"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound

[Ron Resnick]

3. Most reviewers don't make real money. The accommodation pricing is a nice perk that helps balance things out a bit.

As I wrote in the opening post, I have no issue whatsoever with accommodation pricing. (Robert, in his essay, makes the bizarre argument that accommodation pricing is more ethically problematic than long-term loans.)

 

[Lee]

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?

I don’t know what Jonathan did.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don’t know what Jonathan did.

Thank you.

 

[Jep]

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?

To your last sentence for Lee; Check out Valin`s list of reference components, some has been there for years... As a long time reader of TAS I am somewhat dissapointed of the lack of transparency on this very important topic/issue.

I see Roberts video as a 20 minute long ad for the manufacturers currently present in his listening room, nothing more. I guess Wilson, Wadax and CH are extremely happy for this video, worth a lot more than an ad in the magazine. Also for this reason it should have been informed about long term loans, if the equipment is purchased and so on.

JP

 

[Carlos269]

To your last sentence for Lee; Check out Valin`s list of reference components, some has been there for years... As a long time reader of TAS I am somewhat dissapointed of the lack of transparency on this very important topic/issue.

I see Roberts video as a 20 minute long ad for the manufacturers currently present in his listening room, nothing more. I guess Wilson, Wadax and CH are extremely happy for this video, worth a lot more than an ad in the magazine. Also for this reason it should have been informed about long term loans, if the equipment is purchased and so on.

JP

Agree. The video is like an infomercial. Robert Harley forgets that his duty is to the readers. Well that’s were he comes across as operating under the premise that his duty is to the manufacturers, who have provided him and gifted him with the equipment. As a duty to the readers he needs to do a public disclosure of the arrangements in place and what he has paid for, detailing full MSRP versus accommodations versus gifts. TAS really needs to clean up their act on this as it looks like they have fostered a culture of gift exchanges for favorable reviews and coverage.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Agree. The video is like an infomercial. Robert Harley forgets that his duty is to the readers. Well that’s were he comes across as operating under the premise that his duty is to the manufacturers, who have provided him and gifted him with the equipment. As a duty to the readers he needs to do a public disclosure of the arrangements in place and what he has paid for, detailing full MSRP versus accommodations versus gifts. TAS really needs to clean up their act on this as it looks like they have fostered a culture of gift exchanges for favorable reviews and coverage.

I do not think that many take TAS reviews seriously for a long while.

 

[Lee]

To your last sentence for Lee; Check out Valin`s list of reference components, some has been there for years... As a long time reader of TAS I am somewhat dissapointed of the lack of transparency on this very important topic/issue.

I see Roberts video as a 20 minute long ad for the manufacturers currently present in his listening room, nothing more. I guess Wilson, Wadax and CH are extremely happy for this video, worth a lot more than an ad in the magazine. Also for this reason it should have been informed about long term loans, if the equipment is purchased and so on.

JP

I don’t think that’s a fair take. Robert is simply talking about brands he feels are reference quality. If it’s good advertising of the brand then they earned their spot there. In the three years I was at TAS I saw a lot of gear come and go at Robert’s and Jonathan’s homes. I really think many here are over-thinking the influence of the manufacturers.

The better way to judge reviewers is how they describe sound of components and see how that matches up with your experience. Use them to create a shortlist, not an answer.

Also, if we are going to judge magazines in this way, let’s also create a level playing field and do the same for Youtubers that are dealers and audio forums that accept advertisements.

 

[PeterA]

Ron, in your capacity as a professional reviewer for Mono and Stereo online magazine, did you ever share your views about long-term equipment loans with the magazine or the manufacturers?

 

[microstrip]

To your last sentence for Lee; Check out Valin`s list of reference components, some has been there for years... As a long time reader of TAS I am somewhat dissapointed of the lack of transparency on this very important topic/issue.

I see Roberts video as a 20 minute long ad for the manufacturers currently present in his listening room, nothing more. I guess Wilson, Wadax and CH are extremely happy for this video, worth a lot more than an ad in the magazine. Also for this reason it should have been informed about long term loans, if the equipment is purchased and so on.

JP

It astonishes me that someone who is a long time reader of TAS claims about lack of transparency on this subject. It has been addressed with detail in many articles in several issues of the magazine I have read. What we are talking about is well known since long.

IMO most people have a wrong idea of the audio press - they do not read it and imagine it as something like Consumer Report objective reviews or charitable organization that looks for the audiophile truth. The high-end audio press is part of the industry, and just supplies information and opinions to consumers, in a way they should enjoy it. At the same time they educate audiophiles according to their magazine guide lines - do not expect them to represent the whole high-end scene. If we want to have a broader view we have to read other magazines or other sources of information.

No admiration that discussing or bashing them is one of regular sports of people who have extreme or alternative views on this hobby. If you feel you are the only one marching in step, like Jim, do not expect to agree with them.

Just to end, I surely disagree a lot with many TAS opinions and read only the parts of it that interest me, but this does not bother my enjoyment of the magazine.

 

[bonzo75]

and audio forums that accept advertisements.

The advertisement revenues have no relation to a large percentage of content creators on the forum. That is why people trust forums more than rag mags that take advertisements from MoFi types and then defend them by trashing honest audiophiles

 

[Jep]

I don’t think that’s a fair take. Robert is simply talking about brands he feels are reference quality. If it’s good advertising of the brand then they earned their spot there. In the three years I was at TAS I saw a lot of gear come and go at Robert’s and Jonathan’s homes. I really think many here are over-thinking the influence of the manufacturers.

The better way to judge reviewers is how they describe sound of components and see how that matches up with your experience. Use them to create a shortlist, not an answer.

Also, if we are going to judge magazines in this way, let’s also create a level playing field and do the same for Youtubers that are dealers and audio forums that accept advertisements.

Lee; I do not think that Robert or any other TAS reviewers is corrupt or anything like that. But it should be easy to be clear on what is on loan/ in for review and for how long. When certain equipment stays at one reviewer for years it creates threads just like the one with have here. It is easy to avoid by making everything transparent for us readers.

I have zero complaints about the reviews etc, too me they are well written by experienced people.

 

[microstrip]

The advertisement revenues have no relation to a large percentage of content creators on the forum.

IMO it always has. Advertisers wisely choose to use their money on forums that are receptive to their products. Audio is a business.

That is why people trust forums more than rag mags that take advertisements from MoFi types and then defend them by trashing honest audiophiles

IMO people should not "trust" in any high-end media blindingly, but I find that those who "trust" are much more influenced by long articles and proper reviews than by forum discussions. YMMV.

 

[Jep]

It astonishes me that someone who is a long time reader of TAS claims about lack of transparency on this subject. It has been addressed with detail in many articles in several issues of the magazine I have read. What we are talking about is well known since long.

IMO most people have a wrong idea of the audio press - they do not read it and imagine it as something like Consumer Report objective reviews or charitable organization that looks for the audiophile truth. The high-end audio press is part of the industry, and just supplies information and opinions to consumers, in a way they should enjoy it. At the same time they educate audiophiles according to their magazine guide lines - do not expect them to represent the whole high-end scene. If we want to have a broader view we have to read other magazines or other sources of information.

No admiration that discussing or bashing them is one of regular sports of people who have extreme or alternative views on this hobby. If you feel you are the only one marching in step, like Jim, do not expect to agree with them.

Just to end, I surely disagree a lot with many TAS opinions and read only the parts of it that interest me, but this does not bother my enjoyment of the magazine.

I have never seen or read anything about how long equipement stays at the reviewers. Yes, I see that gear comes in and out of course based on their reference equipment lists. But why can`t they be clear on this? 3, 6, 9 or 12 months....

What they are paying if they decide to buy something is of no interest to me, that is a personal matter. I will continue to subscribe to TAS because I enjoy the magazine a lot.

 

[bonzo75]

but I find that those who "trust" are much more influenced by long articles

Roy Gregory seems unbeatable if length of articles = trust.

 

[Lee]

The advertisement revenues have no relation to a large percentage of content creators on the forum. That is why people trust forums more than rag mags that take advertisements from MoFi types and then defend them by trashing honest audiophiles

I have never see magazines trash honest audiophiles.

And it's not really a magazine any more. TAS and hifi+ have active websites, substacks, and YouTube channels now. Online media is a better description now.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The better way to judge reviewers is how they describe sound of components and see how that matches up with your experience. Use them to create a shortlist, not an answer.

+1

very well put

 

[Lee]

Even if some here consider my defense of TAS and Harley to be somewhat Establishment in nature, it's really just my honest take as a consumer of audio gear and someone who is particularly good at understanding business problems and strategy.

In my opinion, folks like Mike Lavigne, PeterA, Ron, etc. are also great sources of information. In the industry side of things, some professionals really stand out for their knowledge and experience. Folks like Jim Smith or Stirling Trayle are incredibly valuable.

It's a journey, we all have to find our own way and our own experts.

 

[Ron Resnick]

And it's not really a magazine any more. TAS and hifi+ have active websites, substacks, and YouTube channels now. Online media is a better description now.

I hope people credit you with bringing TAS' business into the 21st Century.

 

[Lee]

I hope people credit you with bringing TAS' business into the 21st Century.

Several manufacturers have been reaching out to thank me. It does feel good to get a bit of recognition.

Perhaps the coolest things we did were the YouTube channel and Zinio. Zinio got us much wider exposure in Asia Pacific and the YouTube channel is now past 15K subscribers which is impressive growth in just a year. Loads of manufacturers wanted us to be there. Even before I started work I pushed Tom to do that. It took 2.5 years to convince him.

 

[Daverich4]

For his December 2022 review of the Burmeister 159 monoblocks Mr Harley spent TWO days at a dealer auditioning them and from that experience was able to declare them the 2022 Solid State Amplifiers Of The Year. He gave some reasons why he did the review that way but I think what stands out for me is the short length of time it took to determine they were the best of the best.