Technics brings back the SP10

[kevinkwann]

I do not, because he could get "accommodation pricing" for just about any single turntable out there. And proportionally, X% off a 100K table is a lot more money than the same X% off a $20K table.

He simply liked what he heard, and thinks he might be interested in buying one. When did that become a crime?

+1

 

[DaveyF]

I do not, because he could get "accommodation pricing" for just about any single turntable out there. And proportionally, X% off a 100K table is a lot more money than the same X% off a $20K table.

He simply liked what he heard, and thinks he might be interested in buying one. When did that become a crime?

Whether or not the 'accommodation' pricing is a crime is something I suspect we are not in a position to judge. Nonetheless, any time a reviewer receives 'accommodation' pricing...and I suspect that pricing must vary from item to item; it would seem to me prudent that he disclose that fact and allow the reader to gauge for themselves how much that particular aspect might influence their decision to buy based on said review.
While I'm not saying that the Technics review was more or less slanted by this issue than other gear that he has reviewed, I do think that we can never really know this...why-- because it would require that X% in your example be a consistent factor across all gear under review...I don't think we can know this. For example, JH may receive 60% off from Technics, and only 5% off from Continuum etc.,
I also suspect ( shall we say know!) that there are some manufacturer's who refuse to give any accommodation pricing to a reviewer....does this result in their product not getting reviews ( again I strongly suspect that it does indeed) or does it result in a less favorable review.
Personally, (and I know YMMV along with others, which is perfectly fine)---the whole aspect of 'accommodation' pricing for reviewers doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[asiufy]

Whether or not the 'accommodation' pricing is a crime is something I suspect we are not in a position to judge. Nonetheless, any time a reviewer receives 'accommodation' pricing...and I suspect that pricing must vary from item to item; it would seem to me prudent that he disclose that fact and allow the reader to gauge for themselves how much that particular aspect might influence their decision to buy based on said review.
While I'm not saying that the Technics review was more or less slanted by this issue than other gear that he has reviewed, I do think that we can never really know this...why-- because it would require that X% in your example be a consistent factor across all gear under review...I don't think we can know this. For example, JH may receive 60% off from Technics, and only 5% off from Continuum etc.,
I also suspect ( shall we say know!) that there are some manufacturer's who refuse to give any accommodation pricing to a reviewer....does this result in their product not getting reviews ( again I strongly suspect that it does indeed) or does it result in a less favorable review.
Personally, (and I know YMMV along with others, which is perfectly fine)---the whole aspect of 'accommodation' pricing for reviewers doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes, you did imply that his impression was colored by the fact that he may or may not get "accommodation pricing".

And frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Reviewers that actually buy product they like are *rare*. It's the ones that never do that you should be mad at.

 

[DaveyF]

Yes, you did imply that his impression was colored by the fact that he may or may not get "accommodation pricing".

And frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Reviewers that actually buy product they like are *rare*. It's the ones that never do that you should be mad at.

You are correct, I am saying that JH's review certainly could be 'colored' by this aspect. Plus, this would apply to all other reviewer's who are doing exactly the same thing...
Why should I be mad at a reviewer who never buys gear at accommodation pricing?? I'm not following you there. Skin in the game ( which is what I think you are getting at) is not really that
important an aspect to me in the reviewing field. A reviewer can easily give his opinion of a piece of gear under review accurately and 'honestly' regardless of whether he owns the gear or not.
In fact, I might question if he owns gear from the same manufacturer and is now reviewing another piece, ( without disclosing that he actually owns the first piece-- and without also disclosing
whether he is getting 'accommodation' pricing on the subject) if he is in fact again biased.
My point here is that I believe it is a bad precedent for a reviewer to be accepting accommodations from manufacturer's of gear that he is reviewing, regardless of the amount, without disclosing
this aspect so that the reader of said review can decide for themselves how much of an impact that disclosure has. That's my point, not whether JH is incorrect in his findings of the Technics TT, just how he got to them. That is unless we believe that 'accommodation' pricing has absolutely NO influence on the outcome of a review.

 

[853guy]

You are correct, I am saying that JH's review certainly could be 'colored' by this aspect. Plus, this would apply to all other reviewer's who are doing exactly the same thing...
Why should I be mad at a reviewer who never buys gear at accommodation pricing?? I'm not following you there. Skin in the game ( which is what I think you are getting at) is not really that
important an aspect to me in the reviewing field. A reviewer can easily give his opinion of a piece of gear under review accurately and 'honestly' regardless of whether he owns the gear or not.
In fact, I might question if he owns gear from the same manufacturer and is now reviewing another piece, ( without disclosing that he actually owns the first piece-- and without also disclosing
whether he is getting 'accommodation' pricing on the subject) if he is in fact again biased.
My point here is that I believe it is a bad precedent for a reviewer to be accepting accommodations from manufacturer's of gear that he is reviewing, regardless of the amount, without disclosing
this aspect so that the reader of said review can decide for themselves how much of an impact that disclosure has. That's my point, not whether JH is incorrect in his findings of the Technics TT, just how he got to them. That is unless we believe that 'accommodation' pricing has absolutely NO influence on the outcome of a review.

Hello DaveyF,

Perhaps this is most easily articulated as: “How much value do you personally give to reviews of audio equipment?”

Reviews, and the reviewers who write them serve many functions - entertainment, insight, analysis, comparison, generation of advertising revenue… Long-term loans, industry accommodated pricing, kick backs, etc. may or may not be happening to the degree we may think or suspect, but none of the above changes anything about whether the reviewer can turn what he/she hears into words, and do so in a way that characterises with some degree of veracity what the component under review actually sounds like.

Even in cases in which the reviewer’s ethics are transparent, and he/she is able to clearly define what it is they hear when playing music through the component in question, they will still only ever be espousing an opinion limited to their perspective, relative to their biases, contextualized by their system and shaped by their motives. If they do their job well, we can only ever be sure of the first three. I personally am not interested in expending energy on the last one.

While it’s true my interest in reviews and those that write them has wained considerably in the last decade or so as I’ve come to know my own preferences and biases, I would suggest the responsibility for how much faith the reader places in the review, the reviewer and the reviewer’s process will remain the readers, and the readers alone.

Take care,

853guy

 

[DaveyF]

853guy, I mostly agree with your points. Although, unlike you, I am a little more concerned about the motives of the reviewer. One of my all time favorite reviewers was HP, unfortunately he was one of the worst examples when it came to his motivations.
So driven was he to have the best gear in his system, (at least what he perceived to be the best at the time) that I believe he would stoop to all kinds of shenanigans to get it. Manufacturers were many times at his mercy!
This, at least IMO, is unacceptable behavior. Which is why I do have some interest in the reviewer’s motive.

 

[853guy]

853guy, I mostly agree with your points. Although, unlike you, I am a little more concerned about the motives of the reviewer. One of my all time favorite reviewers was HP, unfortunately he was one of the worst examples when it came to his motivations.
So driven was he to have the best gear in his system, (at least what he perceived to be the best at the time) that I believe he would stoop to all kinds of shenanigans to get it. Manufacturers were many times at his mercy!
This, at least IMO, is unacceptable behavior. Which is why I do have some interest in the reviewer’s motive.

Hi Davey,

Yes, unfortunately I’ve also heard of HP’s historical penchant for practices that were perhaps self-serving at best, and unethical at worst.

I suppose I try and distinguish between what my responsibility is as an individual who likes to be entertained by reviews but no longer uses them to make purchasing decisions, and the responsibilities of the reviewer, the magazine/blog/site they write for, and the manufacturers who send them gear to review.

To me, there’s a limit to my ability to influence the process, so I try and temper my expectations to understand that while there inevitably may be practices continuing under opacity that if changed might better serve the industry as a whole, my time is perhaps best utilised by purchasing components from manufacturers who operate their business with a high level of transparency (1), share those experiences here, and conduct myself in a way that declares any potential conflict of interest when sharing those experiences.

Beyond that, it’s possible there may already be too many people who want to absolve themselves of responsibility for their purchasing decisions by looking to reviewers and their opinions to reinforce preconceived notions of what a system “should” sound like, take their advice/recommendations without question, and content themselves they’ve appealed to an authority to justify their expenditure.

That there are many logical fallacies associated with that process is also something that's not my responsibility to attempt to influence nor change.

Best!

853guy


(1) For me, this has meant getting to know personally the people behind the company and their local distributor, rather than rely on published reviews, blogs or forum posts.

 

[microstrip]

You do not think that the “accommodation “ pricing has anything to do with his description to procure the piece...??
For instance, his recent acquisition of the Wilson Wamm...which he paid probably a small fraction of the retail price..
When you or other consumers would have to pay retail. That doesn’t play at all into your decision to acquire the piece under review; to me that is a factor that should be disclosed to the readership, even if most ( not all) are probably assuming this event anyway.
(...) (

The SP10 is not yet available, it is not a review, just a short notice on a prototype... And you even want us to guess what he paid for the WAMM that we do not know if he has bought ...

IMHO you fail to understand the Jacob Heilbrunn style - again IMHO he is one the best TAS reviewers. What he writes is independent on accommodation prices, that surely he gets and deserves. He writes on what he enjoys and selects and tells us how it sounds in its system with full descriptions and musical references that we can understand and re-listen in our systems. Informative, well written and entertaining as I appreciate. BTW many reviewers only review products they really like - fortunately JH is surely is one of them. As always, YMMV.

 

[ddk]

You do not think that the “accommodation “ pricing has anything to do with his description to procure the piece...??

Of course not. The better known reputable reviewers are considered industry members and will get accommodation prices similar to dealers for personal, this is the norm. The equipment is often on extended loan to them and they don't have to purchase anything to write a review, when they do it's a sign that they liked the product enough to purchase it and can actually afford paying for it. Industry pricing doesn't mean free!

david

 

[microstrip]

Of course not. The better known reputable reviewers are considered industry members and will get accommodation prices similar to dealers for personal, this is the norm. The equipment is often on extended loan to them and they don't have to purchase anything to write a review, when they do it's a sign that they liked the product enough to purchase it and can actually afford paying for it. Industry pricing doesn't mean free!

david

+1!

Just wrote in bold what I consider the most important words of your post.

 

[asiufy]

The SP10 is not yet available, it is not a review, just a short notice on a prototype... And you even want us to guess what he paid for the WAMM that we do not know if he has bought ...

IMHO you fail to understand the Jacob Heilbrunn style - again IMHO he is one the best TAS reviewers. What he writes is independent on accommodation prices, that surely he gets and deserves. He writes on what he enjoys and selects and tells us how it sounds in its system with full descriptions and musical references that we can understand and re-listen in our systems. Informative, well written and entertaining as I appreciate. BTW many reviewers only review products they really like - fortunately JH is surely is one of them. As always, YMMV.

+1
I like his writing style too.

 

[853guy]

Of course not. The better known reputable reviewers are considered industry members and will get accommodation prices similar to dealers for personal, this is the norm. The equipment is often on extended loan to them and they don't have to purchase anything to write a review, when they do it's a sign that they liked the product enough to purchase it and can actually afford paying for it. Industry pricing doesn't mean free!

david

+1!

Just wrote in bold what I consider the most important words of your post.

Personally, when it comes to hi-fi, I've learned far more from inveterate tinkerers, designers, DIY trial-and-error guys, and manufacturers - i.e. practitioners (like ddk, for instance) - than I have from those whose reputations have been built on writing about the works of others.

But again, that's just me.

Be well, gents.

853guy

 

[DaveyF]

Of course not. The better known reputable reviewers are considered industry members and will get accommodation prices similar to dealers for personal, this is the norm. The equipment is often on extended loan to them and they don't have to purchase anything to write a review, when they do it's a sign that they liked the product enough to purchase it and can actually afford paying for it. Industry pricing doesn't mean free!

david

So, the norm is perfectly acceptable to you....

HP had 'extended' loans to him as well...so extended that some of the poor manufacturer's had to write off the piece, as they never got it back.... that's ok in your books right!

 

[853guy]

Of course not. The better known reputable reviewers are considered industry members and will get accommodation prices similar to dealers for personal, this is the norm. The equipment is often on extended loan to them and they don't have to purchase anything to write a review, when they do it's a sign that they liked the product enough to purchase it and can actually afford paying for it. Industry pricing doesn't mean free!

david

So, the norm is perfectly acceptable to you....

HP had 'extended' loans to him as well...so extended that some of the poor manufacturer's had to write off the piece, as they never got it back.... that's ok in your books right!

Perhaps that's why ddk attempted to preface and contextualize his comments with the word "reputable". I'm guessing ddk will clarify if he needs to, but it seemed clear to me as it was.

Best,

853guy

 

[DaveyF]

Perhaps that's why ddk attempted to preface and contextualize his comments with the word "reputable". I'm guessing ddk will clarify if he needs to, but it seemed clear to me as it was.

Best,

853guy

Perhaps. Except HP was reputable-- until he wasn't.

 

[DaveyF]

This is my last post on this thread.

If some members cannot grasp why 'accommodation' pricing can lead to temptation that does not need to be there, then whatever I say from this point forward is going to fall on death ears.

Enough said.

 

[853guy]

Perhaps. Except HP was reputable-- until he wasn't.

This is my last post on this thread.

If some members cannot grasp why 'accommodation' pricing can lead to temptation that does not need to be there, then whatever I say from this point forward is going to fall on death ears.

Enough said.

I only know what I've read.

One man's abuse of a commonly accepted practice does not necessarily invalidate that practice. Generalising from the particular would be an error in this case.

Best,

853guy

 

[ddk]

This is my last post on this thread.

If some members cannot grasp why 'accommodation' pricing can lead to temptation that does not need to be there, then whatever I say from this point forward is going to fall on death ears.

Enough said.

Before you go what kind of temptation Davey and how? Reviewers aren't resellers and like insiders in any industry they can purchase at a discount for personal use, wether they write about it or not. You forget that the top reputable (by reputable I only mean known professionals with a strong reader base) ones get products offered to them all the time and they're the ones doing the picking, the discount is not a bribe as you imply and in most cases these review samples would be discounted when offered for sale anyway. Also you can't seriously think that high end companies, specially those with the stature of Wilson will risk alienating their dealers by backdooring product through reviewers? Please explain why would a reviewer purchase an item if they didn't really like it.

david

 

[spiritofmusic]

I get the wariness on accommodation pricing, I really do. I’m just a bit unsure why JH is being singled out for criticism re this particular mini review. As far as I can see, so many reviews end w the phrase “I liked it so much, I bought the review sample”. Not just this one.

 

[microstrip]

I get the wariness on accommodation pricing, I really do. I’m just a bit unsure why JH is being singled out for criticism re this particular mini review. As far as I can see, so many reviews end w the phrase “I liked it so much, I bought the review sample”. Not just this one.

Please also note that it is not a mini review, it is a preview of a prototype, and JH did not buy it!