Magazine Ethics - TAS


I found the "From the Editor" piece by Robert Harley, in the most recent issue of TBS (page 16) to be quite interesting.  Clearly some folks have been touching a nerve with this subject.  I found Mr. Harley's response to be professional and enlightening.  I also liked that it answered a question I've had for years.  When I've seen pictures of Harley's personal reference system, I've often thought "wow, that's got to be a million dollars of equipment there.  Did he actually pay for it?"  And now I know.  Scratch that one off the long list of things I do not know.  🤣

bigtwin

@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.