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

[Elliot G.]

What one gets from a review is not the question here. in fact that you mention it is to be honest insulting. The changing of the subject to detract from the subject is just fufilling a fan agenda.
One does not need 3-5 years to write a review period. Keeping multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars of gear with no out of pocket cost nor loss is a HUGE perk and one might argue it is providing undue influence and access. TAS for example has multiple MILIONS of loaned gear, yes multiple millions of loaned gear, in case you missed that MULTIPLE MILLIONS of loaned gear.

THe fact that you purchased gear at accomodation and then they took it back and gave you new gear at accomodation really shows a level of control. You like the speakers great thats your choice but you have not had others in your room which was accomplished by
the accomodation provided by the manufacturer.

The real truth is the Industry does not want to talk about this nor air it in the open. I dont either but I am tired , no really tired of pretending that this is a fair and level playing field. I have dozens of examples but I will not throw people under the bus that sadly falls only on me. Maybe I am a fool but I am a proud one.
I've been doing this for 50 years, was on HP's listening panel and advisory group. I know how it worked then and I know how it works now as a distributor and a dealer.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So you are ok with 3 to 5 years on a loan?
I'm sorry that isnt a loan for a review in my book thats a . . . gift.

+1

 

[andromedaaudio]

Lol
So TAS has accumulated the most free stuff.
Good for them i hope they are happy with it.
What do i care

 

[Ron Resnick]

A responsible industry collectively could agree on an accepted industry practice for the maximum duration of a component loan. I propose one (1) year. One year is a long time.

But, as with the negotiation and enactment of legislation, large manufacturers and senior reviewers who currently hold expensive components subject to no return date will lobby for a longer duration. Their opening negotiating position probably will start at five years. Maybe, after the sausage is cooked, we end up at 18 months.

The problem is that indefinite long-term "loans" benefit large manufacturers who can afford to have a high value product parked at a reviewer's house indefinitely, and enjoy the free publicity from having their components as permanent fixtures on the reviewers "associated components" list. Senior reviewers at the magazines (Jonathan and Robert, this means you) will resist strenuously having to disgorge and return millions of dollars of equipment they enjoy and which they could not otherwise afford.

There would be plenty of resistance and complaining, but if such a practice were widely adopted and implemented we all would enjoy a healthier and fairer and more intellectually honest industry.

 

[Elliot G.]

JV’s Reference System
Loudspeakers: MBL 101 X-treme MKII, Stenheim Alumine Five SE, Estelon X Diamond Mk II, Magico M3, Voxativ 9.87, Avantgarde Zero 1, Magnepan LRS+, MG 1.7, and MG 30.7
Subwoofers: JL Audio Gotham (pair)
Linestage preamps: Soulution 725, MBL 6010 D, Siltech SAGA System C1, Air Tight ATE-2001 Reference
Phonostage preamps: Soulution 755, Constellation Audio Perseus, DS Audio Grand Master
Power amplifiers: Soulution 711, MBL 9008 A, Aavik P-580, Air Tight 3211, Air Tight ATM-2001, Zanden Audio Systems Model 9600, Siltech SAGA System V1/P1, Odyssey Audio Stratos, Voxativ Integrated 805
Analog source: Clearaudio Master Innovation, Acoustic Signature Invictus Jr./T-9000, Walker Audio Proscenium Black Diamond Mk V, TW Acustic Black Knight/TW Raven 10.5, AMG Viella 12
Tape deck: Metaxas & Sins Tourbillon T-RX, United Home Audio Ultimata5 OPS-DC
Phono cartridges: DS Audio Grandmaster, DS Audio Master1, DS Audio DS-003 Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement II, Air Tight Opus 1, Ortofon MC Anna, Ortofon MC A90
Digital source: MSB Reference DAC, Soulution 760, Berkeley Alpha DAC 2
Cable and interconnect: Crystal Cable Art Series Da Vinci, Crystal Cable Ultimate Dream, Synergistic Research SRX, Ansuz Acoustics Diamond
Power cords: CrystalConnect Art Series Da Vinci, Crystal Cable Ultimate Dream, Synergistic Research SRX, Ansuz Acoustics Diamond
Power conditioner: AudioQuest Niagara 5000 (two), Synergistic Research Galileo UEF, Ansuz Acoustics DTC, Technical Brain
Support systems: Critical Mass Systems MAXXUM and QXK equipment racks and amp stands and Center- Stage2M footers
Room treatments: Stein Music H2 Harmonizer system, Synergistic Research UEF Acoustic Panels/Atmosphere XL4/UEF Acoustic Dot system, Synergistic Research ART system, Shakti Hallographs (6), Zanden Acoustic panels, A/V Room Services Metu acoustic panels and traps, ASC Tube Traps
Accessories: DS Audio ES 001 LP-centering device, DS Audio ION 001 LP ionizer, SteinMusic Pi Carbon Signature record mat, Symposium Isis and Ultra equipment platforms, Symposium Rollerblocks and Fat Padz, Walker Prologue Reference equipment and amp stands, Walker Valid Points and Resonance Control discs, Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic record cleaner, Synergistic Research RED Quantum fuses, HiFi-Tuning silver/gold fuses

 

[andromedaaudio]

Sure something like the industry " standard " LS the Wilson XVX .
Whether M fremer or M Mickelson bought it or Wilson gave it to them is totally up to the manufacturer afaik .
Its not my business nor anybody elses .
When consumers are dumb enough to swallow everything to the letter is their problem

 

[andromedaaudio]

Like i said i hope J Valin is happy with all the stuff hes got .

As i see its quit a list lol

 

[Ron Resnick]

JV’s Reference System
Loudspeakers: MBL 101 X-treme MKII, Stenheim Alumine Five SE, Estelon X Diamond Mk II, Magico M3, Voxativ 9.87, Avantgarde Zero 1, Magnepan LRS+, MG 1.7, and MG 30.7
Subwoofers: JL Audio Gotham (pair)
Linestage preamps: Soulution 725, MBL 6010 D, Siltech SAGA System C1, Air Tight ATE-2001 Reference
Phonostage preamps: Soulution 755, Constellation Audio Perseus, DS Audio Grand Master
Power amplifiers: Soulution 711, MBL 9008 A, Aavik P-580, Air Tight 3211, Air Tight ATM-2001, Zanden Audio Systems Model 9600, Siltech SAGA System V1/P1, Odyssey Audio Stratos, Voxativ Integrated 805
Analog source: Clearaudio Master Innovation, Acoustic Signature Invictus Jr./T-9000, Walker Audio Proscenium Black Diamond Mk V, TW Acustic Black Knight/TW Raven 10.5, AMG Viella 12
Tape deck: Metaxas & Sins Tourbillon T-RX, United Home Audio Ultimata5 OPS-DC
Phono cartridges: DS Audio Grandmaster, DS Audio Master1, DS Audio DS-003 Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement II, Air Tight Opus 1, Ortofon MC Anna, Ortofon MC A90
Digital source: MSB Reference DAC, Soulution 760, Berkeley Alpha DAC 2
Cable and interconnect: Crystal Cable Art Series Da Vinci, Crystal Cable Ultimate Dream, Synergistic Research SRX, Ansuz Acoustics Diamond
Power cords: CrystalConnect Art Series Da Vinci, Crystal Cable Ultimate Dream, Synergistic Research SRX, Ansuz Acoustics Diamond
Power conditioner: AudioQuest Niagara 5000 (two), Synergistic Research Galileo UEF, Ansuz Acoustics DTC, Technical Brain
Support systems: Critical Mass Systems MAXXUM and QXK equipment racks and amp stands and Center- Stage2M footers
Room treatments: Stein Music H2 Harmonizer system, Synergistic Research UEF Acoustic Panels/Atmosphere XL4/UEF Acoustic Dot system, Synergistic Research ART system, Shakti Hallographs (6), Zanden Acoustic panels, A/V Room Services Metu acoustic panels and traps, ASC Tube Traps
Accessories: DS Audio ES 001 LP-centering device, DS Audio ION 001 LP ionizer, SteinMusic Pi Carbon Signature record mat, Symposium Isis and Ultra equipment platforms, Symposium Rollerblocks and Fat Padz, Walker Prologue Reference equipment and amp stands, Walker Valid Points and Resonance Control discs, Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic record cleaner, Synergistic Research RED Quantum fuses, HiFi-Tuning silver/gold fuses

Is this a recent snapshot? So Jonathan still has the Lloyd Walker turntable?!?!

 

[Elliot G.]

Is this a recent snapshot? So Jonathan still has the Lloyd Walker turntable?!?!

it came from the TAS website not sure where that stands today

 

[andromedaaudio]

Looking at his list

Id say J valin is probably " the best / smartest " reviewer out there who has accumulated the most stuff.

And if manufacturers want to give him even more who am i to say they cant

 

[Lee]

A responsible industry collectively could agree on an accepted industry practice for the maximum duration of a component loan. I propose one (1) year. One year is a long time.

But, as with the negotiation and enactment of legislation, large manufacturers and senior reviewers who currently hold expensive components subject to no return date will lobby for a longer duration. Their opening negotiating position probably will start at five years. Maybe, after the sausage is cooked, we end up at 18 months.

The problem is that indefinite long-term "loans" benefit large manufacturers who can afford to have a high value product parked at a reviewer's house indefinitely, and enjoy the free publicity from having their components as permanent fixtures on the reviewers "associated components" list. Senior reviewers at the magazines (Jonathan and Robert, this means you) will resist strenuously having to disgorge and return millions of dollars of equipment they enjoy and which they could not otherwise afford.

There would be plenty of resistance and complaining, but if such a practice were widely adopted and implemented we all would enjoy a healthier and fairer and more intellectually honest industry.

Let’s be honest Ron. It really would not change things. People would still bitch and moan about the ”magazines” (as if online is any different). Manufacturers would still bitch if they didn’t get a glowing review. Many do even if they get a glowing review. And there would still be bias. Extravagant dinners, special junkets, etc. would still be around.

If smaller manufacturers or Tier 2 brands want a more level playing field then they have to outperform and it’s on them to build something so great it cannot be ignored.

 

[microstrip]

A responsible industry collectively could agree on an accepted industry practice (...)

The AIAP (Audio Industry Publications Association) discussion again?

 

[Another Johnson]

Let’s be honest Ron. It really would not change things. People would still bitch and moan about the ”magazines” (as if online is any different). Manufacturers would still bitch if they didn’t get a glowing review. Many do even if they get a glowing review. And there would still be bias. Extravagant dinners, special junkets, etc. would still be around.

If smaller manufacturers or Tier 2 brands want a more level playing field then they have to outperform and it’s on them to build something so great it cannot be ignored.

Just the very fact that Burmester got a glowing review without any loan involved at all is confidence building. It proves that you don’t have to pay to play.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Just the very fact that Burmester got a glowing review without any loan involved at all is confidence building. It proves that you don’t have to pay to play.

But if this conflict of interest did not exist then you would not even have to think about pay-to-play. That would be a much healthier starting point to evaluate a review.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Let’s be honest Ron. It really would not change things. People would still bitch and moan about the ”magazines” (as if online is any different). Manufacturers would still bitch if they didn’t get a glowing review. Many do even if they get a glowing review. And there would still be bias. Extravagant dinners, special junkets, etc. would still be around.

If smaller manufacturers or Tier 2 brands want a more level playing field then they have to outperform and it’s on them to build something so great it cannot be ignored.

I disagree. The rule would change the behavior of people -- manufacturers and reviewers -- who currently are not operating in conformity to the rule. That's all the rule has to do. That is all the rule is designed to do.

Your other points are answers to different -- and not directly relevant -- questions.

 

[Lee]

I disagree. The rule would change the behavior of people -- manufacturers and reviewers -- who currently are not operating in conformity to the rule. That's all the rule has to do. That is all the rule is designed to do.

Your other points are answers to different -- and not directly relevant -- questions.

I wonder how you do the implementation? Past efforts at coordinating industry initiatives (AAHEA, etc.) have failed.

 

[Another Johnson]

I wonder how you do the implementation? Past efforts at coordinating industry initiatives (AAHEA, etc.) have failed.

There’s no incentive for the industry to comply. Most paying readers are looking for entertainment and they really don’t care about this issue. Outside the hobby, a very large number of people think that audiophiles are a bunch of Nutters. $350k for a pair of amps? $750k for speakers? $25k for speaker cables? $100k for a DAC stack? $150k for a turntable?

Caveat Emptor … SQ is not linearly related to msrp, so listen carefully and choose wisely.
YMMV

 

[Elliot G.]

Let’s be honest Ron. It really would not change things. People would still bitch and moan about the ”magazines” (as if online is any different). Manufacturers would still bitch if they didn’t get a glowing review. Many do even if they get a glowing review. And there would still be bias. Extravagant dinners, special junkets, etc. would still be around.

If smaller manufacturers or Tier 2 brands want a more level playing field then they have to outperform and it’s on them to build something so great it cannot be ignored.

So free trips all expenses paid , extravagant dinners and bottles at the best restaurants along with forever loans is standard procedure and that you think helps get a fair and unbiased opinion. Interesting your description not mine.
Who Lee are the magazines for ? The readers or the manufacturers ? That answer to me change’s absolutely everything so please answer !
The same behavior would disqualify any College Athlete, Judge, lawyer, CPA , Cop etc but for a reviewer it’s ok?
A two day in strange environment glowing review is proof of this?
Man you guys have really strange criteria you accept.? I guess as long as it’s info is something you like who the heck cares.
if tier 2 companies even make better product how do they get noticed, Do you have any idea how hard it is to get your product reviewed ?

 

[Another Johnson]

“The same behavior would disqualify any College Athlete, Judge, lawyer, CPA , Cop etc but for a reviewer it’s ok?”

I don’t see reviewers in the same category. And the consequences of their performance are certainly not on the same level.

“if tier 2 companies even make better product how do they get noticed,”

In the time honored method of either buying advertising or developing relationships with influential people. Where would VPI be if Harry Weisfeld had not developed his friendship with Harry Pearson? You crack the door by ads or free publicity that you’ve cleverly obtained. The door opens by the buzz that comes from your quality. Most audio products aren’t really nearly as good as their inventor thinks.

Kirmuss is an example of a persistent guy who buys ads and manages to place himself through his relationships. Take his Upscale Audio model for example. Kirmuss uses price point, advertising, and hard work.

Look at Conrad Johnson. How often does their gear get reviewed outside of Tone? They like Tone … Tone likes them. It’s a relationship that helps both.

“Do you have any idea how hard it is to get your product reviewed ?”

Magazines don’t want to review mediocre products. There are enough good products out there that it’s pointless to waste space by filling pages with reviews of the less good. Of course it’s hard to get reviewed. Take your product to shows. Work hard. Be personable. Try to develop some relationships by being honest and genuine. It does not always lead to success and wealth, but it is a more likely path than complaining about being ignored by the magazines.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...to me, the mags are a hybrid infomercial/marketing effort. If one enjoys that, fine.

If mags taught me something (other than what I could buy), I could make a case for an educational angle. How to Optimize Your Digital. Footer Shoot-out. Maybe I missed those articles.

I have subscriptions on/off for a year or two, renewal comes and I wonder what the value is, so they lapse. I may pick up a copy at a bookstore. Repeat for a few decades.

I view them as marketing outreach. Long-term loans too. Somehow, you "have" to learn that there is a product in the first place. Dealers could (and some do) provide that, but I think dealers need help marketing products for a corresponding validation/support loop.

One could only trust one's ears at a dealer, and trust a "good" dealer to only being in great and reliable gear, BUT I think most people seek/need additional validation from fora, friends, online reviews...and mags.

And as the price rises, there is a type of "risk" that goes with a purchase. Not for everyone, but IMO for many folks.

I imagine there is, legally speaking, some gray-market stuff going on with long-term loans, but I have not seen any data on IRS auditors who are also audiophiles.

To me, long-term loans to reviewers are just a cost of doing biz for manufacturers. Marketing. You build it into the budget. Like a bicycle company builds team/race products into the marketing budget. I imagine the ROI calc involves getting stuff to the better reviewers, and maybe getting to the hydrant first. A good review by a "trusted" journo, is like your sponsored rider winning a race, or a famous actor wearing your watch. Marketing. The product doesn't really make me faster, better looking, or cooler (all big asks!), but alas, some think so.