Magazine Ethics - TAS

Would people rather pay, say, $150 a year for a subscription and eliminate all conflicts of interest or continue to get it for less, or free, and deal with these issues?

That's basically the choice, as far as I can tell. You get what you pay for.

FWIW, another two cents.

Reviews, like suggestions and opinions offered on all types of forums, are opinions.  When audiophile reviewers publish their pieces on various components, there are simply too many variables to consider them as anything but, not the least of which are room dimensions & acoustic properties of the sound rooms they are using, the components of the so-called reference systems, individual musical tastes, personal preferences, individual hearing acuity, etc.  Even a publication that strictly followed the journalistic canon of ethics and employed sound scientific principles in blind testing wouldn't possibly be able to account for all of the different variables involved.  Regardless, if you read enough reviews, you can become more familiar with individual reviewers' personal preferences & biases and read between the lines, so to speak.  There are a handful of professional audiophile reviewers and publications whose opinions I place more stock in than others with regard to providing guidance in narrowing down purchase options.  In the end, however, the best reviewer for audiophile toys is always your own ears.

+1 @oldaudiophile 

Reviewers, imperfect and with possible bias favoring sponsors, are the only source of component comparisons that lead to a basis for comparison and value.

Not all reviewers are the same. Some try to give non-bias sonic descriptions. Some simply give only flowery but useless accolades.

Reading between the lines can be valuable. If a seasoned reviewer is pleasantly surprised and/or purchases the reviewed component, it’s a strong indication of great performance/price.

If enough reviews/voices agree about a component’s performance, chances are one can get similar performance in one’s own audio chain- BUT nothing is guaranteed that one will “subjectively” like the Sonics.

Sure in an ideal world it’ll be great to eliminate possible bias in reviews, but until then this is what’s available 

The fact of the matter is that TAS reviews are purely subjective by a bunch of old men who can’t hear squat just like in the other print publication that is in circulation in the US. The only objective reviews that are available are in Stereophile which used to be the exclusive domain of John Atkinson and are now supplemented with test bench reviews from Paul Miller of HiFi News that is now the British sister publication of Stereophile since they’re currently owned by the same publisher AV Tech.

As many here have pointed out the ambiguity of reviews in general the test bench reports seem to be increasingly influenced by the advertisers as the data provided from the tests is less strait forward and harder to decipher when it comes to the percentage of distortion vs output power versus vs frequency for both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. They no longer state the calculated voltage as it translates to watts for a given load and makes it difficult for a layman to determine if an amplifier is actually meeting the manufactures specification for RMS power output from 20Hz to 20Khz for their stated distortion claims. Pretty shady, especially when it comes to tube amplification where output power is always stated by the manufactures at 1Khz only and significantly overstates power output capability. The actual clean power envelope for any tube amp is merely a fraction of this figure RMS from 20Hz - 20Khz.

I just read the RH editorial .  Essentially he argues that he reviews high end stuff that he personally can’t afford, and that in order to be able to evaluate the effect of an individual component, then everything else need stay constant.

  He attempts to address the favoritism that this might induce towards his benefactors by stating that he runs their disfavor by occasionally refusing a long term loan.

  His first point has some logic, but I don’t buy the second point.  While I haven’t read his magazine for a few years I don’t remember to many-if any-negative remarks towards his favorite manufacturers.  It isn’t reasonable to pretend to be not influenced by such largesse