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

[TrackingAngle]

Well my comments Michael weren't just addressed to you, they were in response to the previous author and the world of audio at large. What may be applicable to you is not in fact applicable to the rest of the others that call themselves reviewers. If you had 7 figures of long term loaned gear in your home, with no return in site then I would question that you might be influenced by it. I think most people would be ! I don't think many bite the hand that feeds them. IMO I don't think this is how it should work. If one borrows something to listen to and review it should be returned in a specific time frame. If one keeps something they should pay for it at a predetermined price, not negotiated after the review and not at at a price that is influencing the outcome ( lol) . Magazines etc. are money making organizations. People that work there get paid. They should not be in position of being easily corrupted or compromised whether real or with the air of compromise.
Mike I believe you want to be taken seriously and respected so why would others put themselves in a position to have that questioned?

If people don't understand the process and the motives then they will always question the result. one man's opinion.
I also agree there are a lotof wonderful dedicated intelligent hard working people in audio and that is why I love it. I don't however love the characters that take advantage of the good guys.

I still believe what's on the written page determines whether or not a reviewer is credible whether or not his system is owned or long-term borrowed. Our working capital is our credibility more than anything..

 

[Carlos269]

I still believe what's on the written page determines whether or not a reviewer is credible whether or not his system is owned or long-term borrowed. Our working capital is our credibility more than anything..

How many critical product reviews have been written to substantiate the credibility of said writers? How many expensive products have been returned to the manufacturer for not meeting performance claims or specifications? All recent reviews read similarly, as if the eloquent prose are fit to a template. Are cost to performance a consideration when evaluating the products? What do you say about reviewers with spouses who represent products they review, you find that ethical? What about manufacturers who refuse to submit their products for measurements and technical evaluations? What is your stance on reviewers who refuse to perform hard head-to-head comparative analysis and refuse to publish their findings? Do you find integrity in industry accommodations? Is there any ethics training required or code of conduct training mandated for reviewers? If we are asking these questions and you are seeing posts like Elliot’s is because all doesn't appear to be above board otherwise this would not be a subject of discussion.

 

[TrackingAngle]

How many critical product reviews have been written to substantiate the credibility of said writers? How many expensive products have been returned to the manufacturer for not meeting performance claims or specifications? All recent reviews read similarly, as if the eloquent prose are fit to a template. Are cost to performance a consideration when evaluating the products? What do you say about reviewers with spouses who represent products they review, you find that ethical? What about manufacturers who refuse to submit their products for measurements and technical evaluations? What is your stance on reviewers who refuse to perform hard head-to-head comparative analysis and refuse to publish their findings? Do you find integrity in industry accommodations? Is there any ethics training required or code of conduct training mandated for reviewers? If we are asking these questions and you are seeing posts like Elliot’s is because all doesn't appear to be above board otherwise this would not be a subject of discussion.

I can only speak for myself. I've written plenty of negative reviews and still have the screaming in my ear from the "hurt", years later. The late A.J. Conti wouldn't let me into his room at CES for about five years after I wrote that the Basis Debut was lacking in "slam" and full macro-dynamic expression. I have a "meh" review to the original Grand Prix Audio turntable. Didn't go over well with Alvin Lloyd. I always make it a point to visit rooms of manufacturers to whose products I've given negative reviews.

"How many expensive products have been returned to the manufacturer for not meeting performance claims or specifications"? What exactly do you mean?

It should be swept under the rug and not written about? I don't even know what you mean. If something doesn't meet specs that's divulged in the review if there are measurements.

Again I can document negative reviews I've written and in one case the measurements later backed up what I wrote (a speaker). They asked why they weren't informed and we said "both measured the same so clearly as intended". We did give another pair a shot and they were marginally better but still a $50,000 floor stander that rolled off at around 40Hz like a stand mount.

Your claim that "all recent reviews read similarly" is a generalization, though I don't know what publications you're reading. The better reviewers have distinct written personalities. The hacks not so much. We are as much in the entertainment as information business. The good reviewers do consider cost to performance ratios and build quality but "parts cost" has very little to do with retail pricing.

When I was at Stereophile no manufacturer who refused to have his or her products measured would get a review. TAS doesn't do measurements but decades at Stereophile have convinced me that both approaches are valid and that measurements are often terribly misinterpreted by readers with "an agenda". Or readers who look at on axis response and stop there.

"Head to head" comparisons are usually impossible. Products are reviewed "as is" for what they are. It's time consuming enough to review a product never mind getting another one in to compare it to, but experienced reviewers can draw upon previous reviews they've written. if I review a product similar in price to what i own, of course I draw a comparison, or to a product I've previously reviewed. I do that all the time....I produced a "blind" audio comparison of the SAT CF1-12 and the Supatrac arm. One costs $60+ one around $4K. You can listen for yourself if you go to my website. I'm not afraid of doing this at all! I did likewise for the Air Force 3 Premium and the OMA K3 turntables. it's on YouTube. Same arm, cartridge and phono preamp. Only difference? Turntable. Easy to hear the difference and different people had different preferences.

I have no problem with buying at an industry accommodation price. Most manufacturers are willing. I own what I like and put down the money. Mostly jealous people have a problem because they pay retail. They also then get good service at least from good dealers.

Not "all" is above board, but most reviewers are honest people trying to help guide readers to make good purchasing decisions. It's not difficult to figure out who's trying hard to honestly put things in perspective and who writes that every product is the best they've ever heard.

There' no licensing requirement for becoming an audio reviewer. Anyone can do it and everyone should know who's doing the talking and writing before taking their advice. It's not difficult to spot the egomaniacs: they start every review with "I". I this and I that and if you're lucky half way down the page you read something about the product. I know a reviewer who kept something he should have returned but he needed to sell it to pay for party for his kid and besides, the manufacturer at first said go ahead and keep it, meaning for a while, but the person kept it and sold it! I don't take that person seriously.

Or there are the reviewers who wish they were poets and they spend half a page describing a sunrise or whatever. Who has time for that or for ponderous "think pieces"? I do not.

One final thing: I have very few close friends among manufacturers. I try to avoid that for obvious reasons. It can get uncomfortable. I have a few though, and i make that known in reviews. With everyone else I'm "cordial". tbh: I love the guys from Marten Audio as people and I really like their speakers too. But I don't own them. They are cool with that and every year at High End Munich we have dinner together that they pay for and we have a blast. If anyone thinks I or any credible reviewer can be "bought" for a meal they have a serious problem! Once a New York Times writer doing a piece on our business came with us to a restaurant but company policy forbade him from even sitting with us, even if we asked him to pay his share. I think that's ridiculous but that's company policy.

Oh! One last thing I think you'll find interesting. At one point a long while back Antony Michaelson who founded Musical Fidelity was over to install an amp for review. Maybe the Titan...can't remember. We went to a great local storefront italian restaurant near me and since it was BYO, I brought a really good bottle of Italian wine---a Brunello—and he picked up the relatively inexpensive tab. As I recall the wine cost more than the meal.

As we got up to leave, the guy at the next table came over and said "I know who both of you are. I couldn't help but eavesdrop on the entire conversation and I have to say I was totally surprised. I was expecting a cynical conversation, and all sorts of chicanery and deal making and it was nothing at all like that. I was expecting to walk away with a 'scoop' about how corrupt this whole business is, but based at least on your conversation, it's the opposite."

But I'll repeat: there are a few really shady characters in this (on both sides, manufacturers and reviewers) but most are honest people trying to provide value.

 

[Carlos269]

I can only speak for myself. I've written plenty of negative reviews and still have the screaming in my ear from the "hurt", years later. The late A.J. Conti wouldn't let me into his room at CES for about five years after I wrote that the Basis Debut was lacking in "slam" and full macro-dynamic expression. I have a "meh" review to the original Grand Prix Audio turntable. Didn't go over well with Alvin Lloyd. I always make it a point to visit rooms of manufacturers to whose products I've given negative reviews.

"How many expensive products have been returned to the manufacturer for not meeting performance claims or specifications"? What exactly do you mean?

It should be swept under the rug and not written about? I don't even know what you mean. If something doesn't meet specs that's divulged in the review if there are measurements.

Again I can document negative reviews I've written and in one case the measurements later backed up what I wrote (a speaker). They asked why they weren't informed and we said "both measured the same so clearly as intended". We did give another pair a shot and they were marginally better but still a $50,000 floor stander that rolled off at around 40Hz like a stand mount.

Your claim that "all recent reviews read similarly" is a generalization, though I don't know what publications you're reading. The better reviewers have distinct written personalities. The hacks not so much. We are as much in the entertainment as information business. The good reviewers do consider cost to performance ratios and build quality but "parts cost" has very little to do with retail pricing.

When I was at Stereophile no manufacturer who refused to have his or her products measured would get a review. TAS doesn't do measurements but decades at Stereophile have convinced me that both approaches are valid and that measurements are often terribly misinterpreted by readers with "an agenda". Or readers who look at on axis response and stop there.

"Head to head" comparisons are usually impossible. Products are reviewed "as is" for what they are. It's time consuming enough to review a product never mind getting another one in to compare it to, but experienced reviewers can draw upon previous reviews they've written. if I review a product similar in price to what i own, of course I draw a comparison, or to a product I've previously reviewed. I do that all the time....I produced a "blind" audio comparison of the SAT CF1-12 and the Supatrac arm. One costs $60+ one around $4K. You can listen for yourself if you go to my website. I'm not afraid of doing this at all! I did likewise for the Air Force 3 Premium and the OMA K3 turntables. it's on YouTube. Same arm, cartridge and phono preamp. Only difference? Turntable. Easy to hear the difference and different people had different preferences.

I have no problem with buying at an industry accommodation price. Most manufacturers are willing. I own what I like and put down the money. Mostly jealous people have a problem because they pay retail. They also then get good service at least from good dealers.

Not "all" is above board, but most reviewers are honest people trying to help guide readers to make good purchasing decisions. It's not difficult to figure out who's trying hard to honestly put things in perspective and who writes that every product is the best they've ever heard.

There' no licensing requirement for becoming an audio reviewer. Anyone can do it and everyone should know who's doing the talking and writing before taking their advice. It's not difficult to spot the egomaniacs: they start every review with "I". I this and I that and if you're lucky half way down the page you read something about the product. I know a reviewer who kept something he should have returned but he needed to sell it to pay for party for his kid and besides, the manufacturer at first said go ahead and keep it, meaning for a while, but the person kept it and sold it! I don't take that person seriously.

Or there are the reviewers who wish they were poets and they spend half a page describing a sunrise or whatever. Who has time for that or for ponderous "think pieces"? I do not.

One final thing: I have very few close friends among manufacturers. I try to avoid that for obvious reasons. It can get uncomfortable. I have a few though, and i make that known in reviews. With everyone else I'm "cordial". tbh: I love the guys from Marten Audio as people and I really like their speakers too. But I don't own them. They are cool with that and every year at High End Munich we have dinner together that they pay for and we have a blast. If anyone thinks I or any credible reviewer can be "bought" for a meal they have a serious problem! Once a New York Times writer doing a piece on our business came with us to a restaurant but company policy forbade him from even sitting with us, even if we asked him to pay his share. I think that's ridiculous but that's company policy.

Oh! One last thing I think you'll find interesting. At one point a long while back Antony Michaelson who founded Musical Fidelity was over to install an amp for review. Maybe the Titan...can't remember. We went to a great local storefront italian restaurant near me and since it was BYO, I brought a really good bottle of Italian wine---a Brunello—and he picked up the relatively inexpensive tab. As I recall the wine cost more than the meal.

As we got up to leave, the guy at the next table came over and said "I know who both of you are. I couldn't help but eavesdrop on the entire conversation and I have to say I was totally surprised. I was expecting a cynical conversation, and all sorts of chicanery and deal making and it was nothing at all like that. I was expecting to walk away with a 'scoop' about how corrupt this whole business is, but based at least on your conversation, it's the opposite."

But I'll repeat: there are a few really shady characters in this (on both sides, manufacturers and reviewers) but most are honest people trying to provide value.

I appreciate the frank response. The original post in this thread and the follow up comments were not pertaining to you. Most who have been around for a while can usually gauge the reviewers based on stablished patterns. You were candid in stating that there are some unscrupulous characters among the reviewers and manufacturers and that shows that you acknowledge that not everything is above board. The crux of the matter is that even when they are sincerely trying to provide value, a number of reviewers and YouTube personalities are simply not qualified, competent, or knowledgeable enough to provide subject matter expert advice; sometimes it is obviously apparent that they are not aware of their shortcomings and limitations yet they speak with great authority and conviction. Well is not for you to carry the weight of your industry on your shoulders. I appreciate your open and honest response.

 

[TrackingAngle]

Didn't they also recently purchase Michael Fremer ?

I’m a long term loan

 

[gleeds]

Michael, humor will get you everywhere!!!

 

[TrackingAngle]

I appreciate the frank response. The original post in this thread and the follow up comments were not pertaining to you. Most who have been around for a while can usually gauge the reviewers based on stablished patterns. You were candid in stating that there are some unscrupulous characters among the reviewers and manufacturers and that shows that you acknowledge that not everything is above board. The crux of the matter is that even when they are sincerely trying to provide value, a number of reviewers and YouTube personalities are simply not qualified, competent, or knowledgeable enough to provide subject matter expert advice; sometimes it is obviously apparent that they are not aware of their shortcomings and limitations yet they speak with great authority and conviction. Well is not for you to carry the weight of your industry on your shoulders. I appreciate your open and honest response.

Last thing: I did a video review of a cavitation based record cleaning machine and added “before you take anyone’s advice about anything you see on YouTube know who the person is and what they were doing 5 or 10 years ago. Were they covering this subject or plucking chickens?” Well, that offended a YouTuber he accosted me at Cap Audio Fest and accused me of trying to “crowd out” newbies. He was seriously in my face. Was funny…

 

[Richard Austen]

I would say this is not really a correct assessment, at least in my case and I can only speak for me. I don't give only good reviews. I've given many negative reviews and many mixed ones where there are good and bad things to report. I've reviewed $399 phono preamps like the Schiit Skoll and $75,000 ones like the CH precision P10, which I bought and own, and everything in between.

My preferences are not based on wattage, that's kind of a ridiculous assertion. I own both darTZeel solid state and Music Reference RM200 tube amps. I do not own any 2 watt SET amps where the loudspeaker's impedance determines the amps frequency response. I think reviewers who use SET amps as references are hobbyists and not professional reviewers, whatever they call themselves. They can be magazine writers, talking to other hobbyists and provide great entertainment value, but I'd rather review products that measure and sound good and provide a service for readers looking to purchase something that's modern and reliable and that moves the hobby forward not backwards.

But that's just me. If they like SETs have them for their hobby but have something that measures reliably well when writing reviews.

I'm more comfortable owning what's in my system rather than having long term loans, but I understand both sides of this. For those of you who do not, when I say I own my gear there are three responses, one is "good, then you are not 'bought' by manufacturers who make long term loans to you", but there's also: "well that's not good because it means you are invested in your gear and will never write that anything is better" (another ridiculous assertion), or "well you get a manufacturer's discount so you really don't own your gear" (another ridiculous assertion).

So yes I bought the Wilson XVX and got it for dealer cost, which I think I'm entitled to as a reviewer. Then the response from the hater/cynics is "where's the money from, your wife's trust fund?" or other such dung.

There are many wonderful people in this hobby on all sides of it: readers/consumers and manufacturers, and there are many jerks on both sides as well. There are honest people and questionable people.

Whether a reviewer gets long term loans or owns his or her own gear, there will be honest reviewers and some not so. The way of the world. Reviewing hasn't jumped the shark though some reviewers have, especially the ones afraid of delivering honest assessments of a product's sonic performance, build quality, tech etc.

My favorite emails are from readers who say "we have very different tastes so I usually don't like what you like but when I read one of your reviews I know what the product will sound like when I go listen to it. That's the job. Who cares what I or any other reviewer "likes"?

YouTube is filled with click baiters and self-proclaimed experts who five years ago were plucking chickens or whatever and it's up to readers and viewers to figure out who's who. When a YouTuber reviews five pieces a week, or you see a review go up the day after you know he's gotten the piece in for review, well that tells you something. Some boxes never get opened.

When you read or see "THIS IS A GAME CHANGER" and blah blah blah, I ask "what game? Soccer? Baseball". There's a guy on YouTube who headlined a video 'I've tested 1000 turntables, here's what I found". I commented, "why only 1000? I've reviewed a MILLION!"...

In collusion, I did more than a few times review low power tube amps and described the sound accurately. It doesn't matter if I like or hate the sound. What matters is that I described how they sounded. Of course I knew when John Atkinson measured them (back when I was at S-phile), the measurements would be miserable, like the giant WAVACs I reviewed. Fun though and of course they did somethings amazingly well amidst the gross colorations. Were they fun to listen to? Yes! But you always "heard" them...and it was impossible to reliably tell readers how they might sound in their systems since their speakers would determine the amp's frequency response.

Now back to work.

I think it's a bit silly to throw reviewers who use SET amps under the bus as not professional because EVERY SET amp owner - every single one of them - has owned and auditioned plenty of bomb-proof measuring SS amplifiers. All SET owners come to SET after auditioning the likes of Krell/D'Agostino/darTZeel/CH Precision/Mark Levinson/Classe/YBA/Bryston/Analog Domain/Luxman/Accuphase.

Most SET owners move to SET after owning the above SS amps - and NOT the other way around.

Obviously, SET amps are limited to higher sensitive and higher efficiency speakers with benign loads - no professional reviewer would use a SET amp or low-powered tube amp from Shindo (like Art Dudley) with Low Efficiency speakers. Such reviewers should have gear that can properly drive speakers they bring in to review because it would not be professional to review power-pig speakers with an 8-watt SET.

I believe it is professional to contact the manufacturer of a speaker and tell them what I intend to use with their speakers to make sure it has acceptable power and if they don't like my amp - they can send me one they feel puts the speakers in the best light - I will still use my own amps though.

It's quite ok for people to prefer CH Precision/Dan D'Agostino/Krell/Levinson/Classe/Bryston/Gryphon and the big Wilson/Gryphon/Focal/Magico/Vivid Audio/Revel speakers - I have heard them all many times. Love the looks of the gear - So far that's all I love about them.

 

[Richard Austen]

Well my comments Michael weren't just addressed to you, they were in response to the previous author and the world of audio at large. What may be applicable to you is not in fact applicable to the rest of the others that call themselves reviewers. If you had 7 figures of long term loaned gear in your home, with no return in site then I would question that you might be influenced by it. I think most people would be ! I don't think many bite the hand that feeds them. IMO I don't think this is how it should work. If one borrows something to listen to and review it should be returned in a specific time frame. If one keeps something they should pay for it at a predetermined price, not negotiated after the review and not at at a price that is influencing the outcome ( lol) . Magazines etc. are money making organizations. People that work there get paid. They should not be in position of being easily corrupted or compromised whether real or with the air of compromise.
Mike I believe you want to be taken seriously and respected so why would others put themselves in a position to have that questioned?

If people don't understand the process and the motives then they will always question the result. one man's opinion.
I also agree there are a lotof wonderful dedicated intelligent hard working people in audio and that is why I love it. I don't however love the characters that take advantage of the good guys.

Like any industry - there are bad individuals - Stereophile has fired at least one reviewer in the past for being a bad operator - which means they also HIRED the guy in the first place. Stereo reviewers do not get paid enough to make a living at it - or not one where they can afford most of their high end gear. Fred Crowder on our staff (dagogo) is one of the wealthiest reviewers in the Industry as he is a lawyer for BP - super nice guy - generally only reviews stuff that he would consider owning so it's usually the $100k+ stuff.

UHF Magazine out of Canada run by Gerard Regkind produced 4 or so magazines per year set the gear up in their three reference systems and evaluated with 3 or more reviewers listening to the gear that came in. You got three opinions of the gear that often differed. They gave out plenty of negative reviews over the years - and then never got equipment from those manufacturers again (Paradigm speakers, B&W Speakers, Cambridge Audio, Arcam - off the top of my head) because some of the reviews were scathing. They also did measurements and like Stereophile - poor measurements didn't always correlate with a poor review.

At the end of the day - you don't know which review is "on the take" or in it to get a reviewer discount. I have been to a fair number of audio shows and spoken to dealers who tell me a lot of things about a lot of people - but you have to take it with a grain of salt because some of them have axes to grind - we don't know the history. Moreover, I hear some manufacturers send out A-grade gear when they know it is going to a reviewer - they check it over extra special and even replace parts putting in better sounding caps or volume pots in the item they send to a reviewer - the public gets the mediocre one and wonders why the reviewer liked it - because the reviewer got something different!

One former reviewer on our staff noted that another reviewer at a different outlet was a huge fan of a particular speaker brand - when that speaker brand would not give him the big discount he felt he deserved - he jumped ship, stopped covering them and went to another major "high end" (well High Priced anyway) speaker brand because they play ball.

At the end of the day - reviews are largely for entertainment or as a "post-purchase" read to make you feel good about what you already purchased.

Over the last 30 years I have read glowing reviews of Gear I don't like in Stereophile, TAS, HiFi Choice, UHF - fellow reviewers at dagogo, 6 moons, and translated ones from China, Russia and Europe - and you know what - none of those reviews ever made me suddenly LIKE the product. Indeed, when I was beginning in audio I bought the Stereophile Class B rated amp - and Editor's Choice in What Hifi - has to be good right? I bought the raved about B&W speakers - hey they're used in George Lucas Studios - must be good right? Well the buttons fell off the Arcam amp and the binding post for the speakers easily cracked - it also sounded thin and lean - and as it turns out B&W sent the speakers to Lucasfilm for free - George's preference back in the early 1990s was M&K and not B&W so the mythology and hype gets blurred.

Anyway, trusting the magazined got me a crappy stereo system. What was irritating is that I didn't trust me ears - I greatly prefered the sound of the Sugden A21 to the Arcam - I sat and auditioned and went against my 20 year old hearing (around 1994) and Sugden was a complete no name - pre internet could not look it up). So I went with the reviews.

Reviewers are great IF you tend to have similar tastes to the reviewer.
Another way of looking at products are:

1) How many reviewers buy the product and or rave beyond all reason about said product? Ie - a numbers game.
2) How long as the product been selling continuously over the years?

Then maybe you can look at things like do they advertise much - are there waitlists - that sort of thing.

When I bought my Audio Note K/SPe speakers back in 2003 - I was in the store to do a shootout between the Refeence 3a MM De Capo I, B&W N805, and Paradigm Studio 40. I already liked the De Capo - the 805 had great press (I was already an owner) and was used in recording studios, and Paradigm is always a favourite of the objective measurements people because "they are designed in the NRC" so a Floyd E Toole approved loudspeakers.

As I was an hour from the dealer I said - "throw in one you like." The owner of the store threw in the AN K/SPe. All the speakers were run with a high-power SS amplifier Sim Audio/Celeste amp with a Linn CD player. The De Capo and K were the best two by a mile on acoustic instruments and vocals but the K was more neutral. But being as I never heard of the brand I had to come back a few more times to be sure (checked the connections to make sure the dealer wasn't wiring them out of phase to make the B&W sound "that bad" because "how the hell did this slop get good reviews?"

None of my magazines had the AN-K speakers or anything from the brand reviewed. On to the forums I go. Middling help but some information - based on old Snells - a few other posters mentioned the poor integration of the Kevlar and metal tweeter - no kidding. Anyway, this time I went with my hearing of it and bought them. I bought them again a few years ago having moved to Hong Kong. What I find "chuckle-worthy" about the AN K is they are based on a 40+-year-old Snell design. They won speaker of the year in Hi-Fi Review in Asia in 2010 and just now they won a top speaker prize in 2024 from Fidelity in Europe. So much for BE tweeters, Kevlar woofers, Diamonds, Metal braced speakers, rounded cabinets, narrow baffles - bah.

I chuckle because it's basically a souped-up 40-year-old Snell. Having recently auditioned a Dan D'Agostino and Vivid Audio Set up where the dealer had painstakingly placed tape all over the floor to get them positioned just perfectly - and then auditioned a Hartsfield speaker with an expensive tube amp - again the latter was just so much more engaging - listening to music not listening FOR sonic feats of strength. The Hartsfield set up is like 1982 The Thing practical effects - VS the newer The Thing wth CGI - I guess to some people the new The Thing looks better but eesh.

 

[Another Johnson]

At the end of the day - reviews are largely for entertainment or as a "post-purchase" read to make you feel good about what you already purchased.

I don’t think that this can be overemphasized.

 

[Joe Whip]

Everyone has a bias. Reviews should be used as data points And if you can , listen yourself. Not as easy as it once was though to be sure.

 

[bonzo75]

I think it's a bit silly to throw reviewers who use SET amps under the bus

i respect Fremer’s Analog experience, but not his SETs one. Getting Wavac’s or Lamms without appropriate speakers is not evaluating SETs.

Mike (Fremer) just to clarify, it is a bit like a digital person getting a turntable in his system only once or twice and evaluating it. Surely you will understand. No matter if it was AF0 or K3 but not appropriately set up

 

[Another Johnson]

When the HW-40 didn’t make in into Stereophile’s A+ class due to its arm issues, HW was extremely upset. It was even trotted out that MF had been a family friend, invited to weddings, etc.

If you develop personal relationships with these relatively small business men, you really should recuse yourself from reviewing their wares… unless you really don’t mind either losing the friendship or giving the appearance of impropriety.

FWIW, I don’t know MF. I have read his reviews, literally for decades. The conclusions I’ve drawn from my own 50+ years of listening have always been a better basis for my decision making regarding vinyl playback. One thing I’ll give MF … he has been a great bird dog to point out stuff that I never would have dug into the bushes deep enough to find without him.

I enjoy his work for its entertainment value, and in my algorithm for reviewing reviews, this is high praise.

 

[RCanelas]

Once a New York Times writer doing a piece on our business came with us to a restaurant but company policy forbade him from even sitting with us, even if we asked him to pay his share. I think that's ridiculous but that's company policy.

This is not ridiculous at all, it is the foundation of a work deontology that allows journalism to have any signal and not just be background noise. These rules and practices exist for a reason and have been put in place by literally generations of professionals that had to deal with these types of issues. Every time these boundaries are crossed, public thrust and image is corroded. The value of journalism declines and, after a given point, it becomes negative.

If I was a cynic I'd say that this what justifies the existence of this thread and the exchanges we are seeing: there are people who don't thrust hifi journalism due to the lack of rules, a free-for-all attitude, a clear mixing of interests, etc. At the same time there are reviewers and editors who consider they work in journalism, or a similar media outlet.

I'm not a cynic (about this at least ). I recognize all of HiFi is a small cottage industry, where interpersonal relationships play a fundamental role, single actions carry large consequences for unprepared enterprises, and that context excludes the possibility of by-the-book journalism. I take it as opinionated entertainment mixed with a large dose of low cost high impact marketing. And that's ok. It's the same with added value anything: cars, watches, food, nothing special about hifi.

 

[Lagonda]

Like any industry - there are bad individuals - Stereophile has fired at least one reviewer in the past for being a bad operator - which means they also HIRED the guy in the first place. Stereo reviewers do not get paid enough to make a living at it - or not one where they can afford most of their high end gear. Fred Crowder on our staff (dagogo) is one of the wealthiest reviewers in the Industry as he is a lawyer for BP - super nice guy - generally only reviews stuff that he would consider owning so it's usually the $100k+ stuff.

UHF Magazine out of Canada run by Gerard Regkind produced 4 or so magazines per year set the gear up in their three reference systems and evaluated with 3 or more reviewers listening to the gear that came in. You got three opinions of the gear that often differed. They gave out plenty of negative reviews over the years - and then never got equipment from those manufacturers again (Paradigm speakers, B&W Speakers, Cambridge Audio, Arcam - off the top of my head) because some of the reviews were scathing. They also did measurements and like Stereophile - poor measurements didn't always correlate with a poor review.

At the end of the day - you don't know which review is "on the take" or in it to get a reviewer discount. I have been to a fair number of audio shows and spoken to dealers who tell me a lot of things about a lot of people - but you have to take it with a grain of salt because some of them have axes to grind - we don't know the history. Moreover, I hear some manufacturers send out A-grade gear when they know it is going to a reviewer - they check it over extra special and even replace parts putting in better sounding caps or volume pots in the item they send to a reviewer - the public gets the mediocre one and wonders why the reviewer liked it - because the reviewer got something different!

One former reviewer on our staff noted that another reviewer at a different outlet was a huge fan of a particular speaker brand - when that speaker brand would not give him the big discount he felt he deserved - he jumped ship, stopped covering them and went to another major "high end" (well High Priced anyway) speaker brand because they play ball.

At the end of the day - reviews are largely for entertainment or as a "post-purchase" read to make you feel good about what you already purchased.

Over the last 30 years I have read glowing reviews of Gear I don't like in Stereophile, TAS, HiFi Choice, UHF - fellow reviewers at dagogo, 6 moons, and translated ones from China, Russia and Europe - and you know what - none of those reviews ever made me suddenly LIKE the product. Indeed, when I was beginning in audio I bought the Stereophile Class B rated amp - and Editor's Choice in What Hifi - has to be good right? I bought the raved about B&W speakers - hey they're used in George Lucas Studios - must be good right? Well the buttons fell off the Arcam amp and the binding post for the speakers easily cracked - it also sounded thin and lean - and as it turns out B&W sent the speakers to Lucasfilm for free - George's preference back in the early 1990s was M&K and not B&W so the mythology and hype gets blurred.

Anyway, trusting the magazined got me a crappy stereo system. What was irritating is that I didn't trust me ears - I greatly prefered the sound of the Sugden A21 to the Arcam - I sat and auditioned and went against my 20 year old hearing (around 1994) and Sugden was a complete no name - pre internet could not look it up). So I went with the reviews.

Reviewers are great IF you tend to have similar tastes to the reviewer.
Another way of looking at products are:

1) How many reviewers buy the product and or rave beyond all reason about said product? Ie - a numbers game.
2) How long as the product been selling continuously over the years?

Then maybe you can look at things like do they advertise much - are there waitlists - that sort of thing.

When I bought my Audio Note K/SPe speakers back in 2003 - I was in the store to do a shootout between the Refeence 3a MM De Capo I, B&W N805, and Paradigm Studio 40. I already liked the De Capo - the 805 had great press (I was already an owner) and was used in recording studios, and Paradigm is always a favourite of the objective measurements people because "they are designed in the NRC" so a Floyd E Toole approved loudspeakers.

As I was an hour from the dealer I said - "throw in one you like." The owner of the store threw in the AN K/SPe. All the speakers were run with a high-power SS amplifier Sim Audio/Celeste amp with a Linn CD player. The De Capo and K were the best two by a mile on acoustic instruments and vocals but the K was more neutral. But being as I never heard of the brand I had to come back a few more times to be sure (checked the connections to make sure the dealer wasn't wiring them out of phase to make the B&W sound "that bad" because "how the hell did this slop get good reviews?"

None of my magazines had the AN-K speakers or anything from the brand reviewed. On to the forums I go. Middling help but some information - based on old Snells - a few other posters mentioned the poor integration of the Kevlar and metal tweeter - no kidding. Anyway, this time I went with my hearing of it and bought them. I bought them again a few years ago having moved to Hong Kong. What I find "chuckle-worthy" about the AN K is they are based on a 40+-year-old Snell design. They won speaker of the year in Hi-Fi Review in Asia in 2010 and just now they won a top speaker prize in 2024 from Fidelity in Europe. So much for BE tweeters, Kevlar woofers, Diamonds, Metal braced speakers, rounded cabinets, narrow baffles - bah.

I chuckle because it's basically a souped-up 40-year-old Snell. Having recently auditioned a Dan D'Agostino and Vivid Audio Set up where the dealer had painstakingly placed tape all over the floor to get them positioned just perfectly - and then auditioned a Hartsfield speaker with an expensive tube amp - again the latter was just so much more engaging - listening to music not listening FOR sonic feats of strength. The Hartsfield set up is like 1982 The Thing practical effects - VS the newer The Thing wth CGI - I guess to some people the new The Thing looks better but eesh.

When reviewers keep on blabbering about their favorite gear and brands on every occasion, i question their partiality and motive. Give it a rest with all the AN praise, you have been drinking the cool aid, we get it !

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you very much for telling us your thoughts on these long term loan issues, Michael!

 

[andromedaaudio]

I would rank reviewers according to the long term loan term.
LTLT .
The longer the loan the better the reviewer as manufacturers have more trust in then.

For real ....money talks in the USA i stopped reading reviews long long time ago .
Better visit a dealer or audioshow

 

[Doc76]

Related but … ??? If true, than reviews are useless. If false, or over stated, …

 

[Another Johnson]

Related but … ??? If true, than reviews are useless. If false, or over stated, …

I don’t draw that conclusion. I just see another video by the YouTuber building a case for why you should subscribe to his website.

He makes a lot of confident assertions, as usual. But he also adds a lot of disclaimers.

I’ve never heard of any cases where, using his language, a company has hired a magazine to give them a glowing review.

 

[Joe Whip]

Can’t or won’t? Sure, I am sure Jay is correct but he could still,post negative reviews . He could pay to enter the shows and still post a video. Maybe he can’t film in a given room but he could still post a video about it. Otherwise, what is the point? I would like honesty, that’s all. Too much to expect though.