A couple of glasses of red with horns and SET and good music… the secret for the suspension of disbelief… the drink is apparently every bit as effective as room treatments or good power
and much more aesthetically pleasing. Cabernet for Mahler, rosé for Vivaldi.
Similar threads
