++++StereoPhile Class A components+++++

You wrote: "I've heard from people in the business that it can cost a lot of money to get a Class "A" rating..... The price was too high for the maufacturer to get a review there, so Sterophile doesn't get that component for review."

Speaking as someone who has, in fact, recommended Class A for some components and not for others, this is an old canard for which no proof has ever been offered.

You wrote: "good advertisers=good revues."

Again, if you have any proof that there is such a quid pro quo relationship, please let us know. I am not asking for anecdotes or any simple statistical study, just an agreement in writing or a verbal one to which one of the two primary parties will attest.

As a reviewer, I have no idea who advertises nor do I care.

Sean wrote: "Kal must have found a good rock to hide under...."

Meaning what?

"or is either more selective / more careful about how and what he writes : )"

You might say so; I could not possibly comment. ;-)

Golden_ears wrote: "Actually, if a player breaks down more than once on the reviewer, (or if it is not a good product) there are two opinions on what should happen: - terminate the review process and send the designer back to the drawing board - publish the results....but that would kinda' mean."

You do not state which opinion is yours but the latter is Stereophile's policy. All failures, adjustments, returns and replacements are to be fully reported. Termination of the review process would deprive the reader of that valuable information. Don't you agree?

Yeah. They should lock us in: No trips and no visitors. ;-)

"I imagine that a Stereopile reviewer may not be able to disclose for corporate reasons."

I do not know what, specifically, this refers to.

Kal (who has no relatives in the audio business)

Why do you think it is an 'interesting choice of words?' It is in reference to an earlier post about the conditions for not confining me to quarters.

Reviewers cannot afford such measures. We do have 2 methods.

First, there's the double-blind procedure: When we meet with manufacturers, it is a requirement that we both get blind drunk so that no one can remember what was discussed or with whom.

Second, there's the ABX approach in which all such meetings require the presence of a third masked party who is a competing manufacturer or a reviewer for a competing magazine but whose identity is kept from both reviewer and manufacturer.

With these methods, we can socialize and accomplish nothing.

Helcat wrote: "I was referring corporate policies in some companies prohibiting posting on internet bulletin boards within their industry, even anonymously. It is assumed you speak for the publisher."

It would be incorrect to assume so. My statements here and elsewhere (including in print) are my own opinions based on my own knowledge and experience. I am not an employee of the magazine and I earn my living elsewhere.

"There is supposed to be a chinese wall between advertising and content. It appears that Stereophiles' wall seems porous to the unwashed. Myself included. Enlighten me."

I cannot enlighten since I have no knowledge of or contact with the advertising end of things. They have never contacted me about an impending/prospective review and I have certainly never contacted them. I do know who the ad people are since we have attended various functions together but there are no lines of communication or procedures.