I've nothing against advertisers or even reviewers who write up advertisers products as long as they make it clear that their reviews are biased. After all, no one, no matter how ethical and honest, will quarrel with his or her kind providers.
When they first appeared, neither Stereophile or Absolute Sound accepted advertisements. Consequently, their hard-hitting reviews sent manufacturers whining and whimpering into corners. Then, they decided to accept advertising after all - but only dealers. Later they also accepted manufacturers ads, in my view, at the cost of absolute honesty.
Many years ago, to make summer cash, I worked in the kitchen of a ritzy hotel. I remember the manager storming in and reproving the 'extravagance' of one of the chefs by saying: "Anyone can cook with butter!" Look, anyone can make a good loudspeaker for $35,000 or even $10,000. Making a good one for $1,000, now that takes some doing! So, I guess if you can afford the prices, you can surely trust the "A list". |
Why lie when judicious use of the truth serves the same purpose? |
That's why I've moved in next door to Sam and put up a toll-gate. :-) |
if you had a nickel for everytime a manufacturer popped by sam's house, you'd be rich. |
I'm curious - How many of the posters here who see advertisers receiving positive reviews as de facto incriminating evidence of a quid pro quo are Consumers Reports subscribers? How many would pay what a Stereophile subscription would cost if they didn't accept advertising? How many would even enjoy perusing the magazine if it were bereft of ads?
I agree that Stereophile's credibility gap is of their own making, but people unwilling to put their money where their mouth is shouldn't lob hand-grenades. |
the latest shameless revue and full page ad in stereophile is on the music fidelity sacd player...these guys change models faster than most music lovers change socks...trivista,schmivista |
Sean and Kal I do have a couple of nits to pick. Sean when you quote me, quote me accurately. Kal, my comments are not in a previous issue. They are in a post preceding yours. This obscures context and intent. |
Sean, I jest. I am actually intrigued enough to review your threads. No jest. I don't believe I have ever met any Stereophile reviewers. Kal seems like a humorous fellow. |
Wow, what fun this is, mixing pure BS politic'n with our pleasure/fun/hobby....you guys are killing so many of us with this drivel that you guys should be labled internet
terrorists.
:) |
Kal: I meant that you only poke your head out from under the rock when it was safe to do so. No negative connotations implied as using that approach would only show a sign of "smarts". Your last comment ( or lack of one ) only proves the point : ) Sean
> |
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. ;-) |
Well, this divorced daddy is cooking dinner for the youngens, never quite know how its gonna come out. Did I miss anything? I remember, and having cancelled my subscription to Stereophile because it was $36 and I thought it was too expensive compared to others I like. Now I think the magazine is a good price but I cant afford the equipment I would really like. Go figure. |
Paul: That was a very nice overview of my past "discussions" with the folks at Stereophile, especially given our personal differences in the past. Hats off to you for being a complete gentleman about those differences and presenting a very fair synopsis of the situation. I would only add that i've had more than a few "run-in's" with JA and, to a far lesser extent, John Marks. Kal must have found a good rock to hide under or is either more selective / more careful about how and what he writes : ) While i would be willing to pay more money for what i would consider a magazine of higher calibre and integrity, i too have to agree with your assessment of the price structure of components reviewed. While it is true that technology and R&D take both time and money and a manufacturer has to recoupe that somehow, the prices on the majority of "high end" products is beyond belief. Quite honestly, i can't afford the mass majority of products reviewed or featured in these mags anymore. That does not mean that i don't want to be aware of them and / or the technologies / design theories that went into creating them though. As a side note, folks might want to take a look at this very recent Stereophile based thread on AA. Some may agree / disagree with the points that i bring up there, but everyone is welcome to voice their opinion. I'm sure that JA and those that run Stereophile would like to hear from their subscribers on this matter as it could be the future of the magazine. Sean > |
Helcat, Kal, John Atkinson, "Sam Tellig," John Marks and other Stereophile contributors have participated from time to time at audioasylum.com, where Sean is also a regular. Sean has had some arguments with "Sam" and, in general, is one of the members there who seems to be very interested in audio reviewer "ethics" and Stereophile's policies.
I find most of these discussions rather tedious. Though I have had an argument with Kal regarding speaker frequency response (I like presence dips, he doesn't), I think all of the contributors to the print mags are decent guys, and almost all of the components they review are recommended because most things made and sold by audio manufacturers do what they are supposed to do. My only discomforts are with the increasingly stratospheric prices of the components they review and the proliferation of "Class A" loudspeakers (I think a lot of them belong in a lower class or are too expensive to recommend for the performance offered, but that's just the personal pov of a listener not connected in any way with the industry). It is unrealistic, however, for anyone to expect a component to be trashed in a review. There just aren't that many of them that are so bad.
Just remember that Stereophile is a buff mag published to entertain and to provide a vehicle for advertising. (There isn't anything wrong with advertising.) Unlike Sean, I would not pay more for Stereophile. I have less and less interest in component reviews anyway, but the components they are reviewing are just getting too expensive. |
Helcat: I don't know whether to take your post in jest or not. I wasn't trying to "name-drop", i was trying to point out that my comments / points of view have remained consistent regardless of who i was talking to and where it was said.
For the record, i do enjoy my music, my systems and the correspondance that takes place on forums of this nature. If i didn't, i wouldn't be involved with any of it. Sean
> |
Sean, I will try to take some time off to catch up with your prolific postings on multiple sites. Sorry...
My wife forced me to attend AA after a vicious three day bender. I got the chip somewhere. I was under the impression they were a self perpetuating meritocracy without bosses.
The other day me and JA ST and the gang had to call MF onto the carpet over that whole crown jewel reference se/shelter fiasco. Just kidding. I always enjoyed name dropping.
Don't make me taunt you a third time.
Enjoy:) |
Helcat: My position about Stereophile ratings has not wandered one bit, nor am i "sucking up" to "a famed reviewer".
Having said that, i'm NOT going to put Kal on the spot. I will only say that i've found his reviews to offer moments of critical insight that i've found lacking in the reviews of other Stereophile employees. THAT is why i don't have a problem with Kal or his reviews.
The fact that Kal has very little to do with overall Class Ratings at Stereophile also comes into play. That info can be found in another thread that he, i and JA were involved in over at AA. For that matter, if you had ever read ANY of my public correspondance with members of Stereophile at AA, you would know that i'm not a "brown noser" in the least. I try to call them as i see them, good or bad. As such, i've posted "kudo's" to them when i really enjoyed something and dished out criticism when i thought something was "fishy" or poorly executed. After all, i am one of the bosses there and have the right to voice my opinion. As to how i am one of the "bosses" there, my subscription fees help pay their bills and paychecks : )
As far as cancelling subscriptions go, i'm not going to do that as i'm prepaid for another three years or so. Whether or not i like specific attributes of the magazine is besides the point. It is a great source of info / current trends / occasional technical articles. In that respect, it is worth way more than what we pay for it. As some may recall, i had actually encouraged JA to raise the price of a subscription so as to minimize the dependency of the magazine on advertising revenue. I still have that point of view and would put my money where my mouth is should they decide to go that route. Sean
> |
Stereophile is in the business of selling (generally) high-priced, many would say highly overpriced, high-end gear. Why? Simple! A magazine's profits come from advertisers, generally, from my experience in the magazine business, in the ratio of 60% ad space to 40% articles. Have you noticed how much thinner Stereophile has gotten since the number and space of ads has declined. Readers, you ask? To magazines readers are a necessary evil. Advertisers pay according to the number of subscribers, which is why you get all those 'bargain' subscription offers.
This brings me to the "A" list and reviews. A magazine can't afford to antagonize advertisers or trash equipment sent for review. Obvious, isn't it! Do that and the magazine goes down the tubes (no pun intended). That's why it appears that Stereophile's reviewers haven't, to paraphrase Will Rogers, met a piece of equipment they didn't like!
Are the reviewers dishonest? Not necessarily! They must certainly be cross-pressured. On the one hand they must serve, and thus maintain, their subscriber base, and, at the same time serve the interests of makers of often overpriced equipment.
Do I read Stereophile? Sure, I do! At the going subscription rate one can't afford not to. I find it fun and sometimes even useful. I jus take their recommendations with more than a grain of salt! |
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. |
Who can afford a new class A rating system, %5 of people on audiogon? Thats why were here we cannot pay full price for stereo equipment. Enjoy. |
Sean, actually I very much respect Kr4 reviews. The original thread was/is Stereophile class listing and the credence given. Don't get all wishy-washy on me now that a credentialed reviewer is online. remember your first post?
Trust your experience. I would never cancel my Stereophile subscription as then I could only yell at the TV. Also, Sean |
Helcat: I have no problems with Kal or his reviews. As i mentioned above, i think that he ( and most all other reviewers ) are between a rock and a hard place. What path they take to get out of such a place is up to them.
As such, i think that Kal ( as an individual ) does a fine job of walking the tight-rope that we ( as regular readers of his work ) and the "powers that be" at Stereophile have provided for him. And for the record, yes, i knew that he was posting under the moniker of Kr4 prior to this thread. Sean
> |
As someone who as actually been confined to quarters, I can understand Kals reluctance. 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.
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. |
"With these methods, we can socialize and accomplish nothing." ?
Sure you do accomplish something. The Manufacturer usually pays!!
"Blind drunk"
Golly blind AND deaf?! That's major sensory deprivation man! Must be awful for you!
Uh, that's humour Kal. Us Conspiracy Theorists gotta' have SOME fun.
Well, I have to go watch Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory now. I haven't watched it yet this week, and I have to stay sharp so I can keep an eye on you guys and figure out what's REALLY going on! |
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. |
KAL...Do reviewers have body doubles like Saddam? So when they have their top secret meetings with the product manufactures the AIA (Audio Intelligance agency) doesnt know if its the real reviewer or not? HUMM? |
Kal, humor will never dissuade the determined conspiracy theorist... ;^) |
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. |
"Kal (who has no relatives in the audio business)"
Hmmm....interesting choice of words....? |
KR... I actually have something nice to say... Man must
be Stereophile bash month here or something. Looks like a tough gig being a professional reviewer :-)
Anyway about a year ago I was looking for some new amplification and came across one of your reviews while
researching a specific product. Well to make a long story
short every review about this product was very favorable
and I did buy the product. And no guys its not a MF product.
After owning the amp for a year now and seeing this thread I went back and read your review again. I have to tell you It was/is dead nuts on. It is "exactly" what you said it is. Your review was the most cautiously "subjective" out of a alot of really "glowing" reviews about the product but I think you really nailed it.
So it turns out the product is a "class A" and I couldn't
be happier with it.. And have no plans of changing it.
Oh and I also have some speakers that made the list that sound pretty awesome too :-) but thats another story.
So even though I didn't base my buying decisions on the rankings.. I have to agree with the rankings in my case.
Anyway thanks for steering me in the right direction. I
think im one of the happiest people here... and thats exactly what this whole thing is supposed to be about isnt it?
Steve |
"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) |
In the interest of disclosure, I asked Kr4 to identify him/herself. I have no business interest in this interesting and frustrating hobby. I imagine that a Stereopile reviewer may not be able to disclose for corporate reasons. I appreciate this since Art Dudleys' political commentary has been reigned in. You take the good with the bad, or conversely. Art in this months Sterophile touched on this -ongoing personal and business relationships. Just human nature.
We don't need complex statistical analysis or a smokin' gun. We simply peruse ads and reviews. KR often reviews pro gear without advertisements. Read critically. Sean |
Helcat,
Look at the first 2 letters of Kr4's screen name, compare them with the subject of the thread.......;) |
|
Kr4: "Termination of the review process would deprive the reader of that valuable information. Don't you agree?"
Sure, as long as that reporting applies to everybody that supplies product for review. |
Well, as long as your family and friends aren't in the hi-fi manufacturing biz, I don't think we need go quite that far... ;^) |
Yeah. They should lock us in: No trips and no visitors. ;-) |
I have to agree with Kal, Sean - Stereophile has bored me to tears many times, as they must do on such occasions, with their detailed accounts of equipment failure and what it took to repair/circumvent the situation. Obviously, there's no way for the reader to know for sure that all of the reported incidents equal all the actual incidents, but given the extent of what's been printed in the mag through the years, there's really no reason for anyone to doubt that they're reporting everything worth mentioning.
As far as the manufacturer personally coming to a reviewer's home to make a fix - or to provide the even more common rendering of set-up assistance - you can legitimately argue those questions both ways, but I can understand the magazine's affirmative policy on this activity as a practical matter, and again, the evidence would seem to indicate that they always disclose such assistance to the reader. But: Does this practice run the risk of unduly influencing the reviewer's opinions (for either better or worse)? I think it certainly can, or at the very least it raises questions of appearances. The most effective way around that issue would probably be the termination of the whole manufacturer gear loan policy - something which could carry many advantages in theory, but which in practice the mags have always claimed they can't afford to do. Whether or not one believes that this claim always rings true - what with the advent of Audiogon among other factors - is another topic.
However, I have a very hard time understanding Stereophile's and the others' condoning of the practice of manufacturers wining and dining reviewers, separate checks or no, you-pay-this-time I-pay-next-time included. It's already impossible to prevent reviewers from being long-time acquaintances of various industry players (and reviewers ought to recuse themselves from covering gear manufactured by such 'friends') - the least the mags could do is draw the line on reviewers junketing around the world to be entertained by company heads. They could send non-reviewing reporters to cover stories on companies and factories, and limit the reviewers to the more impersonal interactions they maintain are necessary to conduct fair and informative reviews. |
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? |
Socrates, some "pro" reviewers know what they write about, some don't. Just sticking with Stereophile, John Atkinson, for example, certainly knows his subject. Others are "pros" only because they are fun to read and somehow someone has paid them for what they have written, not because they have any relevant knowledge. There are more and more of these guys now, especially with the ezines.
Stereophile has in the last few years adopted an unfortunately misleading editorial policy with regard to its recommended list. They used to say that a recommendation required measurements or at least full reviews. Recently they have said that the recommendation of two writers is sufficient, and yet they include components in the recommended list that only "Sam Tellig" has reviewed. Even if you add someone else who has heard and recommends these components, all you add is another incompetent opinion. Why do I say that? Well, I am reminded every April and October of what he said in his review of the Kimber Silver Streak interconnect: "It's secret? Only the signal-carrying portion of the braid is silver - the returns are copper." If Kimber figured out how to get the signal to behave in that fashion, that is certainly still a secret. |
I think you guys are missing some rather huge points with the Stereopile or other professional reviewers worth: Many of them have credentials which let one appreciate that they do in fact know what a particular track should sound like, as they where either in the studio behind the mastering board or even playing an instrument on their demo material used to review new gear with. I respect the reviewers with these credentials more then I do any Joe Blow who comes to this or any other audio site with their prep-school vocabulary and fat bank accounts from their silver spoon background, which can fool themselves and others into believing that they are somehow in the know. A further fact is that pro reviewers get to play with more gear in a month that even neurotic audiophiles will play with in a year, if not their lifetimes for most. We need "experts," without these professionals there would be nothing but subjective and ego driven conjecture (some of which we see here above), there probably wouldn't even be a hobby as the average audiophile just doen't have the time, money or energy to do for themselves what pro reviewers do for them. I'm not saying one should take the reviews as gospel, nor should one disregard personal tastes for "correctness" or a neutral presentation, but to brush off the worth of pro reviews and rakings is pretty short sighted, me thinks.... |
Good point Sean.
I've seen such reviews, where the designer actually went to the reviewer's house to repair, or -ahem- "upgrade" the component to a "higher" level.
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. It could kill a company off and effectively prohibit him from correcting the problem and having a good shot at making a living from selling a better quality product later.
It's not really a magazine's job to kill somebody, just to tell us if a product is worth auditioning. (even though we would really like to be warned) |
As long as we have at least one member of Stereophile reading this... : )
I have more respect for a few specific reviewers than i do for others. Some are more willing to divulge information than others. Having said that, most of that information has to be garnered via CAREFUL discernment. To those writers / reviewers, i say THANK YOU for at least trying to "sneak" the truth out. I have to believe that walking the tightrope that's suspended between the manufacturer and consumer requires more than just a little balance. This is not to mention making the Editor happy at the same time.
As to a question that i have, it seems as if more and more gear that is sent in for review is defective or breaks down during the review period. While my thoughts about this may be different since they are based on the fact that i work in the electronics repair / modification industry, why doesn't product reliability / QA ( Quality Assurance ) carry more weight in the ranking of a product ?
Quite honestly, a product that can't hold up to normal shipping and is damaged in transport is either poorly designed, poorly built or not very well packed, etc... With the money that we pay for these products and the profit margins involved, i would think that manufacturers could afford a little more foam and / or an extra box just to make sure things aren't "beaten to death" in transit.
Besides that, a product that fails during normal use, especially more than once in a review or warranty period, is a faulty design as far as i'm concerned. With the lethal voltages inside some tube based gear, safety now becomes a far greater issue here.
On top of that, I find it rather "difficult" to believe that a reviewer would write such a glowing review about a product IF they had to step through the same "flaming hoops" that most consumers deal with when equipment failure arises. After all, having to cover shipping expenses and the "down-time" incurred during such situations can be a REAL damper on your opinion of a product. On top of that, putting the reviewer through the "hassle" of having to deal with such a situation might make for a more realistic assessment of "customer service" from some of these manufacturers also.
As such, have you folks given any thought to this ? If so, what are your plans for future reviews where such a situation is encountered ? Please remember than not all end users have a dealer within walking distance, nor do all dealers supply loaners, etc... In some cases, the dealer wants nothing to do with warranty claims as it is up to the manufacturer to stand behind their product. Sean
> |
Sorry, it was not my companies that were involved, and I'm not at liberty to name them and get them in trouble by giving details.
If there are reviewers on this site and people claiming to be reviewers, they should be fully identifying themselves and who they work for in their bios.
Back to the point (again), Mythtrip's questions, including, "Are the reviews completely independent?"
Answer: No. All reviews are subject to editing by someone higher up in the chain.....for whatever reason. |
Golden_ears, it is not my intent to minimize or deny the insidiously cozy nature of the mag/manufacturer relationship, but to paraphrase the late Dave Thomas, the beef is still missing from the particular burger you're asking us to swallow. I do use my ears - and my eyes - which tell me you've got nothing but a lot of hot air to offer here. I suggest that you use your common sense - or is the next thing you'll be telling us that the UN and the 'Trilateral Commission' are brokering Stereophile's review deals? Armchair conspiracy-theorizing is a cheap commodity, but your brand of evidence-free insinuation just makes reasonable concerns about the review mill and its real effects on marketing in the high end industry that much easier for the main players to dismiss with a wink and a nudge. |
Zaikesman - sorry for the delay in responding to your post. I was merely responding to how I use Stereophile's recommended components list. There are other factors that influence my buying decisions, but I do use Stereophile's recommended components to help shorten the list of components I audition. Pretty much every piece of equipment I own is or has been included in their recommended components list at some point over the past ten years or so. I would be in serious denial if I did not admit that Stereophile has influenced my buying decisions (fortunately, I feel positively). I even happen to own a couple of components recommended by Sam Tellig. You know, the guy who is in Musical Fidelity's back pocket. Or, is he the devil? I cannot seem to keep the two straight.
Happy Easter, everyone. |
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. |
1) In addition to what jrd says, that would be good EXPENSIVE ads for good reviews. (in addition to other things)
2) Oh ya, and I'm not going to mention names, for the same reason that it is whispered in the industry; no one wants to commit suicide or get black-balled and lose their chance at a less expensive, possible Class 'B' or 'C' rating later. That's not a contradiction either. Eventually, even though it may scare the hell out them (and their bank account) a smaller company may well deal with the devil, just to get the attention.
3) The economy didn't hurt the big companies with the deep pockets and the expensive ads who always get great reviews and ratings. (not as much as it hurts the little guys who can't afford the...ahem...marketing)
4) I repeat the first ting I said, lest we get further side-tracked.......just because a really expensive product has a Class 'A' rating, it does not mean it is the best. There are a lot of products out there that sound a lot better for far less money. Buy with your ears, not your eyes! |
good advertisers=good revues..its true in any industry where advertising is critical for one party and good copy is critical for the other........there is no santa claus....buy with your ears,not someone elses...especially whe its your money being spent,not theirs. |
Golden Ears, Kr4 presumably knows you have no proof of your claims because there is none that could be had, and I strongly suspect the same thing. So please tell us: Who exactly "in the industry" has purported to tell you what the going price is to 'buy' a Stereophile "Class A" ranking (something which, in your next sentence, you confuse with 'buying' any review at all)? And if there were such a quid pro quo, and it was so prohibitively exhorbitant as you imply, then how could you explain the proliferation of "Class A"-rated components over the past several years, even during lean times for segments of the industry? Or the occasional "B" or "C" rankings sometimes given to products made by financially healthy companies, who would have every incentive to simply pay up for the higher ranking if that were all it took? There are enough real pitfalls to criticize about the mag reviewing game without having to make up incredible and unsupported stories of massive corruption and blatant fraud. As I've written around here before, if that were all that was wrong with 'professional' reviewing the way it's commonly practiced, then fixing the situation would be a lot simpler than reality tells it to be. |
