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

[Ron Resnick]

What is far more likely is that a review of a terrible product will not be published. The magazines are not to destroy companies. There are lots of good products. Why waste space on bad ones?

I agree. I was just trying to highlight the "bite the hand that feeds you" question. I was hypothesizing a real bite.

 

[Daverich4]

What is far more likely is that a review of a terrible product will not be published. The magazines are not to destroy companies. There are lots of good products. Why waste space on bad ones?

I’d like to know about the bad ones as well as the good ones. If they know something isn’t good I’d prefer they didn’t keep that a secret out of a concern for the health of the company.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I’d like to know about the bad ones as well as the good ones. If they know something isn’t good I’d prefer they didn’t keep that a secret out of a concern for the health of the company.

I can speak only for Stereophile but it has been long term policy to publish a review of every product accepted for review. During my tenure, the only exceptions were (1) a component that was sent to me without prior solicitation and (2) a component that the manufacturer withdrew from the market prior to the completion of my review.

 

[Lee]

Well after another Lee Scoggins commercial we can get back to the topic of the thread.
I dont see how any of this has anything to do with Long term loans of gear.
The ethical conundrum that is created by this has nothing at all to do with marketing and advertising but rather on contol or the illusion of control over the outcome of a product/line and the review or the treatment of such brands.
Much of your thought may hold water but THEY DO NOT address the topic nor the issue that the topic created.

Can one bite the hand that feeds it? What would the effect of some not so terrific comments do with the relationship of brand A? Can they be at a show with a terrible performance and like the KIngs new clothes no one say a word?
Is there more to this relationship than meets the eye? Are all products able to be reviewed by the top guys? all have the same level of access?

What would happen if the companies pulled these products? Would their influence change?
Why is all this so secretive? Why isnt the process transparent?

Oh one more thing TAS and Stereophile etc. are FOR PROFIT companies.

I say there are many questions that should be addressed and running a commercial over and over in every thread does not change the subject.
When you are having a debate it is good to remain on topic and its a well known strategy to try to change the subject to dilute the conversation.

Original topic are long term loans of gear a win for everyone.

There was no intent on my part to change the subject. I have done my honest best to be transparent on this forum even on difficult subjects. I felt I was answering the question by giving examples where advertisers got upset even when we did good things for them. I felt those were examples of biting the hand that feeds them.

High end advertisers can be quirky. And they exhibit all sorts of rational and irrational behavior.

The more I think about the issue of long term reviews…I think what you have to ask yourself is how much do you trust the independence of the editorial and reviewing team.

A. I have seen TAS editors not review products of advertisers and then the advertisers would get upset and call me.

B. I have seen TAS reviewers compare a product A to another product B even when praising product A. Product A advertiser would be upset with either the fact there was a comparison at all or Product B did better on some sonic element.

C. I have seen Robert and Jonathan and Neil get excited about a new affordable product or new technology but one who is a startup and has no marketing budget at all.

So I would humbly suggest A to C show a fair bit of editorial independence.

 

[Lee]

I am not sure how these are examples of "biting the hand that feeds you."

I'd like to see if an advertising manufacturer continues to advertise after TAS publishes a resoundingly negative review of its product.

There are examples of ad dollars continuing after a perceived negative review. However, there are not many “resoundingly negative“ reviews.

The thinking is that there are too many good products to review.

Arguably the standard for negative reviews is whether the product was reviewed by an established magazine.

 

[Daverich4]

I can speak only for Stereophile but it has been long term policy to publish a review of every product accepted for review. During my tenure, the only exceptions were (1) a component that was sent to me without prior solicitation and (2) a component that the manufacturer withdrew from the market prior to the completion of my review.

I can speak only for Stereophile but it has been long term policy to publish a review of every product accepted for review. During my tenure, the only exceptions were (1) a component that was sent to me without prior solicitation and (2) a component that the manufacturer withdrew from the market prior to the completion of my review.

Thank you, that is the approach to reviewing that I would hope for. My post however, was in response to Another Johnson who suggested that magazines didn’t publish negative reviews for fear of damaging the company’s reputation. I don’t think that would be right and apparently is not something Stereophile participates in.

 

[Another Johnson]

I’d like to know about the bad ones as well as the good ones. If they know something isn’t good I’d prefer they didn’t keep that a secret out of a concern for the health of the company.

I can speak only for Stereophile but it has been long term policy to publish a review of every product accepted for review. During my tenure, the only exceptions were (1) a component that was sent to me without prior solicitation and (2) a component that the manufacturer withdrew from the market prior to the completion of my review.

I’m not going to argue about Stereophile reviews. I’ve been reading it off and on since 1978 when it was also published off and on.
“Accepted for review” is the key. I’m not new to this rodeo.

 

[tima]

I have seen TAS reviewers compare a product A to another product B even when praising product A. Product A advertiser would be upset with either the fact there was a comparison at all or Product B did better on some sonic element.

Before I accept a product for review I tell the dealer or manufacturer that whenever possible there will be a comparison. And the comparison may not be in the same price range or of similar caliber as the reviewed product. No one has balked at that yet. Nor whined about the result.

It is usually quite interesting (and sometimes surprising) to compare a product that is half or double the cost of the comparator. I cannot recall any such comparison where the more expensive product "blew away" the less expensive product.

What we do see are product to product comparisons and often version 2 is compared to version 1 of the product. It is rare to find the sound of a product compared to live music.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Before I accept a product for review I tell the dealer or manufacturer that whenever possible there will be a comparison. And the comparison may not be in the same price range or of similar caliber as the reviewed product.

Good! I think comparisons are interesting to the readers.

It is my belief that at The Absolute Sound comparative reviews are, if not discouraged, they are not encouraged. Kudos to Michael and Don for conducting comparative reviews anyway.

 

[Another Johnson]

Two thoughts.
1. @tima comments that live music is rarely used for comparison. In my opinion that is because the “sound” of live music is all over the lot. Sit in 10 seats, and there are 10 different “sound experiences.” This is just as true in a club as it is in a hall. FWIW, well miked recordings of good performances give me better “sound” at my seat at home. The home experience is more relaxing, more comfortable, and more predictable (after the first play of a new program). I could go on, but won’t.

2. @Ron Resnick benefits from comparisons in reviews. OK. That’s another part of the Consumer Reports model. Go out and buy (with subscription collected money, secretly from dealer stock) one pair of every speaker in the $250k to $750k price range. Bring them back to your lab and have your panel evaluate them in the combinations and permutations of your bank of $85k to $375k amplifiers with your array of $10k to $30k interconnects. The absurdity of this, unless it was funded by an incredibly nutty billionaire instead of subscriptions, should be obvious even to those with only casual interest in the so-called problem of possibly unethical reviews.
Caveat emptor.

 

[Ron Resnick]

2. @Ron Resnick benefits from comparisons in reviews. . . . Go out and buy (with subscription collected money, secretly from dealer stock) one pair of every speaker in the $250k to $750k price range. . . . Bring them back to your lab and have your panel evaluate them in the combinations and permutations of your bank of $85k to $375k amplifiers with your array of $10k to $30k interconnects.

"Every speaker"? Effectively dozens of amplifiers? Effectively dozens of interconnects? This is a false dichotomy, and a silly response.

I said a "comparison." I did not say "comparing dozens of possible combinations."

 

[Another Johnson]

"Every speaker"? Effectively dozens of amplifiers? Effectively dozens of interconnects? This is a false dichotomy, and a silly response.

I said a "comparison." I did not say "comparing dozens of possible combinations."

A comparison between two things, neither of which is known intimately to the consumer, is just noise. Until you try these things for yourself, what the reviewer thinks is just entertainment.

Why do you think CR uses this approach? Do you not believe that interconnects, cables, amps, preamps etc affect the sound of speakers in YOUR room?

I agree that a CR model is impossible to apply to our hobby. I think the current audiophile magazine model works. I think that if one really believes that this alternate universe approach can succeed in the marketplace, then investors might be convinced and a new approach might be launched … but I do not believe in this model, not even in a perfect world.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A comparison between two things, neither of which is known intimately to the consumer, is just noise.

I disagree strongly. I think any comparison is nearly infinitely more valuable than no comparison.

Until you try these things for yourself, what the reviewer thinks is just entertainment.

This proves way too much, as it condemns the entire review concept.

 

[Salectric]

In the last 10 years or so, I’ve noticed a trend in TAS especially where the reviewer simply describes how a dozen or so favorite recordings sound without any comparisons to how those same recordings sound on other gear. Cable reviews are the very worst in that regard. The reviewer installs a complete set of new interconnects, speaker cables and power cords, and he then describes several recordings without ever saying how the sound differs from his regular set of cables or other cables he reviewed previously. The reader is left with no idea how the new cables might sound in his own system. Who benefits from such a “review”? Certainly not the reader.

An even better example is a pair of recent reviews in Stereophile. One of their reviewers wrote a very favorable review of the new Western Electric 300B amp. Then just a couple issues later the same reviewer wrote an equally favorable review of an Audio Note 300B amp. Two amps that on paper at least have a somewhat similar design (single ended 300B) and reviewed by the same guy using the same system, yet there is no mention of the WE amp in the AN review or vice versa. Anybody interested in buying a 300B amp who read just one of these reviews might conclude it was the best amp ever, but clearly the amps are going to sound different. Why not describe how they are different? The reviewer is in the unusual position of having heard both amps in his system at close to same time. Yet he has nothing to say about how one compares to the other. Call me cynical but the clear implication is the magazine does not want to offend either company by making comparative comments. Instead we are left with something like Lake Woebegone where “all amps are above average.”

 

[wil]

Two thoughts.
1. @tima comments that live music is rarely used for comparison. In my opinion that is because the “sound” of live music is all over the lot. Sit in 10 seats, and there are 10 different “sound experiences.” This is just as true in a club as it is in a hall. FWIW, well miked recordings of good performances give me better “sound” at my seat at home. The home experience is more relaxing, more comfortable, and more predictable (after the first play of a new program). I could go on, but won’t.

This is so true in my experience.

Live acoustic music is often disappointing . Maybe I’ve been trained by my near-field stereo experience, but I’ve found I’m missing some intensity unless sitting up really close to an un-amplified performance. I recall a classical guitar performance in a mid/small hall that sounded so tepid compared to what I would hear at home.

Amplified music on the other hand, is usually an ear-abusing horror show.

I’ll concede Orchestral music needs to be heard live.

And live music, in general, IF the conditions are right, packs an emotional wallop that no stereo can come close to.

But, mostly, I’m happier listening at home!

 

[Joe Whip]

I would add big band jazz to the list as well as orchestral music. I have experienced the Basie Big Band and the Ellington band live, amazing.

 

[Elliot G.]

Again Magazines are IN business and its bad business to write and publish bad reviews. I find this interesting that here they wont bite the hand that feeds them. If there were bad reviews and the fear of bad reviews would this be different?
There is fallout from such things bad news travels very fast, far faster than good news. One mans opinion

 

[caesar]

This is a requirement for all Positive-Feedback writers.

All you need to do is click on the author’s name and a box should pop up with the reviewer’s reference system and which pieces are on loan and which pieces the reviewer owns.

An example is included. View attachment 113799

Hello Myles,
Can you guys please add how much each each guy paid for each piece of gear and how long he's had it? Transparency is a wonderful thing.
Thanks

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is a requirement for all Positive-Feedback writers.

All you need to do is click on the author’s name and a box should pop up with the reviewer’s reference system and which pieces are on loan and which pieces the reviewer owns.

An example is included. View attachment 113799

Thank you for this, Myles!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Myles,
Can you guys please add how much each each guy paid for each piece of gear

This is an over-reach. It is enough if it is disclosed that the component was purchased. We can assume it was purchased at some accommodation price.