Magazine Ethics - TAS

I'm glad Jay called these reviewers/audio magazines out on his multiple YT videos. I've subscribed to all of these for decades and they have been useless for almost as long. Bottomline, all they are are are an extension of the manufacturer to promote their product being reviewed. These magazines do a terrible job on rating products because every product being reviewed is "the best", "my system has never sounded this good", on and on. TAS mentioned a couple of issues ago that he was helping some clients in picking audio products. I'm sorry but these reviewers would be the last people I would ask. Every product can't be the best, there is on;t 1 best. Look at some of the magazines awards: they have multiple bests for ultra high end speaker. There can only be 1 best product.

If I would go to any magazine with a request to tell me what the best product for me to buy that does this function, in this size room, treated or untreated, with this equipment I have, they couldn't give me 1 product. Every year, the car magazines would have "performance car of the year" or "best truck of the year", etc.. At the end of this review, there is 1 BEST, 1-2nd place, 1-3rd place, and the rest "participating" vehicles. So if I was interested in a performance type car, I can go to 1 issue for the past few decades and see which car was their best for that year. Audio, no way! Also, audio magazines always claim the best is the most expensive, car "awards of the year", almost never.

If a manufacturer would give me a product to use for a while, or forever, you bet the reviewer would be partial to this product, this is because they are human. When I worked for high tech buying million dollar things, I could not receive any swag/gifts from a manufacturer or I would have to throw them out of the bidding process. Nothing over $25 from a manufacturer. Now you have reviewers with hundreds of thousands of $$$ worth of "borrowed" equipment, you can't tell me there isn't any feelings toward that equipment or manufacturer!!

I mentioned earlier that reviewers are just a megaphone for the manufacturer, and why do I say that? There are countless reviewers where the manufacturer claims they have "special memory" or "special xxxxx", or they come up with a new acronym, and the reviewer eats this up without verifying any of it. A competent reviewer (like they do in automobile reviews) should verify this, question the manufacturer or even call the manufacturer out for BS, but they haven't.

1 more thing: the audio magazines should stop lying to us telling us the high end audio manufacturers are doing fine financially when its obvious, many aren't. For example: Auralic, MBL,Dartzeel, Classe, Audio Research, and others. There are consequences of buying gear from a company that is having financial issues because who will support the product, if they go under? The value of the product will tank! Bring up these companies when you know about them because this would help your subscribers greatly if they are going to spend big $$$.

What would the marketplace be like if we didn’t have the glossy magazines providing friendly reviews of lots of gear? I suspect it would be a much smaller marketplace with fewer manufacturers and less innovation. Probably more expensive too.

Yes, the reviewers are subjective and the ethics standards are suspect and perhaps even should be criticized. But I’ve yet to read of a solution that would be better for as consumers in sum. If they don’t create demand - our hobby shrinks.

I personally find it helpful to read reviews with that understanding and find humor when it is overly effusive. (Just how many “veils” can be lifted?) But it introduces me to gear I might want to consider. That is its purpose and absent these resources, I have less choice. And perhaps less choice at more cost, too.

@pprocter - agreed. There are no complete dogs anymore. Most equipment is pretty good at the job at hand and evaluating quality seems entirely subjective best to me. Accordingly, a completely negative review is not going to appear in print. And even gear that arrives with defects is likely to get a pass as the reviewer would inform the manufacturer and they’ll have the review stopped for fear of financial harm.

@hce1 - agreed. If a reviewer keeps the equipment on loan as a reference, that is a very good sign they like the equipment. Goodlistening64 - fair points, but gear doesn’t arrive under a Christmas tree. Reviewers reach out to ask for the equipment to review because they’re interested in it. Arrangements are made beforehand on what will be reviewed. Therefore, if they then agree to a long-term loan - this is because they like the equipment.

@p05129 - you make some very good points but I feel it fair to point out that Jay himself is a reviewer and is pushing gear with much greater bias than the magazines as his business model requires both clicks and selling the gear he acquires. He necessarily helps create demand for the high end gear he is a clearinghouse for.

To your final point - I would agree that it would be helpful to consumer to know who is financially under pressure, but this would be self fulfilling and perhaps tip a manufacturer from challenged but still making it, to collapsing, thereby creating significant legal risk for any publication who suggested it. Regardless, manufacturers don’t broadcast to anyone except insiders what their financial situation is for the reasons above. I highly doubt the magazines have more insight into who’s strong and who’s weak than most of us.

Wow...read some of the comments from a Positive Feedback review in this blog.

https://www.soundsofsilence.com/audiomica-cristal-silver-signature-speaker-cables-and-veroni-silver-signature-balanced-interconnects-review/

@rsf507 

Wow indeed. Really bad optics on that review. To be fair - accommodation pricing doesn’t mean free as implied by some of the comments, but it certainly does imply some form of pay to play.