Lee, it's been like tax season for me starting a month before Axpona, then Munich and just last week THE SHOW in LA so I'm running low on mental focus for sure. Thanks for excusing my faux pas! I would love to hear your Mike Kaye story one day. God knows we all have one
I’m glad to hear TAS is adapting with the times. I confess that I personally find TAS too monochromatic for my tastes compared to WBF. I used to greatly enjoy reading it in the 1980s. I did subscribe to the digital edition for a while but although it’s considerably more flashy than the old mostly B&W print edition, TAS under HP was considerably more fun to read.
Lee, it's been like tax season for me starting a month before Axpona, then Munich and just last week THE SHOW in LA so I'm running low on mental focus for sure. Thanks for excusing my faux pas! I would love to hear your Mike Kaye story one day. God knows we all have one
Amen to that. I have given up reading hifi rags. I find WBF far more informative and useful. I’d argue that in 2023 and beyond, forums like this one is the model for high end audio. Plenty of manufacturers advertise their wares here. Owners provide reviews. Lots of topics and opinions are presented.
I really appreciate and contribute to WBF, but I consider it covers only a very small part of the high-end and we are only a few people debating our preferences and ideas about sound reproduction. As could be expected we are biased to a small list of products we like , own or sell.
At this point, TAS and Stereophile are largely anachronisms of the 20th century prior to the web. In the 1980s, TAS was a very different institution and one could argue it played a useful role then when disseminating information was much more difficult.
Well, I still read TAS and Stereophile - I do not have the time or interest to loose hours looking for long youtube videos that mostly do not have even a decent summary. I can preview a printed material (paper or digital) in a few minutes and then read what interests me.
To make an analogy, TAS and Stereophile are like the equivalent of Blu Ray discs in a universe dominated with streaming channels with an infinitely more interesting repertoire of content.
Quantity is not quality IMO. And I can't see why coffee talk about equipment can be more interesting than a formal well though and written review or article. Just MHO, YMMV.
I think that magazines and internet activity complement each other, tout court.
Elliot, thanks for posting. I’m going to be honest, I almost feel embarrassed for Robert Hartley as he describes the Wadax “error correction”. I’m sure that other digital DAC manufacturers have called him out about his blind acceptance of that description and gullibility to marketing wordsmiths. I’m pretty sure that this is a deceptive implementation of Digital Signal Processing and Robert Harley as a reviewer has a duty to investigate and inform the readers and not propagate the deception.
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtube.com
Based on this clip it appears as though Robert has possessed the XVXes and Master Subsonics since he received the speakers in 2019 for his review which was published in 2020.
I've had the XVX system in my home for five months, yet every time I sit down and listen, I feel a profound sense of musical discovery.
www.theabsolutesound.com
Enjoying XVXes and Master Subsonics -- about $450,000 in speakers -- for free for four (4) years and counting is perhaps one reason Robert wrote such a full-throated and shameless defense of long-term loans.
I’ve got to admit that watching this video did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I wonder how much of that gear he actually purchased at normal accommodations, and how much of it is there gratis.
Elliot, thanks for posting. I’m going to be honest, I almost feel embarrassed for Robert Hartley as he describes the Wadax “error correction”. I’m sure that other digital DAC manufacturers have called him out about his blind acceptance of that description and gullibility to marketing wordsmiths. I’m pretty sure that this is a deceptive implementation of Digital Signal Processing and Robert Harley as a reviewer has a duty to investigate and inform the readers and not propagate the deception.
A few observations from someone who worked for TAS recently:
1. Among the more senior and established reviewers, it's not uncommon for a reference speaker to be on loan. Some may not agree with it but it's standard industry practice.
2. Part of this is driven by the value of the speaker in resale and is more acute in more expensive loudspeakers and electronics. Manufacturers would rather not spend the time on a resale and there is goodwill in having a longer term evaluation of the gear.
3. Most reviewers don't make real money. The accommodation pricing is a nice perk that helps balance things out a bit.
4. I would argue the consumer benefits as it enables the reviewer's to have a broader base of experience. That provides a much better critique of the sound and sets a baseline for reference sound to compare products to.
5. Robert, in my experience, is very ethical about policies and takes being completely objective in his reviews very seriously.
A few observations from someone who worked for TAS recently:
1. Among the more senior and established reviewers, it's not uncommon for a reference speaker to be on loan. Some may not agree with it but it's standard industry practice.
2. Part of this is driven by the value of the speaker in resale and is more acute in more expensive loudspeakers and electronics. Manufacturers would rather not spend the time on a resale and there is goodwill in having a longer term evaluation of the gear.
3. Most reviewers don't make real money. The accommodation pricing is a nice perk that helps balance things out a bit.
4. I would argue the consumer benefits as it enables the reviewer's to have a broader base of experience. That provides a much better critique of the sound and sets a baseline for reference sound to compare products to.
5. Robert, in my experience, is very ethical about policies and takes being completely objective in his reviews very seriously.
A few observations from someone who worked for TAS recently:
1. Among the more senior and established reviewers, it's not uncommon for a reference speaker to be on loan. Some may not agree with it but it's standard industry practice.
2. Part of this is driven by the value of the speaker in resale and is more acute in more expensive loudspeakers and electronics. Manufacturers would rather not spend the time on a resale and there is goodwill in having a longer term evaluation of the gear.
3. Most reviewers don't make real money. The accommodation pricing is a nice perk that helps balance things out a bit.
4. I would argue the consumer benefits as it enables the reviewer's to have a broader base of experience. That provides a much better critique of the sound and sets a baseline for reference sound to compare products to.
5. Robert, in my experience, is very ethical about policies and takes being completely objective in his reviews very seriously.
You do realize that when someone gives you 400k of gear to use with no time table to return it that this can set up alarm bells to others dont you?
The fact that reviewers CANT afford the gear makes it even more questionable not less.
I know if someone loaned me a Ferrari for example, which I could not afford I certainly would go out of my way not to offend them so I could keep the car longer, maybe I m just crazy.
Question for everyone:
How long should a review loan be for?
A) 3 months
B) 6 months
C) 1 year
d) No time limit
You do realize that when someone gives you 400k of gear to use with no time table to return it that this can set up alarm bells to others dont you?
The fact that reviewers CANT afford the gear makes it even more questionable not less.
I know if someone loaned me a Ferrari for example, which I could not afford I certainly would go out of my way not to offend them so I could keep the car longer, maybe I m just crazy.
Question for everyone:
How long should a review loan be for?
A) 3 months
B) 6 months
C) 1 year
d) No time limit
I agree with Carlos here, but I’d say go as far as 6 months. After that there must be a purchase or give it back. The reviewer can give an item back and post the review thereafter. I’d put more stock in such a review.
PS: In the U.S the IRS also has some things to say about “lengthly loans.” Fringe Benefit rules.
I agree with Carlos here, but I’d say go as far as 6 months. After that there must be a purchase or give it back. The reviewer can give an item back and post the review thereafter. I’d put more stock in such a review.
PS: In the U.S the IRS also has some things to say about “lengthly loans.” Fringe Benefit rules.
I posted about irs in the other thread on RH’s listening room.
I haven’t studied this thread carefully, but I wonder if anyone commented on the idea that the room AND the gear should be depreciated over their expected lives. The gear is probably mostly 5 year property. The room is probably 20 year property. The depreciation can be deducted from income every year as long as the taxpayer stays in this business, reducing the basis for the calculation of gain at the time of sale.
Equipment on loan should have a lease value, and if no lease is collected, it is a taxable income unless the gift of no lease is from a family member (subject to the limits as prescribed by tax law).
So … I wonder how all this stuff is actually handled.
I said earlier that readers should take all reviews as entertainment rather than as instruction. I still feel that way. But I recognize that the price of playing in the deep end of the audiophile pool has become so high that most would be reviewers would have a hard time acquiring and updating a SOTA system against which to compare their assigned components.
Michael Fremer bought his XVXes. Don Saltzman bought his Magnepan MG-20.7s and REL subwoofers. I'm sure many other reviewers bought their loudspeakers.
I say Robert should buy Alexx Vs if he cannot afford XVXes at accommodation price. His reviews of non-loudspeaker components would not be materially impaired by having Alexx Vs in his permanent system instead of XVXes. And this conflict of interest, and, in my view, serious ethical problem, would go away.
For our tax attorney members: at some point wouldn't the IRS recharacterize a long-term "loan" as a sale (or, since no money changed hands, a "gift") transaction?
You do realize that when someone gives you 400k of gear to use with no time table to return it that this can set up alarm bells to others dont you?
The fact that reviewers CANT afford the gear makes it even more questionable not less.
I know if someone loaned me a Ferrari for example, which I could not afford I certainly would go out of my way not to offend them so I could keep the car longer, maybe I m just crazy.
Question for everyone:
How long should a review loan be for?
A) 3 months
B) 6 months
C) 1 year
d) No time limit
Only as long as it is required to understand what the component is doing in the system and to write a meaningful review expressing that. Not more than six months.
Does anyone feel the manufacturers who provide long-term loans also have a role in creating this industry practice? As an industry professional that seeks reviews, my sense is six months to a year maximum makes sense, after which the product should be purchased at a fair market price for similar used equipment or returned to the manufacturer for disposition.
I think six months makes sense. I would also support one year. I might even support 18 months. I certainly would not support more than two years.
I think selecting an industry accepted and followed hard end-date, maximum term of long-term loans is more important than the actual term, although I personally think the term should be less than two years.
Gary Leeds insightfully raised with me the good point that manufacturers really are the but for causes of this practice. If the manufacturers didn't allow reviewers to keep the components the reviewers would not have the opportunity to trip over this conflict of interest.
Gary pointed out correctly that the longer the term of the loan, the more the practice of long-term loans relatively benefits large companies who can afford to park the value of its component at the reviewer's house over smaller companies who cannot afford to park that value at the reviewer's house.
My main view is that the current practice of "potentially until death" is totally unacceptable.*
*Lee, do you happen to know if Jonathan ever returned his Lloyd Walker turntable to Lloyd Walker's estate after Lloyd died?
youtube.com
www.theabsolutesound.com
