|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
131.191.158.163
if they had to purchase equipment at retail prices, or from the used market, with their own hard-earned money?
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
Follow Ups:
To answer your question: DeVore Supper 8: YBA Passion Integrated, Cary 306 CDP, and Acoustic Zen Cables, all of which I reviewed and would have happily paid full retail and in my estimation would be what I could afford without an industry accommodation.
However, after 11 years of reviewing and career advancement (non-audio related) I spent more money on a gear that I found to be more enjoyable. Why not, I could afford it. While the industry accommodation as facilitated the amassing of a system that I would not have otherwise been able to afford, it is nonetheless I system that I love to listen to and does not diminish the system that I would have without the accommodation.
Is it the premise of this debate that reviewer "A" would rather spend $5k on an inferior $10K component just because it can be purchased at $5K? Whatever I spend - it is the on the most enjoyable component that I can afford - just like everyone else using their "hard earned" money.
I have a family and all the obligations that go with it; I don't spend money because I can get X "on sale". That is ridiculousness.
For the record, I have never been witness to any of the reviewer-manufacturer shenanigans that folks here seem to think is rampant.
In no particular order:
1) The argument that the reviewers can purchase equipment at wholesale is entirely invalid. We live in the real world. If you have a good friend that is the owner of (say) a plumbing store, said friend is almost certain to give you a discount when you make a major purchase from him.
In the case of the audio industry, it is a small community. Most reviewers have at one time worked at a high-end store. Being professionally involved in the industry they have many avenues buy which they could purchase equipment at a discount. (This is true of virtually every industry.)
To my mind it is far better that there is a de facto set of rules that spells out what the terms are that reviewers can purchase equipment directly from the manufacturer. The reviewer doesn't have to waste the dealer's time. The manufacturer can (and usually does) create written contracts that spell out what are the restrictions of the sale. It doesn't change the things that would happen naturally (the ability to purchase at a discount), it simply formalizes it and makes it uniform and makes it clear what the agreement is.
As a manufacturer, the last thing I would want would be my dealers making ad hoc deals to reviewers based on whatever motivations they might have. There would be no visibility into the situation and no control over the situation. A reviewer could easily end up with a piece of equipment that was out of date or had some problem with it.
2) JA is not making value judgments about the behavior of other magazine editors. He is simply reporting facts. The readers of this forum are the ones that make the value judgments.
That said I think it is beyond ironic that some are beating up JA for purchasing his reference equipment when his main counter point in the US does no such thing. The more I learn about JA, the more clear it is to me that his integrity in his job is, quite simply, unsurpassed.
Let's look at the issue of purchasing reference equipment. I think we can all agree that it is extremely invaluable for a reviewer to have excellent performing equipment with which he is intimately familiar and which he can easily compare with a unit under review. This means that he needs to have the unit in his possession for at least a year or two.
There are two choices -- he can borrow it or he can buy it. If he borrows it, then it clearly creates a conflict of interest whereby some manufacturer has loaned (often for an unlimited time) equipment that is worth tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. What would you think if the same manufacturer loaned a reviewer a $200,000 sports car for two years? Would that be OK in your book?
The other choice is to purchase it. This is what JA normally does. And as he says, he has over $60,000 worth of gear that he has purchased for use as a reference. The funny thing is that the bulk of this gear is stacked up in his closet, much of it having been unused for years. The problem is that it eventually goes out of date and is not so useful any more for a reference.
It is very rare that a manufacturer would not be willing to help JA sell that equipment in a way that didn't ravage the used equipment market. But for reasons I can only guess at, he simply holds on to it. I would assume that he feels it is the simplest way to avoid the appearance of collusion with a manufacturer, or making a profit from a piece he purchased at a discount, or maybe even just hurting the feelings of the manufacturer by selling it.
Every year that pile of equipment grow larger, and every year it continues to lose value. I first found out about it when he reviewed the Avalon Eclipse in 1989 (IIRC). We suggested that he use a tube-type preamp. He had an ARC SP-10 sitting in that closet -- an excellent choice, in my opinion. But he had moved on to a Levinson No. 38 and felt that the SP-10 was colored by comparison. We ended up loaning him our (Avalon's) CAT SL-1 for the review period so that he could try it with both a solid-state preamp and a well-regarded contemporary tube design. But I am willing to bet that the SP-10 is still sitting in that closet.
So you see, he goes *far* out of his way to do the right thing, and do it on every level he can think of. Yet some members of this forum think worse of him for it. They compare him to Robert Harley, of whom almost any manufacturer can tell a not-so-nice story that calls his integrity into question. I have no idea what that is about. Maybe they met RH at an audio show, got an autograph, and genuinely think he is a nice guy. Or maybe they like the "look" of TAS better than Stereophile. Or maybe they get overwhelmed by Stereophile's measurements. Or maybe whatever. But I personally don't get it.
And just as in any organization, there is an examples set at the top that runs throughout, often called the corporate culture. Read some of Robert Reina's reviews. He specializes in inexpensive gear, mostly speakers. Yet he has a reference system that he bought with his own money. It has mid-level ARC electronics and I forget which speakers and cost many times what the equipment he reviews sells for. So it is a true reference that he can compare his budget review items to. But he actually owns the system that he enjoys the sound of and also can use as a tool to compare other products to. I think the example that JA has set for the Stereophile reviewers is a good one, and one that serves their readers well.
And occasionally JA will either hire a bad apple or an apple will go bad. Then JA has no problem at all firing that bad apple. It doesn't happen often, but you may remember some reviewers that are no longer there, such as Lew Lipnick and Corey Greenberg. They didn't just "move on" for "personal reasons". It is my impression that JA runs a damned tight ship, and his readers and our industry are the better for it. I say appreciate what we have while we have it. Nothing lasts forever and we've had an excellent editor running Stereophile for 30+ years. We should be so lucky as to have another with as much integrity for the next 30 years after JA retires.
"That said I think it is beyond ironic that some are beating up JA for purchasing his reference equipment when his main counter point in the US does no such thing."
Beating up JA for purchasing his reference equipment...?
Your facts might make more sense if you posted at the point of the alleged infractions.
Charles
Umm is this the same Greenberg who was taking $15,000 a pop to talk up products from Sony, HP, and Apple?
I like this post and it was interesting timing since I was looking at Zu Audio's policy which they put right on their website linked below.
The difficulty being a reviewer is that I personally have spent more money being a reviewer than I've gained. I do it because it's fun and I get exposed to better gear (or at least gear I would not likely have had at home). I purchased a preamp for example that i likely would not have purchased but I wanted something where I could review power amps and my OTO integrated doesn't have preaouts. Sure it was a nice preamp but if it were just for me I personally would have put the money to something else.
I purchased my main stereo before becoming a reviewer and I bought it all while going to University - I forwent owning a car to buy the stereo. So IMO there isn't an excuse for a reviewer not to buy his reference system (even if it is a "lesser" reference than some big pricey device.
I am now in Hong Kong and I've purchased a new budget system - at dealers. I paid $10 under retail for the CD player - so umm no discount. Speakers maybe $100 less but then most people could probably negotiate that and the amp is hard to say since Asia is a negotiating country and I paid what the guy typed into the calculator. Yeah I'm not very good at this. It was on par to other EL34 based amps on the market.
Worse I don't get paid to review either.
It doesn't matter what walk of life - people either have integrity or they don't. And you have to prove it in actions not words.
Some say, he is very competent for this kind of questions
You're definitely stalking, hijacking, or both. Why? I'd like to know your motive.
"if they had to purchase equipment at retail prices, or from the used market, with their own hard-earned money?"To that, I'll tack on "like the rest of us".
Somebody, maybe JA, noted that once they've received a product and reviewed it, it "is" used. While that's technically true, it's no different than if I take a brand new product home to "audition" it and use it, and therefore it's now *used*. It would be silly for me to go back to the supplier and insist upon paying a lower price because it's now a used product. So while they can say it's used, it's only been used by them. That's a whole different thing than buying something that's been used by some other unknown person, where the buyer has no idea how the product has been treated. So, for practical purposes, the reviewer isn't buying a used product, he's buying a new product at a reduced price. See what I'm sayin'?
Now, I'm not picking on JA. It's just that he's replied to this topic a few times, and so I'm just continuing the conversation and thoughts. He's generally presented himself as a reasonable, intelligent and helpful person here on the forum, so I would tend to value his insights into audio topics. However, even the appearance of preferential treatment by manufacturers isn't a good thing, and taints the supposed objectivity of the reviewer. I see no reason at all for a manufacturer to cut a deal with a reviewer on a product, whether it's free or wholesale or disregard the shipping. Money is money, whichever way you slice it, and when a supplier cuts a deal with a reviewer, it smells bad. After all, reviewers are human, too, and subject to the same influences and biases as the rest of us. As with any other demographic of society or career choice, what are the odds that "most" reviewers are completely objective and completely un-influenced by the possibility of getting a sweet deal on a product? I think those odds are pretty long.
It seems to me that the most reasonable arrangement is for a manufacturer to sell a product to a reviewer for no less than what can readily be found on the open market AND charge for the shipping. THEN, we'll see what they buy. A $20,000 pair of speakers for $20,000 plus shipping, or a $5,000 amp for $5,000 plus shipping. Sounds reasonable to me. THEN you'll have an answer to your question. :)
Edits: 06/17/12 06/17/12 06/17/12
Yes, but when you were "in the trade", you weren't "like the rest of us". You bought most of your equipment at accommodation prices too.
That makes you a Grade A hypocrite in my books.
...new or used?If used, you're paying the same or less than the reviewer, for equipment he purchased after using the equipment for a few months.
Industry accomodation pricing is available to EVERYONE in the audio industry on pretty much all equipment, and that includes the audio press.
Reveiwers get that pricing on any equipment whether they've reviewed it or not.
Since they can buy any audio equipment with that pricing, how does that affect their objectivity in reviewing a component?
Little jealousy there?
Edits: 06/17/12
"Little jealously there?"
Nope, not at all. I was just pointing out the potential "conflict of interest" when a reviewer is given a special deal on something. Going off on a bit of tangent, to make the point another way, remember the scene in Casablanca when the Prefect of Police announced "I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on", and then the roulette manager walks up with a wad of money and says "your winnings, sir". "Oh, thank you very much." :)
Actually, I rarely buy equipment anymore, being happy with what I've got for the most part (although I really need to stock up on VHS VCRs, 'cause I've got a boatload of tapes!). I tend to avoid used stuff, only because you never know it's actual condition. Looking at my stuff, actually the only piece that I bought used is my turntable. A guy brought it into the store as a trade-in on a new Micro Seiki. Well, and my house, and a few LPs. Now, I DID get dealer pricing on my tape deck, and my other tape deck, my integrated amp, and my tuner, but that's because I worked for a dealer. ;) I wasn't telling people to buy this or that because I got a deal on it - I got dealer price on anything in the store. I just bought the stuff I liked. That's a whole different animal than a reviewer getting a deal on a product sent to him for review. Kinda taints the whole "reviewer" thingy.
What conflict of interest? Please explain.
(nt)
...if a reviewer can buy ANY and EVERY piece of equipment he may want at accomodation pricing, whether he reviews it or not, whether he gives it a positive review or not, how does it taint his view on product he's reviewing?
Take your time.
It remains a level, albeit somewhat lower playing field.
As one who has previously enjoyed that privilege, I can tell you that it was the specific gear that mattered - not the price.
let me try and explain.
I've read tons of reviews by the major reviewers in Stereophile and TAS (sorry if I offend any reviewers here) where at the end, the reviewer will say something like, "I liked it so much, I bought the reviewed xxx."
And what shocks me at these times is the price of the item. It'll be like a 25K amp or 40K speakers or...you get the idea. At those times, I wonder what these folks do for their living.
I realize that as Josh said, reviewers of verying incomes provide their perspective of the various items reviewed. And, with varying amounts of income put towards audio, some will put more whereas others might put less.
But at the same time, I've read over the years of reviewers being provided with the equipment from the manufactures for an uber long time (as in forever) loan or at super discounted prices, prices none of us would ever see unless it came out hot out of a thief's trunk. And I understand that, manufacturers want their products named in other future reviews written by the reviewer.
However, many of us (myself included) do not have the skill set to be a reviewer of any caliber and therefore are not privy to the goings-on between manufacturer and reviewer and the secret handshakes they share. We're generally forced to scour the pages of AudioGon, Asylum Trader, Craigslist, etcetera for the equipment we're in search of at prices that are reasonable to our varying degrees of disposeable incomes.
Having said all that, back to my original question: What would the Mr. Fremers and Mr. Harleys of the reviewing world own IF every piece of equipment in their system was purchased like the rest of the non-reviewing family of audiophiles?
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
...like most audiophiles, I started with a particular system at some point and then traded up, component by component, over a long time.
Once you hear the new component that you must have, you figure out how you can afford it - selling your current gear helps pay for it.
At some point you draw a line and decide you can live with the $15,000 speakers - even though the $25,000 sound better, the diminishing returns are not worth it.
Perhaps reviewers are able to make that decision at a higher price point because of industry accomodation pricing, but the decision is the same one every audiophile makes.
Being able to hear a lot of great new equipment and getting industry accomodation pricing are the compensation reviewers get, besides a couple of hundred dollars for a review that took 3 months of work.
In 15 years of reviewing, I never made any deals with any manufacturers or had long term loans - everything was purchased through TAS and kept at least a year, as per the magazine's policy at the time.
> I've read over the years of reviewers being provided with the equipment
> from the manufactures for an uber long time (as in forever) loan or at
> super discounted prices, prices none of us would ever see unless it came
> out hot out of a thief's trunk.
As has been discussed at length on this forum, reviewers generally pay
the same wholesale price as a retailer. Regarding loan samples, yes
reviewers do need to have some products that they have reviewed on
longer-term loan in order to be able to use them as references for
future reviews. Why do you think that a problem? Would you prefer reviews
that _didn't_ have comparisons?
Personally, I have spent around $60,000 on the components I use in my
system. Yes, this was at accommodation prices, but it is still a lot of
money in absolute terms. By contrast, at the Newport Beach Show 2 weeks
ago, when the same question was asked at an "Ask the Editors" session, the
editor for another magazine admitted that he had not spent _any_ of his
own money on audio equipment.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I have spent about $19,000 on my analogue audio system: Audio Research SP8 mark II preamp, Audio research D70 mark II amp, Fosgate phono, Auditorium tranny, VPI Scoutmaster tt, Benz Ruby III cartridge, and Dunlavy SCIV speakers. All bought at retail at stores. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING I have heard either at an audio show or at an store beat my system by a significant margin. Very few equal it. Yes, of course, IMO. I have replaced tubes and caps over the decades, but still, IMO, you do NOT have to spend a fortune to get high end sound. Today, you can get a similar system new for about the same price: Magnapan 1.7 or 3.7 speakers or DeVore Gibbon 3 speakers, Audio Research VSi60 integrated amp instead of my classic speakers and amp. My digital system costs under $6,000: apple ipod, apple computer, Gallo Reference Strada speakers, and iDecco integrated amp. Both Stereophile and The Absolute Sound led me to audition many of the components I eventually bought, and I am eternally grateful for their help. Yes, both high end magazines DO review many relatively inexpensive components that compare with the best.
Mr. Atkinson, what would be the name of that "other publication" ?
Your post seems to imply that Stereophile is whiter than white... Would that apply to all your contributors without any exception?
Lastly, is buying "wholesale" a proof of integrity?
> Mr. Atkinson, what would be the name of that "other publication" ?As you will see when the video of that Newport Beach Show session goes
on-line, the editor making the claim that he had not purchased any
products for his own system was Robert Harley of The Absolute Sound. I
believe that Mr. Harley has also written an editorial feature in which
he said the same thing.> Your post seems to imply that Stereophile is whiter than white... Would
> that apply to all your contributors without any exception?Yes. If I find out that one of my reviewers is behaving unethically, I
promise you that I will fire him immediately. And have done so in the
past on the rare occasions that it has happened.> Lastly, is buying "wholesale" a proof of integrity?
Not in itself. But as I can purchase any product I wish from any manufacturer
at the industry accommodation price, it is still a level playing field.
Note that such purchases come with strings attached, such as not being
able to resell the product for an agreed amount of time, and often, after
that period, not selling it for more than was paid for it. Speaking
personally, I still have in my possession every audio product I have
purchased in the past 30 years.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/18/12 06/19/12
The next sentence after the one you quoted says: "And I understand that, manufacturers want their products named in other future reviews written by the reviewer." So I don't think it a problem as far as the reviewing process goes.
I also don't have a problem with the cut-rate prices offered by the manufacturers to the various reviewers. I get it. It's a part of the "benefits package" sort of speak.
If (I realize that's the biggest word in the English language) on Monday, by some weird happenstance, all reviewers were to wake up to find the entirety of their rigs missing, and they then had to repurchase their gear with zero reviewer discounts, using their own money, I'd be curious as to what they then would purchase.
That, in a nutshell, would tell a frugal audiophile such as myself what actually IS recommended.
If that makes any sense.
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
Not that I did not know without your clue who you were referring to, but you have kind of narrowed it down. Which I posit explains why that "editor of another magazine" never, as I recall, compares the new reference with the old reference. When his entire system is comprised of, um, long term loans, he can't bite the hand that feeds him. Which, I argue, makes it difficult to serve two masters.
Dont be silly! All publications serve multiple "masters". I dont think that long term loans vs. discounted prices changes much if anything. What about things like manufacturer paid dinners, factory tours, reviewers consulting for companies whose components they own, etc. The list of things that can and often do prevent objective journalism is long indeed.
Of course, if you are someone living off long term loans, which is really a form of a revocable gift, then I suspect you probably would not see a difference between a gift and a discounted purchase. Who wants their gifts revoked? But I think your failure to see the difference has less to do with there not being a difference than to turning a blind eye to the difference, because, well, free stuff is better than buying stuff, even at a discount. Otherwise, why not just pay the discounted price and eliminate the appearance of an impropriety?
Reminds me of a relatively recently elected commissioner who was negotiating a stadium lease with the owner of a professional sports team. When the lease was signed, probably in blood, most national pundits chimed in that the owner received the best lease, continuing to this day, of any professional sports team in any professional sport. Turns out, said commissioner was negotiating with an owner who was contributing to his campaign coffers. Voters got wind of it and sent him packing next election. Where do you think he wound up? Employed by said team, and is to this day.
Did the campaign contributions buy the sweetheart deal? Or was he over his head from the beginning? Did he so want the professional team to stick around that he would have signed the sweetheart deal regardless of the campaign contributions? Who knows? But it is the appearance of an impropriety that cost him an election. He should have either taken the campaign contribution and recused himself from negotiating the lease, or he should have refused the contributions and negotiated the lease. Whether he was or was on the take was the not issue.
My issue with your argument is that it essentially dismisses the importance of an appearance of an impropiety. On the other hand, as others have stated, an opened component is worth less than new, but it does have value, albeit less than new value. If the reviewer pays what the manufacturer could expect for a used gizmo, I see a significant difference between that scenario and the one where the manufacturer essentially hands a gizmo that has value to a reviewer for free. I don't see that as silly. Of course, ymmv.
> What about things like . . . reviewers consulting for companies whose
> components they own?
Just a note to say that I have fired a reviewer for doing this the moment
I found out about it. Stereophile reviewers cannot consult for
manufacturers, whether it be paid or unpaid. ("Just listen to this new
product and tell me what you think, doesn't have to be reviewed.")
Regarding the other matters you mention, we all try to steer an ethical
course through the minefield of conflicting interests. For example, I
have just arranged to visit a manufacturer to see his new factory.
Stereophile is covering my travel expenses and I don't think letting that
manufacturer buying me dinner the day of my visit is an ethical problem.
YMMV.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> When his entire system is comprised of, um, long term loans, he can't bite
> the hand that feeds him. Which, I argue, makes it difficult to serve two
> masters.
To play devil's advocate, it can be argued that when you purchase your
long-term reference, that reference eventually becomes out of date and
therefore no longer relevant to the readers. But I still feel it best that
the reviewer purchase those components that he uses as his core system,
when possible.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
There is no perfect answer. I have no problem with accommodation pricing. I certainly took advantages of perks at various jobs I've had. As you stated above, even accommodation pricing forces a reviewer to have some skin in the game.
Meant to add that as well as purchasing equipment, I do have several items
on long-term loan, with the knowledge of the manufacturers and the
understanding that these shall be returned when requested:Classe, Lamm, MBL, and Parasound monoblocks; Ayre, Parasound, Simaudio Moon
and Liberty preamps; dCS and Musical Fidelity DACs; Ayre DX-5 player; Halide,
Empirical Audio, & Musical Fidelity USB-S/PDIF converters; and many cables.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/20/12 06/23/12
Assuming the several items you have on "long term" loan were not paid for, I don't see how it factually differs from the "other publication" you mentioned earlier.
I don't really care about the equipment reviewers might receive from manufacturers either as gifts or long or short term loan, but I do mind when you, Mr. Atkinson, try to pass as more ethical than the guy from the other publication.
To me, it's just a cheap shot, and contributes nothing positive.
> Assuming the several items you have on "long term" loan were not paid
> for, I don't see how it factually differs from the "other publication"
> you mentioned earlier.
Because, as I mentioned in another posting, over the years I have spent
more than $60,000 on the components in my audio system, compared with
the other editor who, by his own admission, has spent zero. I believe
it's called putting my money where my mouth is. And please note that the
products I have on long-term loan do eventually get returned to the
manufacturer.
> I don't really care about the equipment reviewers might receive from
> manufacturers either as gifts or long or short term loan, but I do mind
> when you, Mr. Atkinson, try to pass as more ethical than the guy from
> the other publication.
As I said, we all try to steer a course through the ethical minefield
that faces reviewers. Or some of us try to - others, by their own
admission, make less of an effort. I am surprised you fail to see that.
> To me, it's just a cheap shot, and contributes nothing positive.
So, describing what that other editor has admitted in a public session
at a Show and, I believe, had also written about it in his magazine is
a "cheap shot"? Do you think I should pretend Mr. Harley had not made
that, to me, surprising admission?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I'm sorry Mr. Atkinson, I see nothing more than a pissing contest where you present yourself as more "ethical" than Mr. Harley.
Just because you spent some of your own money over the years on stereo gear (at wholesale price) for your own enjoyment does not excuse that you are discrediting a business competitor - and colleague - over poor evidence.
The fact that loaned material will eventually be returned is risible.
I cannot find justification in your charge against Mr. Harley. Audio reviews are about information and entertainment, please slack a little on vendetta, or at least, try to keep it private, because this does not play in your favor.
> I'm sorry Mr. Atkinson, I see nothing more than a pissing contest where
> you present yourself as more "ethical" than Mr. Harley.Sorry you feel that way. Look, I don't care if you prefer TAS over
Stereophile, or Mr. Harley's policies over mine. That is your right.
But there a is real difference between the editors and magazines that
came out in the "Ask the Editors" session at the recent California show:
that I believe reviewers should purchase components when practicable for
use as long-term references and that Mr. Harley believes they shouldn't.
Both of our actions conform to those beliefs. As the two magazines are
in competition, I feel this difference should be borne in mind when the
two are compared.> please slack a little on vendetta, or at least, try to keep it private,
> because this does not play in your favor.This is not a vendetta; it is a real and I believe significant difference
between the two magazines' policies. I have not said anything critical of
Mr. Harley, only that I believe his publicly stated policy is the
antithesis of my own. I fail to grasp why my referring to Mr. Harley's
publicly expressed policy "does not play in [my] favor."
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 06/20/12
"...that I believe reviewers should purchase components when practicable for use as long-term references and that Mr. Harley believes they shouldn't."
And which, based upon my cursory review of TAS at the local library, he spills a fair amount of ink defending. I get the impression it is something he is sensitive about, but, like a drug addict who knows his habit is bad but can't stop, the flow of free, expensive toys is too intoxicating for him.
Where I think this effects the readers is where Mr. Harley conspicuously fails to compare the loaners with each other, which, I suggest, is because he fears alienating the hand that feeds him. I don't subscibe because I get the feeing that subscribing only subsidizes his audio lifestyle.
What I am curious about, Mr. Harley having worked for you, is whether the TAS ethos changed him after he arrived, and he obtained a contact buzz, or whether always believed payola from manufacturers was fine.
Well Harley isn't hiding the fact so there is that.
I thought about this today and it dawned on me that perhaps the reason TAS reviewers don't buy a reference system is that they're reference would be deemed inferior.
Let's face it most average people can't even spend the $60,000 that JA spent.
TAS marketing is after all about "The Absolute Sound" which could be taken to mean "The Most Expensive Sound" and if the reviewer's system is ~$15k they won't be viewed as "Elite" reviewers.
That reality exists - I can't get the super expensive products if the rest of my stereo system is deemed entry level. At our publication the expensive stuff goes to the reviewers who own expensive systems like Fred or Constantine because the manufacturer knows the $50k amp will be reviewed against $50Kish amplifiers with $50kish sources and speakers.
The fact that it beats my "reference" $4k amp isn't much use to the manufacturer so they will say "thanks but I'd rather send it to Fred.
It doesn't really have anything to do with ears or writing ability but there is a perception marketability factor. And to be fair here - it would likely be a mismatch - you need the resolution in the rest of the system to really hear what the $50kish product is doing.
So if you're TAS and you want to review the "best" and none of your reviewers can spend more than $10-$15k (if even that) on a stereo then you do the loaner thing.
I suppose that could be the rationale behind it.
I would love to see every reviewer list every component they actually bought in their reviews. If they want to list, separately, all the components on loan, that would be OK. If a "reviewer" had bought NO equipment, I would cease to read any "review" by that person.
A reviewer is good at their job if they consistently get their facts right and their findings routinely tally with yours. A reviewer is bad at their job if they fail in either of these basic properties. That is all.
We don't have to like the reviewer as a human being or as a moral agent. We don't have to agree with the reviewer's political stance, sexual proclivities or orientation, views on the Arab Spring, their take on Brazilian soccer's recent move away from a Joga Bonito style of play, or their choice of sushi. It doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor, whether they own everything in their system or nothing at all.
The only thing that matters is they do their job consistently well. This is easy to check; if you find yourself consistently agreeing (or constantly disagreeing) with a reviewer's findings about the way they think things sound, that reviewer is probably consistent. If not - for whatever reason or reasons - that reviewer's opinions should be called into question.
The problem is that 95%+ of the "reviews" are positive. Plus, if a manufacture allows long-term "loans" (bribes?), they seldom get less than a "one of the best" type "reviews". This is just one reason why I favor the blind listening tests done in Hi-Fi Choice. Lacking those tests, I want to know what components the reviewer bought with their hard-earned money. Those are components I seek out for further listening. Art Dudley has done the best job in detailing his personal audio system, all self-purchased. I guess MF has also purchased all of his reference system, but, from the prices of that system, MF must be a muli-millionaire, and his units are well beyond (in price, at least) what I want to spend. Yes, Stephen Mejias also does a superb job in detailing those components he purchases. BTW, several reviewers in TAS have mentioned units they bought: Dick Olsher, Steven Stone, and Sue Kraft, and others. Plus, HP and JV regularly admit in their reviews that some relatively affordable piece of equipment (like the Magnepan 1.7 and 3/7 speakers) competes favorably with their super expensive equipment on long-term "loan".
It's a competitive marketplace. That's no place for the weak. Perhaps the weak get filtered out in the process. Whether the reviewer filters the weak or the market does the job instead, it's amounts to the same thing. Perhaps the reason why 95% of the reviews are positive is because 95% of the products submitted are pretty good.
I've read Hi-Fi Choice many times. Reviews are mostly positive in that one too. And my point about trusting a reviewer... I cannot rely on the tests in Hi-Fi Choice. I'm sure they are honest and integrity-filled, but their conclusions are just too random to be trusted. I've heard products from their tests that I fully agree with the conclusions of the test, and others where I've thought they must have dropped some really strong acid before they started listening, and all points in between.
And that's the point. No matter how 'straight' these tests may be, regardless of whether the people involved in the test itself paid full price for everything they use, I simply cannot trust the findings of the tests they make because their results are so inconsistent.
If they were out of kilter with my own listening and repeatedly so, I'd be more trusting of the results. But these are too off beam to be reliable.
I like the blind level matched tests - the only problem is that it all depends on what is in the group test. A speaker may win the group test but in another test it may have come in 6 out of 8. Or a speaker that finished mid pack in one test may very well win with a different group of loudspeakers.My Audio Note J speakers were part of their group tests for standmounts. But it blew them all out of the water because the J has significant bass depth and dynamics (and bass matters). Two problems arise. If everyone knows the speakers they know the J has significantly better and deeper bass than standmounts from the likes of B&W, Paradigm, PSB etc. So it's a "known" entity for the listeners who could mark it up or down based on preconceived opinions of the product or owner.
So Hi-Fi Choice decided to "be fair" and put the AN J in the floorstander group test so that the significant bass advantage would be alleviated. The J won the test anyway and it still out-bassed the floorstanders (even not placed in corners).
Regardless of the result though I am not sure it was a fair test. 2 reasons. First, it's a standmount speaker - In theory it has certain sonic advantages to big multi-way loorstanders (better integration of drivers yields better midrange response). The floorstanders were at a disadvantage (OTOH they should have beaten the J on bass and none of them did - so...) Secondly, I am not sure why the AN J was pulled from the standmount test. If the other mainstream manufacturers at similar dollars have anaemic gutless bass and dynamics why should the J be penalized and taken out of the test? Maybe the sound drubbing of those other models would make them redesign their products to not force buyers into immediately spending more large coin on a subwoofer or two.
I agree with all your points - most stuff is pretty good - even Bose has been getting very good press lately for their surround sound systems. It's rare to really find something truly bad (when price is factored in).
I also find the results inconsistent. However, where possible try to follow the products that have been tested several times - Sugden's A21a for example seems to win every test. Likely because of the SET design no feedback design.
Less important than the actual amplifier the fact that a 1990 design beats 2010 designs should be a wake-up call that a good old design is not beaten by the new simply because it's new and hyped. And that's worth something.
Edits: 07/04/12
I don't see where Hi-Fi Choice is inconsistent. You give NO examples. They clearly rate the units in the blind test in order of preference. Neither Stereophile nor TAS do this. As for your comment that the market has produced a result where 95% of the products being tested are very good or better is simply laughable. Here I agree 100% with Art Dudley who has been extremely clear on this point: newer is definitely NOT always, or even mostly, better. I am usually shocked at how inferior the sound produced by highly touted components is, both at audio shows, and at audio stores. Just look at the crap CD sound that was highly touted and very popular! Ditto for ss amps and pre-amps. Musical? Not by a mile!
It's been some time since I read Hi-Fi Choice, I admit. But when I last looked, the electronics blind panel routinely disliked Naim Audio and the loudspeaker blind panel listened to everything through Naim Audio electronics. As Naim has a strong character all of its own, that pretty much means whatever electronics you chose from its list was almost guaranteed not to work with any recommended loudspeakers. That's a car wreck, masquerading as due diligence.
If you want specifics, go find the Audiolab 8000S reviews from about five or six years ago. Both of them. It used to be easy, before Hi-Fi Choice 'conveniently' lost all its online data, Then ask yourself how can something outstrip all its rivals and six months later come last in a test, which included one of the rivals it outstripped six months earlier?
Art Dudley is just pushing the retro schtick. Audio is full of old git curmudgeons. Play to their demands and they will keep calling you back for more. Old is not wonderful, it's just old. You dislike solid-state because you think the sound is inferior. I despise the sound of tubes because they color the sound. We all moved on for a reason.
I need more than a fuzzy, undocumented memory to dismiss Hi-Fi Choices's blind listening tests. Many of us, including Art Dudley, MF, DO, JV, and HP were warning those who would listen that ss and digital were inferior to tubes and analogue where it counts: in being true to TAS (live unamplified music). My favorite rooms at the 2010 and 2011 CASs were tube and analogue based: Audio Note, Sonist/deHavilland, Teresonic, Audio Note, Acapella, Magico, King, and Usher. Here is some of what RH says about SET amps in the May TAS: "But put that 18W SET in a system with an appropriate-load loudspeaker and the sound will melt the heart of even the most hardened objectivist....I can't help but question whether nearly a century of conventional wisdom about what makes an amplifier 'good' has led us down the wrong path."
If you like vinyl and SET amps, you are dismissing Hi-Fi Choice's blind test schemes. It was Hi-Fi Choice that rated the Pioneer A-400 over the Audio Note Ongaku. It was Hi-Fi Choice that called vinyl 'legacy'.
The only tube amps Hi-Fi Choice consistently liked when I read it was EAR, and they don't sound like tube amps!
I don't need to cite references on this. They are all the stuff of document. If you've read the magazine for long enough, you will have read things like this.
I think you like the idea of blind tests rather than the results of blind tests. The Hi-Fi Choice reviews I read would never talk about melting hearts unless someone was being cremated. It was far too dry and fusty, and that would introduce a fatally high dose of enjoyment in audio.
That's not entirely the case and why people need to read their results and commentary carefully. The Sugden is a SET and always wins their tests. It's SS SET but SET nevertheless.
The Audio Note OTO SE was given 4 stars and recommended but did not win their test. However they also said it "easily sounded the best" out of the amplifier shootout amps. It lost marks purely for power restrictions and lack of features. I don't have a problem with this since Audio Note across the board is a bit idiosyncratic. One reason they like a complete system match because much of their gear doesn't play well with others like SS.
If you create a brute force amplifier with high power handling then you can be sure it will drive every speaker you bring to your home. I find that to be a sledge hammer approach to things because many speakers wind up sounding thin and brittle or "overly controlled."
I think you noted the problem with Blind Tests is duration. Short listening session my ear often gravitates to the brighter leaner and high "impact" bass systems. Which is no doubt why so many makers make systems that sound like this. It's initially impressive and when 95% of people spend less than 30 minutes listening to stuff - you have to show be "impressive" in a short session because your speaker is sitting beside 4 other brands like puppies at the pound whichever puppy can suck up the most with the saddest eyes will win the purchase.
One of the biggest dealers in Canada - hugely knowledgeable and can repair every brand sells everything from SET/Vinyl to Meridian Soolos and their active speakers to H/T flagship receiver to big SS. They note that 90%+ of the people walk in with what they want to purchase based on reading magazine adverts/reviews. They listen to the one thing they read about and say "good" and buy it.
Vinyl/CD is irrelevant as a debate since if it was about music you'd own both since so much great music is only on vinyl and or only sounds good on vinyl. Ditto however for CD where there is a ton of excellent music on CD and not available on vinyl especially since 2000. And some remasters are excellent. Vinyl also costs more to get right IMO.
Tubes/SS is more debatable in terms that they don't play it back. Still, judging by the best rooms I've heard as audio shows, dealers, and overall systems - there does seem to be a very big correlation in the sheet numbers of the very best rooms and very best loudspeakers tend to have some sort of tube amplifier connected up - these speaker makers are choosing tube amplifiers and even not so easy to drive speakers like Dynaudio came with Octave tube gear.
Tube amps have come along way since those ST70s. I recently heard an ST 70 and frankly it's comically bad against current tube amplfiers. I also purchased a Rotel RC 1082 preamp over a second hand ARC SP series tube preamp - the Rotel destroyed it IMO.
I don't think you can just say SS is better or tubes is better. It's simply not true in every case. I find SS is better at the lower end of the price spectrum. Tubes seem to win at the upper end of the spectrum - and with most easy to drive speakers I can find some excellent tube amplifiers where I find it more difficult with SS. Tube amps come in many more subtle sonic flavours. SS tends to be different versions of white. Cream, Eggshell, etc. Tubes also come in all those whites, but also have light pink, baby blue, chocolate etc.
That is why those folks who said "add a resister in the chain and it will sound like a tube" are dimwits. For that to hold even remotely logical sense would mean that all tube amps sound alike - they don't. Tube amps have far wider sonic landscapes - that could be viewed as a lack of accuracy in the sense that if they sound so much different than eachother then they must veer from accuracy. SS sounds similar and therefore must be inherently more accurate.
The logic doesn't work however because it assumes that democracy is accurate. It assumes that because 80 amplifiers sound more or less the same and uses similar technology that that sameness must be truth. While the "other" technology (tubes) because they sound so much different from each other must "all" be inaccurate. Err no it may just be the outliers than are inaccurate. Besides that everything is inaccurate and is largely a subjective perception. One person's analytical bright irritating unblistenable treble is another person's "accurate" treble reproduction.
SET ss amps come close to tube SET amps. Yes, IMO. There are VERY few ss SET amps. NO Rotel component comes within a mile in fidelity to TAS than a comparable Audio Research component. NOT CLOSE!!!
If you have read about my version of blind listening tests, you would realize that the results of the tests will vary with each listener. The correct answer FOR YOU is YOUR highest rated audio component, just as, in a blind tasting taste of wines, your highest rated wine is best FOR YOU. My contention, often verified by tests, is that self-styled golden ear experts CANNOT identify their favorite components in a blind test. If you are against blind listening or tasting tests, then you are against science! Yes, be sure to give each component or wine a fair hearing or tasting, but thousand of tests have proven that, scans hype, price has very little to do with quality.
I'm not against science, I am into being consistent.I left blind tests behind because I couldn't routinely agree or disagree with the results those blind test panels came up with. By supporting blind tests, but choosing products that routinely fare poorly in blind tests, you are doing the same. The difference is I don't have the cognitive dissonance.
I went down the whole blind test route, and I went too far. I went hydrogenaudio far. It's the logical conclusion of supporting blind listening tests, because they give inconsistent results.
It's also why the UK audio scene is such a wasteland now. The UK equivalent of this forum spends a great deal of time informing people all amplifiers sound the same, and it's currently in vogue amount audiophiles to out-penny-pinch one another because the sound of a £20 DVD player is all you need. The forums which do this came out of Hi-Fi Choice having its own forum and abandoning it.
Vinyl? Just buy a laptop. It's all you need. Hi-res? Who needs it? Buy a squeezebox if you like wasting your money of frivolous high-end toys. SET amps? They are just distortion.
That's what you are promoting. You are just too busy peering up your own fundament to notice.
Edits: 07/04/12
You really need to learn to read. And then think. What I have said, clearly and consistently, is that blind listening or tasting tests will determine what each listener or taster thinks is superior. Often that will be different for each person. The blind tests remove bias for everyone. I NEVER choose audio components OR wines that I have rated poorly in blind tests. NEVER! But, yes, I still want all reviewers to listen or taste blind. I remember a pinot noir tasting that the New York Times conducted several years ago. In the morning, wines from France, California, and Oregon were tasted, and rated, knowing the identity of each wine. The French wines were rated first, followed by those from Oregon, and then by the California wines. In the afternoon, the EXACT same wines were tasted and rated, but this time BLIND. The result? California wines came out first, followed by the Oregon wines, and, then, by all those famous, expensive reds from France in last place!!! The same thing occurs in audio: unless the listener compares components blind, bias is sure to make itself felt. We ALL have biases. Blind testing removes those biases.
If you have never chosen products that did badly in blind tests, what's with the SET loving?
They always perform badly in blind tests. Are you blind to this, or do you think the rules don't apply to you?
You asked me for evidence. Now it's my turn. Show me where a SET amp has won a blind listening group.
Hey Old School, I used to have an annual low-brow wine tasting at our house, where guests brought a wine of their choice (within various categories), and each wine was put into a numbered brown paper bag. Nobody knew which was which (not even me, 'cause by the time they were all bagged and logged, I'd forget which was which!). Folks got a scorecard to rate each wine from one to ten. Prices tended to be in the $3 to $25 range, and the "reveal" at the end was always an eye-opener!Pharmaceutical companies conduct blind tests of drugs regularly, using placebos as a control.
Actually, Scotch liquor makers do a similar thing. I saw a program about it some months ago. The company featured in the show has a staff which tastes the various batches and blends. Sometimes, the samples were different, sometimes two or all samples were the same. The tasters don't know.
I see no reason why audio reviews can't or shouldn't be done this way as well, other than the staffing issue. It would take a sufficiently profitable organization to have people to do the setups so the reviewer doesn't know what's what. Wouldn't it be fun to "compare" three amplifiers, all of which were the same model, or even the same amp? :)
Edits: 07/04/12
> What I am curious about, Mr. Harley having worked for you, is whether the
> TAS ethos changed him after he arrived, and he obtained a contact buzz, or
> whether always believed payola from manufacturers was fine.
Thats' not a question I can answer, I am afraid.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I do not have any preference between your publication and the other oublication. To me, audio press (print or web) is nothing more (or less) than infotainment. The question whether reviewers should buy equipment or get it for free (long term or short term) is irrelevent.
Reviewers should have ears, an open mind and the ability to communicate effectively.
If you feel you are doing better than the other guy because you spent $60k over the last 30 years, I - and most of us around here - would also qualify for the job don't you think?
Kent Nagano says he doesn't have a stereo at home. Does it mean he wouldn't qualify as a Stereophile reviewer?
> Kent Nagano says he doesn't have a stereo at home. Does it mean he
> wouldn't qualify as a Stereophile reviewer?
Correct. You have to walk the walk, regardless of your qualifications in
other areas. You may be superbly gifted automotive engineer but if you
can't drive, how can you form opinions on how a car handles?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
That's an interesting point of view.
I would guess Nagano would be more than adequate to comment on a loudspeaker or system, whether or not he can use a soldering iron. The finality of audio is the music don't you think?
> I would guess Nagano would be more than adequate to comment on a
> loudspeaker or system, whether or not he can use a soldering iron.
No-one commented on Maestro Nagano's ability to use a soldering iron. The
question was that if he doesn't have an audio system at home and is
therefore unfamiliar with the sounds of different products in that system,
could he be a reviewer for Stereophile. And as I answered, the answer is no.
> The finality of audio is the music don't you think?
But if you have no experience of audio products and are not familiar with
how they vary in how they process music, how can you write a conclusion to
a review?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I'm beginning to think this thread should be renamed to "What Would Kent Nogano Own If He Had A Stereo?":)
Actually, it's pretty weird for a conductor to not have a stereo, and I don't believe for one minute that he doesn't. How would he be able to listen to other recordings of works that he's studying? (I can see it now, he goes around telling people that he's really not familiar with the recorded works of Levine, Barenboim, Ozawa, et al, because he doesn't have a stereo. lol) Whether it's in his house or at some other location, he's got to have a way to listen to recordings.
Anyway, maybe Nogano wasn't a good example. How about Thomas, or Zweden, or, or ...? Surely, there's got to be some conductor that owns a freakin' stereo!
:)
Edits: 06/20/12
Actually, he gave an interview to a french audio magazine in which he said he had at home two grand pianos but no stereo.
The story doesn't say if he paid for the pianos or not...
Here's another interview published in Positive-Feedback
Thanks for the link to the positive feedback dot com interview. Nagano (sorry for the previous misspelling) clearly says that recordings are a valuable tool, and that he's listened to many of them (my condensation of his comments, read the details at http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue54/nagano.htm ).
When a conversation is about opinion, pretty much everything has some value or contribution. But when it comes to factual vs. non-factual statements, accuracy matters. You've stated that Nagano doesn't have an audio system, but you haven't provided ANY evidence to support it. So, I'm hesitant to believe it. So far, you've only mentioned an unnamed interview. So, given the interview link that you did provide, I maintain that it's fair to say that Maestro Nagano has an audio system "somewhere" where he listens to recordings, whether at his home or elsewhere. If not, I maintain that that's kinda weird.
In short, without evidence to support your assertion, I don't think it's unreasonable to press the point that your assertion is incorrect, or, at the least, misleading.
It is entirely up to you to decide who's competent and who's not for the job. I would certainly credit Mr. Nagano for his intimate knowledge of music and sound, but you're the Chef.
Kent Nagano doesn't own an audio system.
That hardly makes him an interested party in audio because he doesn't have an audio system.
Also, please explain how he'd be able to review a piece of audio equipment if he doesn't have an audio system?
I mean, aside from the lack of products to compare and contrast, the lack of knowledge about other products in the wider market, the lack of interest in the whole topic because he doesn't have an audio system, how could he test the device if he couldn't even plug it in?
Sometimes, arguing for the sake of arguing exposes one's inner idiot.
Two prerogatives.
One about equipment, the other about music. I don't think both are mutually exclusive, but if you say so...
No they are not mutually exclusive, except when they patently are.Some gearhead who has $500,000 worth of system and three albums would be considered a trifle lacking in one of those two prerogatives. As would someone who doesn't own a system.
I would consider both under-qualified for the task of writing reviews about audio equipment, no matter how strong the gearhead's technical knowledge or how deep Kent Nagano's musical knowledge goes.
I don't want reviews written by gearheads with no interest in the music. There are enough of them already. But neither do I want reviews written by someone with so little interest in the reproduction of sound that he or she doesn't even own a system at home. You need balance.
Both strike me as skewed to the point of intellectual bankruptcy.
Edits: 06/21/12
nt
I never have, as my father taught me to NEVER pay retail. Before the internet I bought open box, used and clearance (ie: last years model). If one is a good shopper one can buy even brand new equipment below wholesale and below industry accommodation.
However if one really likes what one reviews enough to replace their current favorite, then it is easier to pay the industry accommodation since the equipment is already in one's system, rather than spending six months or longer looking for that killer deal on the same item.
If one gets on the ground floor as soon as a product is released then they may get a brand new unit. When that unit is returned it is sent to the next reviewer in line. So only the first reviewer gets a new unit and later reviewers get used units.
"Happy Listening,
Teresa."
"Howard Prince: Where are you from?
Florence Barrett: Connecticut.
Howard Prince: That's very ritzy.
Florence Barrett: It's very proper anyway. I was very well bred - the kind of family where the biggest sin was to raise your voice.
Howard Prince: Oh yeah? In my family the biggest sin was to pay retail."
-The Front, 1976 Writer: Walter Bernstein
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a
drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist'
Sometimes they'll mention that in reviews, as in "This is the speaker I would buy if I had to use my hard-earned money," etc. But while that does generally imply that the product has high bang for the buck, as well as that the reviewer has high regard for it, reviewers do have varying incomes, may choose to spend more or less on stereo equipment, etc. So I don't think you can necessarily generalize.
...somewhere, if you could just further clarify what you are trying to get at.
Just saying.
I would buy exactly what I did buy.
Equipment, once reviewed, is used.
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
I'm not understanding your point.
If you're saying that when reviewers purchase the items they review, they're buying a used product, that would only be the case if the item they review came to them already having been reviewed by other reviewers.
If the items came to them new, got reviewed by them, then bought at used prices, it's just the bennies of the job, I guess.
My local high end shop won't let me take home a new amp to try out in my system, in my home, then allow me to buy it at Agon prices because the item is now used.
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
1. Company sends new device to reviewer.
2. Reviewer uses the device to assess performance, etc.
3. The device is now used.
If the device is returned to company, they can't sell it as new because
it is, in fact, used.
If the reviewer chooses to purchase the device, the company doesn't have
to arrange for, or pay for, return shipping. They also don't have the costs
associated with receiving, assessing, repairing, re-boxing, restocking, and
reselling the used device. These can be significant expenses, depending
on the device.
One might also consider that even "open box" items at stores are routinely
discounted. Floor samples and unused returns, for example can't be sold
as brand new (even if they have never been "used"). I've seen "discounts"
for floor samples and unused returns as low as 10% and as high as 50%
(for obscenely priced golf clubs). Crutchfield's Outlet Store advertises
up to 40% off their regular prices.
There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.
—Leonard Cohen
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: