AIAP: New Audio Industry Publications Association

rando

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2019
1,701
1,234
245
Online
Stereophile was not approached about becoming a charter member of this organization; indeed, I've only come across this in the last few days. It's interesting to consider the reasons why Stereophile was excluded

Jim

Could you tell me what notable press association Stereophile and Soundstage! are the only audio publication members of? I discussed this briefly with either Kal or John Atkinson a few years back.

Thanks.
 

JimAustin

Industry Expert
Apr 12, 2020
6
12
68
60
Jim

Could you tell me what notable press association Stereophile and Soundstage! are the only audio publication members of? I discussed this briefly with either Kal or John Atkinson a few years back.

Thanks.

Not sure what you're referring to: EISA perhaps? That's the Expert Imaging and Sound Association. I believe Soundstage and Stereophile are the only North American members. EISA also includes many European publications though, and it now includes some Asian ones as well, I believe.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
 
  • Like
Reactions: rando

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Tim,

This is the kind of speech that makes me a non believer in such protocols. We could expect a good discussion on its positive and negative aspects, even of consumer participation in its elaboration - but no, any one disagreeing on it is disregarded and discredited from start.

Looking at the document presented I see no real value in for audiophile consumers. IMHO it is mostly a promotional document for some part of the audio press. As first referred by Ron, exception 11 as written can kill any trust in any subjective review process. The document does not refer to one of the most critical aspects of high-end audio reviewing - how equipment is selected for review.

Just MHO as a frequent long time audio publication reader.

To you and those liking what you say ...

You quote my words; don't confuse me with a standards organization. I cannot speak for it.though I am allowed an opinion as is everyone.

Your post seems to suggest you want the opportunity to debate something. You sound like you want to be involved in the formation of principles and an organization. Can you imagine the liklihood of codifying principles for a publication and individuals (reviewers) based on the agreement of WBF members?

Since you see no value in the AIAP and are not a participant in audio publishing, why do you care? I cannot see how the AIAP principles are in any way harmful to magazines or readers, in fact just the opposite.

How equipment is selected for review is, imo, outside scope of the AIAP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morricab

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
One very important point for me is that none of this addresses the giant elephant in room; most audio reviewers including long term established ones don't know what they're talking about! How do you raise the quality and ability of reviewers which is the main reason why I and many others don't read/trust reviews!

I agree about raising the quality of writing and editing. Imo this has been an on going issue, but it is not the purpose of AIAP document to address this - it is not meant as a cure-all. If one wants autonomy for publishers, hiring is part of that. How would you address improving quality and assure that writers know what they are talking about?

As regards the other issues you mention, they seem to be hypotheticals about could go wrong at some point: enforcement, possible stigma for not joining, etc. I say let's not condemn based on hypotheticals, I prefer to wait and see how this plays out.
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Stereophile essentially invented ethical audio reviewing, starting 60 years ago come September and continuing over decades. Its ethical principles have been laid out in print many times, and could well be a template for this new organization's ethical code.

Perhaps. My sense is the print magazines were taken somewhat by surprise by the AIAP initiative. You say your publication has been a leader. You seem to have no issue with the AIAP fundamentals. It may be a hard question but why didn't Stereophile proactively initiate the convening of publications you see fit for such an effort? Or do you see a competitive advantage in not doing so? If that is the case can you see why other publications might take this up?
 

JimAustin

Industry Expert
Apr 12, 2020
6
12
68
60
Perhaps. My sense is the print magazines were taken somewhat by surprise by the AIAP initiative. You say your publication has been a leader. You seem to have no issue with the AIAP fundamentals. It may be a hard question but why didn't Stereophile proactively initiate the convening of publications you see fit for such an effort? Or do you see a competitive advantage in not doing so? If that is the case can you see why other publications might take this up?

It's not a hard question at all. I don't concern myself with what these other publications are doing. Why should I? I hope they will match Stereophile's ethics, since that's what's best for the industry, and it seems they are at least coming close to doing so. As for competitive advantage, and why other publications may take this up, that's not something I concern myself with. I leave that to our business side. My job is to make Stereophile as good as I can make it, and I trust that if I'm successful, people will read it. And they do.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
To you and those liking what you say ...

You quote my words; don't confuse me with a standards organization. I cannot speak for it.though I am allowed an opinion as is everyone.

Surely. Thanks for participating. I also just presented my opinion.

Your post seems to suggest you want the opportunity to debate something. You sound like you want to be involved in the formation of principles and an organization. Can you imagine the liklihood of codifying principles for a publication and individuals (reviewers) based on the agreement of WBF members?

No, I say that such principles should be written to defend the interest of consumers, something I do not see in this publication being discussed. And yes, it looks as it was drafted after reading the more usual insinuations of a few members in WBF posts against the audio press.

Since you see no value in the AIAP and are not a participant in audio publishing, why do you care? I cannot see how the AIAP principles are in any way harmful to magazines or readers, in fact just the opposite.

IMHO in fact it can be very harmful to consumers. The idea that obeying to a superficial set of permissive principles will separate the good from the bad people will spread distrust.

BTW, it will not change the way I read reviews. But WBF is an audio forum, someone suggested the subject and we are freely debating it. As I wrote just MHO.

How equipment is selected for review is, imo, outside scope of the AIAP.

Exactly my point. Important fundamental aspects are ignored. Do you know what are the main requirements to become a member of such association?
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,368
4,410
with so many moving parts and nuances to any review, the idea of consumers being served by an audio industry publication association is wishful thinking. it's more likely to simply confuse things more by the appearance of legitimacy and process.....without substance. sh*t is always going to be going on or not. either it passes the smell test or it does not.

i like the current degree of chaos and the obvious responsibility to the reader to do their homework. it's perfectly imperfect.

i could be dead wrong. happened before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treitz3

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
No, I say that such principles should be written to defend the interest of consumers, something I do not see in this publication being discussed. And yes, it looks as it was drafted after reading the more usual insinuations of a few members in WBF posts against the audio press.

As I noted the issue of integrity of audio reviewers and publications has been around since before the Internet. Scepticism expressed at WBF by a few is an example, there are many other examples. I do not believe WBF acts as cause for the initiation of the principles in the AIAP.

IMHO in fact it can be very harmful to consumers. The idea that obeying to a superficial set of permissive principles will separate the good from the bad people will spread distrust.

Similar principles are in effect at some individual publications today - you seem to acknowledge that. These are a set of rules / guidelines primarily for writers and how they interact with manufacturers as spelled out by the publications they write for. I do not see how this spreads distrust but you are free to think what you like. As someone directly, immediately effected by these policies I believe it is a good thing they are publicly stated.

edit:
Do you know what are the main requirements to become a member of such association?

I do not. There is a 'contact us' page on its Web site.
 
Last edited:

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
with so many moving parts and nuances to any review, the idea of consumers being served by an audio industry publication association is wishful thinking. it's more likely to simply confuse things more by the appearance of legitimacy and process.....without substance. sh*t is always going to be going on or not. either it passes the smell test or it does not.

i like the current degree of chaos and the obvious responsibility to the reader to do their homework. it's perfectly imperfect.

We will see if there is only appearance and no substance behind this initiative or if there is. There is nothing here about subjugating or dismissing a reader or buyer's responsibility to themself. Continue to smell test as you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Lavigne

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
It's not a hard question at all. I don't concern myself with what these other publications are doing. Why should I? I hope they will match Stereophile's ethics, since that's what's best for the industry, and it seems they are at least coming close to doing so. As for competitive advantage, and why other publications may take this up, that's not something I concern myself with. I leave that to our business side. My job is to make Stereophile as good as I can make it, and I trust that if I'm successful, people will read it. And they do.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

Jim - thanks for clarifying your perspective.
 

treitz3

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dec 25, 2011
5,459
961
1,290
The tube lair in beautiful Rock Hill, SC
Personally, I see this as just another rag/association with no weight. I would rather listen to something myself or rely on a few trusted ears, as it has been for some time.

Tom
 

rando

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2019
1,701
1,234
245
Online
Internecine rivalry of some manner is becoming all too common.

My brief and admittedly incomplete readership of PF/any signatory leads to viewing this as an openly friendly arrangement. We will try not to punish new ideas while holding fast to those that brought us together. Postmarked HAPPY VALLEY :)
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Stereophile was not approached about becoming a charter member of this organization; indeed, I've only come across this in the last few days. It's interesting to consider the reasons why Stereophile was excluded, but first things first.

I have carefully read the list of principles. Stereophile is in full compliance, although I reject #11; disclosure is a powerful tool, useful when some minor but possibly meaningful fiduciary connection exists, but it is never a substitute for following the rules.

Stereophile essentially invented ethical audio reviewing, starting 60 years ago come September and continuing over decades. Its ethical principles have been laid out in print many times, and could well be a template for this new organization's ethical code. Despite occasional rumor and innuendo (such as in Ron's second paragraph, above), we have never stopped practicing that code. Over the magazine's history, violations have been rare, and those involved have quickly found themselves removed from our masthead.

Will we sign on to this statement of principles? Maybe, maybe not: I'll admit that our exclusion from this organization's establishment makes me reluctant to sign on now, but if I'm asked, perhaps I'll reconsider.

But this matters little when it comes to journalistic and reviewing ethics. I'm happy to vow, here and now, that our ethical practices meet the standard laid out in the AIAP's Statement of Principles.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

Dear Jim,

Thank you very much for replying to our questions here. I truly appreciate it!

It is very interesting to learn that you were not approached about being a charter member. Perhaps the reason for that will eventually afford us some insight into the motivations of the founders for organizing AIAP.

I apologize for my innuendo now that I know that any violations were in the distant past.

I share your concern about Principle 11.

Kindest regards,

Ron
 
Last edited:

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
I fully appreciate that it is difficult to secure widespread agreement about a general statement of principles like this. As with negotiating and passing a piece of legislation, compromises have to be made in order to achieve broad support. A wide variety of different interests and sensitivities must be taken into account to achieve consensus on principles like this.

I am very impressed with the thoughtfulness, comprehensiveness, clarity and detail of Principles 1 through 10.

When I finished reading Principal 11 I became concerned that Principal 11 operates as an exception to Principles 1 through 10, and could be used to over-ride Principles 1 through 10.

Principle 11 includes the sentence: When in doubt, the general guideline that “Full disclosure equals no conflict of interest” should apply. Respectfully, I do not agree that disclosure cures an actual conflict of interest. My view is that full disclosure does not equal no conflict of interest.

Disclosure is one thing, and conflict of interest is another thing. Full disclosure does not cure an actual conflict of interest, in my opinion. If full disclosure cures an actual conflict of interest, then Principle 11 does indeed have the potential to undermine Principles 1 through 10.

I would like to see Principal 11 deleted in its entirety. Alternatively I would like to see deleted the sentence "When in doubt, the general guideline that 'Full disclosure equals no conflict of interest' should apply." Alternatively, I would like to see a declaration that: "Nothing in Principle 11 constitutes an exception to Principles 1 through 10."

Of course it is easy to make these critiques after the fact. As with legislation, compromises have to be made to achieve consensus. I appreciate that consensus would not have been able to be achieved without Principle 11.

Even with Principle 11, with the Statement of Guidelines exactly as it is posted presently, I think the Statement of Principles is an excellent and very important step forward toward addressing these issues and to professionalizing our industry.

Thank you to the people driving this project and achieving a successful outcome. You have performed a great service for our industry!

The following are my own thoughts. I neither represent nor speak for the AIAP consortium.

Ron, I think your intentions in your post (above) are right-headed. However citing 1 sentence in isolation out of the entire item #11 and the other items before it yields a mis-leading interpretation of how it can be read. If not mis-leading, it is a singular interpretation and fails to consider the full context of item #11 and surrounding items. Some people - perhaps looking to find a way to object to the entire initiative - have latched onto your comments which focuses on that one sentence and the notions of 'full disclosure' and 'no conflict of interest'.

I believe you know it is not advisable to take things out of context. Pulling one sentence out of context liables it to many different interpretations made possible without the benefit of context.

First, some background stated in the AIAP document prior to item #11:

The essence of item #9:
No member of an AIAP publication will engage in, or allow its contributors to engage in,
true conflicts of interest.
This is followed by examples. Member publications or contributors writing for member publications will not and do not engage in conflicts of interest.

Item #11 is about acknowledging that relationships exist between members of the press on the one hand and designers, manufacturers, dealers and distributors on the other. Item #11 speaks openly about the positive value such relationships can yield in getting information to readers.

I can vouch for this. Every review I have written could not have been written without the opportunity to ask questions of the manufacturer about his business, his products, and his approach to design and audio in general. Fwiw, I tell every manufacturer, etc. that what they say to me is under an NDA and I will only disclose what they want in a public review. This has helped tremendously in gaining trust and access to product information that would not have been given otherwise. I put my own reputation on line. I can tell you that every manufacturer is highly sensitive to and seeks to avoid disclosure of proprietary information.

But I don't see this type of disclosure as what item #11 speaks to.

Item #11 reiterates #9:
In order to operate in a friendly way without corrupting the integrity of the review process, AIAP members agree that conflicts of interest arising from such professional friendships are to be avoided.

Then, instruction is given to AIAP members. Or consider it a prescriptive statement of agreement among members about how they will act to avoid any conflict of interest:
When in doubt, the general guideline that “Full disclosure equals no conflict of interest”
should apply.

In other words, members agree to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest through full disclosure.

Perhaps you read 'equals' as equivocation - that might work if you focus on that sentence out of context. That's not how I read it.

The notion of "curing a conflict of interest" is irrelevant. Item #11 is not about fixing or repairing or restoring, it is about avoiding a conflict of interest. It provides an example of what it is talking about - did you see the example? The example has nothing to do with "curing".

There is already agreement about not engaging in conflicts of interest in #9. Item #11 advocates for transparency in disclosure as a means to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.



 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) Similar principles are in effect at some individual publications today - you seem to acknowledge that.

As far as I know a few of them have principles that are respected and trusted, perfected along the years. Similarity does not mean anything - in such systems (as in the high-end systems :) ) even the small differences make the real difference. And we are not discussing just small differences ...

These are a set of rules / guidelines primarily for writers and how they interact with manufacturers as spelled out by the publications they write for. I do not see how this spreads distrust but you are free to think what you like. As someone directly, immediately effected by these policies I believe it is a good thing they are publicly stated.

IMHO in the new audio internet publications, including some of the members of the AIAP there is not a clear separation between a professional review and a consumer report. In a word of immediate answer "Letters to editor" , "Letters" , "Reader feedback " or similar are sometimes as important as reviews.

Can I ask you how many formal reviews you have written in the last five years?

BTW, I also think for the good of transparency I think these rules should be known by any reader. Particularly the exceptions. Pretending to rule friendship in a subjective hobby is a lost cause. It can't be ignored in his hobby, consumers must learn how to deal with it, not to ignore it.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Can we get therefore a scientific paper regarding the reviewing process of audio cables .
This is an area which needs specific scrutiny.

You have it since long, but the advice is not feasible.

Objective data shows no correlation with subjective sound quality. There is no scientific theory that can relate cable properties with its sound, except in the case of technically very poor cables or gross mismatches. So the only scientific method to evaluate them is statistical analysis of preference of individual independent listeners, in unbiased conditions. Not possible in this hobby, that relies on bias and diversity, and a has a small number of active participants.
 

TrackingAngle

Industry Expert
Mar 4, 2014
113
260
368
I wonder what everyone thinks of this new organization and its possible effect on the Industry.

AIAP Press Release regarding its formation and launch of its Web site:


(Happy Valley, OR, June 4, 2022)

The founding members wish to announce the launch of the Association of International Audiophile Publications (AIAP). The AIAP is composed initially of ten audiophile publications from around the world, all dedicated to a set of ethical and professional standards. These have been organized as a Statement of Principles, which the founding member publications have all agree to adhere to as guidelines for ethical and professional operations at their publications. This statement is available as a download in three languages so far (English, Polish, and Croatian) at the AIAP Web site.

Our Web site and Statement of Principles will be found at https://www.aiap-online.org.

The ten founding publications of the AIAP include the following:

the audio analyst https://www.theaudioanalyst.com
Enjoy the Music https://www.enjoythemusic.com
Hifimedia https://www.hifimedia.hr
Hi-fi+ https://hifiplus.com
High Fidelity https://highfidelity.pl/@lang-en
Hifistatement https://www.hifistatement.net
HomeTheaterReview https://hometheaterreview.com
Part-Time Audiophile https://parttimeaudiophile.com
Positive Feedback https://positive-feedback.com
Stereonet https://www.stereonet.com

All members of the AIAP are committed to providing the best in high-end audio/video journalism, and are pledged to do so according to our mutually agreed Statement of Principles.
We invite audiophiles and videophiles everywhere to go to our site and read our statement for themselves.

Note that the AIAP Web site is not a discussion site, nor do we act as audio ombudsmen or audio advisors. Readers are invited to visit the AIAP member sites and use the communication tools there to pursue questions or email any of our member publications. The "Contact Us" form will send a direct email to Dr. David W. Robinson of Positive Feedback, who acts as Coordinator for the AIAP.

We welcome all interested to visit our site, and familiarize yourselves with our Statement of Principles.
I think it's a highly principled idealistic idea and after reading through it I think it's well-reasoned and a great deal of time and effort went into drawing up the charter or whatever you want to call it. However, there already are insinuations (not coming from the members) that if you don't join you must be crooked or words to that effect. That's a not unforeseen problem. Not sure what can be done about it. Since there's no "policing" involved, it's easy to sign on and appear principled but what goes on behind the scenes remains hidden as always. "Long term permanent loan" type stuff. On the other hand, there are manufacturers who don't like it when reviewers buy and own gear. They say (and I won't name names) if you own stuff, you are invested in it and are less likely to honestly review a competitive piece that's better than what you own. I've heard every rationalization for every stance regarding reviewer ownership versus "long term permanent loan"-ership. Cynical readers will always make charges. I remember when a Stereophile reader/detractor wrongly claimed that Stereophile only reviewed products from companies that advertised in the magazine. His timing was poor because the magazine had just put a VPI turntable on the cover (I think I wrote the review) and at that time and for some time afterwards VPI had never advertised in Stereophile. When I pointed that out to the person making the charge his response was "Well, then the magazine put VPI on the coverer because it wants VPI to advertise in Stereophile." Magazine and website readers need only pay attention to what's there and not and using a rational, not cynical and/or paranoid approach to what's presented, decide for themselves what's above and what's below board regardless of membership or not in this group. Currently being a corporate employee I have no say in joining or not joining this organization.
 

Pacha

VIP/Donor
Apr 23, 2014
145
157
435
Microstrip's comment about cables, if I understand it correctly, seems spot on to me. One must listen to the cables they have access to in their system and decide for themselves what works for them and what doesn't. Their decision will be valid for only them in their system and will not necessarily correlate into meaningful data for someone else.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing