THE HIFI FIVE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION STREAMING LIVE ON YOUTUBE PREMIERING IN OCTOBER!

[213Cobra]

Well, let's see, Tima.

>>But it is not well argued.. Your opening paragraph is largely a non sequitur and does not effectively make your point that accomodation pricing is corrupting.<<

FIrst, my opening is not a non sequitur. It's a direct response to one of the more prominent topics raised in HF5 Episode 8. It was not a response to the post immediately preceding it. Second, I made an assertion, not an argument. If I wanted to make a formal argument, I would have typed a much longer post. My assertion is effectively posited. You disagree with it. But you can't bring holistic data to an argument over the matter, and neither can I. We have contesting assertions based on principle and experience. So be it.

>>An audio review should be expository writing. It takes me hundreds of hours to listen to a component, research it and more hours to competently write about it. A good review is about much more than listening. The publisher pays a pittance to own the rights to my work. I thoroughly enjoy the audio hobby but you devalue my time. Fwiw I have no loaned equipment.<<

I agree an audio review is most likely to be written in the expository fashion. I don't have any disagreement with that. But then, it has to be good expository writing. That's a rarer thing in audio reviews.

I don't disagree it might take "hundreds of hours..." to evaluate something. If you are an entrepreneurial reviewer I'll assume you work six days a week. With eight hour days that.s on average 207.84 hours per month available. Or 1,247.04 hours in a usual six months period. I mean, if I were trying to make my living as a reviewer I'd work six days a week at the pleasure of listening to music and huffing to move gear around, and I'm 71. So a reviewer can invest those "hundreds of hours" in a six months period, if they schedule accordingly. Agree, a good review is about much more than listening, but the listening is what is core to the review. Absent the listening and the composing of an assessment, there is no review. They can take longer to write or record if they must. They don't have to keep the gear around for that. I know the economics of reviewing gear are poor. I have posted many reviews that have been influential to some buyers over the past 50 years. I've turned down offers from publications and websites to take engagements as a reviewer. No, thanks, I have better things to do with my time. I review, when I feel like it, or have exceptional enthusiasm for something, gratis. But I know the effort that goes into it. I am not devaluing your time. I am recognizing the limited value of choosing to use it in that way. Everybody who reviews gear responsibly (like people not named Steve Guttenberg) instead of shilling for Youtube payments is devaluing their own time. Not me; you. I enjoy the hobby and others. Which is why I put time into content associated with hifi, guitars, astronomical gear, and in the past, cars and watches. But I don't think any of that is an important human activity. It's recreational in a serious way.

Having no loaned gear gives you a leg up on the integrity ladder.

>>Imo, at the end of the day without accommodation pricing there would be few if any reviewers, few reviews and very little audio press beyond advertising. You might prefer no opinion and the absence of product exposure. Yet the continuation of audio review publications and their proliferation on the Web suggest it is a successful enterprise with continued demand.<<

I'll posit that with accommodation pricing and the ease of publishing to the web, there are far too many reviewers of audio gear, the bulk of whom are only lightly informed, barely articulate, and not net-positive contributors to hifi knowledge. It's worth considering that back in the day of the old-school publications -- Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio, etc.-- the audiences were far larger. And before TAS got some momentum, they all reviewed in their different ways items that were part of the new High End wave that rose during the 1970s. You can recognize that Harry Pearson, and J Gordon Holt before him developed a review paradigm that satisfied a rising curiosity about ne plus ultra hifi in musical rather than statistical terms. But the new wave numbers were (and are) comparatively tiny as the whole undertaking lost cultural relevance. I was there, real-time. That old ecosystem wasn't dependent on accommodation pricing to publish a steady stream of monthly reviews. TAS and Stereophile created the long-term loan by just outlasting manufacturers' pleadings to finish, in the 70s and 80s. So it became habit. It doesn't have to be.

I'm happy to see more content related to reviewing, but I don't have an opinion about how many reviews we should get. I can self-filter the knuckleheads from the erudite with the easy-path to visibility that the web affords. But a question raised in the HF5 episode pertained to the ethics of accommodation pricing. In automotive reviews, when a reviewer buys the car on accommodation after his or her evaluation, that's generally disclosed. So at least disclose it, and recognize that hifi reviewing isn't special. It's just another outlet for opining and expression, about something a certain population of people seem to be interested. The pricing advantage is still sufficiently corrupting. Maybe not for everyone; but it undermines perception of even the honest.

Phil

 

[tima]

Well Phil ... thanks for following up -- I think your reply is reasonable and well stated. I won't go into why I find your posited assertion in your the first paragraph of your opening post to be a non-sequitar. Since acknowledge it is not an argument we can let that go. Regardless, and I only speak for myself, I do not believe accomodation pricing for reviews is inherently corrupting. I think it is necessary for providing incentive to create something out of nothing. If readership follows a reviewer over time they can gauge his honesty and whether he provides value for themselves. Feel free to read me if you choose -- my more recent reviews of the last few years are better than my earlier work. Links to some are posted on this forum.

Reviewing is a hobby for me and I don't do it to make money. The pay comes nowhere near compensation for the time. I suspect only a few columnists and editors can make a living from it. My system is largely complete and I only look for a new phono cartridge every couple years which I will purchase via accomodation. I assume most understand that accomodation pricing exists and I feel no compulsion to detail that but if you ask me I will tell you if I purchased something on accomodation.

I'll posit that with accommodation pricing and the ease of publishing to the web, there are far too many reviewers of audio gear, the bulk of whom are only lightly informed, barely articulate, and not net-positive contributors to hifi knowledge.

I pretty much agree with that. Nowadays the overall quality of reviews is somewhat meh with little depth and too much hyperbole. There are too many reviewers and review Web sites -- that is partly a function of manufacturers looking for somewhere to put advertising. But there are decent straightforward reviews and talented writers.

I"m on my third publication and I get to choose what I write about and have no interest in less than engaging products. So it is likely I will give an overall positive review but I am not reluctant to point out where a product might be better. I amost always include a comparison to something I know well. I agree that listening assessment is a key to a review -- I try to describe what I hear in both audiophile and musical terminology and sometimes I will use a score to explain what I am hearing and how well it is executed through my system with the review component. However the audiophile attributes can only go so far in describing the listening experience.

I don't bother with YouTube audio discussion -- most of it is sales or advertising in one form or another and I can read faster than it takes for someone to make their point while talking. You cannot search a video and it is not all that easy to find and replay that tidbit of information you want to hear again.

You write well and I thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Cant we change the topic , boring discussion .
Why do i care whether reviewers get paid / how much or not .....

If they can buy gear on the cheap good for them , who cares
WBF unworthy discussion

 

[tima]

Cant we change the topic , boring discussion .

Go ahead and contribute. Complaining is boring.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Go ahead and contribute. Complaining is boring.

Eat your heart out with this this discussion .
There is no public data available , so its useless to discuss ,

You are in the reviewers bizz .
Drop the numbers to make it interesting

 

[tima]

Drop the numbers to make it interesting

What numbers? Here's a 3.

 

[andromedaaudio]

What numbers? Here's a 3.

Bye

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your always thoughtful, detailed and beautifully written Post #218, as well as your reply to Tim.

But I still am not seeing in either post a hypothesis as to why accommodation pricing is corrupting. You state this merely as an assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence and unsupported by any underlying analysis.

It is intuitively obvious to me that if everything the reviewer can buy may be purchased at the same, or at substantially the same, accommodation discount, then the playing field is level and the reviewer's genuine and honest subjective preferences emerge and become the authentic, genuine and wholly-uncorrupted basis of his/her purchase decision.

I've been trying to come up with an analogy. Someone is looking to buy a new large SUV. She has spent weeks reading reviews of cars and test driving cars. She's pretty sure she knows which one she wants. She knows how much she has to spend and which SUVs she prefers, and why.

She wakes up to find that every single model of large SUV by every single manufacturer suddenly is now offered at 40% off of sticker price.

Has her preference ordering changed -- been corrupted?

If she buys an SUV which she previously could not afford because it was out of reach financially that does not mean her preference ordering has changed. It just means that she can now purchase the SUV she preferred all along to the cheaper SUV she was planning to purchase.

A change solely in price across all options does not change her authentic, genuine preference ordering. There is no corruption of her natural and genuine preference ordering.

 

[Elliot G.]

Concerning the first question in the last episode, it is always surprising to meet audiophiles who do not seem to have a real interest in music, and are really listening to their systems - but so be it. What is more interesting to me is to see what non-audiophile (meaning, it's not their hobby) serious music listeners (musicians, critics, etc...) choose to own.

As we discussed differnt people are involved in many differnt ways. You may not agree with that but that does not mean its not true. People have all kinds of reasons to do things. Some collect gear, collect records, collect CD's, collect tapes these are their interests and reasons to be involved. Is that wrong? maybe to some but not to them. I know people that collect and buy all kinds of things and don't really USE them.
There are those to whom music playback and the enjoyment of that is the most important thing and their are those that have other reasons to be involved. I am sad to say I have met many with huge systems and very little music to play on it. I am sure you must know someone who owns a super hot car and barely uses it, or has a grand piano in the home and can't play, or buys a new set of golf clubs every season and plays twice. This is the world we live in , and we can accept it or not.
By the way because a celebrity, or musician buys something , gives no special insight in my mind as they are human like all of us and have their likes and dislikes. Just remember that a musician is in the music not sitting in front of it.

 

[Elliot G.]

JAY sells used / ex demo gear if im not mistaken , so it makes sense he uses his YT channel for publicity

of course as he said he does and how ALL are being paid in some form.

 

[Elliot G.]

Is an influencer a hobbyist? Seems they have gone beyond that line...

they could be , as a said are they receiving something for their opinions? then YES

 

[KeithR]

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your always thoughtful, detailed and beautifully written Post #218, as well as your reply to Tim.

But I still am not seeing in either post even a hint of a hypothesis as to why accommodation pricing is corrupting. You state this merely as an assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence and unsupported by any underlying analysis.

It is intuitively obvious to me that if everything the reviewer can buy may be purchased at the same, or at substantially the same, accommodation discount, then the playing field is level and the reviewer's genuine and honest subjective preferences emerge and become the authentic, genuine and wholly-uncorrupted basis of his/her purchase decision.

I've been trying to come up with an analogy. Someone is looking to buy a new large SUV. She has spent weeks reading reviews of cars and test driving cars. She's pretty sure she knows which one she wants. She knows how much she has to spend and which SUVs she prefers, and why.

She wakes up to find that every single model of large SUV by every single manufacturer suddenly is now offered at 40% off of sticker price.

Has her preference ordering changed -- been corrupted?

If she buys an SUV which she previously could not afford because it was out of reach financially that does not mean her preference ordering has changed. It just means that she can now purchase the SUV she preferred all along to the cheaper SUV she was planning to purchase.

A change solely in price across all options does not change her authentic, genuine preference ordering. There is no corruption of her natural and genuine preference ordering.

I can confirm one of the forum owners (not you) has chosen gear he could get on accommodation vs alternatives he could not. Doesn't that claim at least some influence?

As I commented on the episode, I know many many audiophiles who will take the greatest discount vs the a narrow one on what could be a better, more synergistic match. I was previously guilty of it myself at times. The richest ones are pretty much the worst offenders. And funny enough, many of them are low-ballers on used gear.

 

[Elliot G.]

It seems to me that the reviewers all want to defend the indefensible just like Politicians who ask us not to believe what is right in front of our eyes.
You have people who can't afford the items, getting all kinds of favors, and we are all supposed to believe this does not influence them. If they are not going to be transparent , and by that I mean on all sides , then their opinions should be taken with a very large grain of salt and the buyer should beware PERIOD. To ask us to believe that financial and other considerations that are given are not in order to get a positive evaluation or recommendations does not happen is a bridge to far for me and I think for many others.
This magic trick has been exposed, do what you think is right for your next purchase, and use your own ears.

 

[hopkins]

As we discussed differnt people are involved in many differnt ways. You may not agree with that but that does not mean its not true. People have all kinds of reasons to do things. Some collect gear, collect records, collect CD's, collect tapes these are their interests and reasons to be involved. Is that wrong? maybe to some but not to them. I know people that collect and buy all kinds of things and don't really USE them.
There are those to whom music playback and the enjoyment of that is the most important thing and their are those that have other reasons to be involved. I am sad to say I have met many with huge systems and very little music to play on it. I am sure you must know someone who owns a super hot car and barely uses it, or has a grand piano in the home and can't play, or buys a new set of golf clubs every season and plays twice. This is the world we live in , and we can accept it or not.

I did not say I “disagreed” with anyone’s approach to the hobby - and I agree that the reality is that people get into it with many different needs and motivations.

By the way because a celebrity, or musician buys something , gives no special insight in my mind as they are human like all of us and have their likes and dislikes. Just remember that a musician is in the music not sitting in front of it.

Agreed!

 

[Ron Resnick]

I can confirm one of the forum owners (not you) has chosen gear he could get on accommodation vs alternatives he could not. Doesn't that claim at least some influence?

Yes, it does.

1) In every post on this topic I state that one of my premises is equal discount on all candidates. If that condition does not obtain, then there can be corrupting influence.

2) Sometimes I forget that microeconomics theory does not always explain human behavior in practice.

 

[Kbh57]

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your always thoughtful, detailed and beautifully written Post #218, as well as your reply to Tim.

But I still am not seeing in either post a hypothesis as to why accommodation pricing is corrupting. You state this merely as an assertion, unsupported by empirical evidence and unsupported by any underlying analysis.

It is intuitively obvious to me that if everything the reviewer can buy may be purchased at the same, or at substantially the same, accommodation discount, then the playing field is level and the reviewer's genuine and honest subjective preferences emerge and become the authentic, genuine and wholly-uncorrupted basis of his/her purchase decision.

I've been trying to come up with an analogy. Someone is looking to buy a new large SUV. She has spent weeks reading reviews of cars and test driving cars. She's pretty sure she knows which one she wants. She knows how much she has to spend and which SUVs she prefers, and why.

She wakes up to find that every single model of large SUV by every single manufacturer suddenly is now offered at 40% off of sticker price.

Has her preference ordering changed -- been corrupted?

If she buys an SUV which she previously could not afford because it was out of reach financially that does not mean her preference ordering has changed. It just means that she can now purchase the SUV she preferred all along to the cheaper SUV she was planning to purchase.

A change solely in price across all options does not change her authentic, genuine preference ordering. There is no corruption of her natural and genuine preference ordering.

Corrupt is too strong a word than I think, but when a reviewer, influencer, whoever receives something of value not available to a typical consumer a reasonable person could question the objectivity of the review. Consider a case where a reviewer gets a $100k amp for $50k and publishes a review that says "This amp is fine, but in my honest opinion here are three different brands that offer better sound/build/service, etc., for the same or less money." What's going to happen when that reviewer goes back to the company requesting its $100k DAC at half price for a review?

These are quintessential first world problems and the stakes are relatively low, in the greater scheme of things, but I think it was a good topic to include in your forum. I applaud your honest discussion of the issue. If people get something for discussing a product, which in this world is almost always a tout, it would be nice if they at least disclose the deal so that everyone they seek to influence can decide for themselves with all the facts at hand. What's wrong with that? Nothing is going to compel that, and if their own sense of propriety leads to a different result, its not like these are medical trials, so life goes on.

 

[Bobvin]

Industry accommodation pricing to reviewers is intrinsically corrupting. Saying so doesn't mean there are no honest assessments uttered about gear acquired at half-list and therefore, say, 35 percentage points below what a savvy consumer pays, but the reader/viewer has to suspect otherwise. Why? If a reviewer has a system, or substantial portions of one, assembled from half-price components, it is almost certain they get to own and listen to a system that would otherwise be out of reach if said reviewer had to pay street prices. Is it unreasonable to presume they are grateful for that? So at the end of the day, without accommodation pricing, most reviewers would be living with and listening to lesser hifi systems. It also makes likely that loaned "reference" components will be evaluated in context of not-quite-reference gear. Accommodation prices can inflate reviewers' sense of self-importance and undermine objectivity.

Concomitantly, long term loans of gear to reviewers by manufacturers effectively become lived-with domestic objects virtually indistinguishable from items a reviewer may have paid for. We can debate where the line is, but I think that no loan to a reviewer should exceed six months. If you can't assess an item or even a system with six months of daily exposure to it -- especially as a full-time reviewer -- you are either woefully inefficient, lazy, overscheduled, undisciplined, confused or critically arrested. You can delay writing or recording your review if you need more time to consider your copious notes (you did take notes, right?). That's up to the reviewer. But manufacturers should issue that freight call tag on schedule, or sooner if the reviewer volunteers.

Pearson even more than Holt, planted the idea that hifi reviewing was / is some kind of high subjective art, and that there was something intrinsically valuable about it. There isn't. It's useful to some people, but it's not a valuable human pursuit. A true 1st world indulgence. It's not that difficult. Listen, compare, assess in six months or less, get organized to write or record, move on. It's all going to disappear into the great digital gyre, occasionally pulled from the muck by a search engine or a persisting link, but ultimately obsolesced and forgotten. None of this is important enough to pretend you need to have something for a year, two or three to know what you think about it. Music reviewing is a higher calling than assessments of audio gear, and that still has its foibles. This goes for cars, watches....all the 1st world gear-based hobbies and distractions. But at least in their heyday, the car mags had some friggin' great writers, and they had far better skills for making a car's driving experience vividly palpable to you than any audio reviewer attempting to help you understand a lump of hifi gear. And that includes Pearson. Hartley, et al are whiffs.

Accommodation pricing was originally offered to (underpaid) retail staff and channel owners who sold your product, and to employees of other business partners, friends & family, etc. It didn't start with reviewers, because...well....magazines weren't accommodating manufacturers on advertising pricing, except by price sheet volumes. Some people argued then that the practice was corrupting to sales people recommending products to customers, but it was common knowledge that any possible compromise caused by accommodation pricing was dwarfed by the practice of manufacturers or distributors putting "spiffs" (direct payments to salespeople for selling preferred items) on stuff they needed to move. And dwarfed by the influence of commission-based selling.

But a reviewer isn't in that economic sphere. They are selling trust on a presumption of competence, honesty and an ability to make their assessment comprehensible and meaningful to their audience, for whatever reason.

At the very least, be willing to say something to the effect of, "My hifi includes a bunch of components I got at prices only available to industry insiders like me, most of which I couldn't otherwise afford, or even if I could swing the price you'd pay, I like saving money whenever possible! And I get to have a system at a higher level so I get to review more fun things that I otherwise wouldn't have peer gear for. But don't for a moment doubt my objectivity on gear I bought at prices you can't get!" Na na na na na na; your mother wears army boots, and all that.

Phil

I hear your argument, but just want to throw out one thought — a reviewer or “industry insider” may get accommodation pricing, but anyone can buy those same components at “accommodation” pricing on the used market. Granted, its not new, but I expect the vast majority of audiophiles have some used components purchased because used it is affordable to them.

 

[PeterA]

I hear your argument, but just want to throw out one thought — a reviewer or “industry insider” may get accommodation pricing, but anyone can buy those same components at “accommodation” pricing on the used market. Granted, its not new, but I expect the vast majority of audiophiles have some used components purchased because used it is affordable to them.

I agree, but the challenge is finding some rare and coveted stuff on the used market. I searched for an original Neumann DST cartridge and had no luck. I also searched for a Micro Seiki SX8000II in near mint condition. I had to contact a dealer who specialized in this area to find one that was actually not available publicly. It can be quite difficult. Your point though Bob, is new stuff available and written about in reviews. After a year or three, some samples may indeed show up on the used market. It is a great alternative. I bought both of my Magico speakers that way and got great deals and enjoyed them for years.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I hear your argument, but just want to throw out one thought — a reviewer or “industry insider” may get accommodation pricing, but anyone can buy those same components at “accommodation” pricing on the used market. Granted, its not new, but I expect the vast majority of audiophiles have some used components purchased because used it is affordable to them.

This is a good (if tangential) point Bob. I bought two of my three pairs of amplifiers used (the VTLs and the Jadis). I bought some of my cables used.

With the pricing in this industry I think buying used often makes excellent sense.

 

[andromedaaudio]

of course as he said he does and how ALL are being paid in some form.

Im sorry i havent even seen the subject of this thread on YT yet.
I thought i just chim in