I am not here to defend Andromeda but when you start insulting my country… buy a mirror.
Has the focus of the forum shifted? Is it the marketing, promotion and cheerleading arm of selected companies? Has advertising changed the landscape?
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
- Status
It's American navel-gazing. Many here think we are the freest country in the world.
Keb, I had a flight delayed early this summer and looked you up. I thought we were fairly close based on what we do for a living. Even our business balance sheets are remarkably similar but recent your recent posts show me that we're not even close. The difference in learning audio before one embarks on acquiring high performance audio equipment versus starting at 0 is unbridgeable.
There is far too much to learn in audio to not begin with education. Much of high-performance audio cannot be self-taught. You can drag all kinds of trial and error through the learning process and the acquisition of audio equipment, but you can't replace the time spent at the beginning learning audio properly.
Yes it is a traditional list, a pre-internet list.
My approach in response to your comments is likewise traditional and fairly simple:
1. Industry affiliation requires a member to create something of audio value through a public manufacturing source point. Manufacturer-->Distributor-->Dealer is obvious. Reviewers may interact directly with any of these entities.
2. To have industry affiliation, reviewers require association with a publisher and an editor that stands between them and the public. Publisher and editor have no financial relation to Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers other than through advertising, not unlike the traditional press. I've written for three different publishers and each had guidelines and code of professional behavior to which their reviewers agree to follow.
Anyone with a pickup truck and a decal can call themselves a contractor. Anyone with a keyboard and a phone can call themselves an audio reviewer. Absent the above two criteria, my answer to your question "Should they be identified as industry affiliates with the same rules that might apply to your list?" is No.
Surely. But no paradigm shift will change an amplifier with 50% THD in the best existing amplifier - surely IMO, not IME.
Although people have a fair idea of what is subjective, many people just have a diffuse idea of what can or can't be considered objective.
IMO it is not denigrating, I read it as meaning mostly an "weighting factor", not as an argument. But yes, I do not know what posts you are exactly addressing.
Although I assume we post mostly opinions, I am one who often uses IMO,YMMV in my comments. Probably also expecting people to react and debate them in a civil way.
I do not disagree and I have no equipment on loan to me for the short or long term.
The typical TAS or Stereophile justification is "reviewers need long term loans to have gear available for comparisons to reviewed gear." And as you imply, there is the potential for bias with this practice.
It is also the case that the manufacturer/distributor/dealer who makes a long term loan is trying to influence.
A very basic question. Although a few us (me included) appreciate reviews and have a few favorite reviewers, in general WBF has a notorious anti-reviewer bias and anti-audio press feeling. Why should reviewers have industry affiliation in this forum? Are we considering that their opinions should be considered as "compromised" with the industry?
I think that you should take everything into consideration when you read anyones opinions. For me reviewers have this added hurdle to overcome.
That's a good question. It's certainly more about presentation than content. But, those two things, for me, are bound together as one.
I can think of 3 or 4 people I know whom I regard as "Wise Men of Audio." For instance, all of them believe the best pressings of vinyl have more to offer than the current state of best digital. I respect their opinions not only based on their knowledge and experience, but also on who they are as people. They each share an abiding humility as to all they don't know. That's the difference.
Last edited:
So how long is enough?There are products that are 3-5 years I think that’s absurd .
For me it is just an issue of disclosure. I watch reviews for many products, and like it, for example, when a camera reviewer says clearly that “X company flew us here for this camera launch, but it will not influence our opinion.” Affiliations, discounted or loaned gear, etc. aren’t an issue; not disclosing it is. I don’t care if WBF staff get discounts, concessions, special treatment, etc. but this should be stated when they comment on those products. Also, there has been, for me, an issue with the way questions/criticisms are handled, i.e., a dealer/company starts a thread and someone asks a questions or posts a criticism and then the company and WBF in any way team up or make those comments feel unwelcome. This discussion itself is a step in the opposite, positive, open and clear direction, IMHO. We should occasionally have open discussions about our discussions and what best serves this community, not the owners of the forum we love or the companies profiting from it. Without us, they aren’t valuable anyway.
That said, I care because I like this place and am grateful for all I have learned, including from its founders.
When expressing my thought on the ultimate question of what, be it equipment, format, etc., sounds "best" I generally will say it sounds best to my ears. There are two reasons for this caveat. First, that's all anyone can speak to with authority because no one can know what sounds best to you unless you tell them. In your example, if I happen to think digital sounds better and note that it sounds better to my ears, I cannot be wrong. No matter how wise the wise men are they can never be right in disputing my statement. All of which just acknowledges the fundamental truth that the ultimate question is ultimately subjective. We can debate designs, measurements, etc., but presumably what matters most is what brings us the greatest joy. That is inherently subjective.
The second reason, just as important, is that acknowledging that you are only speaking for how you hear is a way to engage in meaningful discussion without attacking someone who disagrees as being unenlightened, ignorant, wrong. Which seems more productive to me, although in some of these discussions the argument seems more the point than the substance. But that's just my opinion.
I agree. I don't know what the long term equipment loan length should be, or whether the practice should be allowed at all. It does exist and I don't see it changing but maybe could use some oversight. There are no industry standards.
Whomever loans components presumably is the final arbiter on loan length. I understand why the loaner does it -- to keep a product's name in front of the public in virtue of a loaned-to reviewer publishing his equipment list, and for whatever cachet (if any) is attributed to the reviewer choosing to use it. If there is an onus to the practice I put that upon those who make the loans. Without them the practice does not exist. Personally I don't have a problem with it and believe loan recipients should disclose and there should be a time limit.
As you know, there is a thread on the topic here where R Resnick talks about potential conflicts of interest, reviewers as beholden to those who loan and generally castigates Harley for exclaiming the value of long term loans. You and I both have posts there. We could re-litigate on that thread.
"Long-Term Equipment Loans: A Win-Win for Everyone" by Robert Harley, The Absolute Sound
In the March 2023 issue of The Absolute Sound Robert Harley, Editor-in-Chief, defends broadly and unashamedly the arrangement of long-term loans of high-end components by manufacturers to reviewers. 1) Robert writes that "[l]ong-term equipment loans are essential to writing the most accurate...
www.whatsbestforum.com
My current publication, Positive Feedback, allows reviewers to use loaned equipment. However, loans must be disclosed. Each reviewer is required to publish his equipment and all those lists included the following: "All components in BOLD are loaned; all components in standard face are owned by me." PF may have a limit on loan length, I don't know. I have no loaned equipment.
His question is, because a person has a reviewer tag, should his reviews by considered compromised (given industry affiliation)
If that is the question, I'll let someone else answer. I do no play for pay.
Well…he is rather stating that if they do no play for pay they should not have industry affiliation tag in this forum as that is what the tag insinuates
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |