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

[Elliot G.]

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.

again just generalizations! No one is saying they are all equal. Like anything in life there are good and bad. YOU need to choose what you want to read and who you believe.
We get it you like that CD player you keep saying the same thing over and over and YOU choose to believe this one guy,

MOST- Please tell us where you get these startling observations
No one said reviewers/magazines are your friends LOL
When you visit a new city and walk buy a place with a sign that says "WORLDS BEST PIZZA" do you run inside becasue you actually believe that?
I am not tryin to be snarky only that these generalized thoughts add nothing to the conversation and are just not true.

 

[Lee]

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?

A few facts:
1. Robert keeps a list of equipment that the reviewers have and monitors it to make sure everything is above board.
2. Our writers, especially our more established writers, go through gear very fast. I doubt a long-term loan is unduly influencing the writer.
3. Long-term loans are a relatively small percent of gear in the writer’s system. Mosy buy the gear at an accommodation price.
4. Most manufacturers require the signing of a contract with accommodation pricing whereby they get right of first refusal on a sale and often the buyer is restricted from selling for a period of 2-3 years.

 

[Audire]

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.

Sorry, but you missed my point. I’m not speaking of any run of the mill YTers doing their thing. And I’m not talking about you doing it either.

In another post I used Stereophile as an example. They already have an online version of their magazine. My suggestion was for them to add reviewers - their reviewers - and do online YT review videos to their online mag.

This would help facilitate us readers and listeners to hear their systems ourselves and make our own evaluations. This way us end listeners could either verify their online review or voice concerns. We could also leave comments, etc.

Hopefully, in the future someone could create even a better app - not YT - just for audio reviews.

 

[Lee]

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.

Utter BS. Our TAS reviewers have some of the best setups I have experienced and resulting reference sound. Most, even myself, has had several setup experts do the system setup work. Many have rooms designed by acoustical engineers.

The magazines know that we must represent a wide variety of brands, even those who don’t advertise, because that contributes to the long-term health of the industry and the ability to attract new customers.

 

[Lagonda]

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.

Yes some of the prominent you tubers are still learning, could not watch Jay refer to "noise floor " as "floor noise" one more time !

 

[Ron Resnick]

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.

I looked up "trolling" in the dictionary, and I found this post.

These comments are so ludicrous and grotesquely unfair that they literally by their own terms prove themselves to be false.

1) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not have a properly set up high-performance audio system."

2) Please provide evidence that "most audio viewers have shallow judgment."

3) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about how to review a component."

4) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about sound quality."

5) Please provide evidence that "most audio magazines receive money for writing positive reviews."

This is an extremely serious allegation. No intelligent, serious and responsible person would allege this without having strong evidence. Please disclose your evidence to us.

 

[Elliot G.]

Sorry, but you missed my point. I’m not speaking of any run of the mill YTers doing their thing. And I’m not talking about you doing it either.

In another post I used Stereophile as an example. They already have an online version of their magazine. My suggestion was for them to add reviewers - their reviewers - and do online YT review videos to their online mag.

This would help facilitate us readers and listeners to hear their systems ourselves and make our own evaluations. This way us end listeners could either verify their online review or voice concerns. We could also leave comments, etc.

Hopefully, in the future someone could create even a better app - not YT - just for audio reviews.

are you suggesting you want them to do reviews and video the sound of thier rooms and systems as the way to validate and judge the results?
BTW you might want to read Karen Sumners latest thread here.
I believe as I said that video is certainly the future. If for only the cost reasons however my other points are still outstanding. The review is only as good as the qualifications of the reviewer and the viability of the space in which the review was made. One cant seperate that its the whole thing you listen to not just a piece. You have your room and your gear and that is YOUR reference.

 

[Elliot G.]

Yes some of the prominent you tubers are still learning, could not watch Jay refer to "noise floor " as "floor noise" one more time !

please read Karen Sumners latest thread on WBF

 

[Elliot G.]

I look up "trolling" in the dictionary and I found this post.

These comments are so ludicrous and grotesquely unfair that they literally by their own terms prove themselves be patently false.

1) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not have a properly set up high-performance audio system."

2) Please provide evidence that "most audio viewers have shallow judgment."

3) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about how to review a component."

4) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about sound quality."

5) Please provide evidence that "most audio magazines receive money for writing positive reviews." This is an extremely serious allegation. No intelligent and responsible person would allege this without having strong evidence which you should disclose to us immediately.

Bless you Ron

 

[Ron Resnick]

A few facts:
1. Robert keeps a list of equipment that the reviewers have and monitors it to make sure everything is above board.
2. Our writers, especially our more established writers, go through gear very fast. I doubt a long-term loan is unduly influencing the writer.
3. Long-term loans are a relatively small percent of gear in the writer’s system. Mosy buy the gear at an accommodation price.

Thank you for letting us know about these facts!

Would it be possible, please, to map these commendable protocols against Jonathan Valin's possession periods (time lengths of loans) of components from Acoustic Signature, JL Audio, Magico, Magnepan, MBL, Soulution and Walker over time?

 

[Audire]

…

1) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not have a properly set up high-performance audio system."

2) Please provide evidence that "most audio viewers have shallow judgment."

3) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about how to review a component."

4) Please provide evidence that "most audio reviewers do not know about sound quality."

5) Please provide evidence that "most audio magazines receive money for writing positive reviews."

This is an extremely serious allegation. No intelligent, serious and responsible person would allege this without having strong evidence. Please disclose your evidence to us.

Respectfully, just the reverse could be asked. I desire someone to:

1) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that "most audio reviewers do have a properly set up high-performance audio system."

2) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that "most audio viewers don’t have shallow judgment."

3) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that "most audio reviewers know about how to review a component."

4) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that "most audio reviewers know about sound quality."

5) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that "most audio magazines don’t receive money [or other in incentives] for writing positive reviews."

and if I may add another,

6) Please provide evidence (not just an opinion) that “most audio reviewers have the proper hearing to make their evaluations.” This effects points 1, 2, 3, and 4 above - literally their entire review!

I think these are reasonable questions. Answering them - not trying to avoid them - would certainly help many to have more faith in reviewers and the mag rags.

 

[rando]

A few facts:
1. Robert keeps a list of equipment that the reviewers have and monitors it to make sure everything is above board.
2. Our writers, especially our more established writers, go through gear very fast. I doubt a long-term loan is unduly influencing the writer.
3. Long-term loans are a relatively small percent of gear in the writer’s system. Mosy buy the gear at an accommodation price.
4. Most manufacturers require the signing of a contract with accommodation pricing whereby they get right of first refusal on a sale and often the buyer is restricted from selling for a period of 2-3 years.

There isn't much room in business currently for those with a public persona to engage in the types of behaviors being derogated against. What you've listed above is de facto evidence of industry wide response. Elliot put the nail into who that editorial dealt with.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Respectfully, just the reverse could be asked. I desire someone to:

Either way, it is incumbent on the one making the assertions to provide the evidence.

 

[Lee]

Thank you for letting us know about these facts!

Would it be possible, please, to map these commendable protocols against Jonathan Valin's possession periods (time lengths of loans) of components from Acoustic Signature, JL Audio, Magico, Magnepan, MBL, Soulution and Walker over time?

I don't have the specific data on that.

 

[Lee]

Thank you for letting us know about these facts!

Would it be possible, please, to map these commendable protocols against Jonathan Valin's possession periods (time lengths of loans) of components from Acoustic Signature, JL Audio, Magico, Magnepan, MBL, Soulution and Walker over time?

I think in some ways Jonathan is a good example of my earlier points. The MBL has been in the system a while but even that was upgraded a year or so ago. I know two of his favored cable looms have been upgraded within the past two years as well. Gear moves in and out fairly quick at JV's house. I have sadly not yet personally made it to Cincy so I don't know what he is using currently outside of the MBL 101E.

 

[Elliot G.]

I believe the standard here in the good ole US of A is innocent until proven quilty.
Let me make a couple of quick points.
Taking a hearing test will not show that one knows how to listen. Ask your wifes haha.
Seriously listening is a learned skill , like wine tasting, etc.
I dont see how a hearing test changes anything.
I do however think that wanting to learn someone's qualifications and experience as well as seeing pictures of their listening area/space/rooms is valuable in trying to understand thier observations.
Contrary to some there are huge differences in what can be achieved by having a purpose built properly designed room over just a standard available space in a home. THis along with the equipment and the actual music that was used is very helpful .
Again however knowing what the space was that was used in the review, along with the parameters of said review and the reviewers qualifications clearly would help in understanding the review and perhaps how you can interpet the results.

 

[Audire]

Either way, it is incumbent on the one making the assertions to provide the evidence.

Congratulations, that’s a great attempt to avoid an actual answer to the questions posed!

The problem with your statement is that so far you have provided absolutely no evidence to disprove anyone’s assertions.

Please answer the posed questions.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Congratulations, that’s a great attempt to avoid an actual answer to the questions posed!

The problem with your statement is that so far you have provided absolutely no evidence to disprove anyone’s assertions.

Please answer the posed questions.

The problem is that your post is disingenuous, as your questions, unlike my questions asking Amir to substantiate his allegations, are largely rhetorical. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. You now are asking people to substantiate allegations which they never made.

The fact that it is impossible to answer your questions actually highlights the absurdity of Amir's original claims.

 

[KeithR]

A few facts:
1. Robert keeps a list of equipment that the reviewers have and monitors it to make sure everything is above board.
2. Our writers, especially our more established writers, go through gear very fast. I doubt a long-term loan is unduly influencing the writer.
3. Long-term loans are a relatively small percent of gear in the writer’s system. Mosy buy the gear at an accommodation price.
4. Most manufacturers require the signing of a contract with accommodation pricing whereby they get right of first refusal on a sale and often the buyer is restricted from selling for a period of 2-3 years.

Thanks, Lee. Are RH’s Chronosonics on long term loan or paid for on accommodation. We obviously know Fremer and Heilbrunns are.

I think disclosure is a reasonable request for TAS to implement (if not done consistently today) along with a 1 year cap. I’m surprised there is no log or journal of loans in general.

 

[Amir]

Utter BS. Our TAS reviewers have some of the best setups I have experienced and resulting reference sound. Most, even myself, has had several setup experts do the system setup work. Many have rooms designed by acoustical engineers.

The magazines know that we must represent a wide variety of brands, even those who don’t advertise, because that contributes to the long-term health of the industry and the ability to attract new customers.

Thank you for your kind word.

No need to war , just please send me a good review from TAS and I will tell you about why that review is not informative.

Do you know the most room designed by acoustic engineers are not good for sound. Do you know most acoustic panels will color the midrange?

listening to wide variety of brands in wrong setup will not give use valid information.
I know some audiophiles has many many listening experience but they never had a true conclusion.