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

[tima]

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

What?

Imo, industry affiliation exists independently of any particular forum. Here it is WBF that applies the labels, not me. So that claim is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[bonzo75]

What?

Imo, industry affiliation exists independently of any particular forum. Here it is WBF that applies the labels, not me. So that claim is barking up the wrong tree.

Yes so micro and you are on the same side

 

[Iamrael]

I think this thread was likely started due to the recent “over the top” threads started by alleged affiliates benefiting from relationships with the people/products they’re promoting.
Yet, to my knowledge none these alleged participants have bothered to make any comments in this or related threads.
What does this silence mean?
Is it unreasonable to assume the worst of no one is willing to acknowledge or defend?Are the manufacturers obligated to speak up and inform us if any accommodations were provided?
Lastly, what impression does this leave wrt any validity when neither are compelled to comment or perhaps address allegations?
Are you at all insulted?
Maybe if ignored it will go away???

 

[Iamrael]

Overview

No, sometimes things are objectively best. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope is objectively the most powerful telescope there is. The Large Hadron Collider is the most powerful particle collider out there. No one disputes these facts. In that sense, you can call them objectively best.

In contrast, in high-end audio, like in many human endeavors which are guided by subjective perceptions, priorities and preferences, anything "best" can only be such in a subjective manner. And regardless how much knowledge and experience someone has accumulated,, that person's opinion will always remain subjective. More informed perhaps, but still subjective.

Whether the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the "best" depends on the criteria, but it is currently the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world, with a significant role in fundamental physics research. While it is a groundbreaking achievement, other colliders, such as the proposed Future Circular Collider, aim for even higher energies, and some physicists argue for different approaches to advancing knowledge, as seen in discussions about its potential limitations and discoverie

 

[andromedaaudio]

It's American navel-gazing. Many here think we are the freest country in the world.

They probably havent been outside the US lol.

 

[Iamrael]

It's American navel-gazing. Many here think we are the freest country in the world.

They probably havent been outside the US lol.


You said it best Al
“No, sometimes things are objectively best”

 

[bonzo75]

No, sometimes things are objectively best. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope is objectively the most powerful telescope there is. The Large Hadron Collider is the most powerful particle collider out there. No one disputes these facts.

That's just an objective measurement. for example, no one will dispute WAMM is larger than Devore O96 or Audionec Evo 2. But that does not make it sound better, just like Hardon collider being the most powerful collider does not make it the most value adding in your life/or mine.

 

[Al M.]

They probably havent been outside the US lol.

Exactly.

In particular, haven't lived outside of it, in other free countries.

 

[Al M.]

That's just an objective measurement.

Of performance in the cases I mentioned, not of size.

 

[microstrip]

I'm not quite following. Can you ask your questions differently?

Ok. Being part of the industry usually means people have a financial link with it, that surely is a form of clear and open bias in product appreciation. Is this the reason why you think reviewers should be identified as such?

Please consider this question in general, not applying to particular magazines or reviewers.

 

[wil]

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.

… and it is an anatomical reality that our ear pinnae vary, so just based upon that, we do hear a little differently.

Our mental faculties, musical listening experiences, and so on enter into the differences as well.

 

[treitz3]

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

Sorry, Bonzo. I know you are wildly opinionated, but on this one, you are 100% incorrect. The affiliation tags don't "insinuate" anything other than a disclosure that they are affiliated with the industry.

The same information is required by the WBF's TOS policy that members must clearly show their affiliation within the industry in their signature. The tags have recently been changed and updated, only because a very large chunk of our membership no longer use laptops or desktops to browse our forum. On smaller, handheld devices, a member's signature is not visible, obviously due to space constraints. So, if the members who use handheld devices can't see the signatures, then the disclosure isn't really disclosed, is it?

The admin team has created a solution for this. Those that are affiliated with the industry now get a designation (or as you say, tag) under their avatar. These designations are created internally by WBF management and the designation is only to solve an issue and make a member's affiliation known to those who use mobile devices. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are welcome to think however you want, but please spare the membership the thought that just because a member has had their affiliation within the industry disclosed under their avatar, that it automatically "insinuates" a quid pro quo or pay for play scheme. That "insinuation" is completely false and to be honest, wasn't appreciated.

Tom

 

[Iamrael]

Exactly.

In particular, haven't lived outside of it, in other free countries.

No different than audio.
But over time, most of us eventually become satisfied with what we have and who we are, and to that end are able to live comfortably without searching for more.

 

[Iamrael]

Sorry, Bonzo. I know you are wildly opinionated, but on this one, you are 100% incorrect. The affiliation tags don't "insinuate" anything other than a disclosure that they are affiliated with the industry.

In business doesn’t “affiliation” by definition mean financial interest and gain?
Edit..
And aren’t many of the members designated as “affiliated” literally paying WBF to “play”?

 

[bonzo75]

Sorry, Bonzo. I know you are wildly opinionated, but on this one, you are 100% incorrect. T

For the umpteenth time, dear incorrect and opinionated moderator, please read the context. That is not my opinion. I translated for Tim what I thought micro was saying. This is the second time in succession you have made an interpretation mistake, insulted, and last time you did not apologize either.

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, Bonzo. I know you are wildly opinionated, but on this one, you are 100% incorrect. The affiliation tags don't "insinuate" anything other than a disclosure that they are affiliated with the industry.

The same information is required by the WBF's TOS policy that members must clearly show their affiliation within the industry in their signature. The tags have recently been changed and updated, only because a very large chunk of our membership no longer use laptops or desktops to browse our forum. On smaller, handheld devices, a member's signature is not visible, obviously due to space constraints. So, if the members who use handheld devices can't see the signatures, then the disclosure isn't really disclosed, is it?

The admin team has created a solution for this. Those that are affiliated with the industry now get a designation (or as you say, tag) under their avatar. These designations are created internally by WBF management and the designation is only to solve an issue and make a member's affiliation known to those who use mobile devices. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are welcome to think however you want, but please spare the membership the thought that just because a member has had their affiliation within the industry disclosed under their avatar, that it automatically "insinuates" a quid pro quo or pay for play scheme. That "insinuation" is completely false and to be honest, wasn't appreciated.

Tom

Tom, Could you please designate me as "hobbyist" under my avatar, signifying that I have zero industry affiliation? Thank you.

 

[JiminGa]

Sorry, Bonzo. I know you are wildly opinionated, but on this one, you are 100% incorrect. The affiliation tags don't "insinuate" anything other than a disclosure that they are affiliated with the industry.

The same information is required by the WBF's TOS policy that members must clearly show their affiliation within the industry in their signature. The tags have recently been changed and updated, only because a very large chunk of our membership no longer use laptops or desktops to browse our forum. On smaller, handheld devices, a member's signature is not visible, obviously due to space constraints. So, if the members who use handheld devices can't see the signatures, then the disclosure isn't really disclosed, is it?

The admin team has created a solution for this. Those that are affiliated with the industry now get a designation (or as you say, tag) under their avatar. These designations are created internally by WBF management and the designation is only to solve an issue and make a member's affiliation known to those who use mobile devices. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are welcome to think however you want, but please spare the membership the thought that just because a member has had their affiliation within the industry disclosed under their avatar, that it automatically "insinuates" a quid pro quo or pay for play scheme. That "insinuation" is completely false and to be honest, wasn't appreciated.

Tom

How can we know if a member received a significant non market accommodation price ( as an "influencer" with no official "affiliation" with the brand or industry) for something that they are posting about on WBF ? It seems to me that this is the tricky part and is what is being alluded to here. i have no idea if this is actually happening on WBF. The discount on a single six figure item could exceed what a reviewer makes in an entire year. In 2025 "influencers" are often more important than more traditional channels in selling consumer goods. Do we have that here? I ask because I really don't know.

 

[Iamrael]

How can we know if a member received a significant non market accommodation price ( as an "influencer" with no official "affiliation" with the brand or industry) for something that they are posting about on WBF ? It seems to me that this is the tricky part and is what is being alluded to here. i have no idea if this is actually happening on WBF. The discount on a single six figure item could exceed what a reviewer makes in an entire year. In 2025 "influencers" are often more important than more traditional channels in selling consumer goods. Do we have that here? I ask because I really don't know.

Think in terms of the relation of the added profits made by a manufacturer, retailer, etc. gained from what a “reviewer” writes and the value of the accommodations given rather than the relationship between what his salary is.and the accommodation.
If a manufacturer gives me a $50,000.00 retail component for his/her cost ($15000.00) and I influence 2 people to buy that product by saying how amazing it is than we’re all happy.
Often the price paid by the influencer for a given item is arbitrary only in order to maintain legality.

 

[Elliot G.]

Think in terms of the relation of the added profits made by a manufacturer, retailer, etc. gained from what a “reviewer” writes and the value of the accommodations given rather than the relationship between what his salary is.and the accommodation.
If a manufacturer gives me a $50,000.00 retail component for his/her cost ($15000.00) and I influence 2 people to buy that product by saying how amazing it is than we’re all happy.
Often the price paid by the influencer for a given item is arbitrary only in order to maintain legality.

that is not the problem. The problem is you receiving the benefit and not disclosing it when you are promoting the item.

I am not a fan of the review process as it is exists but this is a different subject.

 

[Al M.]

Tom, Could you please designate me as "hobbyist" under my avatar, signifying that I have zero industry affiliation? Thank you.

Great idea. Me too, please.