Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Please explain what benefit acrues to us from that piece.

Posted by Rick W on May 23, 2016 at 10:25:35:
We know 6 Moons was upfront about their no ad-no review policy (a policy you call "repellant"). Which other mags/e-zines require hifi companies to pay for an ad in order to receive a review, and which mags/e-zines have editors/reviewers on their staff that essentially ask for bribes? Which reviewers in which publications should readers discount due to this? Who are the bad apples?
We don't know because neither you nor S'phile will tell us. JA said "....everyone in the audio industry knows who the bad apples are in the reviewing community....", then mentions that among other things audiophiles are ignorant about it. No shit we're ignorant, we're ignorant because we are NOT in the audio industry and you guys won't educate us as to who those bad apples are. If you lack the evidence and/or balls to tell the audiophile community who is NOT "highly ethical", what good does a piece like Art's do for us? We're left still ignorant regarding which publications/reviewers are corrupt, but we're told that S'phile and PS Audio are pure. Even accepting that your motive was good, do you really have such a problem seeing that the piece was self-serving for S'phile and PS Audio?
You say "Most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, and I've never had an issue with them." But by refusing to name the bad apples readers are left wondering "Who are Art and Bill and JA referring to?" "Is website X where I read reviews every month crooked?" Since almost every review in almost every hifi publication results in a positive recommendation, and every hifi publication contains ads from at least *some* companies whose products garner those positive rec's, we are left to just guess which ones are suspect. Isn't that pretty much where things were at prior to Art's piece?
What about manufacturers who have no problem buying ads in order to get a review on 6 Moons? Are their morals, ahh, questionable? How about the hifi manufacturers who agree to provide "favors" for reviews? Without them the bad apples in hifi review mags/e-zines couldn't exist. Who are those manufacturers? You don't have anything to say about that other than it ain't your employer, PS Audio.
IMO all Art's piece does is state the obvious. Previous to Art's article did you think we were all so dumb as to think the hifi industry and "press" is completely different from every other biz and has no bad apples? We were all so naive that we thought despite the symbiotic relationship between manufacturers and review mags/e-zines nothing untoward ever goes on? Jeez.
I accept that you're a good guy, likewise I accept that PS Audio and JA/S'phile are not among the "bad apples". But I don't see anything in that article (or this thread) that contains new info that is helpful to audiophiles who read reviews.