It is gradually becoming increasingly apparent that user "cd318" has his own agenda that he is enforcing at the same time that he reserves the right to himself to attack others who disagree with him however a major difference is that we don't know what users' "cd318" interest is in the matter which makes it difficult/impossible for readers of this forum to meaningfully assess his "opinions" on matters that he states here with such forcefullness. But I admit comparing Hi-Fi news to pornography is a little bit weird and makes me wonder what he is doing with his Hi-Fi News magazines but of course that is his solitary business and not for us to question challenge criticize or condemn so long as no one is being hurt it is fine.
Publication bias and confounders in product reviews - TAS, Stereophile, Audiogon, etcetera
Folks-
Since I am a research professor at a major medical school in the U.S., I am used to identifying and using statistical measures of such bias in scientific research.
In Japan, I have read that a product reviewer who writes for magazines or websites are paid fees by manufacturers. I have noted that a similar thing may be happening here in the U.S., both reading TAS, Stereophile, etcetera, as well as noticing comments from individuals on this and other websites, many of whom are also dealers of these products.
As an example, I am somewhat of a computer nerd and have been downloading high-resolution audio files for almost a decade. That being said, I have been looking to buy a relatively high-end SACD player for my large collection of CDs and SACDs. I have noted the following:
1. There are few-to-no reviews of DCS players (e.g., Puccini SACD player, somewhat outdated but can be upgraded) and almost no published U.S. reviews of the Marantz SA-10 SACD player that was released about a year ago. In contrast, SACD/CD players including those from Esoteric, Hegel (CD only), Ayre, PS Audio, MBL, and other brands commonly appear in formal reviews, which are all favorable. Does this mean that products which have been reviewed but which are not well-liked by reviewers are not published?;
2. Comments in this and other forums mention that one or another SACD player or other product "must not be that good because they appear often as used equipment for sale..." or something to that effect. This observation may be valid, but could easily be confounded by the number of such products that were, or are, available for sale. The greater the number of products, the greater the likelihood they will appear as used items for sale - it says nothing about the quality of the product. I like to call this the "Ferrari effect", as this manufacturer intentionally limits the number of cars of any model for sale, and the company often only sells to individuals of affluence and/or have purchased cars from them in the past, artificially inflating the value of these cars;
3. Odd statements about the interesting MQA file format, part of a larger problem of a lack of objectivity in the audiophile community. Recently I read in a publication - "MQA is to conventional audio what quantum mechanics was to classical mechanics" - Really? Does this individual know anything about physics? Or am I taking this all too seriously?
I guess I am asking about the degree of bias in these reviews, to what extent are products reviews influenced by the manufacturers and dealers, and where is the objectivity in this domain?
Thanks for listening to my ranting...Gerry
Since I am a research professor at a major medical school in the U.S., I am used to identifying and using statistical measures of such bias in scientific research.
In Japan, I have read that a product reviewer who writes for magazines or websites are paid fees by manufacturers. I have noted that a similar thing may be happening here in the U.S., both reading TAS, Stereophile, etcetera, as well as noticing comments from individuals on this and other websites, many of whom are also dealers of these products.
As an example, I am somewhat of a computer nerd and have been downloading high-resolution audio files for almost a decade. That being said, I have been looking to buy a relatively high-end SACD player for my large collection of CDs and SACDs. I have noted the following:
1. There are few-to-no reviews of DCS players (e.g., Puccini SACD player, somewhat outdated but can be upgraded) and almost no published U.S. reviews of the Marantz SA-10 SACD player that was released about a year ago. In contrast, SACD/CD players including those from Esoteric, Hegel (CD only), Ayre, PS Audio, MBL, and other brands commonly appear in formal reviews, which are all favorable. Does this mean that products which have been reviewed but which are not well-liked by reviewers are not published?;
2. Comments in this and other forums mention that one or another SACD player or other product "must not be that good because they appear often as used equipment for sale..." or something to that effect. This observation may be valid, but could easily be confounded by the number of such products that were, or are, available for sale. The greater the number of products, the greater the likelihood they will appear as used items for sale - it says nothing about the quality of the product. I like to call this the "Ferrari effect", as this manufacturer intentionally limits the number of cars of any model for sale, and the company often only sells to individuals of affluence and/or have purchased cars from them in the past, artificially inflating the value of these cars;
3. Odd statements about the interesting MQA file format, part of a larger problem of a lack of objectivity in the audiophile community. Recently I read in a publication - "MQA is to conventional audio what quantum mechanics was to classical mechanics" - Really? Does this individual know anything about physics? Or am I taking this all too seriously?
I guess I am asking about the degree of bias in these reviews, to what extent are products reviews influenced by the manufacturers and dealers, and where is the objectivity in this domain?
Thanks for listening to my ranting...Gerry
Showing 4 responses by clearthink
twoleftears"You only need to look at the last few months' issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound to see a multi-pronged and significant push for MQA." I do not get those publications I do not believe in my country so it would be helpfull if some of those here who criticize this "push" would provide some examples of what they find objectionable because otherwise it is hard to follow your line of reasoning about the audiophile press. |
Well I just think it is funny that so many here seem to complain about the "big push" for MQA by the audiophile press but they give no examples of specific articles or authors but i guess it is like some of the other matters here on Audiogon where people make claims and then expect others to proof they're claims for them! I think it is also funny that people are complaining about what the audiophile press is writing about because after all they are magazines for audiophiles what do you want them to write about? Maybe what you want is for them to get into the topics you explore here like telling others' that they are deluded or snakeoil salesmen or matters of politics and economics would that be better for you?? |
cj1965Oh puhleeeeeze. Spend five minutes of your time Googling Stereophile and MQA and you'll have all the proof of a "push" that you need. Nobody is going to waste time giving you proof of the obvious. If you're that lazy and you don't feel like looking for yourself at what most everyone here has seen and talked about - don't expect any of us to serve it up to you on a silver platter. It's what "objectivists " refer to as "common knowledge". That is so funny first you so-called "objectivists" say that we have to proof what you think because what we think is so unusual now you say we have to proof what you think because it is so obvious you want it both ways! Why not just say "I am an objectivist I am a scientist I know what I am talking about you are lazy go find you're own proof for everything." That is just crazy. |