Associated equipment, long term loans etc

I think all the questions you mention are pretty openly answered in Stereophile and TAS.  Do people want a bold chart listing on it so they don't have to read through the reviews.  I know many stereophile reviewers openly tell what equipment they bought example Sam Telling many times have mentioned what he ended up buying so do many stereophile reviewers who own Ayre C5Xe-mp SACD player and other components, I have read this and many other comments like this over the years through out the reviews.  JV and Robert Harley openly state when the components came in and when they were returned....example Esoteric, Quad, Spectral...etc...all were mentioned in blogs and in reviewes when they got them and roughly when it was returned.  So I don't see the point of this data.  RH, JV, JH, PS and others keep some components long term that are of reference caliber and compare whats coming in at that time at that reference point.  Its impossible for anyone to compare everysingle product with every combination possible.  And while reading over the years from what I understood, they have NEVER SAID 'YOU SHOULD GO AND BUY SO AND SO BECAUSE I THINK ITS BEST"....they always say that in their room and with the specific combo how it sounds and the rest is up to the listener.  I have auditioned so many different components now that I truely believe that its all taste, I have loved and hated many components and from all different reviewers.  Someone who is so pissed at RH and JV and others that they don't buy the reference system and therefore their view is tainted should go test the speakers in question themselves.  If you are concerned about Magico VS. Wilson VS. Kharma etc..... and you have so much money to look into these types of products, I am certain that someone with that kind of money can make most any kind of arrangements and travel plans to test these products with different combinations. And use your own taste and judgement and BUY what sounds best to you.  There are only 5 to 10 total products generally in each price bracket and can easily be tested by the rich or even average audiophiles.  I surley traveled and auditioned all kinds of products even wilson, even though I was looking in under 10K range.  TAS and Stereophile reviewers are not obligated to the world to satisfy everyone.  They go hunt a few great things in each catagory and the rest is up to the buyer.  If you cant even select between such few options...then how lazy is that?  Do people ever get so confused when buying a car? and whats the best car?  you just go look up reviews in your price bracket of the best 4 or 5, go test drive and buy the dam thing you like rather than whining and crying....... I don't think this blog deserves any further discussion to be honest. And yes it gives manufacturers an advantage but who cares this world is not fair, and how many people realy buy top of the line wilson, and focal....im curious to know that.....I think most people who complain just nit pick on these things and cant afford squat at that level....(most people I mean not pointing to any one specific person).  The world of Academics, politics, buisness, entertainment,.......nothing runs based on clear unbias fair principles......Its all competition.....and if some products can be sent into limelight then thats what it is......

• Login or register to post comments

I have written on this subject several times, most recently in From the Editor in Issue 169. To answer Janpe's question directly, I own absolutely none of my system, and he should assume that any products listed in Associated Equipment are on loan.
 
Here's the text of that editorial.
A recent post on the reader forum at our Web site AVguide.com (main thread: “High-End Audio Industry;” sub-thread: “Reviewers, Manufacturers, and Prices”) suggests that the reviewing process is somehow corrupt because reviewers routinely accept long-term equipment loans. The forum-poster posits that reviewers provide favorably biased coverage to those manufacturers willing to leave the equipment in the reviewer’s home for an extended period.
 
            I can see how this system might at first glance seem suspect. But a more considered and thoughtful analysis suggests that long-term equipment loans are not only essential to delivering accurate reviews, but serve the readers’ best interests. Moreover, a little insight into the reality of the relationship between reviewers, manufacturers, and review samples reveals that no favoritism or bias could possibly exist.
 
            I start with the fundamental quandary that long-term loans solve: Reviewers need reference-quality equipment to accurately judge the component under review—reference gear that they couldn’t possibly afford to buy. It would be a great disservice to everyone involved (particularly readers) if reviewers tried to evaluate a piece of equipment in a system whose colorations obscured the qualities of the component under test. How could one evaluate a top-notch digital front-end, for example, if that front end were driving a low-resolution, less-than-transparent preamplifier and power amplifier? The greater the review system’s transparency, the more precise, detailed, and accurate the description of the component under review. Moreover, reviewers need access to the latest gear with which to make comparisons to the product being evaluated. Readers would not expect us to compare a new power amplifier to what we considered the reference five years ago. It’s simply impossible for reviewers to continually buy the latest reference-quality components—in every product category—so that we can do our jobs.
 
            Long-term loans also benefit the reader in that they alert the reader to those products the reviewer believes to be of reference quality. If you see a product listed under a reviewer’s Associated Components month after month, you can be assured that the product is special. We’re exposed to a wide variety of gear; only the crème de la crème remains in the reference system. Sharp-eyed readers can identify the truly exceptional products among all those that pass through our listening rooms.
 
            But what about the forum-poster’s assertion that this system is ripe for corruption? Do reviewers really give overly favorable assessments to those companies who agree to lend the equipment for months or even a few years?
 
Absolutely not, and here’s why. The reality is that reviewers have access to long-term loans on just about any product they want. I could pick up the phone right now and have virtually any piece of high-end audio equipment delivered to my home for an indefinite period. I don’t say that in a boastful way; it’s just the reality of the industry (which I believe is far too review-driven). In fact, there’s often a conflict with a manufacturer when a reviewer wants to return the gear; the manufacturer would rather see it stay in the reference system—and have the product mentioned every month. With reviewers having access to nearly any piece of equipment, there’s no incentive to provide biased coverage in a quid pro quo arrangement. Furthermore, why would a reviewer want to keep in his system any product that he or she didn’t believe was truly of reference quality? Remember that we don’t just use our systems as test beds for reviewing; our hi-fi systems also provide us with musical enjoyment when we’re not specifically conducting listening evaluations (which should be most of the time).
 
            A key idea to making this system work is that the product is eventually returned to the manufacturer, either when the manufacturer wants it back, the product is discontinued, or when the reviewer is ready to move on to another product.
 
            There will always be a few cynics who see this system as fundamentally corrupt, but the fact remains that long-term equipment loans are not only a win-win-win arrangement for readers, manufacturers, and reviewers, but essential to publishing accurate and informed product reviews.

• Login or register to post comments

I think this all a tempest in a teapot.
It is totally unreasonable to expect a reviewer to own the equipment he reviews or likes - actually, I would tend to view it as counterproductive, if anything. I am happy as long as they list what ancillary equipment is used for a review. I think that the biggest indication is when a reviewer keeps a piece of gear in his reference system month after month. Noone wants to be saddled with a lousy piece of gear, even if they can keep it for ages.
 
 

• Login or register to post comments

I have long considered the idea of including the status of associated equipment (and even including associated equipment, something Hi-Fi+ currently does not publish as a separate entity from the main words). I have resisted the concept thus far for two reasons:
 
1) Readers place an unnecessarily high weighting on products that are owned, rather than loaned
 
2) It can potentially present a two-tier rating for reviewers, with those who own their equipment earning more praise than those who loan
 
Starting with the second point first, the UK has several full-time reviewers. These reviewers have to cover every eventuality, from super-budget equipment to uber-high-end gear and everything in between. Their reference points need to be constantly updated and the ability to do that precludes keeping products for the long-term, whether purchased or loaned. They do get to cover a great number of products in the average year and their conclusions are born out of a huge amount of experience. However, because many either do not own their equipment or own equipment that is no longer actively used in the review process, their wealth of experience could be considered less important than when they last bought stuff. On the other hand, someone who perhaps reviews one or two products a year, but who bought the majority of their system gets a stronger weighting simply because they pay for what they play.
 
When in the past I have worked for magazines that like to discuss ownership status, I have been caught out by products that I have listed as being bought having a weighting far beyond their significance because I owned them at one time or another. This includes people ignoring my recommendations on products I could not afford (even at accommodation prices) as not being as significant as my "I own it" recommendations. This, I feel, leads to absurd conclusions based on the "I own it" statement; if I were a car reviewer and drove a Honda S2000 (because that's all I could afford), does that mean my review of a Ferrari (that I could never afford) really means a Honda S2000 is the better car?  
 
Ultimately, I think there's no right way to do this. If a reviewer buys at accommodation prices and keeps their products for the long-term, their reference system is 'staid' and 'out-dated' and their support of manufacturers in the system is 'partisanship'. If a reviewer buys at accommodation prices and keeps changing their products, they are 'profiteering' from their status as reviewer. If reviewers buy at full retail, their own price limits very quickly dictate the scope of the magazine. If they list long-term loan products, they are 'sponsored' by the manufacturers loaning the products. None of these cases are, in fact, true, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
 
 

• Login or register to post comments