That is total BS that only sponge would soak up. Admitting to making a mistake as a shortcoming is a "liberal" thing to do? Of course, I'm not referring to the pun of using the word "asylum" for a website as a place to find something meaningful, Ms. Nurse Ratched.

I think they made quite a few very good points. I particularly don't like the fraternizing among review staff and the manufacturers and dealers. i don't think that disclosure is enough.

Hey, they have their own policy and if it even presents a conflict of interest than it is a conflict of interest. Stereophile caters to high end equipment. There are going to be perks and bling bling bags and so forth. It is the same everywhere. But the audio review industry is not regulated like public accounting and generally accepted accounting principles but Enron executives and their so-called independent public accountants still screwed up the company. So, the reader can chose not to participate. Or choose to get their news from the New York Post rather than the New York Times. But contempt prior to investigation seems to be the rule and not the exception on the Internet, which reminds me of the New York Times. Or is it just normal behavior to read a review and the whole time worry about what the author got out of the deal? What a waste of time. It's like not seeing the forest because of the trees. Resentments and opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Here is mine with a couple of dingle berries and a rash...

You know, I think really what this comes down to is that we want the reviewing staff to be on OUR side, the consumer side. This whole discussion stems from the feeling that the manufacturing/dealing/reviewing machine is designed to separate us from our money with little regard for the consumer. We want the reviewers to tell us what's good and what's bad. If a component is good, how does it compare against a set reference? How does it compare to other components in its price range? Perhaps have a component be reviewed by a panel so that there is a diversity of opinions. It's not enough to say that this is a recommendation to hear a component for yourself. It's not like we can walk into the nearest best buy and hear the damn thing. Many of the components are available for hundreds of miles and so on. I've also heard arguments claiming that for $13 a year subscription we're getting a lot and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, the price of the subscription is irrelevant. The way I see it, the job of the reviewer is to provide an honest review of a product from a consumer perspective. Be on our side! That means no fraternizing with manufacturers or dealers, no gifts, no lunches, no industry discounts, no tours of the manufacturers' wine cellars, etc, etc.

Well, I won't disagree with you but for the magazine to remain a going concern they must walk a fine line between technical reviews of equipment and getting advertisement sales. So, as you can see there are several types of consumers associated with the magazine other than the reader. I think Stereophile has a very large database of reference reviews that they have accumulated over the years. For example, John Atkinson's weighted averages for loudspeakers go way back. See the "Measuring Loudspeakers" series in the Reference section.

http://stereophile.com/reference/index1.html

Once you start walking a fine line, you stop being on the side of the consumer. I think that a magazine can be viable and be on the side of the consumer. There doesn't have to be animosity between consumers and manufacturers and dealers and the reviewing staff. However, it also doesn't mean that an occasional product can be reviewed less than satisfactorily or that manufacturers can't have their feet held to the fire for the products they put out. If they're kept on their toes, they will come up with fantastic products at reasonable prices.

I don't see where Stereophile is not on the side of the consumer. In fact, Stereophile doesn't recommend the reader to purchase any equipment. The magazine does not present itself as a "Consumer Reports" type of publication. It is up to the reader to do his or her own research and make an educated decision. I think Stereophile provides plenty of research material to meet this end. We should also remember that Stereophile is a subsidiary of a larger group.

Quote:

Quote:

As you can see there is a fine line between Stereophile and the goal of it's parent company.

I will leave it up to the editors to post Stereophile's mission statement. But I would bet it is very similar to Mr. Atkinson's statement above. All of which is moot because the existence of Stereophile and it's product is evidence enough of the supply and demand of the end consumer. Like I mentioned before, the supply and demand of the average Stereophile reader is mainly high end equipment. Thus, the average avid reader can make an educated decision or assumption without a conflict of interest with the magazine's purpose. And with supply and demand, a reader can make the decision to support the magazine through subscription or not if they are uncomfortable with the methods used for publication. In the end, supply and demand will take care of itself. I believe Stereophile's predecessor went belly up for such a reason.

If I were to follow the thread of your argument, then I would conclude that there is no reason to implement any kind of an " artificial ethics policy" because the market and the laws of supply and demand will shake everything out in the end. I don't subscribe to that notion, nor do I find that argument to be valid. Supply and demand laws have nothing to do with the subject at hand. There's an ample supply and there's ample demand for whatever products are being bought and sold. What we're talking about here is the integrity and the viewpoint of the reviewer. Who does the reviewer work for, the subscribers or the manufacturers? Got to pick one. Can't have both. Can't pretend to be on the side of the consumer and at the same time hobnob with the manufacturers. Pick your constituency.

AlexO - It seems what you feel would be ideal would result in nothing more than a magazine with reviews by people who bought gear at retail -- we have Epinions for that. Audio is a business and is going to involve talking, possibly some lunches, and at least being social on some level. If a reviewer is covering an audio show, he will naturally develop some kind of relationship just by virtue of proximity at trade shows over the course of several years. You can't expect people to operate in a vacuum. Ignoring basic social interaction will just make you look like some sort of antisocial hermit weirdo. If you see your mailman or supermarket checkout girl on the street, might you at least nod to them? It's unrealistic to take being social out of the equation. If you don't trust the reviewers, don't listen to them. Their opinions are just a guide to help separate the wheat from the chaff. There's so much gear out there, it helps to have someone who's heard some promising stuff be able to shorten the list. You, as the consumer, still have to (or at least should) audition gear on your own to decide if it's worthy of purchase. If you don't think reviewers are being honest, don't read them. JA has stated his policies up front, which is more than can be said for many magazines. Why shouldn't we have enough faith in his integrity and ability to manage his stable of writers to protect our interests? Last I heard, his goal is always to serve the reader first.

You make a lot of accusations. There is no regulatory body that is going to enforce them. What you are looking for is a review like you would find in Consumer Reports and you're not going to get with Stereophile. You might as well burn all your copies of Stereophile because they are tainted and go out and purchase every single Dixie Chicks CD you can find. I would recommend going to Paranoids Anonymous but nobody every shows up to those meetings. You make a review in Stereophile look like a ancient Greek free-for-all. In the end, you will get nothing and like it. That's your fault and makes me happy.

Hi Jeff,

I never advocated hostility between the reviewers and the manufacturers. What I do advocate is more of a distant, professional relationship, rather than a friendly and personal one. I don't think that's too much to ask. The reason I state that disclosure is not enough is because disclosure addresses possible deceit. It does not address conflicts of interest.

I see lots of posts accusing me of paranoia, conspiracy theories and so forth. I find that rather childish. I don't think that my point of view is radical or unreasonable. I'm looking for the reviewer to approach audio gear from the perspective of a consumer. Look at it, test it, play it and tell me what you think. I'm looking for a subjective, but unbiased opinion. If you like it, tell me you like it, but if you don't, tell me that too. It doesn't have to be a choice of either reviewers mired in conflict of interests or the dry analysis of consumer reports. There's plenty of room in between.

Furthermore, I feel that saying things like "if you don't trust the reviewer, don't read the column" is a cop out. Whether the reviewer and I share the same tastes in the way components sound and whether or not I read a particular column shouldn't have anything to do with conflict of interest. The reviewers shouldn't have any conflicts of interest as a matter of course. I'll decide whether to read a particular column based on whether or not I agree with the reviewer's tastes not based on how many conflicts of interest a particular writer possesses. I don't think that neutrality in this type of a publication is too much to ask. Disclosure does not equal neutrality.

Hi AlexO - I understand your concern that a forged friendship between a reviewer and a manufacturer could skew neutrality. But, if you feel a writer lacks the ability to set aside a personal relationship and do his job of reporting on gear fairly, why bother reading reviews? Yes, if a piece of kit is a dog, it's unlikely a reviewer will want to embarrass someone whom he feels friendly towards, but, he's also not going to ask to review that gear because who wants to spend a few months listening to something painful? With the limited number of editorial pages in the magazine, I'm sure most readers want to know about stuff that is worth auditioning. I think readers are better served by 6 pages of something to be checked out, not avoided.

It is my contention that JA has selected the writers he has because they will be fair and report honestly. This is the trust that one must accept as a given for the reviews in Stereophile to have any value. I'm sure when someone fails to meet certain standards, you'd see a byline disappear.

Hi Jeff,

Why put the onus on the reader? Why not strive for neutrality and unbiased reviews across the board? What is there to be gained from allowing fraternizing with the manufacturers, getting discounts on equipment, having the reviewer be wined and dined? Why even defend these practices and put the onus on the reader by saying "don't read the review if you don't think the reviewer is trustworthy".

As a reader, I want all reviewers to be trustworthy. I want to pick and choose among trustworthy reviewers to decide which of these trustworthy reviewers hear music the way I do. I don't want to wade through a maze of suspect reviewers to find a trustworthy one that I may not identify with.

Let's strive for perfection rather than wholeheartedly embrace the lowest common denominator.

I've read your extended arguments to the effect that reviewers must "pick a side" and judiciously avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, AlexO, and I can't help but wonder whether any events in your personal experience would lead you to understand what it means to deliver what you're asking for. What have you been responsible for which required you to behave as you suggest?

There were a few work related experiences where I had to provide an evaluation of other people's work. I found that I could not be completely honest and unbiased when evaluating people whom I personally liked. I found myself sugar coating certain aspects of their performance and "softening the landing" somewhat. My loyalties were split between my personal relationships and the demands of my job.

So, you have a somewhat superficial understanding of the level of character and personal discipline it takes to involve yourself in a real world enterprize where you are responsible to act in an eithical manner and you found that quite difficult for you. We all need to know our own limitations, but it isn't reasonable to assume others share the same limitations. I've played golf a lot longer than has Tiger Woods, but he plays better.

I spent 30 years in jobs which required, not only, the fair evaluation of others performances, but the selection of vendors which involved spending millions of corporate dollars. The bottom line to taking on such responsibilities is, quite simply, knowing what it takes for you to be bought and avoiding it - knowing your limitations. I didn't, for example, accept offers like private plane rides followed by a couple of rounds at Pebble Beach. I wasn't sure I could forget that when making a purchase decision, and I was absolutely sure that to do so would force me to lie when I signed the annual Ethics Questionairre. I did, on the other hand, accept dinners etc. where, both the vendors and I could work toward our common ends with the shared understanding that who paid for the dinner was beside the point. As in audio, there were relatively few vendors providing what I needed, so it was inevitable that I would get to know them as individuals. By and large, they were ethical individuals and that included the guy who offered to treat for Pebble. That notwithstanding, I knew I could only be comfortable if I declined. I figure the reviewers involved in this discussion know their personal limits too. Until I have proof to the contrary, my assumption is that they are at least as capable as I was of bringing a high eithical standard to the conduct of their jobs. Life provides me with too many real problems for me to operate on the premise that everyone who has the opportunity to do something crooked is willing to.

Very well said.

I will also add that on the audio side...JA's comments about the Zanden units tell me all I need to know. If you want to talk about being exposed...this was it. It also tells us that many of us who use audio gear every day that has not been scrutinized by JA or anyone else for that matter may not be as good as we think we hear it is. That does not stop us from enjoying it, like Mr. Fremmer did.

I will not play the part of Mel Gibson (Conspiracy Theory) and be that paranoid about this magazine and its participants. I am more concerned about the possible new owners and what might happen to one of our favorite reads each month.

I used to enjoy Stereo Review and Audio magazines and they are both long gone. I do not want to see that happen again. I do not think that will happen this time.

We're all human and given even the best of intentions, our judgment and objectivity will be compromised by our personal relationships. I think that it is simply better to ensure that policies are in place that minimize exposure to situations that would compromise one's judgment and objectivity and minimize the possibilities for conflict of interest. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Furthermore, I fail to see the logic behind arguments against implementing such policies. I think the question is not "why would or should these policies be implemented", rather the question to ask is "why shouldn't these policies be implemented".

So we simply disagree. You hold that no one is possessed of enough character to maintain objectivity when it is his obligation to do that unless he is bound in some way by rules or policies. I hold that if he is honest enough not to defy the policy he is honest enough to get along without it. I like my view of my fellow man, and you, clearly prefer yours. Luckily there is music in both our worlds.

Cheers,

Very well said, Clay.

Quote:
So we simply disagree. You hold that no one is possessed of enough character to maintain objectivity when it is his obligation to do that unless he is bound in some way by rules or policies. I hold that if he is honest enough not to defy the policy he is honest enough to get along without it. I like my view of my fellow man, and you, clearly prefer yours. Luckily there is music in both our worlds.

Cheers,

It's not a question of character. It's a question of split loyalties. Do the loyalties lie with the reader or a friend, the manufacturer? Why put yourself in such a position? Is it to prove one's character? Ridiculous.

Your argument, Alex, while clearly put, is not with me so much as with bona fide philosophers who've suggested for hundreds of years, such stuff as, "Virtue untested is not virtue at all." Argue with them if you want, and label their position as ridiculous if that suits your style. I had enough of that sort of debating years ago in introductory Philosophy courses. I still suggest going back to our common interest of music.

Best of Luck,

I consider Stereophile, TAS, Sensible Sound, Audio (RIP), Stereo Review (Rip), and the like as guidelines. When I am not looking to make an audio purchase, these magazines are entertainment and informational to me. When I'm in the market, I'm more discerning and will try to use all resourses available to me. Julian Hirsh (RIP) of Stereo Review was probably the most analytic and objective reviewer that we ever had...but he was lambased by many of the audiophile cult. I don't think any review cannot be somewhat influenced by a manufacturer. When a mega-buck speaker system requires a rep to come out to assist in set-up, there's gonna be some personal interaction. When you open the box and the item has a package of tools to assist you and white gloves for changing tubes (thank you Sonic Frontiers {RIP}, you think..."Nice Touch".It is good to know if the customer service part of a purchase is genuine and efficient. Unless you purchase on line, your trip to the stereo salon will be influenced by the manufacturer's rep. Remember the days when you'de walk into
Pacific Stereo and they'de be pushing their 'House brand' equiptment and have the tone controls offset? (You can still have that fun experience when trying to by car audio). I think that we, as the reader/consumer and they, as the reviewer will always be susceptible to some manufacturer's influence. Hell, we regularly discuss the infamous WAF! Isn't this a form of third-pary influence? Now days with Photo-shop, even pictures are often inaccurate and fool us and the Media.
Read the reviews, go to the manufacturers web site, listen to the product with a friend or two, and decide yourself.
Caveat emptor!

Quote:
I consider Stereophile, TAS, Sensible Sound, Audio (RIP), Stereo Review (Rip), and the like as guidelines. When I am not looking to make an audio purchase, these magazines are entertainment and informational to me. When I'm in the market, I'm more discerning and will try to use all resourses available to me. Julian Hirsh (RIP) of Stereo Review was probably the most analytic and objective reviewer that we ever had...but he was lambased by many of the audiophile cult. I don't think any review cannot be somewhat influenced by a manufacturer. When a mega-buck speaker system requires a rep to come out to assist in set-up, there's gonna be some personal interaction. When you open the box and the item has a package of tools to assist you and white gloves for changing tubes (thank you Sonic Frontiers {RIP}, you think..."Nice Touch".It is good to know if the customer service part of a purchase is genuine and efficient. Unless you purchase on line, your trip to the stereo salon will be influenced by the manufacturer's rep. Remember the days when you'de walk into
Pacific Stereo and they'de be pushing their 'House brand' equiptment and have the tone controls offset? (You can still have that fun experience when trying to by car audio). I think that we, as the reader/consumer and they, as the reviewer will always be susceptible to some manufacturer's influence. Hell, we regularly discuss the infamous WAF! Isn't this a form of third-pary influence? Now days with Photo-shop, even pictures are often inaccurate and fool us and the Media.
Read the reviews, go to the manufacturers web site, listen to the product with a friend or two, and decide yourself.
Caveat emptor!

Caveat emptor indeed! We have enough on our hands trying to sort out hype and fiction from fact. We certainly don't need a tainted reviewer contributing to the confusion. Yes, there's still interaction between the reviewer and manufacturer and dealer. However, there's business interaction and there's personal interaction. I don't see a good reason why a reviewer should be chummy with a manufacturer. I'm asking for a professional wall to exist between the two. I fail to understand the logic behind fellow stereophile readers defending the status quo.