It could be. I think the term loan implies post review retention. The decision to retain the item as a reference is made then. I suppose the reviewer could reveal his intent to retain the component indefinitely in his review.
"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
This is just snarky. TAS reviews the best and most advanced new high-end audio products. Are you really going to dispute that?
People are easily fooled ( look alone at politics )
I blame the public themselves , what is more easy then being spoonfed by magazines .
Buy the latest / greatest from TAS and declare yourself a victor ..... for 8 months
I blame the public themselves , what is more easy then being spoonfed by magazines .
Buy the latest / greatest from TAS and declare yourself a victor ..... for 8 months
Does anyone know if Jonathan Valin finally returned his Walker turntable after Lloyd died? Valin kept the table for at least 10 years after his initial review, maybe 15. I considered that outrageous, an egregious abuse that also diminished Valin’s credibility regarding other tables and arms. Whenever Valin reviewed other tables, he compared them to the Walker and nearly always found the Walker superior, which made me wonder if he was expressing his true feelings or downplaying them to avoid upsetting Lloyd Walker and losing his “loaner” table.
I understand the dilemmas Robert explains in his editorial. You succinctly capture here one of the big problems from the readership's point of view with the long-term loan arrangement.
Trust betrayed ...... its a commercial magazine what do you think their profitmodel is ???
Philantrophy
IMO the goal of every magazine is to promote the industry. It is essentially an ad advertising vehicle. OTOH audio magazines existed without advertising. They were being punished for giving honest opinions. Many existed only on subscriptions. We then moved to a period where Sterophile had an ad on every other page.
Well then, audiophiles did not want to pay up and support them, so they had to make money via advertisements, which audiophiles don't appreciate. And audiophiles do not easily appreciate honest opinions because what if the reviewer said something negative about equipment they (the readers) own?
There is a lot to unpack there.
I think HP of tas was straightforward about it. He wanted to be free form the coercion of Adverising dollars. It was always a possibility that a manufacurer would pull his ads and deny access to review samples. A pretty damaging scenario if ones operating budget had become dependent on ad revenue.
I am a proud audiophile. What I want to hear is a reasonable recreation of live music.
I see this all the time. Plenty of audiophiles want negative reviews. They worry that a constant stream of positive reviews is a sign of corruption. I trust my own ears.
I consider the mag rags - including the reviews - as purchased manufacturer advertising. I don’t see how a reviewer may be completely objective with long term loans or highly discounted purchases.
The main reason why I continue to receive some of the rags is so I may see what’s new.
The main reviewer of the equipment in our system continues to be my own ears and my audiophile friends - who have no dog in the fight and will be brutally honest with me when needed.
The main reason why I continue to receive some of the rags is so I may see what’s new.
The main reviewer of the equipment in our system continues to be my own ears and my audiophile friends - who have no dog in the fight and will be brutally honest with me when needed.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but characterizing the reviews as "purchased manufacturer advertising" is, I think, grossly hyperbolic. Even professional reviewers who accept long-term equipment loans have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of believability and excellence in music reproduction. They have very experienced ears, and generally they are excellent writers. They just prefer not to pay for the ultra high-end audio systems they want in their homes.
Doubt about complete objectivity due to long term loans is fair, and it is very far from an assertion that reviews are purchased advertising.
Last edited:
Painting the entire industry with the same brush is IMO just plain wrong. Many if not most that are on this site would have no idea about any of the gear that exists or even know the language without the magazines. Are there faults?of course. are some better than others? of course.
My history with them goes back a very long time and I am not stating this to be anything but factual, without HP and J Gordon alsmost no one would be here or understand anything about the high end audio business and the equipment.
I have learned a lot from them and if honest most would say the same thing. The magazine business model is difficult if not impossible to please all. It was tried as a subscription only one, that didnt work. I can give you a better model but there is no funding that can make it work. They are a business and have to make a profit or at least pay thier bills and break even.
They have provided a huge service to the Audiophile and the audio Industry as well.
1). advertising
2) exposure- without this most of the small builders could not exist
3) descriptions and instructions for best use and results
4) opinions
5) reviews - whether you like them or not as a retailerand know a distributor- everyone quotes them back to us
6) language by which we try to communicate
Catagorizing every reviewer and every magazine as something evil is demonizing all for the errors of some or a few.
All of us can make their own choices and opinions however we are influenced and educated by others. A group that share an opinion is fine however it doesn't make their choices correct for everyone else.
I personally have lots of issues with the way things are done and find much of what happens unfair and an unequal playing field. The real issue to me is what can be done to change that. We have YOUTUBE, online groups, forums etc and although thier is more diverse opinions at the end of the day I am not sure that most of these are better or even equal to the best of those who continue to try and educate us.
Like I said some are educated and informed others just have part of the story which get presented as facts.
What I have said many times is one has to figure out what they don't know. Audio have numerous products, unlimited combinations. various factors like room and set up , and all of these determine the outcome.
Our review process has some that address a lot of this and are IMO honest and reliable and others that are influenced and bias by factors that are discussed. I dont want to paint them all as the same becasue they are not and saying that IMO is offensive and not enlightened.
My history with them goes back a very long time and I am not stating this to be anything but factual, without HP and J Gordon alsmost no one would be here or understand anything about the high end audio business and the equipment.
I have learned a lot from them and if honest most would say the same thing. The magazine business model is difficult if not impossible to please all. It was tried as a subscription only one, that didnt work. I can give you a better model but there is no funding that can make it work. They are a business and have to make a profit or at least pay thier bills and break even.
They have provided a huge service to the Audiophile and the audio Industry as well.
1). advertising
2) exposure- without this most of the small builders could not exist
3) descriptions and instructions for best use and results
4) opinions
5) reviews - whether you like them or not as a retailerand know a distributor- everyone quotes them back to us
6) language by which we try to communicate
Catagorizing every reviewer and every magazine as something evil is demonizing all for the errors of some or a few.
All of us can make their own choices and opinions however we are influenced and educated by others. A group that share an opinion is fine however it doesn't make their choices correct for everyone else.
I personally have lots of issues with the way things are done and find much of what happens unfair and an unequal playing field. The real issue to me is what can be done to change that. We have YOUTUBE, online groups, forums etc and although thier is more diverse opinions at the end of the day I am not sure that most of these are better or even equal to the best of those who continue to try and educate us.
Like I said some are educated and informed others just have part of the story which get presented as facts.
What I have said many times is one has to figure out what they don't know. Audio have numerous products, unlimited combinations. various factors like room and set up , and all of these determine the outcome.
Our review process has some that address a lot of this and are IMO honest and reliable and others that are influenced and bias by factors that are discussed. I dont want to paint them all as the same becasue they are not and saying that IMO is offensive and not enlightened.
Last edited:
I don’t fault their pursuit, just what they accept to sustain it.
Experienced ears, means old ears, many which aren’t what they use to be. Even Fremer (whom I normally like) didn't pick up on the digital signature on MoFi LPs, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps reviewers should write some articles about their own deteriorating hearing?
I’d prefer not to have to pay for my system either, but I’m willing to because it’s worth it. IMO, reviewers should be willing to put their own $$$ where heart lies. If they won’t then why should I be willing to trust their “opinions”?
This is a fantasy and can never happen. If this was the case the only reviews would be from rich people that bought something they probably new very little about.
If i cant buy a Porsche I can't express an opinion on the car even if I drove it extensively?
How many people on the planet can buy even what you own and then spend thousands of hours to learn enough to write cogent educated reviews? with experience and many competing products sampled that all need to be purchased. THis is just not reality
Im thrilled you like your system and that you are succesful enough to afford it however that alone DOES NOT qualify you to be a reviewer and certainly not to be an expert.
I know a lot of people that own a Ferrari and cant drive at all. I know even more that have a Wolf or subzero or other high end appliances that cant cook. I have two friends that have Steinway Grand Piano's that cant play a lick. These are who want to write reviews on quality and performance
I think that's a rather long horizon for veblens status objects. I think maybe 60 to 90 days or so from the wowie zowie kudos for a grand purchase, then back to stale anonymity as the audio critics are off to other shiny objects de audio. Keeping up with the flouncing pom pons and kicking skirts is kind of a zero sum game.
That's one of the reasons that I like the antiquarians, who try to take the cross sections of the best and most effective from the last 100 years and just polish and renew them.
I may be wrong but my interpretation of Audire's point is not that reviewers should be purchasing equipment and then reviewing said equipment; rather that their objectivity would be less subject to debate if there wasn't equipment on a long term loan or available accommodation pricing.
That’s not accurate. We had several high level discussions about Mobile Fidelity and the greater concern was doing the right thing over advertising dollars.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |