Potential conflict
rwortman -- Sat, 02/13/2010 - 11:13
I think it might be good to see how much of your systems you spent your own money on and how much is on indefinite loan from a manufacturer. With all due respect, it is probably unlikely you are going to say anything too derogatory about a manufacters other products if you have one of their big buck products in you system and don't want to give it up.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
We've gone over this one in other threads. I'm not optimistic that there is a sufficiently convincing argument for any option to help those who already know the right answer understand the reasons we use the approach we do. That's because there is no all conquering approach to this that we've found. No approach is perfect. If readers want to pick at our methods rather than understand them, the door is open. We've tried to pick a practical approach, but we wouldn't argue it is flawless. I'll try to summarize what I remember of previous discussions (if only):
1. One suggestion is that reviewers should buy all the equipment that they review. The purported advantage of this is that it would cause reviewers to assess the "value" of components more accurately. Our counter to this (besides pointing out the financial impracticality of this for reviewers struggling to pay mortgage and tuition bills) is that we try not to comment personally on value. A reviewer's financial situation and priorities will likely differ from the reader's, and so we can't do this well. Our comments on value are intended to be in the domain of the "show me better for less" test.
2. Another suggestion is that reviewers should own their reference systems. The purported advantages are a) that this shows what reviewers would actually buy with their money and b) reduces the possibility that a reviewer praises a product over time because it is on loan. Part A is problematic for the same reasons as in (1) above -- the reviewer's financial constraints may be completely unlike the readers. Part B is potentially an issue, though we think it isn't the big one. Most reviewers simply do not have product on long term loan. Showing what they own doesn't tell you what is on long term loan. One reason that long term loans are rare is that it is hard to keep up with the state of the art in an area if you have long term loans. So, really, no reviewer wants long term loans. The time one wants to keep a product is when you can't find something better because it is the state of the art (in your experience and in its price range). But that, then, isn't a case of the reviewer praising the product because he/she wants to keep it -- it is a matter of the reviewer praising the product because he can't find something better (which seems to us to be a situation where the product deserves praise). This same issue, only worse, comes when reviewers own their own reference gear. Since reviewers can't afford to change gear very often, they end up with out of date references. That can lead to praising product that may not deserve it.
There, perhaps, are several misunderstandings about reviewing. One is that the purpose of reviews is to express the reviewer's personal opinion about products. That is, however, not the objective -- rather it is for the reviewer to observe what a product does and express those observations clearly enough that the reader can figure out whether the product is of interest. The imagined psychological biases of reviewers are rendered less problematic when we understand what the reviewer's job is.
Another possible misunderstanding is that reviewers are amateurs. But in fact most of our reviewers do their work as their day jobs. Those that do not do this full time still must adhere to the same standards. Reviewers are professionals, and they work hard to do their jobs well. They take seriously the process and the objectives. They want to deliver a useful product to our readers. They are human, so not perfect, of course. But some of what readers imagine about reviewers amounts essentially to accusations of lax, unprofessional behavior. Those accusations, I think, misunderstand the motivation that reviewers have.
Third, there is sometimes confusion around product coverage. To put it bluntly, some readers would like to change the reviewing process to reduce the number of reviews of equipment above their price range (or to make reviews of expensive gear more negative). Since one's price reange always involves a personal definition, it just doesn't work for a company trying to serve a diverse, niche community. Instead, we try to cover interesting equipment in all price ranges, subject to the caveat that it has some high-performance goal. We are often accused of only covering the most expensive equipment, but that is an accusation that simply doesn't hold up to the data (unless one imposes a personal definition of expensive).
Hope that helps.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
As I said, mostly the situation you describe doesn't exist. If a company asks for its product back, we send it back. Usually, due to space constraints and the need of manufacturers to cycle gear through media outlets, reviewers change gear all the time.
If a company, with a reference product on loan, also makes a mediocre product, we describe how it sounds or we decline to review it. We do that stuff regardless of reference gear on loan. Your hypothesis may be grounded in a premise that there is a shortage of reference gear; but there isn't. The more typical problem is "what do I do with all this stuff going in and out since my house wasn't built as a shipping and receiving depot?". And if a reviewer really likes a particular product for his personal listening, and wants that stuff for the long haul, then he should buy it (as i have with my mbl gear, Chris has with his Musical Fidelity stuff, etc.).
If the question you refer to is "how much of your systems [have] you spent your own money on and how much is on indefinite loan[?]", I think the reluctance stems from a) needing a clearer definition of the question and b) a natural shyness in the face of the radical impoliteness of some participants on these forums. I would say we might break down the question into three parts: "how much do you own; how much is on standard loan (goes back after the review); how much is on long-term loan".
I'm willing to be a guinea pig on this question. So, my answer is:
Owned: 92%
Standard loan: 7%
Long-term loan: 1%
Does that help (or better yet, would it help if we had answers from other reviewers on this same question)?
To help anwer that, I'm going to guess JV's mix, based on my last few visits to Cincinnati:
Owned: 8%
Standard loan: 75%
Long-term Loan: 17%
That's a very different mix from mine, but it is hard for me to say if it is better or worse. It really results from the fact that Valin reviews more speakers and amps than I have of late, so he is constantly changing the most expensive part of his system. Also, he reviews cartridges and so he has to have a consistent reference table/arm.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Valin "Blogs" about trips to Japan and Switzerland to visit very "little Known" companies and presto these very same companies show up with "full" page ads and glowing reviews in the next issue of Absolute Sound! Who "pays" for these trips!
Sound "very" fishy to me!
The manufacturer pays for these trips. This is standard practice in automotive and other categories as well as consumer electronics because the economics of media don't allow such visits. We go in the hopes of getting insight into the design or manufacturing process, or to hear things we can't hear in our own listening rooms and then being able to communicate that to our readers.
If you think having to spend days sitting around airports and sleeping in odd hotels and eating fast and/or weird food, operating on different time zones only to return to a pile of unfinished work with inflexible deadlines is somehow a "reward" or "fun" you haven't done much business travel.
A preferred and more common situation is the manufacturer comes to us. Same deal, the manufacturer pays, but it is much more convenient for us. Of course we can't see the manufacturing operation or hear a particular listening studio this way or hear very rare equipment.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
In case it isn't clear, just like the car magazines, essentially everything we review is on loan. We occasionally buy something because the manufacturer is uncooperative or has a shortage of samples, but this is pretty rare. I don't know who is pretending they own their gear or refusing to admit they have a loaner. All reviewers have loaners, and this generally forms the bulk of their systems.
Two other things come from the distinction I made above between professional and amateur reviewers. First, I believe sometimes when we say something is indispensable, that is in the context of review work, not a value judgement about how consumers should spend their money (which we try to stay away from, though sometimes we get excited). Second, I don't think "constantly swapping stuff" is a matter of happiness or the "kind of audio enthusiast your are". When it is your job, there really is no choice. Purchasing equipment when you are a reviewer mostly says something about your budget. The fact that people in this and other contexts tend to project other and mostly nefarious motivations for what reviewers do, might also explain the shyness I referred to.
Now, speaking of shyness, I gave you the requested numbers, did that do the trick?
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Absolutely excellent information, and really a nice area of discussion that smites the possible assumptions of many less-informed readers may have about the magazine. Then again, I'm sure a lot them won't actually care to understand what they are reading. Their hyper-critical imaginations take precedent over fact. Just another sign that society is devolving, not evolving. Why assume that reviewers are crooked or unethical? Because so many times in every other area of life there are charlatans and liars. Thank you TAS, for being "a haven of reason and reasoned debate".
Your are most welcome. Also, props for the original question. It is at times hard to explain all that is of concern to our readership until one understands what those concerns are.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I've written about this subject repeatedly over the years. Here's my editorial from The Absolute Sound Issue 169.
From the Editor
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.
I was not accusing anyone of corruption. Just a natural human tendency to be nice to someone who is being nice to you. What you said above about manufacturers wanting to get equipment in your system as to get mentioned every month is actually reassuring. Lets just say that you reviewed a brand X something from a manufacturer that had loaned you a high priced component. Let's say this thing sounded bad enough to be a very poor value at it's price point and you minced no words in saying so in a review. Do you think there is no possibility that the manufacturer would get angry and demand their loaner back?
That contravenes Newton's Third Law: For every manufacturer wanting to throw its toys out of the pram, there is an equal and opposite force wanting to keep its toys in the reviewer's system as a reference.
Good ol' Isaac. He was a lousy reviewer, but he really could sum up the gravity of a situation.
Thank you... I'm here all week!
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
rwortman: you are right, manufacturers get angry about what we write all the time. And, I suppose sometimes they shorten the loan period as a result. But since the review system is built around product going back after the review, this isn't much of a threat. Some manufacturers avoid reviews with some publications as a result (ie the loan never happens). That is a bigger threat if the product is hot, though it can amount to cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is more than enough product to review, though of course we wish some manufacturers weren't so sensitive.
I would encourage you to think of your accusations about reviewers the way you might think of someone's comments about your line of work. If you are a heart surgeon, and I say that you often reconnect only 3 of 4 arteries after open heart surgery because you want to be nice to the nice staff nurses and let them go home early, that's a big accusation regardless of all the niceness floating around the OR. You may not think of it this way, but you essentially accuse reviewers of being unprofessional. It sounds that way to us, at least, perhaps because it is our livelihood and so we take the specifics seriously (the way you would be if you were a surgeon in the example above). Unprofessional is not doing your job or doing it below standard. If your job is to describe how components sound, and to the degree possible do that in the context of other relevant products, and you instead change the observations to something that isn't true, that's unprofessional. If you do that for your own gain (beyond the remuneration you receive for your work), that's corruption. So, saying that we change the facts to keep product we like longer sounds a lot like unprofessional corruption. If we are being unprofessional and/or corrupt, you should point it out (my email address is tmartin [at] nextscreen [dot] com). But if you're just imaging it to be true, I would ask that you be careful in such a public forum.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Tom; I know this is a sensitive issue and believe me I am not accusing anyone of corruption or being unprofessional. We all have feelings and biases and it is impossible to keep them completely out of what we say and do. I making a lot of purchasing decisions where I work. I sometimes make those decisions based on how the vendor and their sales force treats us. Sometimes the business just goes to the nice guy as long as his product is competitive. Is this unprofessional? I don't think so, it is just human. What I am saying about potential conflict is simply that if a manufacturer is being very generous to a reviewer in the form of expensive long term loans, that reviewer may be predisposed to being a bit less critical about the manufacturers other products. Not consciously changing the facts, just subconsciously less critical. I read a review years ago in another magazine of the Wilson Audio Cub. The reviewer clearly didn't like the sound of the speaker. The reviewer tried to stress positive points and in the end summed it up by saying this speaker is very well built, does some things well and has serious flaws. He recommended it with the reservation to audition it carefully before buying. I believe that if this same speaker came from a company that was less generous and less well regarded the concluding statement would have been quite different. Something like "this speaker has serious flaws and is an extremely poor value at this price. Shop elsewhere".
Think of the political analogue. Everyone thinks large campaign contributions unduly influence politicians. Does this mean we think all politicians are dishonest and on the take? I don't think so. We just realize that it is human nature to be act favorably toward people that are acting favorably toward you. It is not a specific personal accusation, just a question about how balanced the system is.
And speaking to one of the comments above about readers wanting to read more negative reviews of expensive equipment. I believe that there is a serious price bias in this and other businesses. Every high priced thing can't be a smash hit. Some of these esoteric designers are just poking around in the dark trying to eliminate heretofore unknown distortions or simply inventing ones that don't exist. They can't all be right. Just once I would like to read a review where the conclusion is that this thing is an overpriced boondoggle. Yet I have never read this. There have to be instances where a ultra high priced product only looks better than its more reasonably priced competition. Not necessarily sounding bad but it no way justifying its price.
I think you speak for a number of readers who are bugged by the lack of negative reviews that excoriate the product under review (e.g. "this is an overpriced boondoggle"). There are several reasons this generally doesn't happen. If you understand this, I think you will see that it isn't being less critical, it is following an approach that makes sense to serve a diverse readership.
First, and most important to your observation, our policy is to return product for a "no review" when the performance is terrible referenced to the competition. The product could be defective. It might not suit the room or the ancillary equipment. It might simply be a dog. So, the issue you raise above isn't really a function of long term loans, it applies overall to the review process. We don't address this by being less critical, we do it by respecting the manufacturers and wanting/needing to maintain a relationship with them. Our respect is shown through this policy. Since the discovery of "bad" product (given that we screen for what seems to have merit as a first step) is somewhat random and uncertain, we are troubled by the question "who should we excoriate and who should we not (randomly and with uncertainty about the source)?" and the policy described seems like the fairest way to address this. This might seem like an anti-reader/pro-manufacturer stance, but (as you intuit) there is ultimately a relationship expressed by the general way manufacturers feel treated which impacts our overall access to product. If we build a reputation as random slashers, many manufacturers will not risk the review process. The ones who go first and stay away longest are likely to be among the most capable (and oddly enough not always the ones we've slashed).
Second, for product that has flaws that bother the reviewer, we take it as part of our professional duty to acknowledge that most good products have flaws and merits, so we try to understand and explain how those flaws and merits might align with someone's needs. That is to say, we aren't judging based on the reviewer's opinion, primarily. If you heard product A and product B, you might well think one was great and one was mediocre. But if another listener would reasonably take the opposite view, then we have to acknowledge that. This might be what happened in your Wilson Cub example. We're not reviewing for ourselves, nor are you buying to please our cognitive processing of sound.
Third, to address the "everything can't be a smash hit" issue, we have Editor's Choice. Everything isn't on the list. Nor is everything not on the list bad (Golden Ear awards were created to acknowledge that the consensus nature of EC doesn't cover every outstanding product -- per point 2, sometimes only one reviewer "gets it"). But if a product isn't on EC or GE, well it is fair to say we think it is bettered for the money by many products.
Fourth, it may bother you, but as I said above we don't try to judge whether something "justifies its price" other than assessing it in the "show me better for less" test (which is used for EC). While you can decide what is good value for money, we really haven't figured out a universal way to do that.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I take any review as opinion. But believing in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom, I would be reluctant to buy anything on the basis of one review. I look for several, both professional and user reviews, then look for patterns. Reviewers and users have different systems and points for comparison, so impressions may vary.
Thanks for the comment, danielparker. It's routine practice in any industry for manufacturers to host journalists. In fact, the press trips of audio writers are positively Spartan compared with trips in other industries. I once attended a Lexus press event (I was invited because it was the launch of the Mark Levinson brand in Lexus cars) and it was over-the-top lavish compared with any audio trip I've been on.
As for "Anonymous_dc", Jonathan wrote about Technical Brain (Japan) and DaVinci (Switzerland); please indicate the issue date and page number in which full-page ads appeared for these products.
Tom replied to Anonymous_DC above, but since people tend to read from the end of threads, here is his reply:
The manufacturer pays for these trips. This is standard practice in automotive and other categories as well as consumer electronics because the economics of media don't allow such visits. We go in the hopes of getting insight into the design or manufacturing process, or to hear things we can't hear in our own listening rooms and then being able to communicate that to our readers.
If you think having to spend days sitting around airports and sleeping in odd hotels and eating fast and/or weird food, operating on different time zones only to return to a pile of unfinished work with inflexible deadlines is somehow a "reward" or "fun" you haven't done much business travel.
A preferred and more common situation is the manufacturer comes to us. Same deal, the manufacturer pays, but it is much more convenient for us. Of course we can't see the manufacturing operation or hear a particular listening studio this way or hear very rare equipment.
AVGuide webmaster and general drudge
In reading many reviews over the years, it never occurred to me to question the review methodology or reviewers themselves. Component A sounded a certain way in one reviewer's system; it may sound different in another's. I've never assumed malignant motives, just taken what I read at face value. What is helpful to me personally is when there's an idea of what the other components in the system sound like characteristically, including any which the component under review is compared to; then I can contextualize comments better.
Of course there are mutual interests in view between journalist and manufacturer; that (to me) is understood. I have no problem with the way reviews are done or the basic relationship between reviewer and manufacturer. Reviewers and manufacturers both know their reputations are on the line, and any impropriety would be a severe blow.
I must reiterate. I accused no one of impropriety. On the other hand I don't think anyone is a reviewing robot without human feelings that is not in the least influenced by their relationships with manufacturers. The fact that Tom stated above that sub par equipment is simply returned and not reviewed is in itself different from most other type of reviews. Automobile and motorcycle magazines will publish reviews that are mostly negative when warranted and routinely do comparisons where one thing finishes first and another dead last. Finishing last all the time usually motivates manufacturers to improve rather than abstain from participation (Hundai for example). The idea that reviewers require ultra expensive equipment to do their jobs and that high end audio magazines don't make enough profits to buy the stuff results in an unusually chummy relationship between the magazines and the manufacturers. This is not disputable. I guess the conclusion to draw is that we can rely on the magazines to point out some of the gems out there in all price ranges. We can't assume that the manufacturers other products are as good. We can't assume that equipment that wasn't reviewed is bad since there is not time to review everything and if a respected manufacturer produces a serious turkey, it's up to us to discover it on our own.
BTW How do you decide who gets the quarter million dollar loaner system and who gets the leftovers? Seniority?
I think it's understood that magazines need a business model that will allow them to survive. I liked the old tas and J. Gordon Holt's stereophile, but neither had a business model to keep going. This doesn't mean that the reviewers don't strive to maintain their integrity, though, which I believe they do.
That said, the extent of commercialization of tas is a little disconcerting. I clicked on the Golden Ear Club link once, because there was an article I was interested in, but I found the tie-in to manufacturer promotion a little off putting. Is that really necessary? Couldn't you just make these articles available to subscribers of tas and drop the "club"?
I also find the "Buyer's Guides" a little disconcerting. Positioned next to "Featured Sponsers", and freely downloadable, they "look" as though the're manufacturer sponsered. Consider the dac guide, and in particular, the review of the Esoteric SA-50 by Robert Harley. It's a useful review, there's good information, there's criticisim of the USB input (which matches what I heard myself), and there's an explanation. But why so much praise - "remarkable piece of equipment", "ideal solution", "packed with sophisticate technology", etc.? As a CD/SACD player, it's not as good as an X-05 (to my ears), and for digital sources, there are better alternatives. The dac guide is also notable for what's missing, the DAC's with asynchronous USB, including the Ayre and the Wavelength. From other forums, I think I understand why, but it's a shame because these are some of the most important new products.
I wish tas could be more like the automobile or camera press, or at least the good ones! not the reviews in the Sunday supplements. With automobiles and cameras, though, reviewers are reviewing complete things, mass produced things, while tas generally reviews parts, low volume parts.
I wish tas would review complete things, e.g systems, maybe have a competition among reviewers to come up with good systems at different price points. I think most readers would like to read about comparisons, with winners and losers, that seems to be the model for a compelling story in other hoppyist areas. Reading a review of a product in isolation is ultimately frustrating, the question is always how does it compare to this, and how does it compare to that? We get that the "upper midrange was a bit forward", and that "I had to remind myself that these loudspeakers cost $5000, not $15,000", but so what? I mean, if you had $15,000, would you buy these speakers, or would you look for a pair of $15,000 speakers that sounded like $25,000? I want to know how these compare to others in their class, matched with components in their class.
But ultimately tas knows its business model and its readers best, it must be doing something right to survice. I would add that I'm grateful to Robert Harley et al for keeping tas alive, I don't imagine this has been easy. An audiophile world with tas is better than one without.
-- Daniel
Daniel -- there's a lot in your post, so I'll only comment on the things where I can add something of value (I hope).
On the Golden Ear Club: we're trying to create a series of products and services beyond a normal subscription for members. Naturally that takes some real work, which is why it isn't free. We are, for example, writing and printing a setup and evalutaion guide. We're sending members RPG's Room Optimizer. We've negotiated special offers from manufacturers. We've created a set of briefings from our editors. You get the idea. I'm not sure what tie-in to manufacturer promotion you are referring to, unless it is the special offers that we worked out. But in any event, these are services that we think have appeal to some audiophiles.
On Buyer's Guides, we basically collect, reformat and publish the reviews we've done in a category. Readers at times have asked for collections of reviews on a given topic. Again that isn't free to put together, so we get sponsorship in order to make them free to users.
We do review systems from time to time. We'd be happy to do more, but that doesn't seem to be the way people shop or buy, and thus isn't what they expect. We do see that people want to know how products work within a system, but it almost always turns out to be the desire for an evaluation within their system. We haven't figured out how to do that.
We've avoided the arbitrary winners and losers approach, but I agree that's what people want -- facts be damned. We'll look at doing more of this and providing more comparative info (it is in the Playback review format and the hate mail is overwhelming). Ironically, given the OP, if the review products didn't go back so fast this would be easier.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Tom, thanks, I appreciate your response. I don't mind tas charging for content, I think it should, but I just wish it wasn't related to offers from manufacturers, that's what I think of as promotion, I'm sure manufacturers see it that way. But anyway, I see your point that your audience is less interested in new systems than incremental changes to existing ones. I guess I'm an anomoly, as a middle aged guy going from no equipment to a hefty outlay over a period of a few months. I did enjoy the issue you published last year featuring several systems at different price points.
-- Daniel
Well, you'll be happy to know that we're dialing back the offer portion of GEC. We put a huge amount of effort and expense into negotiating that stuff thinking it would be a desirable benefit (much like the benefit of joining an association). Members aren't that interested and then there's the view that it oversteps our bounds. Frankly, we're trying to help the industry grow and to get more people involved, but those efforts are often repulsed. Oh well, no trial without error!
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
I am. Just joined.
-- Daniel
Thanks! The March newsletter just went out, so note that the next telebriefing is next week.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
Just to confirm a couple of things in Tom's post:
We are running more systems in HiFi+, following repeated requests from readers. However, having published a few, we also get requests not to run these again as the reader is inevitably only interested in one component in the system and the rest are just 'filler'. It seems most audiophiles upgrade one piece at a time every few years and might have a preamp from two years ago, a pair of loudspeakers from five years ago, an eight year old source and are thinking of upgrading their 12 year old power amp. How that power amp performs in absolute terms, rather than in the relative comfort of matching and modern preamp, source and speakers, seems to be key. This mindset is perhaps changing slowly as more people buy a complete system solution in one hit these days.
Having run, attended, instigated or in some way managed hundreds of comparison tests for other magazines in the past, I can only agree that they receive the Lion's Share of flak. Strangely, very little of this comes from the manufacturers. It seems that everyone who owns a thing wants to read reviews of that thing even after they bought it; if the reviews are bad, the owners get horribly affronted by the whole situation and complain volubly. I have also been at the sharp end of people buying on the basis of Winner reviews; the almost irresistible desire for people to select the Best In Test 100% Five Star Award Super Best Buy Recommendation Tag Flag Winner CD player, amplifier and loudspeaker with no consideration as to how they combine at all. Despite offering a better (and cheaper) solution made up of some winning and some runner-up products that combine well, the winner products still end up being sold - I've once heard the line "listen pal, I want to buy the system, not listen to it" said to me when I was in my retail days.
Of course, this was so long ago, it loses something in translation from the original Latin, but this still holds today where comparison tests reign supreme.
Alan Sircom
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus Magazine
London, England
editor [at] hifiplus [dot] com
I believe that reviewers should disclose exactly how much they paid for each audio device that they own/use. It is not enough to say whether they got it for free or not - they should say how much money was paid. Otherwise, I could see a situation in which a reviewer "buys" an expensive amp for a single cent coin, and then goes and tells everyone that he bought it from the manufacturer.
A few days ago I asked a reviewer such a question. Please see the link: http://www.avguide.com/review/tas-196-magico-m5-loudspeaker. So far there is no answer.
What angers me is that I have read the magazine for years with plenty of interest, always believing that I am getting an unbiased professional opinion, especially compared to the German press which is not as highly regarded as the American magazines. After several disappointing experiences based on rave reviews, and rumors circling around about how deals are done between manufacturers and the reviewers who praise them, I feel like a child who was told that there is no santa.
I feel that the arguments given above by Mr. Martin are nothing but excuses. If really you are so honest and impartial, why not reveal on this website exactly how much was paid by each reviewer for each piece of gear, or if it is on loan? It is easy to do and only takes one web page. This way, readers like me can decide for myself whether I suspect that a reviewer may be influenced or not, and if indeed you are impartial then you have no reason to hide this information.
For your consideration.
We could list each piece of equipment and what was paid, sure. I can say this, though: nothing was purchased for $.01 and almost everything we review is on loan -- as I said above. That isn't an argument, it is a statement of fact. The point above was that if you are suspicious of reviewers because you think some equipment is on loan, you should expand your suspicion: practically all of it is on loan. If you are suspicious of reviewers because they don't say that equipment is on loan, there is reason to drop this suspicion: they don't mention it because it is such a general practice it would be repetitive (and they assume it is common knowledge -- almost all reviewing of products in all media works this way).
If something above specifically strikes you as an excuse, please highlight it -- I'd be glad to clarify if I can.
Now perhaps what you want to know is how much some of us paid for the reference equipment some of us own. That might be relevant if we publicized what we bought. But we don't (and inspired by this thread, it might be wise to have a policy to absolutely never mention this -- I'll talk to Robert, Chris and Alan). We don't talk about it because we don't want the personal elements of purchasing decisions (like I happen to like the appearance of something) to be confused with the content of the reviews we do.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC