I have reported this before, it is a an old story, but I will repeat it again. A well know high-end magazine from Hong Kong - sorry I do not remember the name anymore, they had great photos and an extraordinary graphical quality - once explained their review policy in an article. The editor got the equipment to be tested and send it to a reviewer he felt that could do a proper review. If the reviewer disliked it, he would follow it to his next choice and this process would go on until some reviewer liked it and wrote the review. If no one (their had about 10 reviewers) liked the equipment it was simply returned to the manufacturer with a letter thanking him for making it available and apologizing that none of the reviewers had a system or knowledge that could do the honors to his equipment.
The pros and cons of manufacturer/dealer/designer participation
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I have reported this before, it is a an old story, but I will repeat it again. A well know high-end magazine from Hong Kong - sorry I do not remember the name anymore, they had great photos and an extraordinary graphical quality - once explained their review policy in an article. The editor got the equipment to be tested and send it to a reviewer he felt that could do a proper review. If the reviewer disliked it, he would follow it to his next choice and this process would go on until some reviewer liked it and wrote the review. If no one (their had about 10 reviewers) liked the equipment it was simply returned to the manufacturer with a letter thanking him for making it available and apologizing that none of the reviewers had a system or knowledge that could do the honors to his equipment.
Good post. But until we get away from adjectives that many would regard as wild exaggeration there will be those on this forum, more pointedly dealers or manufacturers, that attract perpetual criticism.
Just to test this, I opened the first thread today that I came across, and thought might be comparative, to find words equivalent to "new switch A is phenomenally better than previous best switch B".
Unless the reviewer is prepared to write
"old switch B, which most of you own, is phenomenally worse than new switch A, so if you are using switch B you have no idea what you are missing out on {even though, last week, you thought you were using the best}
then the opportunity for criticism will continue.
I think we disagree on this aspect. IMHO stereo audio in general is not systematic and mainly because it includes our preferences, the space used and set up. This is the main reason why negative reviews should be taken with great care by writers - reviewers must understand that 99% of the readers will not understand the limitations of the review and will misinterpret them.
I can only speak for myself of course, and I'm a relative newcomer here.
I wouldn't ask anyone to censor their posts. A negative review can serve notice that I still have room for improvement, kinda like getting a bad grade on the first exam.
At some point early in the process I would hope you'd contact me about any issues. From there, at least three outcomes are possible:
1. We find a solution, which would be the ideal.
2. We don't find a solution but overall it's still a pleasant experience for you.
3. We don't find a solution and overall it's an unpleasant experience for you.
The first two are both "wins" in my book.
At least the Peter A Thread isn't turning into another Peter B thread... 
And yet whenever a review is made that is positive it is splashed all over marketing campaigns and websites as though the results are universal. And user feedback to manufacturers is splashed all over websites when it is positive. What standards are they held to?
One only reads negative comments about products on WBF from non industry types and only when the products are not represented or designed by members of the forum.
So are we to hold only professional reviewers to such a high standard and allow regular audiophile members to say whatever they want about products as long as it’s not about any product represented by a fellow industry expert member?
I mean what would happen if Alon Wolf was a member here and an active participant on this forum? Would people continue to bash Magico products as wildly as they do now?
These are the questions in my mind. This thread has a long way to go before it reaches the candor of the one with PeterB. Perhaps it is better that way
Ah, interesting you mentioned Alon Wolf being a member here; I was just thinking the same last night.
As humans we like to “tribe up” and boast our own, and disavow others. It’s a pit fall now that served our ancestors well. I try but don’t always succeed in speaking about things relative to my preference as opposed to relative to “good” that I think my preferences represent. For example I wouldn’t deny that there are a lot of very happy Magico owners, but they also are not my personal choice.
And I have mentioned something negative about another industry participant before, but as constructive criticism. They didn’t like it, which I understand, but it was entirely honest and I mentioned that I didn’t like a piece of accompanying gear so it wasn’t as if there was no caveat. Still, nothing changes that it’s tough to get negative feedback. Like Duke I try to use it to improve. But I also try to narrow down why it’s negative so I can avoid it in the future. The more you know, the easier you can tell someone whether they’ll like or be able to properly implement what you’ve got.
Some manufacturers may be more guilty about not enough testing equipment in different scenarios, which is their own fault, so perhaps eventually they’ll accept certain feedback. It’s a tough as hell market... I have no idea what else to say but if you can’t figure it out at all, don’t expect to sell forever from shilling coercively.
And I have mentioned something negative about another industry participant before, but as constructive criticism. They didn’t like it, which I understand, but it was entirely honest and I mentioned that I didn’t like a piece of accompanying gear so it wasn’t as if there was no caveat. Still, nothing changes that it’s tough to get negative feedback. Like Duke I try to use it to improve. But I also try to narrow down why it’s negative so I can avoid it in the future. The more you know, the easier you can tell someone whether they’ll like or be able to properly implement what you’ve got.
Some manufacturers may be more guilty about not enough testing equipment in different scenarios, which is their own fault, so perhaps eventually they’ll accept certain feedback. It’s a tough as hell market... I have no idea what else to say but if you can’t figure it out at all, don’t expect to sell forever from shilling coercively.
The answer is obvious: No. And that is a problem either way.
Currently people are indiscriminately "honest" without real knowledge of what Magico speakers really can do outside of suboptimal dealer or show conditions. That is a problem.
If Alon Wolf were a participant here people would hold back on their -- justified or not -- opinions. That would also be a problem.
It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss everyone who dislikes Magico (or anything else) as unknowledgeable or unaware of suboptimal conditions. Certainly we've all made errors in attribution from time to time. But I would tend to regard aberrant feedback as suspect, rather than general consensus. Unless, of course, there are ulterior motives involved ... which is something of a subtheme of this thread.
Point taken, and that is not how I meant it. Of course someone may truly dislike Magico even when they have heard them under optimal conditions. Yet I suspect very few have. Heck, if I would go by what I have heard the last two times at our local dealer I would also think Magico sucks -- big time. But I know better from what I've heard in private homes.
Unless the "general consensus" sucks.
I really do understand how you feel about this Peter. It sucks that we can rave the product so much even put it on a winning pedestal and some can take these comments for commercial benefit but we have to be so damn careful and polite to say when we find them inferior to other products we have tried. Negative commenting a product could be accused of the commentor misusing it. But noone ever accuse the person who raves the product of having a possibly low reference point. A product owner's reluctant in giving negative comment in public is also a personal one : How are you going to sell a $30,000 equipment after you just laid out all its weaknesses. A dilemma especially for big hitters.
Last edited:
There is no doubt that manufacturer / professional reviewer / print or on-line magazine relationships (should we label this the “audio industrial complex”? ) are complex and are subject to potential and actual conflicts of interest and are subject to skepticism by high-end consumers and readers.
I used to wonder myself years ago why such a high fraction of high-end audio reviews are positive. Now I know there is nothing necessarily nefarious there.
I myself am interested in auditioning or reviewing only those components which I have historical positive experience with or theoretical reason to believe I am likely to enjoy. If somebody were to send me a tube amplifier from conrad-johnson (I don’t presently own any conrad-johnson products), and if I am able to assemble properly matched associated components around that amp, it is highly likely that I am going to have net positive impressions of it.
Why? Because I have owned and enjoyed very much conrad-johnson products in the past. Because I like conrad-johnson’s design philosophy. And because I like well-made contemporary-sounding tube amplifiers.
The issue would not be whether I like the amplifier (I’m sure I would like the amplifier, unless it arrived broken). The issue and the challenge and the fun would be trying to understand and discern the pros and cons of this particular cj amplifier versus other tube amplifiers with which I am familiar.
) are complex and are subject to potential and actual conflicts of interest and are subject to skepticism by high-end consumers and readers. I used to wonder myself years ago why such a high fraction of high-end audio reviews are positive. Now I know there is nothing necessarily nefarious there.
I myself am interested in auditioning or reviewing only those components which I have historical positive experience with or theoretical reason to believe I am likely to enjoy. If somebody were to send me a tube amplifier from conrad-johnson (I don’t presently own any conrad-johnson products), and if I am able to assemble properly matched associated components around that amp, it is highly likely that I am going to have net positive impressions of it.
Why? Because I have owned and enjoyed very much conrad-johnson products in the past. Because I like conrad-johnson’s design philosophy. And because I like well-made contemporary-sounding tube amplifiers.
The issue would not be whether I like the amplifier (I’m sure I would like the amplifier, unless it arrived broken). The issue and the challenge and the fun would be trying to understand and discern the pros and cons of this particular cj amplifier versus other tube amplifiers with which I am familiar.
What are some of the products which received significantly negative reviews? I have seen damnation with faint praise from Fremer, but don't recall significantly negative reviews. By the way, he admittedly receives his fair share of freebies. Although, I think the bank put a lien on his house when he purchased DartZeel monoblocks. LOL
Last edited:
I’m sure you can find some snide
remarks to anything competing with
SAT. The older VYGER review was
not exactly flattering.
He was critical of the Kuzma CAR-60. But that is not the review I was thinking of. I will try to remember the significantly negative review I was recalling.
