Has the focus of the forum shifted? Is it the marketing, promotion and cheerleading arm of selected companies? Has advertising changed the landscape?

[Ron Resnick]

Can I provide you with sample readings?

No; it should be obvious to you that that is statistically invalid.

Cherry-picking a few posts is probative only of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[PeterA]

Find me one review that's has this sentiment. They're all positive, the only difference is to what degree.

This is why I very much appreciated @tima 's review of Ralph's Class D in which he included a system video using the reviewed amps. He then made some comparison comments with his Lamm amps and I was able to find a video with the Lamm amps playing the same music. The differences were easy to hear. The videos and written comments support and complement each other. Yes, reviews are usually positive, but in this case there was both a direct comparison to a reference and video support. The reader gets more information and some context in which to form a better judgement about the component under review.

 

[Iamrael]

You seem to be imagining that Steve, the ever enthusiastic audiophile, IS WBF -- and that any material he posts regarding his experience with audiophile products carries an official WBF seal of approval. I believe he speaks for himself, regardless of his position at WBF or who is or is not advertising with WBF.

Wil..
Let’s say you sell DACs and you want to get the word out.
You have to pick 3 people to pick to promote that DAC.

Do you pick the guy that has
100 hits on his system thread
1000 hits on his system thread or
10000 hits on his thread? and controls the narrative of the forum.

 

[PeterA]

but then i very strongly feel that the forum is not the owners, it's the community. and i've always viewed it that way. maybe if i was a paying commercial advertiser i would view it differently that owners posting is WBF. to me that is wrong thinking. but i do understand and respect it. they are the community too, but not central to it. they are here because of us, we are not here because of them.

Mike, I actually think it is a bit of both, and this is a change with the forum over the last few years. It was once primarily a forum for hobbyists started by an enthusiast. The value was certainly in the community of like minded members who shared thoughts about the hobby they have in common. It has evolved over time to have a larger manufacturer and dealer/distributor presence. It has also evolved into a business with now paid advertisers and a revenue stream to cover expenses and provide a profit. The business potential became evident to the owners at some point. Ron came aboard and brought in more advertisers and grew exposure on YouTube. This is all perfectly fine and as I have come to expect it.

I would say the value was here for the hobbyist members. We were here first and that attracted the manufacturers. The owners contend that there is a value or benefit to the hobbyist members to having industry participation. I agree with that to a point. So I think industry members are here because we are a captive audience for their products and the forum is a marketing tool/option for them. I would also say that some of us are here for the opportunity to communicate directly with the manufacturers and learn about product introductions. I first learned about the Neumann DST Replica cartridge by reading a link about it here on WBF. The benefit, it seems to me, goes both ways as there is an argument for the hobbyists benefitting from the industry presence here. I suspect that benefit varies for each member as does its value.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I actually think it is a bit of both, and this is a change with the forum over the last few years. It was once primarily a forum for hobbyists started by an enthusiast. The value was certainly in the community of like minded members who shared thoughts about the hobby they have in common. It has evolved over time to have a larger manufacturer and dealer/distributor presence. It has also evolved into a business with now paid advertisers and a revenue stream to cover expenses and provide a profit. The business potential became evident to the owners at some point. Ron came aboard and brought in more advertisers and grew exposure on YouTube. This is all perfectly fine and as I have come to expect it.

I would say the value was here for the hobbyist members. We were here first and that attracted the manufacturers. The owners contend that there is a value or benefit to the hobbyist members to having industry participation. I agree with that to a point. So I think industry members are here because we are a captive audience for their products and the forum is a marketing tool/option for them. I would also say that some of us are here for the opportunity to communicate directly with the manufacturers and learn about product introductions. I first learned about the Neumann DST Replica cartridge by reading a link about it here on WBF. The benefit, it seems to me, goes both ways as there is an argument for the hobbyists benefitting from the industry presence here. I suspect that benefit varies for each member as does its value.

no dispute that WBF has become attractive to the commerce side of the hobby, mostly for the good i think. but the valued content is the non commercial posting and that is what drives activity. commercial threads without value die quickly. it takes non commercial member's interest to drive them. that is the power of the forum. even if Ron or Steve start a thread they or the advertisers cannot sustain them.

things will always evolve. but why people are here is other people like them.

product threads will always be a part of the forum. which ones get the activity and who is posting on them? are they infomercials? or shared experiences and off shoot discussions? i see the marketing content as very limited compared to all the other stuff.

overt marketing or simple rah rah peters out quickly.

 

[treitz3]

Wil..
Let’s say you sell DACs and you want to get the word out.
You have to pick 3 people to pick to promote that DAC.

Do you pick the guy that has
100 hits on his system thread
1000 hits on his system thread or
10000 hits on his thread? and controls the narrative of the forum.

That is a stretch, saying that someone (or anyone for that matter) controls the narrative on this forum. To me, this is throwing something out there to see if it sticks.

Tom

 

[PeterA]

You can pick 10 threads to sample from I will pick 10 threads to sample from.

That would be an interesting comparison, IMO. I suspect there are more hobbyist posts than there are posts from members of the industry. However, if the numbers are even close, that says a lot considering the forum was once primarily hobbyist posts for years. I have two system threads, both long, that document a process and evolution and share impressions and opinions. The first is almost devoid of industry posters, the second does have quite a few posts from manufactures and designers. I can think of DDK, Ralph, Dave C, and Kingrex in particular, but there may be some others like horn speaker and turntable designers. In my opinion, some industry contributors add value by providing perspective and by encouraging further discussion. I think others are intrusive and distracting because from my perspective, they are off topic and simply there to promote alternative products. In the end, it is now very much an inclusive forum where both hobbyist and industry member are free to express an opinion.

 

[Iamrael]

That is a stretch, saying that someone (or anyone for that matter) controls the narrative on this forum. To me, this is throwing something out there to see if it sticks.

Tom

There are many instances where posts have been deleted with ambiguity, inconsistency, and often where a narrative is not leaning in the favor of a popular donor/popular member.
Don’t sponsors have this privilege within the confines of their threads?

 

[Anton D]

I think you missed Tim’s point. The whole idea about disclosure and transparency for a reviewer or influencer is to try to ascertain whether there may be disproportionate bias in what he writes. At least that’s the argument I’m hearing. How far does one want to take this? Members who are willing to share information about their own systems, and those bold enough to post actual videos of their own systems, do provide more information for the reader and context for their comments. Isn’t greater context or transparency the goal here regarding disclosure and affiliations?

Your defensive posture about your own system better explains why others may not want to disclose everything about their affiliations. From their point of view, affiliation is one thing, full disclosure and actual discount details about what is a private matter may be a step too far.

1) I posted in favor of fiscal transparency.

2) Some ding dong played a nonsense card about my own gear - with no connection to the topic.

I do talk about my gear, it's thread dependent.

My own version of this hobby is that there is no "best." I am more interested in 'different.' My thrill is seeing how different gear sounds, what different attributes do different pieces of kit bring to the table. So, I change things around a lot, but in the pursuit of new listening impressions.

I have mentioned my gear on other threads, I am not being secretive.

In my more recent rotation in the living room have been Apogee Studio Grands (purchased in 1993 and freshened by Rich Murray at True Sound Works,) Ferguson Hill FH 001 speakers with varying drivers (Lowther DX4, Voxativ AC 4X, random Fostex and Tang Band W8 1808, and some other drivers,) a pair of Altec 604 G's in a variation of Stonehenge cabinets, and a pair of speakers using a couple of Altec 414 woofers with 806 tweeters in Yuichi horns. None are "best," all are a great deal of fun. None of this has anything to do with the main focus of the topic, however.

So, getting back on track, why is fiscal transparency threatening to anyone?

 

[Iamrael]

No; it should be obvious to you that that is statistically invalid.

Cherry-picking a few posts is probative only of intellectual dishonesty.

So you (WBF) expect/ask members to trust your words, authority and motives but it isn’t reciprocating?

 

[PeterA]

So, getting back on track, why is fiscal transparency threatening to anyone?

I do not know whether or not fiscal transparency is threatening to anyone. Are you asking about reviewers or hobbyists? I know that I would rather not discuss on a public forum what I actually paid for my gear, for any number of reasons. And I am not sure that manufacturers would like all of their customers to state publicly what they paid for a particular DAC or other component. It is not a matter of being threatening. It is private information about transactions between a buyer and a seller. How would someone feel if he learned on a discussion forum like this one that he paid more than everyone else who owns the same set of Wilson speakers or Transparent cables? Do you think manufacturers or dealers want street prices to be discussed openly for these luxury products? I see no obligation for members to share this private information. I do suspect that very few people actually pay full retail for the more expensive products, especially ones where margins are higher.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I do not know whether or not fiscal transparency is threatening to anyone. Are you asking about reviewers or hobbyists? I know that I would rather not discuss on a public forum what I actually paid for my gear, for any number of reasons. And I am not sure that manufacturers would like all of their customers to state publicly what they paid for a particular DAC or other component. It is not a matter of being threatening. It is private information about transactions between a buyer and a seller. How would someone feel if he learned on a discussion forum like this one that he paid more than everyone else who owns the same set of Wilson speakers or Transparent cables? Do you think manufacturers or dealers want street prices to be discussed openly for these luxury products? I see no obligation for members to share this private information. I do suspect that very few people actually pay full retail for the more expensive products, especially ones where margins are higher.

unknowable. a dry hole. we all have to decide how we feel about it and move on. or wallow in it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So you (WBF) expect/ask members to trust your words, authority and motives but it isn’t reciprocating?

there is low level questioning of things all the time. everyone is free to do it. and we judge things based on our own set of information. trust is built up over time and relationships.

but some here never allow themselves to have any faith. nothing to do with those folks. faith rewards itself and helps to make it fun. whatever that is. being part of something. or on the outside not part. each chooses.

there is a baloney factor everywhere, just a little less here.

 

[Anton D]

I do not know whether or not fiscal transparency is threatening to anyone. Are you asking about reviewers or hobbyists? I know that I would rather not discuss on a public forum what I actually paid for my gear, for any number of reasons. And I am not sure that manufacturers would like all of their customers to state publicly what they paid for a particular DAC or other component. It is not a matter of being threatening. It is private information about transactions between a buyer and a seller. How would someone feel if he learned on a discussion forum like this one that he paid more than everyone else who owns the same set of Wilson speakers or Transparent cables? Do you think manufacturers or dealers want street prices to be discussed openly for these luxury products? I see no obligation for members to share this private information. I do suspect that very few people actually pay full retail for the more expensive products, especially ones where margins are higher.

I mean only those with a business/fiscal interest or agenda.

I agree, private is private.

 

[Anton D]

there is low level questioning of things all the time. everyone is free to do it. and we judge things based on our own set of information. trust is built up over time and relationships.

but some here never allow themselves to have any faith. nothing to do with those folks. faith rewards itself and helps to make it fun. whatever that is. being part of something. or on the outside not part. each chooses.

there is a baloney factor everywhere, just a little less here.

I think this is one of those things that play out over time. You are spot on about faith - I like to start assuming good faith. If someone is up to something, that will show out over time.

 

[bonzo75]

In my more recent rotation in the living room have been Apogee Studio Grands (purchased in 1993 and freshened by Rich Murray at True Sound Works,) Ferguson Hill FH 001 speakers with varying drivers (Lowther DX4, Voxativ AC 4X, random Fostex and Tang Band W8 1808, and some other drivers,) a pair of Altec 604 G's in a variation of Stonehenge cabinets, and a pair of speakers using a couple of Altec 414 woofers with 806 tweeters in Yuichi horns. None are "best," all are a great deal of fun. None of this has anything to do with the main focus of the topic, however.

All very interesting speakers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So you (WBF) expect/ask members to trust your words, authority and motives but it isn’t reciprocating?

No, that evasive tactic won't work. I didn't make an objective statistical declaration of fact. You did.

The burden is on you to prove your claim with statistical evidence.

 

[ctydwn]

Most of the content comes from people who are part of the industry and they do it to enhance their business.
IMO it is irresponsible for the forums founder who are getting paid from many different manufacturers, dealers, etc to express enthusiasm for any specific manufacturer or equipment.

Ah, so a forum founder cannot participate in their own forum? There is no evidence Steve has received any financial accommodation for his equipment in house despite all the ongoing insinuations. His equipment represents a tiny fraction of hifi audio. He has had the same amps for like 15 years and Wilsons for 35 years, until recently. Sure doesn't seem like a revolving door. He is enthusiastic about what he does have and shares his enthusiasm with us. Some really like that. You don't have to pay attention to it.

 

[Al M.]

Ah, so a forum founder cannot participate in their own forum? There is no evidence Steve has received any financial accommodation for his equipment in house despite all the ongoing insinuations. His equipment represents a tiny fraction of hifi audio. He has had the same amps for like 15 year and Wilsons for 35 years until recently. Sure doesn't seem like a revolving door. He is enthusiastic about what he does have and shares his enthusiasm with us. Some really like that. You don't have to pay attention to it.

Good response to some unwarranted negativity.

 

[sbo6]

This is why I very much appreciated @tima 's review of Ralph's Class D in which he included a system video using the reviewed amps. He then made some comparison comments with his Lamm amps and I was able to find a video with the Lamm amps playing the same music. The differences were easy to hear. The videos and written comments support and complement each other. Yes, reviews are usually positive, but in this case there was both a direct comparison to a reference and video support. The reader gets more information and some context in which to form a better judgement about the component under review.

Agree and align on all other than the recording part. And this could be my ignorance, but my background tells me the variables including recording equipment, the YT conversion + the listener's analog and digital gear and speakers/headphones put much in question and reduce any confidence of recording versus recording.