Magazine Ethics - TAS

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.

P05129:

I really appreciate your comments re: reviewers. I stopped my subscriptions >15+ years ago. Your comment about diminishing value jolted me as I just went all MBL pre/monoblocks for my Ref 6SE/Manley 250W monoblocks! I talked to various dealers who said the were not dumping the MBL product line nor having fire sales. I purchased MBL speakers about two yrs ago and switched to capitalize on the incredible system synergy. I really hope the company's value does not tank. However my appreciation for the "house sound" surely won't. Once again I appreciate your post.

@p05129 

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. 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!!

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.

Could be your golden ears could determine the value of a piece of gear's sonics after only a cursory few minutes or hours and know how it's going to work out over the long haul. A reviewer may spend many months or more actively listening to and evaluating a product's positive and negative attributes before crafting a review for publication. It also has to go by the editor in charge and yes, the publication would prefer that the comments would reflect a positive light on their advertisers' wares who are paying for the visibility advertising space provides but at the same time you'll find that online reviewers and print publications alike will publicly refuse to publish a negative review of a product they've evaluated since they believe the time and space and expense would be better utilized to cover the good stuff! You should also remember that the circulation of any of these publications may only reach tens of thousands at most because audiophiles make up a nearly infinitesimally small part of the population in general.

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.

Potential vendors submit samples and sample lots, all the time that have to be evaluated by the engineering depart, quality control in which they are functionally tested in whatever product line they're intended for to guarantee that they'll be fit for purpose, reliability and cost effectiveness and usually for keeps.

Vendors always wine and dine and present gifts to their potential customers as well, all as part of the negotiating process. What world did you grow up in that wheeling and dealing isn't part of everyday commerce?

"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."

Did you find out about these company's dubious futures by reading audio magazines? I know I did.

Funny you can't be objective about being subjective.