The pros and cons of manufacturer/dealer/designer participation
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Because there was no way to tell that the reviewer wasn't being truthful. @bonzo75 asked if he was successful; that depends IMO. He was successful in taking down someone that didn't bow to his will. But OTOH he's not been in the scene for many years. I've not mentioned a name simply because this was a long time ago and while I'm pretty sure I still remember his name, it would be nice to confirm it first.
Some of the other events I've mentioned I can name names pretty easily. And if someone wanted to sort out who I've been talking about it shouldn't be that hard to sort out, this being the Internet and all.
Human nature being what it is, if there are humans involved there's politics too no matter the field of endeavor.
For this reason and due to direct experience in the matter no-one is going to convince me that a negative review is ethical! About 30 years ago a speaker manufacturer drove out to our place from the east coast somewhere to show off his speaker to us. IMO it was terrible. I really didn't want to say anything to him as its not my way to offer insults if I can possibly avoid it. Later I saw the same speaker in a Listener magazine where it was taken to task over nearly everything wrong I had heard in it. Even though I was in agreement with what was written, I still felt the review should never have seen the light of day. If I had been in the reviewer's shoes I would have simply told the the designer that he has more work to do- that it 'seems promising but the promise is not yet fulfilled'. I know he spent a lot of money on that project and it was probably foolish for him to submit the product for review so early on it its design cycle. But the result of the review is the designer got wiped out.
He wasn't IMO a bad person. Did he deserve to get wiped out?
Being that I personally admired good designers it was imperative to me that when I finally submitted something for review that it would hold up under scrutiny. The one time it didn't was something I'll never forget- the reviewer liked the product so much he bought it. But we didn't advertise, so in a nutshell he was instructed to write something negative. After that he sold the unit (since he could no longer justify owning it after writing what he did). The new owner found it full of dead tubes; upon replacement with the originals we supplied (which were included in that sale) the unit worked perfectly. Now at this point I don't bear the reviewer any ill will; that was a long time ago and the simple matter is people make mistakes. But if not instructed by the editor of the magazine to write something negative he probably would not have, but as a junior member of the staff when the management tells you to do something you do it. Or maybe don't get to write for that magazine anymore. What I am saying here is that we're not just talking about reviewers, we are also talking about organizations and its a simple fact that to survive they all have to produce content. So they are often hungry for reviews and if the organization is dicey this could mean that the ethical issues get pushed aside.
Some more examples of why negative reviews are unethical:
* the product may have been malfunctioning possibly due to shipping damage
* the reviewer might not have it set up correctly
* the reviewer might have tampered with the product thinking he was helping out
* the reviewer might have a bias - such as 'doesn't like bass' (I experienced that one with a classical music reviewer) or doesn't like tubes or doesn't like solid state
* in the case of measurements the measurements may have been done incorrectly. I've experienced this on three occasions. In only one case was I able to get the review pulled prior to publication; that was in Glass Audio and I simply told Ed Dell that we would reveal that the measurement error was one speaker terminal being inadvertently grounded on the test bench, which causes our amps to have much higher distortion. But in the two other cases even when confronted with information like this the organizations proceeded anyway probably so they didn't have to redo their layouts.
A side comment: all things electrical obey Ohm's Law. It is therefore unusual that something like a power cord would not have some sort of effect. In fact they do and the results are easily measured; it should be no surprise that it can be audible too.
So all audio reviews should be positive or simply not published, that's great.
An easy question that can only be answered by PMs ... Sorry, I am not interested in in what is the best audio gossip.
My point is that people are asking for something almost impossible in the high-end. But yes, we can always dream.
An easy question that can only be answered by PMs ... Sorry, I am not interested in in what is the best audio gossip.
and my point is that I am not feeling encouraged to share negative feedback
We can say that after such extensive research we have created bias enough to be sure that it would be a winner. I have no doubt that this happens to me - I only try products that I have a predisposition to like, I do not pick random equipment or products I disbelief.
Actually, I have long since maintained we should try to visit people who have components or systems we do not believe in, to challenge our beliefs. One of my earliest trips to Marty was because he had a DRC system and like many I did not believe in it. I started to visit analog systems because at that time I was like Al, not appreciating the virtues of analog. I did not like many apogees initially, as I had heard badly set up ones, and even cancelled my first visit to Christoph. After that I said you know what, supposed to be a great speaker, so let's go listen to a full range to give it one last chance. And was blown away. Many such stories. So if you go against your belief, you can find some real gems
I feel I am beginning to sound like a broken record. An unethical review is unacceptable whether it is positive or negative. The fact that a review is negative does not inherently make a review unethical.
And conversely, the fact that a review is positive does not inherently make a review ethical.
The difference to an audio component is that the inherent performance or content of a book, movie or car lies within itself. The expression of the inherent performance of an audio component occurs through a system and thus is dependent on it.
That on all this are overlaid viewpoints, preferences, tastes and biases of the reviewer is a separate matter.
Steve Marsh, a reviewer at 6moons whom I know well, once wrote a negative review about some small 'sound plugs' that you stick to the wall and which are supposed to enhance your soundstage. Some voodoo stuff. I am most certain that his review was very diligent and highly ethical in approach.
I think it is interesting that the discussion has shifted away from member feedback and opinions about products on the forum and toward professional reviews and why they are usually positive, and that negative reviews are unethical and why.
David, Yes, this is true and we read about such cases here. Were those products represented by fellow members of WBF?
Kedar, I know how you feel. We are being told it is unethical, at least for professionals. The standard must surely be lower for audiophile forum members who simply try products in their systems and want to share their experiences, but I don't know anymore. It seems that even non professionals are also being asked to meet a pretty high standard before they say anything negative. I was told I don't know what I'm doing, that I am biased against the product, and that my not being impressed with the product had been expected. All behind the scenes. I shutter to think what might have been written publicly about me and my reasons for returning a product.
David, Yes, this is true and we read about such cases here. Were those products represented by fellow members of WBF?
Kedar, I know how you feel. We are being told it is unethical, at least for professionals. The standard must surely be lower for audiophile forum members who simply try products in their systems and want to share their experiences, but I don't know anymore. It seems that even non professionals are also being asked to meet a pretty high standard before they say anything negative. I was told I don't know what I'm doing, that I am biased against the product, and that my not being impressed with the product had been expected. All behind the scenes. I shutter to think what might have been written publicly about me and my reasons for returning a product.
Al M.,
I was persuaded we were debating audio equipment, not tweaks. IMHO introducing voodoo or pseudo-voodoo in this thread will immediately affect the signal to noise ratio and create flames very soon. Just MHO, YMMV.
Fransisco, do you consider acoustic room treatments, fancy power cords, and isolation devices to be tweaks? Do we need to define what this discussion can be about? My OP mentioned products designed, manufactured, sold, or otherwise represented by industry reps who are also members here at WBF.
It is not about audiophile forum members who want to try something and narrate their experiences. It is about how open they are to accepting they haven't had an optimum experience. Personally I think one has to know what the benchmark sound is for a particular product before he tries it in his own system to know if it is close to that sound in his system
It seems to me that is a fair standard
I do not find such pressure on me. I have often addressed what I find good or poor matches, people ignore, agree or disagree with me, but never got any PMs asking me to restrain from posting my opinion.
Last edited:
IMHO some acoustic treatment are tweaks, others are not - perhaps they should not be called acoustic room treatments.
Sometimes the separation is not clear.Power cords and isolation devices are surely tweaks.
YMMV in such matters.
That's the disturbing part. Instead of being told to be biased against the product or not knowing what you're doing (happened to me too), the manufacturer or distributor could simply have conceded that, because your priorities are different, you are listening for other things than other people with positive opinions about the product, and/or that the component objectively might have behaved differently in your system, and that perhaps you might have a point. But no, this is automatically excluded in a self-defensive manner, and it seems with a certain lack of self-reflection.
