 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
37.130.229.149
Aside from Stereophie it is clear to any one paying the attention the whole "review" game is a sad tragedy, as Ar Dudley outlines. I think it is fair to say it is easy to guess who "Dick" is. And confirms what we have suspected all along about that magazine. As a matter of fact, there was never really any confirmation needed.And "Bill" represents every assclown online pro bono "reviewer" writing for a blog posing as a publication.
Edits: 05/18/16Follow Ups:
nt
I'd prefer Biff and Mick.
After all the discussion about the thread have gone through, we should ask ourselves would we be better off if this article was not published? I don't think so. I want to listen from concrete admission from industry player rather from through the grapevine.
If continuous animosity shown towards Stereophile, it has become more like shooting at the messenger. Regardless what you think Stereophile's motive and moral high ground they are taking, they have provided explanation and stated their position in this issue. Insist that Stereophile or PS to name names is overstepping your boundary and they are not stupid and obliged to do so. Why should they go through any sue on your behalf? That is my opinion.
Yep.
Well, just about every reviewer not working for Stereophile would be!
"Insist that Stereophile or PS to name names is overstepping your boundary and they are not stupid and obliged to do so."
What 'boundary' would that be? Without names Art's piece is merely innuendo that taints everyone in the business EXCEPT Stereophile and PS Audio.
That said IMNSHO, naming of names at this juncture would just make things worse. Art's piece should never have seen the light of day. It's that simple.
> Well, just about every reviewer not working for Stereophile would be!Perhaps I am too hard-nosed, but I don't feel any responsibility for
publications other than my own and for the writers for those publications.
We all hang out our shingles and offer readers what we feel relevant
and important and should be judged accordingly.As I posted elsewhere in this thread, readers should be skeptical of _all_
publications that are supported by advertising. Look at how many reviews
are of products from non-advertisers. Look for adverts from a first-time
advertiser in an issue with a positive review of their product, especially
if that advert includes text from the review. Look for reviews of products
that don't actually have distribution in the publication's country,
especially if that product is featured on the cover and is supported by
advertising.Read reviews to discover things you wouldn't have suspected: many reviews
published by mainstream webzines are actually based on press releases,
not on actual experience of the product, something the late J. Gordon
Holt used to call "reviewed in the box." And look to see who sells the
ads. If the editor is also responsible for selling ads, then who can tell
if that will affect his judgments or not? In print, we have the "Chinese
Wall" between editorial and advertising; on-line, that seems to be the
exception rather than the rule.All I am asking is that if you are skeptical of Stereophile, then apply
the same skepticism to everyone. Judge us all by the same standard.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/24/16 05/24/16
Nt
One of the reasons for this board, if listen closely, was that Stereophile reviews were being criticized/discussed ad nauseum on many of the 'gear' focused boards.
It was decided best to contain the damage to one forum and this one would be it.
Here is the conclusion I have arrived at.Bill from PS Audio has got a big mouth. He should have kept his little
story private, instead of trying to impress Art Dudley with it. He should have kept his business to himself, and Art Dudley had no business making it our business.That is what I think.
Edits: 05/23/16
I could have saved a few keystrokes by just posting a "Yep!.
Here is a yep...If Art Dudley wants to gossip like a bored house wife in public about industry players...
...then so can everyone here. Period.
Why they publish pieces outside of their expertise, music and audio, is beyond me.
Edits: 05/24/16 05/24/16 05/24/16
He has been in the business since at least the 1980s as a reviewer and also as an owner of his own audio magazine. So commenting on the ins and outs of the audio reviewing business is well within his area of expertise.
...some of you guys need a bunny!
I took the article at face value. I took it to show their readers that not everyone operates with integrity. I did not take it as self serving, I could understand why Bill did not want to use the names of the offenders. The fact that these emails exist, was proof enough to share this incident.
I have been reading Stereophile since June of 1993. I also subscribed to Listener, until it ended. Over the years I have exchanged emails with Art, John, and J10. I have a great deal of respect for all the writers at Stereophile. I have to give Stereophile the credit for my education on tbe hi-end. I started by reading Stereo Review and bought in to their specs are everything, which led me to a pricey for 1973 system that was a mismatched, very poor sounding group of components. Stereophile, long before the Internet, taught me a lot.
And as for PS Audio, I think they are one of the best companies out there. Great customer service, good products. I meet Paul at an audio show in Chicago in 1999, when he was just introducing the P300. He was a real gentleman that day, and I never forgot that. Recently I have exchanged emails with Bill, and I found him to be a class act too.
I left the Asylum in around 2003, because of the trolls and the mean spiritedness of some of the members. I came back last year for guidance and knowledge on PC audio. I received a lot of help from some very good people. Now when I go to the PC forum, there is always conflict. To me music is part of what makes life worth living, good equipment brings me closer to that passion. I don't understand why there is so much resentment around here.
I feel like I know JA, Art, Paul, and Bill, while the members here I'm never quite sure about. The open hostility towards Stereophile I don't understand, they have done so much to move forward music and audio gear.
And I find it odd those that question the motives of Art's article while giving 6Moons a pass. That is requiring payment for a review.
And I believe that there are emails to back up what was printed. Those reviewers now know they will have to play fairly, or if need be could be exposed. I think I read that the bribe offered to that other reviewr was done by phone, smart enough not to leave a paper trail.
I think this is another case of killing the messenger. In the past I have mostly trusted unknown professional reviewers, I will be more aware in the future. That alone for me, means the article served a purpose.
"And I find it odd those that question the motives of Art's article while giving 6Moons a pass. That is requiring payment for a review."
Where on earth did 6Moons get a pass? Maybe in THIS thread, as Stereophile published Art's piece, not 6Moons, and Art's piece is the subject of the thread.
6Moons decision to charging for reviews has been discussed at length on any number of Asylum boards.
Could it be that the reason 6Moons appears to get a pass in THIS thread is because WE DON'T KNOW the review site or publication he's talking about?
And because we don't know the review site or publication referenced in the piece, NOBODY gets a pass here (but Stereophile, of course).
We are left to guess. Could be ANYONE (but Stereophile, of course). And as a result, the piece taints EVERYONE (but Stereophile, of course).
Is it wrong to suggest that MIGHT not be an accident?
....and accusations of wrongdoing were being made against a Stereophile writer, and rather than contacting Stereophile, the manufacturer gave the information to the competition, and the competition then published the accusations against the Stereophile writer, how would Stereophile be reacting?
Not that it matters, but I feel very strongly that PSAudio should have contacted the publication involved before turning over private emails to the competition.
Ivan303, I agree with much of what you are saying. And, of course, I have nothing against PSAudio, and would never ask them for any freebies :-)
Sue
...thanks, Sue.
There is plenty of innuendo floating around but until people name names, nothing will change.
What are the manufacturers afraid of?
They're afraid of being sued. If they had evidence to back up their claims they would win the lawsuit. So perhaps their "truth" won't stand up in court?
..or ezine or even a print publication is going to sue an audio manufacturer who claims he was offered a good review for some compensation.
First of all, other manufacturers have probably been offered the same thing and a single reviewer or ezine doesn't have the more resources than the manufacturer.
So I really don't think there is any excuse for manufacturers not to come forward and name names.
At the very least the manufacturer should tell the editor of whichever publication it is because editor's don't always know what is happening. Even Stereophile has fired writers for being ethically challenged. How long were those writers going under the radar as bad apples?
> We are left to guess. Could be ANYONE (but Stereophile, of course).
> And as a result, the piece taints EVERYONE (but Stereophile, of course).
> Is it wrong to suggest that MIGHT not be an accident?
Dead Horse. Beaten. To Death. What is your problem with Stereophile - did
the late J. Gordon Holt make a pass at your mother when you were in the
womb? :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I think you clever enough to know what you are doing.
Bill? Not so sure.
Do you REALLY feel that Art's piece is the best way for Stereophile to point out that it maintains a HIGHER standard of ethics regarding reviews than at least one or two other web/print publications?
A point that I, for one, have never doubted nor claimed to doubt.
nt
You dont get to determine what is or is not a "dead horse". The piece in question should never have been run. Your judgement stinks!
You must be so proud of your integrity .. tactics ... judgment!
Bye johns dad.
Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
nt
NT
There were three names mentioned in the piece, and you couldn't keep them straight?
I've worked with many manufacturers through the years, and handled reviews and advertising all over the world. Most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, and I've never had an issue with them. Some follow a model I find repellant, and I choose not to deal with them. In the past, my clients have agreed with my take on such things; at present my employer, PS Audio, agrees with me.
When we advertise, we do it because we know from experience that ads in/on a given outlet return increased traffic to our site and/or increased enquiries to our sales department. We never advertise as a result of coercion or extortion, nor do we ever give freebies to reviewers, either as a reward for a favorable review or in order to provoke a favorable review.
We just don't. Ever. Aside from the fact that we don't have to---PS is a well-established company with highly-regarded products---we wouldn't do it anyway. It's an offensive practice that undermines the validity of the whole review process, and implies that our products are incapable of receiving good reviews unless there is a payoff in some form.
I have worked with John and Art for many years, as has Paul McGowan. We hold them in the highest regard, and trust them implicitly. When the exchange with "Randy" occurred, I happened to mention it to JA and AD as a "you're not gonna believe this..." anecdote.
The exchanges depicted did occur as described. The "soliloquies" were my words.
To view the depiction of actual occurrences as vague slurs against an entire industry indicates to me that the piece wasn't read carefully, and the inability to track who-is-whom further confirms same.
Paul was aware of all events, and supported my decision to share the info, and approved of the mention of my name and that of PS.
It is both bewildering and astonishing to me that Stereophile's depiction of these incidents has been turned against them. They're the GOOD GUYS, for goodness' sake!
Bill Leebens
"There were three names mentioned in the piece, and you couldn't keep them straight?"
I was a bit confused at first myself. But then I'm an old, retired sales and marketing guy, unlike young still employable guys like yourself.
A question hit me once I'd figured out what Art was going on about: "Why is PS Audio being named as a party to all of this nonsense. What do they have to gain here?"
Brings to mind to old saw: "When you've got the order, shut up and stop selling." By any measure in the Audiophile market, PS Audio has the order. Good sounding product, great reputation, happy customers upgrading products left and right.
Nothing to be gained by stirring the 'reviewer-on-the-take' pot, IMNSHO. When's the last time you guys endured a bad review? Never? None I've read lately.
No, Stirring that pot is a job for the company that can't seem to even pay to get their product looked at by reviewers. "We can't afford to buy a good review and all of the reviewers expect free product.", they cry. We've all heard the stories, though few are to be believed.
Of course you guys don't give away free product in exchange for reviews, favorable or otherwise. You don't have to. And of course Stereophile isn't going to hold up a manufacture for free gear or even advertising in exchange for a review. They don't have to.
But in the case of Art's piece above, one could read into it that others do. Why would a reviewer assume that you would give him free gear in exchange for a review if others in the industry weren't exchanging gear for reviews? And if they are, who might they be? That DSD DAC I was about to buy; the one I read the favorable review of? The one that's half the price of the PS Audio piece that I REALLY would rather have but can't afford?
One can only wonder and some will.
That's what I find most objectionable about the piece.
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.
Edits: 05/23/16 05/23/16
NT
nt
Character being defined as what one does; when no one is looking.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
It is both bewildering and astonishing to me that Stereophile's depiction of these incidents has been turned against them. They're the GOOD GUYS, for goodness' sake!
You just said that most reviewers, editors and publishers are highly ethical, but Stereophile is the only one I see trying to smear their competitors. So what makes them the good guys?
You seem to have a pretty cozy relationship with Stereophile, cozy enough to team up on this. Am I supposed to believe this doesn't court you some favor with the magazine?
Anyone who points out problems in the industry is labeled as negative, or as smearing those concerned.
Feel free to think what you will. We are all corrupt, we're all in cahoots. By the standards of this forum, no one in this biz can cooperate with anyone else without being a co-conspirator.
I frankly don't give a damn what you believe. Ever wonder why more manufacturers and journalists don't participate here? It's because they're greeted with snark and innuendo by armchair quarterbacks. Have fun.
Bill,
I'm a bit lost as to what you and Art were trying to achieve with this. Are you trying to say the industry has a problem, or just that there are a couple of bad apples? If you think the audio press are generally ethical and there's just a few bad apples, why would you put something like this out there? You haven't outed the bad apples but you have left a cloud hanging over everyone else. That seems unfair to all the rest of the press besides Stereophile.
Also, you took private communications exchanged with a press member and gave them to a competing publication to use as ammunition. How is that ethical? Even though you've withheld the names, you're still playing favorites.
Dave
I certainly appreciate you weighing in and your comments.But with all due respect, also incredibly self serving.
"We never advertise as a result of coercion or extortion, nor do we ever give freebies to reviewers, either as a reward for a favorable review or in order to provoke a favorable review."
Absolutely no body here thinks you have or do. This was not even up for debate.
"To view the depiction of actual occurrences as vague slurs against an entire industry indicates to me that the piece wasn't read carefully.."
Perhaps you should read John Atkinson's comments more carefully because he was crystal clear:
I quote:
"Personally I am sickened by the "pay-to-play" ethos that
is becoming endemic in the publishing industry and I felt that Art's
humorous approach worked well at signalling where we stood on this issue."And by the way, nobody to the best of my knowledge was accusing Stereophile of anything here!!! It was simply note then when you get on a high horse, someone is naturally going to try knock you off it.
And lastly, the reference to assclown was clearly to these amateur, unpaid "reviewers"..which I stand by 1000 percent.
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
> Perhaps you should read John Atkinson's comments more carefully because
> he was crystal clear. I quote: "Personally I am sickened by the
> 'pay-to-play' ethos that is becoming endemic in the publishing industry..."Note that I said "publishing industry," not "audio publishing industry."
Under the euphemism "sponsored content," pay-for-play is indeed becoming
ubiquitous, but just not yet in audio publishing, despite the presence
of some "bad apples."And while North American companies respect my policy, many of the
European and Asian companies I deal with that don't have formal US
distribution expect as a matter of course that in return for their
advertising dollars, I will arrange a review. They are genuinely shocked
that I won't play that game and as a result, refuse to advertise in
Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
Since the context of Art's piece was the audio publishing industry, I thought that was what you were referring to. Thank you for the clarification.
Interesting to note about Europe(not surprised about Asia). Since most of the Europeans I deal with like to feel they are sitting on high and ethical ground pertaining to society and business practices.
My response was to comments made in the entire thread, not just your comments. And yes, I know you meant the reviewers with "assclown"--but it was mentioned in connection with my name, and I tend to be defensive of that. My bad. ;->
...why not go public with the names?
How is anyone to know which publications are credible or not?
no balls.
To be perfectly honest, PS Audio is only incidental to the piece. I don't think anybody in their right mind would have any issues with your ethics.
BTW..with the DirectStream DAC being the hottest SOTA contender DAC around...it certainly is a nice endorsement that John Atkinson purchased the review sample. Certainly caught my attention as he has had many competing products come through. It must be really good. :)
PS Audio is not just incidental in this piece! A pretty quick examination and common sense should reveal why.
BTW I dont think that the DirectStream is SOTA. I can only guess where you would get this impression!
A good number of very trustworthy listeners I know have told me the DirectStream is fantastic sounding, and quite addicting. If you don't, well that is fine.That being said, for me personally, I don't like being locked into a DSD upsampling scheme. But that does not mean I would not find the DAC "pleasing".
Hard to believe you decided to attack their product, which not anywhere near the topic at hand.
Edits: 05/23/16
Isaak, no matter where we stand on this issue, I may be a bit naive, while I don't put much stock in reviews or reviewers I haven't followed for a long time, I had never given any thought to out right corruption. Sure, I figured some reviewers have gear on long term loan.
So, I didn't take this article as being some plot to build up Stereophile and PS Audio at the expense of the competition, I just did not read that into it.
Sautterj6 has 3 posts all in this thread. I am more suspect of him, than of any of the players involved here.
Someone asked me about 6Moons getting a pass, yes I meant in this thread, I never saw the other posts. As I said, I have only come back recently, and I find little has changed. Members still follow other members around, taking shots at each other.
Maybe Art's article was not all that well thought out, but I do believe his motives were not to make us only trust Stereophile, but to be aware that there is corruption. Like I said, I had never really thought about it.
I'm a music lover and audiophile, not a conspiracy theorist. I really am surprised at how much animosity there is towards Stereophile. To me they have helped move this industry and our interests forward.
It would be nice if everybody would just ligbten up, this is not a life or death issue.
Well, you say you don't put much stock in reviewers, yet in your previous post you speak glowingly of a few, and even talk about having personal communication with them. A contradiction. Which is it?
That being said, you make valid points. But there are counter points to yours.
Why doesn't Stereophile just put their nose to the grindstone, do their jobs as they say they do, and keep their mouths shut? That how I do my job, even though there are folks at competing entities who turn out work I think is substandard. My solution is to make sure the best product I can produce is out there.
Of course it is not life and death. :)
But..you they are talking about unethical behavior, not something to take lightly.
BTW, 6Moons is UPFRONT about their policy and made it public ahead of time. They are not trying to fool anybody or pretend they do not want advertiser support. He also had a damn good point. These manufacturers would take his reviews, by ad space elsewhere with quotes from his reviews, provide reprints at shows, and benefit at zero cost to them. The final point here is I don't think the publisher gives a damn..and if he received a product he feels is uncompetitive, regardless..he is going to say so.
TOTALLY different approach then "We take care of our own..."
Well, you say you don't put much stock in reviewers, yet in your previous post you speak glowingly of a few, and even talk about having personal communication with them. A contradiction. Which is it?"
Here is what I said, no contradiction.
"while I don't put much stock in reviews or reviewers I haven't followed for a long time"
I've been reading Stereophile for 23 years, to me that's a long time.
I've shared my opinion, I'm done.
nt
Back in the old days when a bad review (or high praise) meant salvation or bust for a product.
Now, with an endless supply of comments, reviews, and sites to ask and answer queries, the power of a review is seriously diminished.
ANYONE will see a glowing review (or a negative one) AND LOOK FURTHER. No one will just rush ut and buy, or stop thinking about it if they have any interest in it. They WILL continue and find other pro or nay articles and threads. Or MAKE a new thread asking..
SO IMO the whole controversy is now a moot point.
if you are Stereophile!
Word of mouth on various chat boards and click-bait ad driven web sites now drive the market as much as the slick Audio magazines do.
And that may explain why Stereophile put their and Art's name on such a trashy piece; one that seems to indict every other print magazine and every internet audio site without exception.
One wonders if we are witnessing the death throes of an advertising driven hobby publication?
Why PSAudio agreed to participate is beyond me (if indeed they agreed).
> Why PSAudio agreed to participate is beyond me (if indeed they agreed).
We published the piece with PS Audio's knowledge and their permission to
use the passages quoted verbatim.
> One wonders if we are witnessing the death throes of an advertising
> driven hobby publication?
No, you are not. The sad reality is that everyone in the audio industry
knows who the bad apples are in the reviewing community, but readers are
either ignorant, seem not to care, or direct their suspicions in the
wrong direction. Personally I am sickened by the "pay-to-play" ethos that
is becoming endemic in the publishing industry and I felt that Art's
humorous approach worked well at signalling where we stood on this issue.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"...but readers are either ignorant,..."
By 'readers,' I assume you mean those of us outside the industry, not privy to the late night Audio Industry whispers which take place in various seedy and questionable watering holes that most of the conspiracy theorists imagine occur on a regular basis.
I speculate 'readers' ignorance may stem from, say, printed versions of these late night conversations between a reviewer and/or editor and a manufacturer in which the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
If so, I plead ignorance as to the players to whom we are referring. I apologize for my ignorance. It will not occur again. At least until the next story in which the names have been changed to protect the guilty. In which case, I reserve the right to be ignorant again.
"I felt that Art's humorous approach worked well at signalling where we stood on this issue."
And where you seem to be saying everyone else (but you) in both print and web publication stands as well.
Art states that the dialog was taken from REAL communications with REAL print and web publications with a 'wink, wink' and a 'nudge, nudge' as to who he might be quoting.
I suppose it's in your best interest to leave your readers guessing as that could mean just about ANYONE.
If a majority of your readers guess wrong, then that could cover just about EVERYONE.
> Art states that the dialog was taken from REAL communications with REAL
> print and web publications with a 'wink, wink' and a 'nudge, nudge' as to
> who he might be quoting.
PS Audio's Bill Leebens requested that the identities of "Randy" and "Dick"
not be revealed. We respected that request.
> I suppose it's in your best interest to leave your readers guessing as
> that could mean just about ANYONE.
What puzzles me is why you and others are so much more upset by this piece
in Stereophile than you appear to be by the "pay-for-play" strategy adopted
by some writers. All I can do is assure my readers that as long as I remain
at Stereophile's helm, there won't be any "pay-for-play" operating at Stereophile.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Right now in addition to brands less known in the U.S. that have 6 Moons reviews of one of their products either currently posted on the site or in process are these companies:Genelec, Gryphon, Nagra, Devialet, Metronome, Vinnie Rossi, Aurorasound, Yamaha, NVO, LessLoss, ModWright, Pass Labs & First Watt.
Since Srajan announced the new policy of requiring companies to buy some form of an ad on his site there have also been other well known/established brands that submitted products for review on 6 Moons. Here's some of them:
Job, Fostex, Lounge Audio, Soundsmith, Lindemann, Crystal Cable, Accustic Arts, Canary Audio, Oyaide, Harmonix, Klipsch, Harbeth, Rogers (spkrs.)
Are you insinuating that companies that agree to buy an ad on 6 Moons under Srajan's conditions for a review are all complicit in corrupting the review process? You gonna refuse ad money from them and refuse to review their products?
Can you point to a single review that has appeared on 6 Moons since the policy change where you think the conclusions are basically bullshit heavily influenced by receiving ad money?
As far as I can tell, "pay for play" has made no difference to the conclusions of reviews at 6 Moons. It simply means they require some kind of an ad on their site (not necessarily costing a large sum) in order to get a product reviewed. Big deal. No ads in S'phile, no mag. Pan 2 or 3 products from a company and they'll likely stop advertising in your mag. IIRC your own wife is in charge of ads for S'phile but we shouldn't be concerned according to you due to your impenetrable "Chinese wall".
6 Moons does the same things you do (with the exception of measurements, which you don't do for your "columnists"). They discuss what ancillaries work well and not well with the DUT, the strengths and weaknesses of the product, and provide rec's - which like yours and every other hifi mag/e-zine are damn near all positive.
Edits: 05/22/16
I haven't read a word in 6moons since he announced the new policy. Guess I must be the only one, huh?
Whether a hifi publication is "pay for play" or not..........a grain of salt at best IMO.
> Are you insinuating that companies that agree to buy an ad on 6 Moons
> under Srajan's conditions for a review are all complicit in corrupting
> the review process?I am not insinuating anything. What I am saying is that readers should be
skeptical of _all_ magazines/webzines that accept advertising.They should
compare a site like 6 Moons, where only products from advertisers are
reviewed and Stereophile where only around half the products reviewed are
from advertisers and think about what the likelihood of advertising
corrupting the review process will be in both cases. You are free to make
up your own mind, of course,> As far as I can tell, "pay for play" has made no difference to the
> conclusions of reviews at 6 Moons.And you are free to think that.
> Pan 2 or 3 products from a company and they'll likely stop advertising
> in your mag.Of course, But such advertisers almost always come back. You leave money
on the table in the short term to ensure you will still be around in the
long term. All my publishers over the years have understood that, which
is why I am now in my 31st year of editing Stereophile.As my mentor John Crabbe, who edited Hi-Fi News from 1964 to 1982, put it
(see link below): "If you tell the truth about components you review,
there will always be a small percentage of companies at any one time who
are not advertising in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will
have a good magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have
readers. And as long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will
eventually return. But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good
magazine. And if you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers,
at least not for long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have
advertisers."> IIRC your own wife is in charge of ads for S'phile but we shouldn't be
> concerned according to you due to your impenetrable "Chinese wall".Again you are free to think what you like, but please note that my wife
retired at the end of 2015.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16
that Stereophile is the main lightning rod in this thread. Hardly a peep about the outrageous behavior at TAS revealed by a former writer! As for 6 Moons, I find their policy sketchy, at best. But whatever, I haven't read any review there for several years now - mostly uninteresting products and rarely well-written articles.
Stereophile ain't perfect but it's head and shoulders above everything else and with more credibility.
This is still largely a Stereophile friendly forum.
nt
nt
I assume you're talking about Sue's post.
How do you know they are related?
Do you know who Randy and Dick are?
Do you know what publications they write for?
Art and Bill and Sue didn't name any names. And even if they had been forthcoming with the specifics of their accusations, that doesn't mean the accusations are confirmed. You would need evidence for that. So far, we don't have any evidence, nor any testimony. We don't even really have an accusation. Just a smear.
I didn't name the manufacturer because I have no proof. My word against his. And TAS really didn't do anything wrong. They simply didn't know who to believe and chose the manufacturer, who was making a rather large fuss and denying any wrongdoing.
Looking back, perhaps I should not have said anything. It was simply a gut reaction to contact one of the TAS editors. I've actually had a few phone calls from friends since my post saying they would have taken the speakers. And how many other reviewers? Randy and Dick perhaps?
Sue
You did the right thing. Doing the right thing is not always without cost.
Daniel
Rather that these are cases of unethical behavior by audio reviewers/magazines
I'm really just tired of all the innuendo that gets thrown around the industry by manufacturers and press who don't like other manufacturers and press. Unless you're on the inside you'll never know enough about what really happens to pass judgment or to know who the "good guys" are, if there are any.
..and that, dear sir, is a huge point.
as your mentor said, its mostly about telling the truth. I don't view Srajan's policy as something that corrupts the reviewing. It may limit the pool of companies he has for products, but judging from the list of 'em who do submit products 6 Moons is not having much of a problem with that.
Didn't know your wife retired. Wasn't implying anything sinister anyway, just making a point. I stopped taking hifi reviews seriously enough to be concerned about any of this stuff quite a while ago, though I do hope to glean some info worth noting from them.
Well how convenient. Mr. Atkinson's wife retired 6 months ago..but how about the last 20 years. "Chinese Wall"..more like a paper wall by appearances. And appearances mean a lot, what ever the truth is, and even Mr. Atkinson explicitly says this with his comments about Pay To Play.Mr. Atkinson says 50% of the products reviewed in Stereophile are from non advertisers, but i would bet my bottom dollar that nearly 100% of that 50% is then solicited for ad sales. Matter of fact, I'd bet the farm on that.
Edits: 05/22/16 05/22/16 05/22/16
"All I can do is assure my readers that as long as I remain
at Stereophile's helm, there won't be any "pay-for-play" operating at Stereophile."
Good, that's ALL YOU NEED TO SAY!
How hard is that?
When it became clear that 'Bill' did not wish to reveal the identities of "Randy" and "Dick", that would have been a very good time to scrap the whole piece. As it is now, everyone is left to guess and just about every reviewer, not working for YOUR magazine, is left stained by your overly broad brush.
And I'm left free to guess that might have been your intention.
> > I suppose it's in your best interest to leave your readers guessing as that could mean just about ANYONE. < <
Except yours truly, unless there was a footnote I missed suggesting the suspect reviewers could also be mascaraing as women.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mr. Atkinson.
> > suggesting the suspect reviewers could also be > mascaraing < as women < <
I see what you did there. ;-)
that wasn't caught by his editor? ;-)
Edits: 05/21/16
Art and Bill are doing nothing more than spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) against Stereophile's competitors. Both web and print reviewers are implicated. We're apparently supposed to believe that Stereophile is the only ethical publication that readers should trust.
No names are given, so there is no way for anyone to check these accusations. Some readers will assume they know who he is talking about and mentally convict people who have no opportunity to defend themselves.
I think if you're going to throw dirt around about your competitors, make your accusations specific and be accountable for them. Posts like Art's diminish my opinion of Stereophile and PS Audio more than their intended targets.
nt
I will make it a point to ask Paul McGowan next time I see him at a show.
He's been one of the long-time audio manufacturers I respect so will withhold judgement till I get his take on all of this.
Well, surprise, I agree with your post.While I have no doubt these scenarios are common place, it was probably not Dudley's place or business to publicize them.
It is a clear, and self righteous attempt to put Stereophile, and even more so, himself, on high moral ground.
Edits: 05/20/16
I think, as with the TAS/JV cable debacle, it is worthwhile for Stereophile to distinguish itself from media with dubious ethics.
Yeah, but doing so by publishing a piece which one might call of 'dubious ethics' itself might not be the best way to do it.
The TAS/JV cable debacle was a specific accusation against a specific publication. Since it was specific, that made it possible for Robert Harley and Tom Martin to respond, regardless of whether anyone found the response convincing.The problem with the ambiguous accusations is that it's impossible for anyone to respond to them. Charles Hanson used to publish statements that TAS was corrupt, full stop. When you asked him whether this reviewer was corrupt or that reviewer was corrupt (and I did, here) he would respond that he had nothing against those particular reviewers. When you asked him if he was thinking of a specific case of corruption (and I did), he would reply that he didn't have anything specific in mind. Since Charles lost the court action taken by TAS, he's now suggesting that "other publications" [other than Stereophile] are corrupt. Which in my mind is worse.
It's extremely unfair to do this, it makes it impossible for the target of the accusations to respond. If you're going to say something, make it specific.
I'm very disappointed with the moderators that they allow this.
Daniel
Edits: 05/20/16
Allow what?
To post a link and comment on a piece on the Stereophile web site?
Your complaint should be directed to Stereophile, not the original poster or the Moderators of this board.
Not disagreeing with that!
My point was a little more tangential, disappointment that the moderators continue to allow ambiguous accusations of corruption to be made here, including when the supposed offender is not named but everybody knows who is meant. Admitted this may not be the most appropriate sub thread to make it.
Daniel
To me, throwing this kind of innuendo around about your competitors makes me question Stereophile's ethics.
n
I hear you, but why not shut keep your mouth shut, keep your nose to the grind stone and lead by example..
America likes to proclaim over and over we are the most progressive nation on earth, yet 83 other countries have elected female leaders aside from us.
BTW, call me nuts, but I sort of believe JV's excuse for that cable debacle.
...JV's excuse may or may not be valid but I have heard other instances of his where his ethics were missing.
Sure, I did not say his ethics were not questionable..they may or may not be..I just said his excuse was fairly believable. It may not be true either.
private; however, I could share it with you if you were to become a Contributor.
BTW: Bill was the manufacturer's sales guy.
-Rod
Sorry, Rod: "Randy, I'm really not comfortable doing that." : :)Yes, sorry, Randy was the "reviewer".
Edits: 05/19/16
I was offered a bribe from a manufacturer when I was still writing for TAS. I made the mistake of reporting the incident to one of the TAS editors and guess what happened? The manufacturer is still having his speakers reviewed by TAS and I'm on the outside looking in.
If you want to see an assclown, look in the mirror.
Gone are the days when we could write and send in our own reviews, or is it .. :)
....flowery prose is usually a sign of deafness.
Just a little reviewer humor :-)
"They simply didn't know who to believe and chose the manufacturer, who was making a rather large fuss and denying any wrongdoing."Sue, I'm trying to imagine what possible motive a reviewer could have for making a report like this were it not true? Certainly not to get a freebie set of speakers (no mfr, same one or other, will ever make an offer to that reviewer like that again after the report becomes known). Under bribe from a different manufacturer? Hard to imagine, too complicated. Brownie Points to the reviewer? People who report bad smells seldom get Brownie Points for it.
So why did the editors choose to believe the manufacturer? Any idea?
_
Make super easy diffusors:--> http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/everything-else/269366-making-easy-diy-depot-sound-diffuser-panels-step-step.html#post4215464
Horn Design Spreadsheet:--> http://libinst.com/SynergyCalc/
Edits: 05/31/16
> > So why did the editors choose to believe the manufacturer? Any idea? < <
Turns out the manufacturer was friends with HP and had just sent him a pair of uber priced flagship speakers to play with.
No brownie points for me. Honestly, I don't think publishers even want to hear about this kind of stuff.
Sue Kraft
The Audio Beat
Aren't these the same editors and reviewers that, over the years, have tried to convince us that $20K, $50K, $100K, $200K and up for gear is affordable and a bargain? Easy to say when you're getting said gear half off or on permanent loan which means free. There's no way that an amp or speaker can be worth more than a house. What a scam.
SK with the mic drop!
Thanks for having integrity. Somehow I'm not surprised you're no longer with TAS . . .
Could you tell us what was the bribe?
Thanks,
Daniel
> > Could you tell us what was the bribe? < <
Free speakers in exchange for a Golden Ear award. Makes you wonder about those awards, doesn't it?
Thanks for sharing. I thought bribery was usually more subtle than that.
Best wishes,
Daniel
Sorry the subject line doesn't match my post inside. $25 is the cost to be an AA contributor.
The bribe was worth $6,000 when the manufacturer told me he would never ask for his review sample speakers back as long as he got a Golden Ear Award for them. That's a bribe in my book. No way would I ever put my name on an award that was bought.
Sue
Just kidding! :-)
My opinion of TAS is now vindicated.
One might argue that the so called "ass-clowns" at the e-zines are capable of getting a "real job" and wouldn't want to take the massive pay cut to work for the likes of Stereophile or TAS as full time reviewers.
A) I believe "Bill" represents the vast majority of "reviewers" who write for free for online blogs, and are in it for the discounts, not to share their "expertise".B) Since TAS and Stereophile more than likely have a dozen full time employees between them, making a "living" as an audio reviewer is a non starter. However free lance writers certainly can make nice supplemental income. A "publication" that does not pay its writers is an amateurish waste of time that cannot enforce any standards, and will attract the dregs.
Edits: 05/19/16
Well I sort of understand where you are coming from but let me say that there are a lot of capable writers and a lot of capable audiophiles. An editor for any magazine chooses the people who write for them.
And the editor of course does enforce standards via the process of editing and can simply not have the reviews printed. That is a standard.
People volunteer at soup kitchens - they're not paid so are volunteers all the dregs of the world?
You could make the case that e-zines are stepping stones to the paid gigs for some people. I really liked the writing of Kevin Fiske - so I contacted Constanine Soo (Dagogo's founder) and I forwarded Kevin on - he wrote as we all do for free - he then found a paying gig at Hi-Fi Critic and writes with Martin Colloms and Paul Messenger now. So that's pretty cool - but perhaps he doesn't get that gig unless he is first seen in print on the E-zines. But the point is if the paid guys are not dregs but the unpaid guys are dregs - then was he always a dreg or now not a dreg just because someone gives him a few bucks to write. Besides Constantine offered some of us money to write reviews and we turned him down. And he pays in other ways such as covering the hotel rooms at audio shows. Which is a payment of sorts.
I guess I am not sure what is being assumed about reviewers. Art is probably right that unpaid reviewers may be hoping for a discount - but that's kinda dumb since it's basically industry wide standard that anything we review is going to be 40% of the list price give or take. Some companies even advertise this right on their website (Zu Audio is an example).
But print reviewers get those accommodations as well. No salary and a very low salary is hardly a difference. If the E Zines paid us $50 a year we would be getting paid. But that doesn't exactly turn us from dregs to elites all of a sudden.
And perhaps when you get paid - there is an expectation to compromise. Without pay - we're not being bought.
Edits: 05/20/16
PS at the front: I loved the video.I know too many words that offer valid arguments are staggering for some people to understand.
Perhaps I need to speak in simple terms for certain individuals on the board. When it comes to reviewing you should ignore all reviewers and only listen to me - I am running for Stereo Man of the year.
I'm the best review person. No one is better than me at review stuff - I use the best words. No one uses better words than me. I love words. I know words. I always tell the truth using the best words. And my word I have the best ears. My dad gave me a $2million dollar ear when I was 5 years old. My name is Austen - there was a TV show about me called the 6 million dollar man - they changed some things for legal reasons like the first name the spelling, but that was me. Golden robot ears. Best ears of anyone.
When I review I choose the best stuff. Stereo stuff is great - I will make stereos great again. I will review the stereo stuff and I will only choose the best stereo stuff. I know people, the best people. They will also tell you what the best stuff is. And let me tell you these people are the best people. You don't know any of them but they're the best people. And we review the best stuff and if you buy it then stereos will be great again. Let me tell you. There are big big problems in stereos today. Big problems and I'm the man to fix them. Just buy what I tell you to buy.
Make stereos great again. I'm going to build a better brick and mortar stereo store - I know brick and mortar - I build the best buildings and I will tell you that I do. I do, I do. And those stereo shop owners are paying for those stereo shop walls - believe me. I will make them pay. You need to have the best walls for a stereo. a big strong thick wall. I will keep those Bose lovers out if it's the last thing I do. No Diana Krall. I want the best walls.
And no foreign stereos will be allowed in. We have the names and they will not be allowed in to sell their foreign stuff. Except for the foreign gear I married (err bought - err well married - or bought - err married - err????)
Blah blah blah. Dreg, blah blah blah, crook, blah blah. Darn! "Stereos" has three syllables - my audience won't understand me. Darn!
The overzealous freedom of speech moderators might understand so enjoy it for the few minutes it's posted - even though I have not mentioned a single name - just like Art's article. There's no veil!
Edits: 05/20/16 05/21/16
You should make all Hi-Fi items reviewed free, stash and seal all quid pro quo emails, school records and fake BC..
Just saying ...
Edits: 05/24/16
There is nothing that can be done. If someone thinks you're a crook and you're not a crook nothing they do or say will convince people.
If you are a crook a liar a coward and in general a total scum bag and you have snowed people - and they are hook line and sinker bought in - then nothing anyone can say will convince them otherwise. Even if it is so blatantly in opposition AND you can prove it. Nope - not going to change their mind.
Integrity is the "right" that you do in the world when no one is looking even when you could "profit" by doing wrong without being caught. And having the courage not to give a damn what other people think.
Anyone notice part of this thread is missing?
Certainly not what I drew from the piece.
What a weird, vague reply.
I should have added "idiotic."
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
Thanks! for sharing- Isaak.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]