"...and I don't take any advertiser money..."

@realgoodsound 

Thank you for clarifying the money aspect of the manufacturer / reviewer relationship.

What about the information aspect? Reviewers sometimes appear to be repeating manufacturers' marketing materials or technical claims without too much scrutiny.

Here is a great example:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/bs-meter-is-pegged

If this can happen in Stereophile magazine... what is your take on what happened there? A reviewer unschooled in computer science, passing a manufacturer's claims along no matter how misleading / spurious?

Certainly no one expects hifi reviewers to be experts in each of the numerous fields of craft and science involved in the making of hifi gear.

But isn't it fair to expect reviewers to seek the advice of experts when their own expertise is lacking?

Also, isn't copy fact-checked before publication, especially at a respected publication like Stereophile?

Just curious about these things. The appearance of coziness between manufacturers, publications, and reviewers discredits everyone involved and casts doubt on the reviewed products.

Well, you invited comments

What are your thoughts? 

I don't deny I use manufacturer info in a description of the unit. But I attempt to verify or refute that within the actual review portion. In the case of speakers and electronics, the review unit is subjected to scientific tests by one or more of our people who is an expert, independent of what I write, so sometimes, there are disagreements. I may dislike a piece that measures beautifully or, conversely, I may like a piece whose measurements are lousy. In the published review, both sides are presented.

My reviews go through a two-step editing process. First, the editors scrutinize my copy and say, for instance, "What did you mean here? and the like. Then, my colleagues look over my reviews and often pose questions that I must answer in a rewrite. Believe me, the copy is run through the wringer.

When it comes to how I acquire review samples, my normal procedure is to contact the manufacturer or distributor directly. Often, if my request gets anywhere within in the organization, it's sent to their PR/Press rep. From smaller organizations, I may get a response from the company president. In a few cases, I've requested a review sample of something and been told the manufacturer doesn't want it reviewed (for whatever reason to which I'm not privy). 

Finally, I tend to steer clear of heavily digital equipment as, frankly, I'm an analog guy in a digital age. I leave those reviews to the colleagues who understand such minutiae. Give me a straightforward amplifier, turntable or speakers anytime.

Hope that answers your questions/comments and thanks!!

No if you leave the definition open of "pay to play".

I think that Stereophile is the worst. 

audition_audio: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "No if you leave the definition open of 'pay to play'." If you mean that by occasionally taking advantage of the "accommodation pricing" available to reviewers, that I'm accepting a bribe, then no. For one thing, that makes no sense. Would I buy at any price, or accept for free, a piece if I didn't think it was better than what I already have? Why would anyone do that? 

If that's not what you mean, I'd really appreciate an explanation.

I can't speak for Stereophile, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. 

Thanks for your comment.

@realgoodsound 

Thank you for your comments! Everything in the editorial processes you describe is exactly as it should be, and that's comforting. 

But I would like, if I may, to again direct your attention to Stereophile's infomercial review of the Ideon Absolute Stream Meta server-streamer by Jason Victor Serinus dated Oct 17, 2024.

Though Mr. Serinus appropriately uses quotation marks and properly attributes the most egregious nonsense to the manufacturer itself, he fails to exercise the most elementary level of critical thinking or due diligence, so that he allows false and / or impossible claims to proceed into his copy verbatim; and, apparently, Stereophile's editor and staff are happy to let it go to print.

You indicate that your copy is "run through the wringer", so why wasn't Mr. Serinus's? How can that even happen with the kind of editorial processes and controls you describe in your own organization? For sure Stereophile has similar, if not the very same editorial processes in place, so it would be interesting to learn how an advertorial-grade review can just circumvent that elaborate review process and go on to be published.