State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial

[microstrip]

(...) One way we are addressing this is by creating our new YouTube channel which will include experienced reviewers. We built our Winding Road channel to one million subscribers and we are working to build the TAS YouTube subscriber base quickly when It formally launches (the current 1K is legacy). However, we are doing our best to build in high production values and moreover, exclusive and interesting content. We have some really cool content planned.

Although I understand the need to go through YouTube and reach larger audiences, I think that the magazine is much more valuable and informative than movies.

Comparative reviews are difficult to be honest.

Fortunately you do not publish them. They are usually high misleading, as they mostly evidence matching/mismatching with the reviewer system.

Many manufacturers specifically prevent comparisons with competing products and the politics get difficult.

Wise people. I want information, not shoot outs. Surely YMMv. .

Forums are hard to manage and there is a very fragmented community on forums which not many gaining real traction outside of arguably head-fi but that is a much larger audience.

IMHO forums are a different way of living the hobby. We are a small community that manages to exchange points of view interactively. We depth in debates, but have a very limited horizon - mostly the products onwed by members and we also want some air from the outside.

Also, TAS and hifi+ are not print magazines any more. We are selling a tremendous amount of digital advertising these days and producing content across multiple channels: web, social media, YouTube, email, “welcome mat“ campaigns, specialty products, and print.

Please also keep on the current digital format and digital subscriptions!

 

[rbbert]

"discussed extensively in a number of internet forums" Sorry this is almost amusing. A few people hating magazines persistently write denigrating them and it becomes an universal fact.

IMHO this is supposed to be a friendly forum on the high end. Surely all reviewers have their good and poor moments, and I respect your opinion, but disagree completely on the merit of the three people you explicitly refer - I consider they are respectable professionals that do a lot for the high-end and sound reproduction.

There are examples of gross factual errors (e.g., AT's claiming that a QoBuz album sounded different than an HDTracks album when software analysis by AudioDiffMaker indicated that they were identical files) as well as JV's "flavor of the month" and the admitted fact that he owns virtually none of the components to which he listens, raising some obvious ethical issues - directly germane to this topic thread.

Obviously in today's world a reviewer or review periodical can't be expected to buy much of what they review, but IMO there is too much of a lack of transparency, exactly what Roy's column is addressing. If a reviewer purchases an item he reviews, what percent of the average purchaser's price does he pay? Which manufacturers require a direct payment to provide an item for review? Which ones withdraw advertising after (or even before) a poor review? What items are "shopped" to different review outlets in an attempt to choose only those who will give a good review? From what the principals at TAS and Stereophile claim, any product actually accepted for review will have a review published, positive or negative, and that is certainly admirable; not all the ezines even attempt to make that claim.

Does being a "friendly forum" mean being less than honest; i.e., if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all? That's not especially helpful in determining how one can optimize one's system, or "what's best".

 

[treitz3]

Bonzo,
I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative but there are lots of opinions thrown around on this site. There are many levels of audio and the results are very different. I have said before that all High End is not the same or should even be considered as the same. My feelings there is good, better, excellent and extraordinary. The last category is a moving target and what that is today will be the excellent of tomorrow. When something comes to market that surpasses the previous levels it doesn't make the past bad it just means there are new items that may surpasses the previous performance capabilities. I have seen this in audio since the 60's.
I also think that the ability to get to these rare areas is very dependent on many factors. Without a room that works the cutting edge cannot be achieved. This does not mean everything else is bad it just means there may be flaws that hinder the ultimate performance.
One would expect that if you are going to chase the dragon's tail that you will need the place to do it. I don't think that Mike and Marty's or Carlos's or others are that rare. Those how purchase these crazy cutting edge items most times are aware of what they need. You will never get all that's possible from gear in the wrong environment. I commend those that have followed this path and I advise others to realize and understand the journey so they don't get frustrated and forget about the music.

Outstanding post IMO.

Tom

 

[Lee]

There are examples of gross factual errors (e.g., AT's claiming that a QoBuz album sounded different than an HDTracks album when software analysis by AudioDiffMaker indicated that they were identical files) as well as JV's "flavor of the month" and the admitted fact that he owns virtually none of the components to which he listens, raising some obvious ethical issues - directly germane to this topic thread.

Obviously in today's world a reviewer or review periodical can't be expected to buy much of what they review, but IMO there is too much of a lack of transparency, exactly what Roy's column is addressing. If a reviewer purchases an item he reviews, what percent of the average purchaser's price does he pay? Which manufacturers require a direct payment to provide an item for review? Which ones withdraw advertising after (or even before) a poor review? What items are "shopped" to different review outlets in an attempt to choose only those who will give a good review? From what the principals at TAS and Stereophile claim, any product actually accepted for review will have a review published, positive or negative, and that is certainly admirable; not all the ezines even attempt to make that claim.

Does being a "friendly forum" mean being less than honest; i.e., if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all? That's not especially helpful in determining how one can optimize one's system, or "what's best".

I think you need to understand that Jonathan (who is considered one of our very best reviewers) typically reviews the very pinnacle of high end gear so it’s not reasonable for you to suggest he needs to continually purchase $100K gear.

Think of the value proposition of an established reviewer along these lines…

1. They listen to a wide range of gear which creates learning and experience that is unique to that position. As such, they are in a better position to critique new products.

2. Their experience combined with factory tours and many thousands of hours talking to manufacturers allows them insights into how the technology works which allows further better critiques and an ability to put complexity of the tech into plain English. This is something Robert Harley and Jonathan Valin and others do particularly well.

3. They tend to write better because they think a lot about how to describe the sound in a way that is meaningful.

Most reviewers get industry accommodation pricing which is typically 50% of retail. This has been discussed very often.

Robert Harley and Tom Martin, our owner, have enforced very strict guidelines around who gets to review which gear.

Absolutely none of our magazines accept bribes for reviews. That is a firing offense and is sharply enforced.

We also have very strict walls separating our sales team from the editorial staff.

 

[rbbert]

I think you need to understand that Jonathan (who is considered one of our very best reviewers) typically reviews the very pinnacle of high end gear so it’s not reasonable for you to suggest he needs to continually purchase $100K gear.

Think of the value proposition of an established reviewer along these lines…

1. They listen to a wide range of gear which creates learning and experience that is unique to that position. As such, they are in a better position to critique new products.

2. Their experience combined with factory tours and many thousands of hours talking to manufacturers allows them insights into how the technology works which allows further better critiques and an ability to put complexity of the tech into plain English. This is something Robert Harley and Jonathan Valin and others do particularly well.

3. They tend to write better because they think a lot about how to describe the sound in a way that is meaningful.

Most reviewers get industry accommodation pricing which is typically 50% of retail. This has been discussed very often.

Robert Harley and Tom Martin, our owner, have enforced very strict guidelines around who gets to review which gear.

Absolutely none of our magazines accept bribes for reviews. That is a firing offense and is sharply enforced.

We also have very strict walls separating our sales team from the editorial staff.

I understand all that, even alluded to much of it in my post. I don't happen to agree about their writing styles or abilities, but that is only opinion.

 

[ScottB]

I understand all that, even alluded to much of it in my post. I don't happen to agree about their writing styles or abilities, but that is only opinion.

Jon maybe many things but a poor writer is not one of them. If you would like an amusing read , try his book "The Music Lovers".

 

[tima]

Obviously in today's world a reviewer or review periodical can't be expected to buy much of what they review, but IMO there is too much of a lack of transparency, exactly what Roy's column is addressing. If a reviewer purchases an item he reviews, what percent of the average purchaser's price does he pay? Which manufacturers require a direct payment to provide an item for review? Which ones withdraw advertising after (or even before) a poor review? What items are "shopped" to different review outlets in an attempt to choose only those who will give a good review? From what the principals at TAS and Stereophile claim, any product actually accepted for review will have a review published, positive or negative, and that is certainly admirable; not all the ezines even attempt to make that claim.

These are rather old-world broadly brushed criticisms that are easy to issue. You will want to recognize that there differences between publications and differences between reviewers. As with most hobbies and most products some are better than others. And there are considerable differences between on-line forums and publications. It is up to you to discriminate.

Wrt 'transparency', what exactly are you talking about? Give two or three examples of obscurity or deception or something to back your opinion of too little transparency.

Accomodation purchases vary. Roughly 40%-50% off MSRP is typical. Manufacturer prices tend to be lower than from dealers or distributors. This is not a secret. There is no connection between a review and industry purchase. Some manufacturers require a minimum ownership period (years) to make an accomodation purchase and many publications do not allow resale of an industry purchase for more than was paid for it.

Manufacturers do not pay for reviews nor are they paid for a review. It does not work like that. I arrange my own reviews and the notion of payment has never come up. I don't know where you get your questions, but wherever that is, it is uninformed.

I don't anything about 'shopping' a product for a review. I choose what I review.

There are industry participants regularly on WBF. You're new here. I encourage you to make positive contributions to this forum.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Obviously in today's world a reviewer or review periodical can't be expected to buy much of what they review, . . .

A reviewer who purchases a component he/she reviewed for 50% of MSRP tells me information I personally find to be more probative and more valuable than a long, detailed and positive review of a component which the reviewer does not purchase. I find it highly informative when a reviewer puts his/her money where his/here ears are.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I purchased basically all my gear from 2004 till 2011 based on magazine reviews / opinions .
More or less gear in the 5 K to 12 K range be it new or second hand .
I have had so many expensive mishaps where my listening expirience at home did nt correspond with the reviewers opinion that i gave up on it/ mags all together .
I do go to a nice dealer show / set up once in a while and will base purchases on that .
The only reviewer i find worthwhile reading who sticks to a sound plan / and knows what he wants.
Meaning not every year a different flavour is M mickaelson , ( M fremer i find quite okay also ).

 

[bonzo75]

A reviewer who purchases a component he/she reviewed for 50% of MSRP tells me information I personally find to be more probative and more valuable than a long, detailed and positive review of a component which the reviewer does not purchase. I find it highly informative when a reviewer puts his/her money where his/here ears are.

I don't know why the focus is on the final decision or verdict of the reviewer in terms of a purchase. There is a lot of text in a review. If you try the same component, you will realize if the reviewer has been honest in his reviews or not depending on what attributes he has written and discussed, instead of whether he has just written in a flowery language some random text. Fremer's attribute analysis is excellent and honest. It does not really matter if you like Lyra or not. When Fremer wrote that the Lambda is like an Atlas with a tube inserted in it, I asked Gian if this is what he was hearing. Gian said spot on. That description makes me want to listen to the Lambda, even though Lyra is nowhere my favorite cart. It does not really matter if Fremer purchased it or not. And if read his articles regularly, it becomes very clear what analog he prefers and why, and the weaknesses are usually laid out though not in the review of that product itself but follow up articles.

 

[tima]

I find it highly informative when a reviewer puts his/her money where his/here ears are.

It is interesting information to know a reviewer bought a product although one need not review a component to make an accomodation purchase. I do not believe that knowing about a purchase is more informative than the actual long detailed review, which may influence many purchases. I've had manufacturers and buyers tell me of the value and significance of a solid review. While it is not always possible, reviews can offer information not available through forums or product literature.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Regarding this threads article .
I have not read the whole thing , but i suppose its about the level of high end audio " the ceiling " .
Im very skeptical as i dont think there is much progress in gear , may be in words / magazines but thats it .
In the best cases a bit more overall refinement , thats all imo
I would rather " invest " in great recordings be it tape or digital.

Next year i ll probably " invest " in some more expensive gear like a Robert Koda Takumi K 15 and may be a Halcro stereo amp
See how that holds up against CAT tubes

 

[RoyGregory]

Well over 300 comments and counting…

It’s called a Think Piece for a reason. It doesn’t pretend to have all the answers but it is intended to get people to consider the issues – and it certainly seems to have done that. There’s the usual degree of partial consumption and selective comprehension, but hey, it’s an audio forum.

I’m not interested in protracted arguments and have my experiences and reasons for thinking as I do, many of which can’t be aired in public. But what’s more entertaining is the almost Pavlov response from Lee Scoggins. Do you think I touched a nerve? Suggest that there might be a glass ceiling and the first and loudest denials always come from the people who benefit from it – and they’re normally redolent with bluster and BS. Sadly (for him) simply stating a point of view doesn’t make it a fact and arranging those ‘facts’ in a row and repeating them doesn’t prove anything. Actions speak louder than words, so let’s look a little closer at the Scoggins modus operandi…

His repeated citing of Wilson to argue against performance stagnation is bizarre. Not only am I a well-documented admirer of the latest Wilson speakers, but aren’t these the very essence of gradual evolution? Doesn’t that make them the antithesis of the sort of breakthrough developments and technologies that I’m suggesting are getting stifled? On the other hand, for every Wilson Audio that has moved forward, I can probably point to ten ‘established’ (and highly visible) companies that haven’t. Meanwhile, the Wadax Pre 1 was launched in 2010 and the significance and potential of its technology was clear to anybody willing to take note – it’s just that most of the major English Language titles didn’t bother. Over a decade later they’re only just recognising their mistake, while Mr Scoggins appears to still be in denial (see below).

At the same time he’s only too willing to ignore the fact that the Wilson WAMM MC and XVX have both received considerable attention in all of the serious, mainstream EL magazines: yet during the same period, the equally accomplished and interesting Tidal La Assoluta, Living Voice Vox Olympian/Palladian and Göbel Divin Majestic have been almost entirely absent from those pages – and that’s just four speakers that I’ve personally spent time with and can vouch for. I’m sure that you can list others. It’s an act of collective ignorance on the part of EL magazines that beggars belief. And before you point out that this just reflects what a great job Wilson and their distributors do, I agree. But isn’t it the job (and promise) of magazines and journalists to reach beyond the easy and the obvious?

On another thread on this site, our intrepid publisher is busy repeating potentially damaging, unsubstantiated and factually incorrect gossip about the measured performance of the WADAX Reference DAC, a product that has never been independently measured. He happily dons his TAS and Hi-Fi+ hats and puts it all out there online. Does he bother to check his facts or wonder about the motivation of their source? Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? I’m not sure what is more shocking: the fact that he did this or that he’s obviously ignorant of basic journalistic ethics and responsibilities. And no – he’s not posting as a private individual: not when his posts claim the status of Nextscreen CEO and publisher of multiple titles.

Then, when another poster expresses dismay at the fact that 80% of one print magazine is written by a single person, he’s at it again, apparently ignorant of the fact that the title in question is one of those he’s responsible for. You know Lee, I realise it’s hard for you to look past your own navel, but you couldn’t make this up – and you couldn’t do a much better job of proving my point. It’s priceless…

But hey, there is no and never was a glass ceiling operating in high-end audio… Take a look and you can see right through it!

On a purely factual level: he claims/describes me as a friend.

To the best of my knowledge, I’ve met him once. We’ve never had a conversation. And he absolutely, definitely isn’t on my Christmas card list…

And this is the guy that questions MY grasp on reality. Really?

 

[ddk]

Well over 300 comments and counting…

It’s called a Think Piece for a reason. It doesn’t pretend to have all the answers but it is intended to get people to consider the issues – and it certainly seems to have done that. There’s the usual degree of partial consumption and selective comprehension, but hey, it’s an audio forum.

I’m not interested in protracted arguments and have my experiences and reasons for thinking as I do, many of which can’t be aired in public. But what’s more entertaining is the almost Pavlov response from Lee Scoggins. Do you think I touched a nerve? Suggest that there might be a glass ceiling and the first and loudest denials always come from the people who benefit from it – and they’re normally redolent with bluster and BS. Sadly (for him) simply stating a point of view doesn’t make it a fact and arranging those ‘facts’ in a row and repeating them doesn’t prove anything. Actions speak louder than words, so let’s look a little closer at the Scoggins modus operandi…

His repeated citing of Wilson to argue against performance stagnation is bizarre. Not only am I a well-documented admirer of the latest Wilson speakers, but aren’t these the very essence of gradual evolution? Doesn’t that make them the antithesis of the sort of breakthrough developments and technologies that I’m suggesting are getting stifled? On the other hand, for every Wilson Audio that has moved forward, I can probably point to ten ‘established’ (and highly visible) companies that haven’t. Meanwhile, the Wadax Pre 1 was launched in 2010 and the significance and potential of its technology was clear to anybody willing to take note – it’s just that most of the major English Language titles didn’t bother. Over a decade later they’re only just recognising their mistake, while Mr Scoggins appears to still be in denial (see below).

At the same time he’s only too willing to ignore the fact that the Wilson WAMM MC and XVX have both received considerable attention in all of the serious, mainstream EL magazines: yet during the same period, the equally accomplished and interesting Tidal La Assoluta, Living Voice Vox Olympian/Palladian and Göbel Divin Majestic have been almost entirely absent from those pages – and that’s just four speakers that I’ve personally spent time with and can vouch for. I’m sure that you can list others. It’s an act of collective ignorance on the part of EL magazines that beggars belief. And before you point out that this just reflects what a great job Wilson and their distributors do, I agree. But isn’t it the job (and promise) of magazines and journalists to reach beyond the easy and the obvious?

On another thread on this site, our intrepid publisher is busy repeating potentially damaging, unsubstantiated and factually incorrect gossip about the measured performance of the WADAX Reference DAC, a product that has never been independently measured. He happily dons his TAS and Hi-Fi+ hats and puts it all out there online. Does he bother to check his facts or wonder about the motivation of their source? Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? I’m not sure what is more shocking: the fact that he did this or that he’s obviously ignorant of basic journalistic ethics and responsibilities. And no – he’s not posting as a private individual: not when his posts claim the status of Nextscreen CEO and publisher of multiple titles.

Then, when another poster expresses dismay at the fact that 80% of one print magazine is written by a single person, he’s at it again, apparently ignorant of the fact that the title in question is one of those he’s responsible for. You know Lee, I realise it’s hard for you to look past your own navel, but you couldn’t make this up – and you couldn’t do a much better job of proving my point. It’s priceless…

But hey, there is no and never was a glass ceiling operating in high-end audio… Take a look and you can see right through it!

On a purely factual level: he claims/describes me as a friend.

To the best of my knowledge, I’ve met him once. We’ve never had a conversation. And he absolutely, definitely isn’t on my Christmas card list…

And this is the guy that questions MY grasp on reality. Really?

This isn’t a new issue I’ve been saying many of same things about high end audio magazines since mid 90’s and then some. Looking back the same practices were prevalent in the 80’s too so my question is why now you’ve been doing this for a very long time?

david

 

[tima]

Well over 300 comments and counting…

It’s called a Think Piece for a reason. It doesn’t pretend to have all the answers but it is intended to get people to consider the issues – and it certainly seems to have done that. There’s the usual degree of partial consumption and selective comprehension, but hey, it’s an audio forum.

I’m not interested in protracted arguments and have my experiences and reasons for thinking as I do, many of which can’t be aired in public. But what’s more entertaining is the almost Pavlov response from Lee Scoggins. Do you think I touched a nerve? Suggest that there might be a glass ceiling and the first and loudest denials always come from the people who benefit from it – and they’re normally redolent with bluster and BS. Sadly (for him) simply stating a point of view doesn’t make it a fact and arranging those ‘facts’ in a row and repeating them doesn’t prove anything. Actions speak louder than words, so let’s look a little closer at the Scoggins modus operandi…

His repeated citing of Wilson to argue against performance stagnation is bizarre. Not only am I a well-documented admirer of the latest Wilson speakers, but aren’t these the very essence of gradual evolution? Doesn’t that make them the antithesis of the sort of breakthrough developments and technologies that I’m suggesting are getting stifled? On the other hand, for every Wilson Audio that has moved forward, I can probably point to ten ‘established’ (and highly visible) companies that haven’t. Meanwhile, the Wadax Pre 1 was launched in 2010 and the significance and potential of its technology was clear to anybody willing to take note – it’s just that most of the major English Language titles didn’t bother. Over a decade later they’re only just recognising their mistake, while Mr Scoggins appears to still be in denial (see below).

At the same time he’s only too willing to ignore the fact that the Wilson WAMM MC and XVX have both received considerable attention in all of the serious, mainstream EL magazines: yet during the same period, the equally accomplished and interesting Tidal La Assoluta, Living Voice Vox Olympian/Palladian and Göbel Divin Majestic have been almost entirely absent from those pages – and that’s just four speakers that I’ve personally spent time with and can vouch for. I’m sure that you can list others. It’s an act of collective ignorance on the part of EL magazines that beggars belief. And before you point out that this just reflects what a great job Wilson and their distributors do, I agree. But isn’t it the job (and promise) of magazines and journalists to reach beyond the easy and the obvious?

On another thread on this site, our intrepid publisher is busy repeating potentially damaging, unsubstantiated and factually incorrect gossip about the measured performance of the WADAX Reference DAC, a product that has never been independently measured. He happily dons his TAS and Hi-Fi+ hats and puts it all out there online. Does he bother to check his facts or wonder about the motivation of their source? Why let the truth get in the way of a good story? I’m not sure what is more shocking: the fact that he did this or that he’s obviously ignorant of basic journalistic ethics and responsibilities. And no – he’s not posting as a private individual: not when his posts claim the status of Nextscreen CEO and publisher of multiple titles.

Then, when another poster expresses dismay at the fact that 80% of one print magazine is written by a single person, he’s at it again, apparently ignorant of the fact that the title in question is one of those he’s responsible for. You know Lee, I realise it’s hard for you to look past your own navel, but you couldn’t make this up – and you couldn’t do a much better job of proving my point. It’s priceless…

But hey, there is no and never was a glass ceiling operating in high-end audio… Take a look and you can see right through it!

On a purely factual level: he claims/describes me as a friend.

To the best of my knowledge, I’ve met him once. We’ve never had a conversation. And he absolutely, definitely isn’t on my Christmas card list…

And this is the guy that questions MY grasp on reality. Really?

That your Think Piece generated 300+ replies is testament to the broad interest it generated among the denizens here at WBF. Agree, disagree or in between, at least you have the brass to write an attention grabbing opinion that is well written and worth reading.... and a counterpoint reply I look forward to more thought provoking articles on the state of the high-end on gy8.eu .

 

[andromedaaudio]

I have read the whole piece , i think its an excellent read .

The problem with high end audio indeed is that it doesnt have a clear measurable performance standard as other industries have .
So its basically a free for all
Its an opinion based industry dominated by all kinds off " experts " just like the art industry .
Some might indeed be helpfull if they float your boat.
Its a small market in which many are competing.
In some cases products have real value , in other cases the product is merely special because the " expert " gave his blessing ,....never to be heard of again the next year


as Quoted from the blog

Because high-end audio isn’t an industry, it possesses none of the structural or regulatory bodies that you normally find in large, international markets. There’s no professional governing body, no qualifications, no regulation, no standards and no training.


Ps The next financial crises could well be around the corner

 

[Audiocrack]

This isn’t a new issue I’ve been saying many of same things about high end audio magazines since mid 90’s and then some. Looking back the same practices were prevalent in the 80’s too so my question is why now you’ve been doing this for a very long time?

david

Even if you were right: that as such is no reason at all to not bring this issue up again.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Recently read a well-known British Hifi mag and found that 90%+ of the articles were written by the same guy, all in one month

You cant say he is lazy.

 

[ddk]

Even if you were right: that as such is no reason at all to not bring this issue up again.

That’s not what I said, I was asking about what compelled him to bring up the matter now after all the years being part of the system, this isn’t news.

david

 

[Audiocrack]

That’s not what I said, I was asking about what compelled him to bring up the matter now after all the years being part of the system, this isn’t news.

david

I know what you said and my reaction stands.