Why negative reviews can be unethical and misleading: 10audio.com

[Kingrex]

What are you guys talking about now. Gryphon or Atmasphere. The review was linked to Mikes Audioshark.
Did Mike do the review and pull it or did some reviewer named Jerry use his forum as a portal to post.

 

[Kingsrule]

I believe this report is true. A person who was there told me the incident is true.

I promised the person who was there who told me about the incident that I would not disclose the name of the reviewer.

If this is confirmed true the reviewer should be revealed......

 

[bonzo75]

What are you guys talking about now. Gryphon or Atmasphere. The review was linked to Mikes Audioshark.
Did Mike do the review and pull it or did some reviewer named Jerry use his forum as a portal to post.

The Gryphon review being referred to is from decades ago by TAS. No connection with the 10 audio review

 

[Atmasphere]

What you said about 10audio maybe true. I have no way nor am interested to verify it. However, I can’t agree with you that one can’t publish a bad review. There are many intrinsically bad design products. We are as consumers want honest reviews.

Yes, we do. The best way to deal with a product that is bad if you are a reviewer is to send it back with no published mention of it. The only thing you have to sort out then is if a good review is really honest or not. The point of it though is to put it on your radar- if its never mentioned its not on your radar.

I would go even further: be suspicious of any review, in particular the listening part and conclusion.

This.

I have a different perspective, Ralph. Readers should be careful about not just the reviews they read but the reviewer and the Web site (aka publisher) that publishes the review. Where problems can arise is when the reviewer is also the editor and the publisher, meaning there is no third-party check or vetting of the review prior to publication.

Normally the publisher has a keen interest in preserving the value of his asset - the Web site -- and recognizes that it is not in his interest to publish 'sketchy' reviews. While a controversial review may gain momentary attention, unless it is true and done in good faith, the publisher will suffer in the long run if his site gains a reputation for publishing sketchy reviews as advertisers and manufacturers shy away from it.

Additionally, a review should be given to the manufacturer or at least the distributor to assure the review is technically accurate before it is published. The sonic descriptions and conclusion are sacrosanct, remaining outside the influence of any third party -- typically the editor assures this. I will also say it is the manufacturer's responsibility to vet the site and the reviewer before turning over equipment for review. I understand that is not the case where a self-published reviewer obtains a component from someone other than the manufacturer and writes about it. That should be a strong clue to readers to be immediately suspicious of the review.

I know of another major high-end manufacturer who had a bad experience with that same site and author. It was slightly different as the manufacturer sent the equipment themselves. Personally I think the site is a joke, a tabloid, and to be avoided. As I"ve said before, anyone with a domain name and an HTML editor can be an audio reviewer -- be careful who you read.

A 'bad review' from a legitimate reviewer and legitimate publisher, if the review is truly expository, should remain just what other reviews are: another data point. It is highly recommended to seek out more than a single review of a product.

We're on exactly the same page with this. I don't think we differ at all on what you wrote here. I can add a bit: when you have someone do what happened in this case, they take a credibility risk if every other review of the same product runs counter. So they had better be spot on!

It looks like the review has been deleted.

Hmm. I bet the wayback machine could find it. People either forget its archiving the web or don't know about it.
Edit: the wayback machine found it right away.

Dear @Atmasphere,
If he had written a very good review, would you still make the same claims and accusations, or would you thank him instead?

I did thank him for the initial glowing reviews. Its common courtesy. But prior to any review, I try to vet the reviewer in any way I can; the organization he works for, what equipment he has that is compatible and so on. By doing my due diligence (part of which came for this early mistake when I was young and stupid) I've avoided bad reviews. Before any of our products have gone to review, they've already been vetted by customers. We get a lot of feedback and of course we're audiophiles too so we know how our equipment performs.

I think this is an interesting topic, but I think maybe we should keep this thread focused on Ralph's allegations and the 10Audio review. I would love for you to start a new thread about the specific topic you raise.

Actually @sbnx makes an excellent point and prior to the proliferation of YT, if you wanted to 'hang a shingle' you did it with your own audio review website.

If this is actually true it would indeed be a low point of the high end audio industry .
Very sad indeed .
I wouldnt talk to that reviewer / magazine ever again

It wasn't the magazine's fault. Its probably mine! I should have reported that to someone but I kept it to myself for some reason that doesn't make sense to me now. I probably should have confronted the guy when it happened. It would not take much of a sleuth to sort out who the reviewer was.

Fortunately in my experience this sort of thing with reviewers is rare. Most of them I've encountered seem really motivated to be on the up and up.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What are you guys talking about now. Gryphon or Atmasphere. The review was linked to Mikes Audioshark.
Did Mike do the review and pull it or did some reviewer named Jerry use his forum as a portal to post.

My understanding is that Jerry Seigel wrote the review and posted the review on his review site, 10Audio.

 

[Ron Resnick]

If this is confirmed true the reviewer should be revealed......

Nope -- not by me. A lot of people tell me a lot of things precisely because they know I keep confidences.

 

[Atmasphere]

Nope -- not by me. A lot of people tell me a lot of things precisely because they know I keep confidences.

I appreciate that. In my case I was there when it happened and no-one has said to me 'keep this quiet'.

Right now I am wondering if its ethical to do so. That Gryphon amp in question IIRC cost about $20,000 and that was 25-30 years ago. At any rate the reviewer in question left TAS shortly after. I don't recall if 'ejected from' is a more accurate phrase.

 

[JiminGa]

The Gryphon review being referred to is from decades ago by TAS. No connection with the 10 audio review

I heard about the TAS/Flemming (Gryphon) situation from someone shortly after it happend. I’m told (can’t confirm) that years later they ran into each other and the reviewer said something like ‘ I hope that didn’t hurt you too much’ to which Flemming replied ‘ if I ripped off your arm I hope that wouldn’t hurt you too much’. Not sure it’s true but it’s fun to think about. The review really did kill Gryphon for a decade here in the U.S.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I just sent this email to the email address on Jerry's website:

Dear Jerry,

I hope this finds you very well!

There has been some discussion on WhatsBestForum.com and on YouTube about your review of the Atma-Sphere Class D amplifier.

I am wondering why this review appears to have been deleted from your website?

Have a good weekend!

Thank you.

Best wishes,

Ron Resnick
[telephone number]

Jerry replied very kindly and candidly to my question to him via email about the deletion of the Atma-Sphere review by 10Audio. Jerry wrote that he "may repost the review at a later time."

Jerry pointed me to a disclosure on his website:

These reviews are of equipment that I have either owned or had in the system for an extended period of time.

 

[PeterA]

Hmm. I bet the wayback machine could find it. People either forget its archiving the web or don't know about it.
Edit: the wayback machine found it right away.

Ralph, since you put a link to the review in the OP, and it was subsequently deleted before I had a chance to read it, would you care to post it now here from Your Wayback Machine search results?

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, since you put a link to the review in the OP, and it was subsequently deleted before I had a chance to read it, would you care to post it now here from Your Wayback Machine search results?

No- sorry- kinda rubs me the wrong way if you know what I mean.
If you go to the wayback machine link I provided earlier and put the website name in question in it, you get a line of activity shown in terms of years. The latest snapshot is from August, click on that and then the latest timestamp that occurs in the box that appears. The site will then be rendered. You'll notice that the wayback machine also asks you for a donation. Like wikipedia, this is one that's worthy of support.

 

[PeterA]

No- sorry- kinda rubs me the wrong way if you know what I mean.
If you go to the wayback machine link I provided earlier and put the website name in question in it, you get a line of activity shown in terms of years. The latest snapshot is from August, click on that and then the latest timestamp that occurs in the box that appears. The site will then be rendered. You'll notice that the wayback machine also asks you for a donation. Like wikipedia, this is one that's worthy of support.

Thanks, Ralph. I tried and clicked on the review for your amplifiers and it’s been removed. The other reviews are there accessible using the process you suggest.

 

[Atmasphere]

Thanks, Ralph. I tried and clicked on the review for your amplifiers and it’s been removed. The other reviews are there accessible using the process you suggest.

I took a look- no-one has the ability to remove it from the past- the wayback machine never archived in the first place.

 

[Kingrex]

Jerry sounds like a Jackass. Maybe I will drop a bomb later. And he owns the gear. Thats a load of diversion. He should say he did not get it through authorized channels. It's an Ebay special. Thats a more accurate description.

 

[Tangram]

I’m a little surprised a guy who’s been at this since 1997 would make such a goof. The problem with these sorts of threads is we rarely hear from both sides.

 

[Argonaut]

Why Is WBF providing oxygen to this less than edifying and potentially litigious POOS !?!?

 

[Kingrex]

Why Is WBF providing oxygen to this less than edifying and potentially litigious POOS !?!?

Because the Dartzeel thread was closed.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

Why Is WBF providing oxygen to this less than edifying and potentially litigious POOS !?!?

What ambulance chaser would litigate this?.

 

[tima]

Jerry replied very kindly and candidly to my question to him via email about the deletion of the Atma-Sphere review by 10Audio. Jerry wrote that he "may repost the review at a later time."

Jerry pointed me to a disclosure on his website:

These reviews are of equipment that I have either owned or had in the system for an extended period of time.

Ron, why are you so keen to bring this controversy here?

 

[agisthos]

The actions of 10audio stand on their own as bad enough, but then calls for no bad reviews is ridiculous and takes away from your argument.