I voted "yes", however a slight explanation is in order.

For certain components, such as power amps, preamps and integrated amps, a photo of the inside would go a long way in showing the quality of both the design and the build. Seeing whether or not the internal layout is carefully thought out and whether the electrical components are of high quality can have a huge impact on one's final purchasing decision. On the other hand, many other components, such as speakers, do not lend themselves to easy dis-assembly for the sake of a pretty internal picture.

In the case of exceedingly expensive equipment, an under the hood photo or two might just reveal whether the high price is justified or not.

When a manufacturer submits a product for review, he should expect us to take the hood off the thing and inspect it. I would love to include more images, too. And we would include more images -- inner shots, rear shots, shots of our reviewers' listening rooms, shots of our reviewers' pets (j/k), etc. -- if we had the space to do it.

Quote:
When a manufacturer submits a product for review, he should expect us to take the hood off the thing and inspect it. I would love to include more images, too. And we would include more images -- inner shots, rear shots, shots of our reviewers' listening rooms, shots of our reviewers' pets (j/k), etc. -- if we had the space to do it.

I voted yes, but I can understand that the amount of space dedicated to photos will have to be balanced with the amount of written content.

But if nothing else, include the photos of the pets!

Yes. as a technical guy, what is INSIDE a product is nearly the entire ball of wax for me, when it comes to deciding to buy something, or not. In all seriousness, if I can't see the guts of something before I buy it, I'm not buying it.

Quote:
When a manufacturer submits a product for review, he should expect us to take the hood off the thing and inspect it. I would love to include more images, too. And we would include more images -- inner shots, rear shots, shots of our reviewers' listening rooms, shots of our reviewers' pets (j/k), etc. -- if we had the space to do it.

I think this is what us readers need to appreciate; JA has explained pretty well the finite amount of space given per review when one considers the maximum size of the publication and the % that has to be given to the various subjects penned and adverts.

Being pragmatic any vote should consider that including photos must lead to something else being omitted; either other subjects due to lengthier reviews or replacing the detailed measurements to maintain same length.

Here in the UK the trend I notice from other audio publications I read are split either presenting measurements or pictures with description of components shown, however never both.

Its a tough call if something has to be cut to include the photos.
So personally I would like to vote for c) photos and measurements without reduction/omitting other subjects.
However being pragmatic I would assume this is highly impractical considering it seems the business model for a publication has strict amount of pages and advertisements.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
For starters, e.g., a peak inside JA's (i.e., Stereophile's in-house) speaker-testing (or equip-testing) facility would be cool.

There's this.

On online gallery adjunct to each review would be really helpful. You could throw in all the manufacturers pictures, plus ones taken by the reviewer and it would be GREAT to see reviewers setups of said equipment.

I was thinking something along the same lines this morning when I posted that link. I'll talk to JA about it. Thanks.

(FYI: We do often publish more photos and graphs with the online versions of our reviews, though I'm not sure we make it clear to our readers.)

Most of the time you can tell a drag queen from a princess
You don't have to lift her skirt

In the case of audio if you put your hand on a Theta CD player, and open it, what you'll find inside will most likely stun you: a whole Pionneer CD player, if I remember, dropped inside a fancy case.

I never read anything in Stereophile about it, of course.
I don't think that Theta would have let them print pictures
of the inside of their CD player either.

Quote:
Most of the time you can tell a drag queen from a princess
You don't have to lift her skirt

In the case of audio if you put your hand on a Theta CD player, and open it, what you'll find inside will most likely stun you: a whole Pionneer CD player, if I remember, dropped inside a fancy case.

I never read anything in Stereophile about it, of course.
I don't think that Theta would have let them print pictures
of the inside of their CD player either.

If that ever happened during a Stereophile review, we would find out and we would tell you about it.

Quote:
I was thinking something along the same lines this morning when I posted that link. I'll talk to JA about it. Thanks.

(FYI: We do often publish more photos and graphs with the online versions of our reviews, though I'm not sure we make it clear to our readers.)

The only problem from my experience of reading audio magazines that already do this, is that 30 to 40% of the review over 2 pages is taken up with a couple of pictures with description of components and also usually including an insert that describes the architecture in brief.
This does not leave them with any room for measurements even though they do them.
That amount of space is required for the picture of the internals to make sense, and usually then requires the brief summary describing the architecture, otherwise the picture does not convey enough information for readers who are interested.
If you can manage both and maintain a good level of useful detail for both measurements and internal/external picture then that would be superb.

Cheers
Orb

But it did happened before! Stereophile did review the Theta CD players

I believed that they also reviewed the Laser Disc/CD combo players from Theta which were also sourced from Pioneer with the same cosmetic job, now weighting 40lbs

You must have been 10

http://www.lampizator.eu/lampizator/REFERENCES/THETA%20Universal/theta.html

After removal of the gigantic cover I saw the inside - and nearly fainted! Inside there is simply an entire Philips laser disc player even with own chassis. I mean not just the mechanism, not some PCB, but WHOLE PLAYER is put in the Theta oversized box.
Speaking of boxes, Theta box is the cheapest steel box you can have, nothing like Wadia overkill alu boxes. It is of lesser quality than the cheapest Chinese goodies of today, like Music Angel, Vincent or Shanling. The C shaped steel pressed chassis is not even properly welded. Horror.

At the very least, it was an incredibly dumb thing to do and in the end, it nearly killed Theta.

Quote:
But it did happened before! Stereophile did review the Theta CD players

I believed that they also reviewed the Laser Disc/CD combo players from Theta which were also sourced from Pioneer with the same cosmetic job, now weighting 40lbs

You must have been 10

Are you talking about the Theta Jade? Or something else? You should be more specific and more responsible with your claims.

In an upcoming column, Kal Rubinson discusses the practice of respected manufacturers basing their work on the mechanisms of other companies, but offering a finished, higher-performing product. Theta, Simaudio, and McCormack all based earlier disc players on a Pioneer mechanism and motherboard, much like others are now basing their products on the Oppo design. See the Ayre Blu-ray player, introduced at CES.

Audiophiles perfect what the mass market selects. You should be grateful.

Sorry, Stephen, I found the whole thing on the net and replied before you noticed...

It is an OLD story, but a real one. Even the author of the article admits that Theta produced some great sounding and fully engineered products after that. But that one deal was a boner that was so beyond belief that it left nearly the entire industry speechless.

The example that Grosse is speaking of and I linked to is one of the ONLY examples of such shenanigans that have ever existed. One of the most extreme, ever. But, people gravitate to ugly stories..and this this ~one~ thing has been paraded again, and again... and again - by those who wish to vilify high end audio.

Steph baby, as far as I know Theta never build anything from scratch. They only modified existing equipment. It is OK in my book as long as the gear sounds better and it is aknowledged somewhat, but the extent of what they were doing was never totally aknowledged. One had to open up their CD player to discover a whole Pioneer CD player inside a fancy case instead of the usual Philips CD drive. It was top secret, kind of, and this is where the fraud lie in my opinion, with the equipment weighting and costing 10 times as much as the original.

Subsequently I was never interested in their Casablanca processor that all the gogos at the avsforum purchased in drove for the cosmetic, just like they were buying Wilson who doesn't make any of their drivers: they are cabinet makers. Think about it. Wilson is just like Theta. This is one of the reason than B&W is half the price of Wilson.

Why do reviewers have Wilson Maxx instead of B&W D2s? Because they get a personal "loan", financial or material, from Dave Wilson who in turn hold them by the balls. Do you think that you are going to read anything negative about Wilson?? Wilson doesn't sound better than B&W one bit.

Look, those things are never discussed anywhere in audio magazines.

Quote:

Why do reviewers have Wilson Maxx instead of B&W D2s? Because they get a personal "loan", financial or material, from Dave Wilson who in turn hold them by the balls. Do you think that you are going top read anything negative about Wilson?? Wilson doesn't sound better than B&W one bit.

How do you know this? Evidence please!

Very very few companies have the resources to make their own drivers. They design them in conjunction with big driver manufacturing companies. this is so common that even I can do it, with a minimum order of drivers. No big deal. As an example, I have here in the house two different designs that use a particular driver from the old Peerless company. Now, that driver is no longer made. If I wanted to make over 200 of them, they'd make that exact drive for me, and I could even have it modified.

Paradigm, for example, has complete in house casting for design work and building. Najeeb, the ex-designer there (for 9.5 years) is a friend of mine and explained some of it, nothing proprietary, just the basics that Paradigm lets the public know. It cost over a Million bucks for Paradigm to be able to pull that stunt off. Najeeb could have in his hands, a paper to prototype (exact production version)speaker basket in his hands, in 48 hours. Damn, that made me drool and made my head spin with the possibilities.

So you can see why most just farm out the driver manufacturing. 99% or more of the loudspeaker companies out there have all their drivers manufactured by someone else. That's just an economic necessity.

The cabinet design, execution and crossover design are at LEAST 50% of the equation of a successful design, the other is the knowing of the drivers and then how to fix their various flaws..

So to call Wilson 'just a cabinet maker' and group him into a pile with other folks who really do 'just make cabinets' is quite unfair.

As well, look at the biggest B&W speakers and then look at the big Wilsons. No wonder the Wilsons are more expensive. It's as plain as day.

The reason that such things are not talked about in audio magazines is that it is just a bunch of guys who don't really know what is going on, creating stories out of thin air..and in some cases it has been at other magazines,and in some cases it has been some retailer starting a story that is rubbish. maybe something that a rep told him somewhere. this is all like the thing where you sit at the front of the school bus, tell a story and then it gets passed around and you see how freakishly distorted it is by the time it gets back to you.

There is no doubt that the odd shenanigan goes on in the audio business, same as anywhere else. But to insinuate that Mikey gets a payoff from Wilson in some manner is not all that good of a thing to be saying. Nor do I think that it is true.

To add, Jacques over at Focal, he literally makes his own drivers.

Note that his prices are in the same $ value area as Wilson.

So nobody is ripping anybody off. The larger number of audio manufacturers drive shitty used cars, like everyone else. The audio business on the manufacturing side, the distribution side, and the retail side...has profit margins that defy economics. Meaning: The people involved should be starved right out of business, but somehow they hang in there..because they love it. They love music and they love the business.

The odd person or business makes it big enough that they can afford to buy a decent car. Dave manged to do so,and he's getting up there is years and poured his whole life into his endeavor and making people who love music happy.

So dammit, Dave, I dearly hope you enjoy the hell out of that car, and thanks for all the years of work.

Quote:
.. But to insinuate that Mikey gets a payoff from Wilson in some manner is not all that good of a thing to be saying. Nor do I think that it is true.

He gets the Maxx, so does Robert Harley, so does Roy Gregory.. Do you really think that we can count now on those three guys to say anything negative about Wilson. At best they'll temporarize, wait until the next Wilson speaker comes out to throw the nut, to say that the new speaker is much better that the old one.

With the much copied Nautilus B&W invented a new type of cone speaker that blew off the competition. The 802 even looked like one of the humanoin in Star Wars.

Quote:
Audiophiles perfect what the mass market selects[/url]. You should be grateful.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here...I believe the essence of the fellows argument was that the lack of internal photo's makes it possible for manufacturers of very expensive gear to get away with cramming a whole lot of mass market into a fancy case and then overcharging for it.

While I have no reason to believe Stereophile would not note such a thing, a simple picture could not hurt.

Quote:
With the much copied Nautilus B&W invented a new type of cone speaker that blew off the competition. The 802 even looked like one of the humanoin in Star Wars.

I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to make with your anti-Wilson, pro-B&W diatribes here. You do realize that in recent years B&W speakers have received excellent reviews in Stereophile? In fact, ranging from the 603 (Stereophile budget product of the year), the 705 (excellent review by JA, highly recommended) and the 802D (class A rating) the brand has been highly praised and recommended throughout the range.

Now I've never heard the Wilsons, so I can't comment on their sonic qualities. But I don't believe for one second that Mikey would settle for any under-performing speaker even if it were free, especially given the quality of the rest of his system.

I am a huge fan of B&W (and I'm hoping Stereophile will review some of the recently announced new 800 diamond series, especially the 805 diamond!) but I find your accusations here in very bad taste.

"Very very few companies have the resources to make their own drivers. They design them in conjunction with big driver manufacturing companies."

So, are you basically saying that drivers are generally made by someone other than the company who's name is on the
speaker, but to their specs? It's good by me.
However, you do realize that I wasn't the one making the accusation, right? I was actually responding to the comments from GF here on payoffs. Quite a claim with no evidence so far!

Quote:

Quote:
..
I am a huge fan of B&W (and I'm hoping Stereophile will review some of the recently announced new 800 diamond series, especially the 805 diamond!) but I find your accusations here in very bad taste.

Actually I pride myself in having very good taste. The bad taste is on Wilson. I find their direct/indirect advertising vulgar. As I said they bag the cooks and the dentists and the guys who get them for free or on advantageous terms. I used to like Bentleys. I didn't like Rolls. Maybe you don't know the difference.

You'll never hear negative comments on Wilson coming from MF, Robert Harley and Roy Gregory. That is all I am saying.

Oh I forgot: I don't like black suede shoes and pony tails in men.

And you never hear MF say anything bad about the reference model Musical Fidelity amps.
Simply for the reason that he likes them a lot and has a healthy respect for what they do.

In the same way with his Wilsons; this has nothing about being in the pocket of a manufacturer but about respect/preference of its capabilities and enjoyment of the product.

You had considered that?

Cheers
orb

I am glad that you brought up Musical Fidelity.
They do the exact same thing Wilson do: indirect advertising. Dunleavy did that too with Widescreen Review. Placing and loaning and giving away their amps to a few selected reviewers. Now I have to add Ken Kessler to the list. I mean those amps all surfaced several years ago at the time at those reviewers. Like with Wilson do you really think that those reviewers had all at the same time $10,000 to $30,000 to spare? I don't believe one second that they are buying their equipment.

They talk endlessly about their free Musical Fidelity amps, and now MF likes a lot high power amplifiers (well he's got a deadbeat Wilson to drive too). Do you think it is out of respect?? Like with Wilson we'll never read anything negative ever from those reviewers about Musical Fidelity.

They have them by the cojones. It is business. I would never buy one of those amps, regardless of their quality. I don't want to subsidize MF amp.

Look, will we ever see Tiger Wood criticizing Nike? He is endorsing Nike. It will never happen. Same thing with those audio reviewers in regards to Wilson and Musical Fidelity.

BTW I have owned for awhile a KW550 MF amp, not sure that you have and I can tell you the sound quality is pretty darn impressive (although my main listening amp is a different design/implementation).

I feel you see a conspiracy where there is none, but each of us are allowed our opinions.
But if you knew what Musical Fidelity/Antony Michaelson is all about you would realise insinuating that they push their products by bribary is a bit stupid.
Why dont you try to contact him and see what response you get, sure it will be in his forthright manner

Edit:
With all the publications out there in the world, do you seriously believe these manufacturers are bribing publications in each country and the multiple magazines sold there?
How does Musical Fidelity and co bribe the audio magazines that they have no adverts/loans with and still get good reviews?
Might be surprised that here in the UK and in Europe as its a known brand for many years it does not advertise as much as you may think.
You pick out 3 reviewers and yet just in the UK I read four different publications and for three none of those you mention work for and still provide excellent review for the top Musical Fidelity amps.
But I guess its still a conspiracy eh

Cheers
Orb

In Japan where I lived it is common practice to pay the reviewer

As far as Wilson and MFidelity, how come their speakers and amplifiers ended up at the same time being part of the permanent gear of a selected few reviewers? They claim they bought their equipment but I doubt it, ending up being paid to endorse a piece of audio equipment. This is what Wilson and MFidelity do. You call it the way you want.

www.high-endaudio.com

Quote:
do you really think that those reviewers had all at the same time $10,000 to $30,000 to spare? I don't believe one second that they are buying their equipment.

Regardless of what you believe, Michael Fremer has purchased both the Musical Fidelity Titan amplifier he uses as a reference and the Wilson MAXX 3s he uses. Unless you have direct knowledge that a Stereophile reviewer has accepted a gift of a component he has written about, you really should refrain from spouting off on matters you clearly know nothing about.

Regarding what may happen in Japan, that is a different country with a very different culture.

And regarding the Theta laserdisc player that was based on a Pioneer player, IIRC that fact was clearly indicated in our review. I will check when I return from CES.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

As far as Wilson and MFidelity, how come their speakers and amplifiers ended up at the same time being part of the permanent gear of a selected few reviewers? They claim they bought their equipment but I doubt it, ending up being paid to endorse a piece of audio equipment. This is what Wilson and MFidelity do. You call it the way you want.

You know this how? Do you know the reviewers? You "doubt it"?!
"Doubt" wouldn't seem to indicate you know!!
Criticizing what or how someone writes is one thing, maligning their character is quite another!!

How much did he pay? Did he pay in full or does he now owe money to Wilson and MF? If he does owe them money after getting very advantageous terms how is he ever going to write anything negative about those companies until his equipment is paid off or sold?
When is MF going to write that B&W is better value than Wilson? When is he going to say that if you are shopping for a $10,000 amplifier there are better options than MFidelity?

Quote:
How much did he pay?

It's not really your business, but as a general rule, reviewers pay dealer cost. There are always conditions attached to the sale such as not selling the sample for more than you paid for it and not within a stated period of time. All Stereophile reviewers have purchased a large proportion of the components in their reference systems (I don't know about writers for other magazines); the rest are on agreed long-term loan.

Quote:
Did he pay in full or does he now owe money to Wilson and MF?

Again, this is none of your business and your implications are insulting. But to humor you one more time, yes, Michael has paid for his samples in full. Of course, just to make your head explode, as these are tools of his trade, he can claim their costs and depreciation etc against his income taxes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Where's your evidence?!!

Quote:
...
Again, this is none of your business and your implications are insulting...
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I am told that it is below dealer cost, like manufacturer cost, four times less than retail!

Anyway how can you expect a reviewer who owe somewhat to a manufacturer to ever have a negative opinion about them?

Here on this web site you had the option to put the brand new B&W 800 Diamond on the front page and instead of that you are showing an old Wilson Maxx III from the CES. You are doing that over and over and over with Wilson.

How can you expect a reviewer who may have paid $20,000 for his Maxx III to write anywhere that B&W is better value than Wilson?

Could you relegate Wilson to the back pages of your web site for once and bring the new B&W 800 Diamond in front?

"I am told that it is below dealer cost, like manufacturer cost, four times less than retail"

Who told you that?

JA, from your manner and tone it is obvious that you have a lack of understanding of ethics, the appearance of favoritism and the standards of that a publication such as Stereophile should hold it's self to. Stereophiles staff does not hold up to the standards that are needed to obtain a Security Clearance. Those are the level standards that your organization needs to hold it