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

[Lee]

An obvious solution is the Consumer Reports model. They have 7 million subscribers and a testing budget of $25M. They buy all of the equipment they test and then resell the ones that can be resold (typically the cars they buy). They are also a non profit that doesn't take advertising. If an audio mag/website took that model and spent a total of $2M a year, with subscription base of 10,000, the cost of the testing budget would be $200 per subscription per year. In addition would be the actual cost of putting out the magazine which might be a few hundred K more those costs. So let's say an annual subscription cost of $250 per year. Obviously, that high a price probably means a much lower number of subscribers and an even higher subscription cost.

Larry

By the way, the cost of putting out a print magazine and maintaining even a small staff is way more than "a few hundred K" per year.

 

[Audire]

Dear Joe,
I have been doing this for a very long time and been in many homes. I do understand the differences and wont be surprised. I doubt however that many here have heard truly worldclass systems. It seems way to easy to critize what we dont see and hear.
I did not disparge your system, me thinks you are a little too sensitive about that, but you thinking all the magazines and people there are working in a rag and are dishonest is just BS. You disparaded all reviewers not some. I hope you enjoy what you bought however you ARE throwing stones. BTW everfy one can hear not everyone knows how to listen. There is a difference.

I have been to RH home and heard his system. I will tell you is he can hear and listen and is very qualified., Whether you like him is another story.
This below is not throwing stones? putting them all in the same box?


"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."

Have your opinion , enjoy what you are fortunate to own, assuming they are all wrong and corrupt and you the knower of all truth is really boring and hard to read.

It seems there is lots of criticism but no solutions. This isnt the automobile business. My client who owns the largest VW store in the country does more gross business in one year than the entire audio Industy. This is not a comparison at all.

Perhaps I should have clarified my post a little and stated that I was referring to the reviewers I had read to date. Of course, I wasn’t referring to each and every reviewer ever in existence as I haven’t read them all. TMK no one has. Sorry, but I thought that was common sense…

Elliot, I offered a possible beginning to a solution above. YT videos are the future! You even responded to it!

Elliot, I’m sorry you desire to hide you head in the sand and ignore what is wrong with the mag rags. If no one ever points it out what is lacking then nothing will done about it. You’re a dealer. You claim to have lots of experience (and I’m sure you do). You must have many contacts in the industry. Where are your solutions???? Why don’t you, some other dealers, forum leaders, and the mags get together and come up with some? Design something we could have more trust in. It would be beneficial to all of us!

 

[Lee]

A few random thoughts that folks here should consider:

1. Some manufacturers insist on long -term loans only. This is because they have had problems with shady reviewers in the past and desire a right to ask for the equipment back.

2. Some manufacturers will lend equipment and then use that as a weapon of sorts to try to sway opinion of said gear. As far as I can tell, TAS doesn't work with manufacturers who do that.

3. The magazines are far more ethical than some here might imagine. Harley has dismissed two reviewers the past few years for ethical lapses at the magazine. Robert is one of the more thoughtful and ethical people I have met in the business.

4. Accommodation pricing is completely fair for writers. Most writers in high end audio only get $200-$500 an article and being able to buy gear at wholesale is a fair bit of bonus compensation.

5. Accommodation has a few other benefits as well. 1. It solves a problem the manufacturer has because he cannot sell the reviewed gear at full MSRP. 2. The pricing allows the reviewer to experience more and/or better gear which builds that reviewer's experience base so that makes them a more insightful writer.

I think some here need to put away the conspiracy theories. I have worked for four audiophile publications and, with few exceptions, most writers are genuinely trying to help the reader gain insights that help them get better sound.

 

[Lee]

Car magazine writers don’t make a lot of money and certainly not enough to buy exotic cars, but don’t ask for long term loans of them because of it. The whole “feel bad for the audio writer” who can’t pay for ultra echelon gear rings hollow and many less than rich folks have aspired to buy expensive gear if they truly want it.

note, there are many reviewers who flat out say they love the piece but can’t afford it so it went back. Where is the harm in that?

honestly RH doesn’t really compare and contrast gear anymore despite his 1mm system on loan.

Hey, I am a car guy too...and this is just silly. Audio gear generally is far less expensive than a car and auto writers often get long-term loans of cars for a "four seasons" test. Even the TechDAS Air Force Zero turntable that costs as much as a Ferrari was purchased by our writer. In fact I believe Jacob has purchased everything he owns. I have purchased everything I own in the main system.

 

[Audire]

An obvious solution is the Consumer Reports model. They have 7 million subscribers and a testing budget of $25M. They buy all of the equipment they test and then resell the ones that can be resold (typically the cars they buy). They are also a non profit that doesn't take advertising. If an audio mag/website took that model and spent a total of $2M a year, with subscription base of 10,000, the cost of the testing budget would be $200 per subscription per year. In addition would be the actual cost of putting out the magazine which might be a few hundred K more those costs. So let's say an annual subscription cost of $250 per year. Obviously, that high a price probably means a much lower number of subscribers and an even higher subscription cost.

Larry

Agreed. And since streaming is the most likely new format for audio mags in the near future they wouldn’t have to print it, just charge a small yearly subscription fee for YT or… If people are willing to fork out what they do for Jay’s Audio Lab, they will be more than willing to spend $ for something of even higher quality. Streaming Audiophile Magazines …. where we could listen to a reviewer, but also listen to systems for ourselves and make comments …

For instance, Stereophile already has an online magazine. Add some YT videos to the Digital Subscription. Within certain limits this allows the end listener to verify what the reviewer states …

 

[XV-1]

In the March 2023 issue of The Absolute Sound Robert Harley, Editor-in-Chief, defends broadly and unashamedly the arrangement of long-term loans of high-end components by manufacturers to reviewers.


1) Robert writes that "[l]ong-term equipment loans are essential to writing the most accurate and insightful reviews." If a well-known and highly-respected reviewer has been purchasing his own equipment for his reference system for decades does that mean he has not been writing the most “accurate and insightful reviews"? How would a respected reviewer's reviews have been better if he had never purchased his loudspeakers or his turntable or his amplifiers? Are the reviews of a self-financing reviewer tainted in some way because he/she pays for his/her own components?

Robert justifies the practice of long term loans by asserting: "Inserting a new product into a highly transparent system whose characteristics are known intimately by the reviewer is the gold standard for writing an accurate and insightful review. Anything less is a compromise. . . .

TAS just hired Fremer. Fremer goes out of his way to state he buys almost all of his reference gear.

I guess according to Robert Harley, he just hired a compromised reviewer.

Hmmm.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I read mags from when i started in audiophilia in 2002 untill 2009 - 2010 .

I had some very expense mishaps like for example the Wadia 581 SE .
I bought it at almost full retail and it sounded mediocre at best .
Thats when i realized you re on your own.

They can fool me 3 times but thats about it.

If they start hiring reviewers who have a kharma exquisite or a Rockport lyra as their reference cone speaker i might start reading again

 

[Mike Lavigne]

-audio reviewers are human? right?
-they judge gear subjectively by how well it reproduces the art of music, in their opinion. in the context of their subjectively assembled system.
-somehow they must borrow or buy the gear to review which involves commitments one way or the other which invite bias.

no way to make any of this objective. not even a chance. so let's not fool ourselves even trying.

i like the process exactly as it is. perfectly imperfect with the onus on me, the reader, to judge. and bottom line, i feel well served by the review process when from time to time it fits my situation. other times it's entertainment. supports advertisements that sell hifi and keep the wheels of the hobby going. an important part of how things work.

no commerce, no new products, stagnation. bad. not everyone can attend a hifi show regularly. or even visit others to listen.

 

[cjfrbw]

Not to my knowledge. Maybe we should make publishing our own hearing test part of a WBF requirement ! A lot of us would instantly loose credibility !

That's why it's good not to have credibility in the first place.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A few random thoughts that folks here should consider:

1. Some manufacturers insist on long -term loans only. This is because they have had problems with shady reviewers in the past and desire a right to ask for the equipment back.

2. Some manufacturers will lend equipment and then use that as a weapon of sorts to try to sway opinion of said gear. As far as I can tell, TAS doesn't work with manufacturers who do that.

3. The magazines are far more ethical than some here might imagine. Harley has dismissed two reviewers the past few years for ethical lapses at the magazine. Robert is one of the more thoughtful and ethical people I have met in the business.

4. Accommodation pricing is completely fair for writers. Most writers in high end audio only get $200-$500 an article and being able to buy gear at wholesale is a fair bit of bonus compensation.

5. Accommodation has a few other benefits as well. 1. It solves a problem the manufacturer has because he cannot sell the reviewed gear at full MSRP. 2. The pricing allows the reviewer to experience more and/or better gear which builds that reviewer's experience base so that makes them a more insightful writer.

Thank you, Lee, for writing your thoughts here!

I understand and I appreciate points 2. through 5. But am puzzled about point 1.

A manufacturer insisting on a long-term loan is precisely one of the disconcerting issues with the long-term loan arrangement. As Robert says, the long-term loan benefits the manufacturer who gets the bragging rights that its product is a fixture on the reviewer's components list. It also is the source of the concern about on-going bias in favor of that manufacturer by that reviewer who does not want to lose his expensive component.

If a manufacturer insists on a long-term loan arrangement as a condition of a review doesn't that raise the fundamental concern about the reviewer being biased in favor of the component? Why would a reviewer agree to keep the component when the manufacturer insists upon it if the reviewer does not actually love the component?

Shady reviewers who do not return equipment are guilty of the crime of theft. How does a manufacturer insisting upon a long-term loan address this concern? I would think that a concern about a reviewer impermissibly keeping a component would cause a manufacturer to contract against a long-term loan, not to insist up one.

Why would TAS indulge with a review a manufacturer who "insists" upon a long-term loan?

 

[KeithR]

Hey, I am a car guy too...and this is just silly. Audio gear generally is far less expensive than a car and auto writers often get long-term loans of cars for a "four seasons" test. Even the TechDAS Air Force Zero turntable that costs as much as a Ferrari was purchased by our writer. In fact I believe Jacob has purchased everything he owns. I have purchased everything I own in the main system.

Car and Driver long term tests are capped at 40k miles and driven by numerous staffers, usually in different climates and to judge reliability. The reason for the audio loans is to receive a gift for as long as wanted.

You should cap loans to one year- and it’s pretty obvious- but your editors keep digging silly holes like this article.

 

[rando]

Long term loans might cannily serve a dual purpose by stationing equipment some ways from their origin with someone under obligation to maintain it to a high state. Should a short term loan in close proximity become advantageous to this entities business...

This type of arrangement happens a lot in the larger world. Though I can't say it is applicable to the high end or especially forum discussions of specific audio magazines. I don't struggle to believe someone Lee encountered prefers the structure of long term loans.

 

[astrotoy]

Larry,

The problem with that is it has been tried and the magazines went out of business. We must attract ad dollars to fund the operation. The more important question is how does sales interact with editorial. If there is a Chinese Wall then no one is getting corrupted in the process.

Thanks, Lee. Publishing is like the wine business. How to make a small fortune - start with a big fortune. Larry

 

[andromedaaudio]

Jonathan ... are you done yet reviewing that piece of gear ?
No , Call me back next year .


We got to have your opinion before the mk2 version comes out .


Ps they wish they had someone as productive as alan sircom

 

[stehno]

Ron, you're to be commended for bringing this topic front and center. IMO, there's no justification for such practices that have been ongoing for decades now - perhaps as long as some of these loaner programs.

My hunch is that Harley wrote this piece because he was compelled to try to defuse the practice so he generated a few straw man arguments and resulting justifications so some might think that TAS above board and is being fully transparent. And so long as some of us buy into it they are good to go for the next 10 or 20 years.

You also quoted Harley saying, "Inserting a new product into a highly transparent system whose characteristics are known intimately by the reviewer is the gold standard for writing an accurate and insightful review. Anything less is a compromise. . . ."

Not sure why Harley would presume or expect us to believe these are all highly transparent systems. Moreover, if by now somebody like Valin is still unable to assemble a relatively stable "highly transparent" or genuinely musical playback system for reviewing purposes without the assistance of long-term loaner contributions, I'd venture TAS has even bigger problems to worry about.

Regardless, it's difficult to take anything Harley says seriously based on his cows-jumping-over-the moon position toward MQA since December, 2014 and perhaps to the present day. Then there's also Harley's claim from TAS Mar/Apr 2009 issue where he said that something catastrophic must be occurring at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from ever reaching the recording. Paraphrased. Which to the best of my knowledge, Harley has yet to retract this last statement. Perhaps Harley's catastrophic claim may give evidence their reviewing systems aren't so highly transparent after all? Or might Harley be correct on both counts that all TAS' reviewing systems are highly transparent while listening to catastrophic recordings?

Anyway, with leadership like this, I can't help but see all this as more of an ongoing lose-lose situation for the entire industry. But I suppose I can't blame Harley for trying.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Moreover, if by now somebody like Valin is still unable to assemble a relatively stable "highly transparent" or genuinely musical playback system for reviewing purposes without the assistance of long-term loaner contributions,

Thank you for your comments.

Given the sensitive nature of this topic I think is it important to track Robert's arguments scrupulously cleanly and intellectually honestly. Respectfully, this comment is a bit unfair because it misstates Robert's argument, and unnecessarily insults Jonathan.

Robert is arguing that without long-term component loans Jonathan would not be able to afford to put together a reference system of the highest state-of-the-art caliber, not that Jonathan is somehow incapable of "assembl[ing] a relatively stable 'highly transparent' or genuinely musical playback system" of a less expensive, and, presumedly, less revealing and top-tier reference level, nature.

 

[stehno]

Thank you for your comments.

Given the sensitive nature of this topic I think is it important to track Robert's arguments scrupulously cleanly and intellectually honestly. Respectfully, this comment is a bit unfair because it misstates Robert's argument, and unnecessarily insults Jonathan.

Robert is arguing that without long-term component loans Jonathan would not be able to afford to put together a reference system of the highest state-of-the-art caliber, not that Jonathan is somehow incapable of "assembl[ing] a relatively stable 'highly transparent' or genuinely musical playback system" of a less expensive, and, presumedly, less revealing and top-tier reference level, nature.

Yes, I understood that as well and my comment was not intended to insult Valin. Harley was attempting to argue / justify the need for long-term loaner equipment. I did not choose to use Valin as my example because of his potentially long-term loans, but rather because of his supposed seniority and savvy in high-end audio. And I intended it to be a hypothetcal where I used the word if as in if and it may not be so. Perhaps I should have better clarified that.

BTW, I thought you made some very sound arguments in your opening post.

 

[Gregadd]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me Jonathan Valin moves a fairly significant amount of high quality equipment through his listening room. That would seem to belie any claim that long term loan is his problem.

 

[Amir]

I think most Audio Magazines just spread wrong information . The audio world will be more clean/trusted without those wrong reviews.

Let me tell you Why?

1- Because most audio reviewers do not have a properly setup high performance audio system and thier shallow judgment is not trusted.
A trusted Judgment needs high performance reference audio system properly matched to new component.

2- Because most audio reviewers do not know about how to review a component (no care about amplifier/speaker matching, grounding scheme and voltage range and ...) .

3- Because most audio reviewers do not know about "Sound Quality" in depth , their reviews is just about Shallow sound property like "soundstage" , "bass" and ...

4- Because most audio magazines receive money for writing positive reviews. Many high performance equipments like CEC TL0 3.0 are not known in this industry but many low performance products have very good reviews.

please read about Clark Johnsen and check why he never interested to be an Audio Reviewer.

finally when all money come from audio industry then we should not expect magazines to be our friends.

 

[Elliot G.]

Perhaps I should have clarified my post a little and stated that I was referring to the reviewers I had read to date. Of course, I wasn’t referring to each and every reviewer ever in existence as I haven’t read them all. TMK no one has. Sorry, but I thought that was common sense…

Elliot, I offered a possible beginning to a solution above. YT videos are the future! You even responded to it!

Elliot, I’m sorry you desire to hide you head in the sand and ignore what is wrong with the mag rags. If no one ever points it out what is lacking then nothing will done about it. You’re a dealer. You claim to have lots of experience (and I’m sure you do). You must have many contacts in the industry. Where are your solutions???? Why don’t you, some other dealers, forum leaders, and the mags get together and come up with some? Design something we could have more trust in. It would be beneficial to all of us!

Joe,
I am not hiding my head in the sand. There are certainly lots of ideas and lots of complaining but one has to look at the reality of this.
THere obviously is a demand for reviews whether they are online or in writing. I have personally expressed my thoughts to TAS, WBF and others about video. I personally believe that video is the way to go and even am trying to do a bit with my own channel that is not about the gear but rather about the people in the Industry. I dont really have the time nor the absolute desire to be a YTuber full time and have a face for radio
If one is to really examine the process, which my friends and I have on numerous occasions, there are no easy solutions.
1). MONEY- it cost money to do this and this is a small to undercapitalized industry. Small companies have a very hard road to exposure
2) Qualifications- who determines them? what are they? YOu mentioned the YT guys. DOes anyone know what they know? what qualifications they have? would you take fine dining advise from the guy at the McDonalds drive in window? Do they know anything about music?

3). Can you write or speak and address yourself? I watched a lot of YT during Covid. I persoanlly don't think any of the people there are anything but enthusiastic hobbiests with little to no experience in the High End and that is the area that we are talking about. I personaly and I think most here dont care either about mid fi as that is another subject. Can you really explain and viewers understand what you are saying and why?
I am not trying to attack them only tell you what I know from meeting them and dealing with some. Still very early in the experience process lets leave it at that
4) agenda- who is going to decide how this all works? Its not me. What is a review? what are the parameters? Family Room lol, dedicated room, reference systems? whats the process that will fufill all. I was friends with HP. HE was a mentor to me when I was younger HAHA . Harry took his readers on a journey, gave them a language, and was a great writer he made it fum. HP was a huge music lover and had a lot of knowledge of Classical music. Whatever I know about Classical came form HP, I showed him a lot of what I liked which was rock. THis made it fun for all. Back then all the industry was learning along with HP and sadly the whole thing got run off the rails a bit becasue of MONEY and the lack of it.
5) Who are the good guys? I agree that all are not the good guys. This is true with the review process, the manufacturers, the distributors, the dealers and the customers. Many masters to serve and many who get angry when its not them. It seems the ones that complained are the ones that didnt have the access. In the end it became way to much.IMO

I have 50 years in and I dont see a viable simple solution. Succesful people who are not in the business want things to work their way, they believe they know better, they believe they are right, and they have trouble accepting the way things are or even trying to fix them. ZThis is not just audio its the way we live and exist. I can give you ideas however who will fund them ? who will invest a lot to get back little?

Last thing . I appreciate some of the guys doing video and they may be great at some time but for people to follow and pay them when they have very little experience, no ability to communicate what they are hearing and just saying I like this and I dont like this IMO does not help the majority of serious HE buyers like yourself.
I suggest if you want to go read the first 20 or so issues of TAS and see and learn what HP was and what he tried to do in a differnt era. Robery Harley is an honorable, smart, experienced person. He is IMO doing the best he can under the situation that exists . If I did not feel that way I would not have given our products to him, would have not spent the effort and money to go there , have Oliver come from Germany and hire Stirling Trayle to assist us.
My father taught me this. Its really important to do your research as whom to buy from, whom to learn from, whom to trust . I dont think that most follow this today and many want a permission slip to buy something( like a reviewers endorsement or a survery on wbf) and many are easily swayed by a good deal rather than work.
Each of us can decide whats important and who and what to learn Joe.