I have to agree with Kal, Sean - Stereophile has bored me to tears many times, as they must do on such occasions, with their detailed accounts of equipment failure and what it took to repair/circumvent the situation. Obviously, there's no way for the reader to know for sure that all of the reported incidents equal all the actual incidents, but given the extent of what's been printed in the mag through the years, there's really no reason for anyone to doubt that they're reporting everything worth mentioning.
As far as the manufacturer personally coming to a reviewer's home to make a fix - or to provide the even more common rendering of set-up assistance - you can legitimately argue those questions both ways, but I can understand the magazine's affirmative policy on this activity as a practical matter, and again, the evidence would seem to indicate that they always disclose such assistance to the reader. But: Does this practice run the risk of unduly influencing the reviewer's opinions (for either better or worse)? I think it certainly can, or at the very least it raises questions of appearances. The most effective way around that issue would probably be the termination of the whole manufacturer gear loan policy - something which could carry many advantages in theory, but which in practice the mags have always claimed they can't afford to do. Whether or not one believes that this claim always rings true - what with the advent of Audiogon among other factors - is another topic.
However, I have a very hard time understanding Stereophile's and the others' condoning of the practice of manufacturers wining and dining reviewers, separate checks or no, you-pay-this-time I-pay-next-time included. It's already impossible to prevent reviewers from being long-time acquaintances of various industry players (and reviewers ought to recuse themselves from covering gear manufactured by such 'friends') - the least the mags could do is draw the line on reviewers junketing around the world to be entertained by company heads. They could send non-reviewing reporters to cover stories on companies and factories, and limit the reviewers to the more impersonal interactions they maintain are necessary to conduct fair and informative reviews.
As far as the manufacturer personally coming to a reviewer's home to make a fix - or to provide the even more common rendering of set-up assistance - you can legitimately argue those questions both ways, but I can understand the magazine's affirmative policy on this activity as a practical matter, and again, the evidence would seem to indicate that they always disclose such assistance to the reader. But: Does this practice run the risk of unduly influencing the reviewer's opinions (for either better or worse)? I think it certainly can, or at the very least it raises questions of appearances. The most effective way around that issue would probably be the termination of the whole manufacturer gear loan policy - something which could carry many advantages in theory, but which in practice the mags have always claimed they can't afford to do. Whether or not one believes that this claim always rings true - what with the advent of Audiogon among other factors - is another topic.
However, I have a very hard time understanding Stereophile's and the others' condoning of the practice of manufacturers wining and dining reviewers, separate checks or no, you-pay-this-time I-pay-next-time included. It's already impossible to prevent reviewers from being long-time acquaintances of various industry players (and reviewers ought to recuse themselves from covering gear manufactured by such 'friends') - the least the mags could do is draw the line on reviewers junketing around the world to be entertained by company heads. They could send non-reviewing reporters to cover stories on companies and factories, and limit the reviewers to the more impersonal interactions they maintain are necessary to conduct fair and informative reviews.