[Rick Craig]

Is this a topic that's of interest to anyone? I have some thoughts I would like to share when I get a chance.

[mcullinan]

Please do, Id like to hear the goods.
Mike

[TomS]

I find this intriguing, but it may draw a lot of flies...

[ecramer]

Why not, Its your stage. For the good or bad i would be interested in what you have to say.

I find this intriguing, but it may draw a lot of flies...

Oh i am sure of that but i am not going to speculate on what got a bee in ricks bonnet
Ed

[TomS]

You know what my Mom always says...."If you don't have something nice to say about someone, come sit beside me and tell me all about it!"

Sure Rick, lets hear what's on your mind.

Your mom is starting to scare me 

[woodsyi]

Bob has his infinite madness thread; why not you, an ethical conundrum thread?    I am all for hot topics.  aa

[TONEPUB]

I too am very interested in what you have to say....

[martyo]

I'd like to hear your thoughts, but in the mean time I do have some of my own. Ethics these days, most anywhere, can be put on the list of "things that aren't what they used to be".

This year we attended our first RMAF. We were there to hear speakers. Afterwards, as the reviews from audio magazines started showing up in posts or via links in posts here on the circle, I couldn't believe some of the glowing reviews written about products that were very average at best. My un-audiofool wife had to leave a couple of the rooms because the highs (or upper midrange) hurt her ears. Her comments on a couple of the highly touted speakers we specifically went to hear was "our stuff at home sounds much better". (Mid-fi Carver ALS Platinum's). Many of the rooms we visited a few times to see if there would be a different impression. Some of these manufacturers I contacted directly at the show or later via email or pm. A couple acknowledged problems such as the guy setting them up (an EE)wasn't really familiar with them, another was the $20K amps used were underpowered. The interesting thing about these were the GLOWING reviews by the magazines. Granted on one, the reviewer acknowledged the underpowering but concluded from ? that they MUST be awesome. As I'm reading reviews and looking at company websites I begin to notice lists of "friends" that include the same publications that just gave them the reviews.

Over on the AVA site awhile back an editor of one of these publication's was lamenting why Frank wouldn't let his mag review his gear but would TAS, especially when Frank's affordable gear clearly fit right into his publications niche. Then he went on to slam and misrepresent Frank. If you won't let his mag review your gear you get slammed.

I've seen where a reviewer sends the speaker he's reviewing to the designer for a frequency response graph.

I'm not saying that anyone is necessarily dishonest but ethically it doesn't float. It looks like a "club" and when you're in, you're in.

Generally, I don't read them, but I was curious after RMAF. I have bought only one since the 70's when I used to subscribe to TAS, and that was recently when TAS reviewed most of the gear I now have. It wasn't to make a purchase, just to read their take on what I already own.

Thanks Rick, I've been wanting to express this for awhile.

[Jeff K]

There's a great one going on at AA's Critic forum. I'd really like to hear Rick's views.

[Brian Cheney]

Hope Rick doesn't mind me posting here on this subject, about which I have some knowledge.

The number one thing to avoid as a manufacturer dealing with audio journalists is BAD PRESS.  Audiophiles delight in the negative and will quicly strike your product from the "short list" if they read so much as a sniffle about it, anywhere.  This is why it pays not to make enemies with the magazines and e-reviewers. 

And yet I have many issues with reviewers, going back three decades when I first started out.  In olden days reviews and advertising went together like milk and cookies.  I think things have changed today (at least I hope so).  My very first published review in a mainstream publication (Audio, April 1980 issue) cost me a pair of my flagship speakers, to Bert Whyte, who later sold them to one of his friends.  I didn't complain, since it put me on the map.  Bert solicited a review pair after seeing my classified in his magazine. 

And so it went.  If you advertised you could get a review.  I never got a bad one, though others did (DCM and Polk come to mind).  One magazine (the dearly departed "FI") actually squelched a finished writeup by a major reviewer because I was NOT an advertiser.  This after I had sent samples, visited the man to set him up and make sure all was well, and he had written 3000 words which he submitted to me for comment.

In recent years I have received reviews from pubs in which I don't advertise, thank you very much.  Still I do have issues with the ethics of some reviewers.  A recent speaker shootout published online (I was not one of the manufacturers involved) exemplifies IMHO how not to do things.  I won't go into details, but I feel the losers in that "blind" comparison got a raw deal and should have complained.

Occasionally I ignore or poilitely decline a review request from journalists whose ethics are in question.  I suggest other manufacturers use extreme caution dealing with the press.  The recent comments in TAS by J Valin concerning Ayre products were entirely uncalled for and unsupported, for example.  This was because Charles Hansen had made comments critical of Mr. Valin elsewhere.

Be very, very careful out there!

Rick, feel free to move this if you want.  BTW I consider Rick one of audio's true Good Guys and wish him continued success.

B Cheney
Pres, VMPS Ribbon
www.vmpsaudio.com
(this signature required by the mods here)

[acresm22]

I recall reading a blistering review of the Aragon 8002 amp in Fi magazine back in the 90s. I owned one at the time, and was discussing the review with an industry "insider" who said there was bad blood going way back between the reviewer and Tony Federici of Mondial Design. Have no idea if this was true, but the review was noteworthy because its not very often you see something published that completely trashes a product.

[Zero]

I haven't put in much wrench time into the reviewing gig. Slightly over a year, to be precise. While I am a bona fide babe in da' woods and admit to not being nearly as qualified to comment on the biz as others who have been dabbling in it since before I was born (*cough* Brian *cough*  ), I'd like to simply state that most of the manufacturers and reviewers I've stumbled across in this brief period of time are genuinely imbued with a strong sense of passion and moral code. While the situation I've seen is far from hum and drum, it certainly bears mentioning that there are individuals floating around high end audio that have no business doing so. Then again, the same can be said for any industry. There will always be the yin and the yang. There will always be people who enter a job for the right reasons, just as there will be a few weeds that enter a job on less ethical grounds. So far, I've been lucky enough to happen across truly first-class people, many of whom I now consider close friends. That said, I don't know of one manufacturer that doesn't have a horror story or two about a member of the press. Unfortunately, those that believe the best in others eventually get taken advantage of by less inclined folk. As Brian suggests; every manufacturer should practice extra caution before sending out their pride and joy to be formally evaluated.

It always pains me to see bad things happen to good people. The inexperienced side of me secretly wishes manufacturers would speak out against the wrong-doings they encounter by members of the press. The other side of me recognizes the concern over the potential consequences that face the "squeaky wheel". Nonetheless, my attitude on it all rests firmly on the " $#@ em', let em' hang"... side of town. 

[Kevin Haskins]

Sure Rick, we would like to hear your thoughts!   

I agree with much of what has been said.    There is a "clique" in audio, same as there is in any group of people.   Some are better at exploiting the personality side of things than others.   Much of what happens socially, has a profound influence upon reviews.   

The financial aspect (tit for a tat) has probably improved since Brian's early days.   Now, it is much more difficult for reviewers to get away with unethical behavior.   The Internet has had the impact of making everyone's actions more visible to the general public.

Overall, I avoid reviews.   The downside is much greater than the upside and unless you know the people and publications involved, you are throwing the dice and hoping that you are dealing with someone without an agenda of some sort.    I don't personally enjoy the popularity game so I just decline most requested reviews unless I know something about the reviewer and publication.

In general, I've been fairly pessimistic about the publications and the review process in our industry.   I have to say though that my recent experience with SoundStage and Colin Smith has been nothing but professional.   Not once did they ask me for any financial support or even hint at it.   

So, not everyone is on the take and not all publications are dishonest but there is a legit history of unethical behavior and the publications are going to have to deal with it or continue to have their credibility challenged.


 

[woodsyi]

"click" = clique?

[Kevin Haskins]

"click" = clique?

Yes... excuse me.

[sbrtoy]

Anyone attending CES or RMAF will likely run into most of the reviewers from the major rags.  You are all welcome to judge for yourself, some are genuinely good people who have a passion for music and want to share their experiences with others.  Unfortunately there are also many who are elitist, egocentric primadonnas who expect to have others bow to their wishes or feel their wrath.

RMAF is an interesting study in behavior as I have witnessed over the past several years many journalists and also many manufacturers acting very innappropriately in front of their consumer audience.  It is a shame really because anyone who was just getting into audio would likely show themselves out...face it, most people think we are a bunch of anti-social goofballs anyway, why give them an excuse to further the stereotype?

[woodsyi]

"click" = clique?

Yes... excuse me.

Kevin,

I wasn't on a spelling crusade.  I just wasn't sure from your post.  It was an honest question. 

[TONEPUB]

I can't speak for Stereophile or TAS because I don't work there (any more)

What every magazine editor that actually earns a living at what they do struggles with constantly is serving two masters, the readers and the advertisers. It's tough but not impossible.

We currently have a ratio in our reviews of about 60% components from advertisers to 40% non advertisers. It used to be about 20% advertisers in the old days, but that's changed. And we are always trying to push the balance back to 50/50.

I've got over 30 years of hifi experience, owning it, selling it and repairing it (though I am not an EE). Our tech editor does have an EEE and a PhD in Physics though and has done consulting for almost every major manufacturer in the high end. We also have two recording engineers and a board certified audiologist on staff.  We also spend a lot of time going to see live music, acoustic and amplified, to try and have some kind of a reference.  Most of us are amateur or professional musicicans as well.

I've owned MILLIONS of dollars worth of hifi gear over that 30 year period, as has most of my staff. That's why we started TONE, we've had a lot of seat time with this stuff and with a lot of different gear too.

Another thing that adds to our familiarity is that EVERYONE on the TONE staff OWNS their reference system. Look at the recommended components list of any of the reviewers at any of the other magazines. Other than Mikey Fremer owning his stuff, most of these guys' systems are made up of whatever loaned gear they have at any given time.

In addition to the two reference systems in my studio, I have a smaller one in the house and own a few extra turntables, arms, cartridges and other electronics. I listen to them on a regular basis and always have them for comparison as additional references.

I've hand picked the people on my staff for their expertise in set up, their love of music and their diversity of the kind of sound we all prefer. Dan likes Avalons, Marc likes mini monitors and his DeVore 9's, Randy likes his Magnepans and I  love my Martin Logan Summits. And we have just had another of our writers step up to making his reference speakers Summits after spending the weekend at our house.

I've had enough people from the hifi and the music industry over at our studio to listen what I've put together tell me I've got some of the best sound they've ever heard to be pretty confident of my abilities or any of the other people on my staff.

I've also had my room and my ears tested and know that I don't have any glitches to worry about or work around. When the folks from SonicWeld were here in November of last year, they told me it normally takes them 2-3 days to dial that system in with room correction but it only took 3 hours because my room had no major anomalies.

But back to the reasons we review...

What we can only hope to do on the best day is to relay an experience that we've had with a component in a compelling enough way, (without being too gushy like some of the others do) that YOU will want to investigate it for yourself.

No matter how much we like a component, if it doesn't work in your home/system or budget it will not be a fit.

Typically, when we get something in for review that one of us really does not like, it goes to at least a couple of the other people for a second or third opinion. As we all have somewhat different rooms and setups, if no one can make it produce what we feel is good sound, we send it back whether it costs us ad dollars or not.

There is no one advertising in TONE at this point in time that I or someone on my staff hasn't done business with. There is no one in the magazine that I've accepted ad dollars from that will shaft you if you buy one of their products. You may not like Naim, or Conrad Johnson or Cardas (insert name here..) but I know that those people stand behind what they sell and that is very important to me. The last thing I want any of you to do is spend your hard earned money on something and take it in the shorts.

We have also never asked anyone for advertising money before or during a review.  And I keep reviewing products from people who will probably never advertise with me because they make good products.  But I have to eat and I have a staff to pay, so once I've done a couple of reviews, I do put the sales guy hat on once in a while and say "hey how about supporting us..."  Seriously, though I really haven't had to ask that much.  It's a give and take with most mfrs.  If they've sold product because we've helped, they inquire about ads, because it helps them too.

Again, buying ad space in our magazine has never been a prerequisite for a good review.  We review products we are interested in whether or not they've advertised with us.

Which leads us to the awards thing.

Our first year, we didn't even do any. The second year, we started our exceptional value awards of which we awarded six or seven and last year I think we gave out nine and a "product of the year" award.

This year we will probably stick to nine or ten and give out a product of the year in a few categories.

We have not chosen to grade things A,B,C etc because I don't see it as valid and it's my magazine. Seriously how much confidence do you have when Stereophile gives a 1500 dollar pair of speakers a Class B rating and right next to it a 20 thousand dollar pair of speakers a Class B as well? But that's the way they do it and it's John Atkinson's magazine.

And this is why I don't waste my time with gear that I don't like. There is enough great gear out there, I don't need the ego gratification of telling you something that is perfectly good is junk.

Honestly, I really don't care what anyones system is. What I do care about is that you have a smile on your face when you listen to it.

I've had big amps, small amps, tubes, solid state, class D, you name it, one of us has probably owned it or lived with it at one point in time. That's why we do what we do.

I wouldn't spend 50-80 hours a week doing this if it wasn't my lifelong passion.

When you take a magazine like TAS that typically runs about 90 pages of ads in an issue of about 170 pages, and then subtract the six pages of letters, couple pages of directories, six or eight pages of industry news, there isn't much left for content, so it's very hard for them to ever get to gear that isn't made by advertisers. By the time you cut out the fluff pages, there is rarely even 50 pages of actual content in a typical issue of TAS.

Stereophile does a lot better, they usually get close to 50/50, sometimes even a bit better.

We have it much easier being a PDF, so that we can expand and contract as we need to, but it's also been a primary goal since day one to never become even 50% advertising. Our last few issues have been over 150 pages with about 45 pages of advertising.

And to end this all, please tell me how you expect all of us to devote the time necessary to really evaluate all this gear without it being a business and a full time job? Especially in our case, where we give the content away.

The Absolute Sound and Stereophile both started out without ads, but Harry Pearson couldn't run a business and neither could J. Gordon Holt. They were great guys and huge enthusiasts that shaped the industry, but once both of those mags got bigger than little tabloids, they had to get ad dollars to stay afloat.

Again, I'd like to underscore that a hifi review is only the beginning. It's all opinion. But I get enough letters and emails every single day from all over the world (we are currently read by 112 thousand readers in 93 countries) that people enjoy what we are doing and most importantly have heard what we've heard. They have read our reviews, went out and bought the gear and enjoy it. That's all I can do.

If you want my help or opinion, I'm always happy to give it. If you want to continue with the conspiracy theories, carry on. I have to believe that all of you are way too intelligent than to just go buy a component only because a hifi reviewer (myself included) says so.  

The review is only a place to start.  While we do our best to be diligent, we can't try every combination in every room situation.  I want people to go to their dealers, the shows and their friends houses and INVESTIGATE.  I can only tell you what we like and at the end of the day I hope we've helped you in one way or the other, even if we've helped you identify something you DON'T want.

That's the long version straight from the horses mouth.

[Kevin Haskins]

Hey.... this is no conspiracy theory.   It isn't even fair to compare it to one.   

I talk to a lot of guys in the industry.   Some are friends, others I have business relationships with but pretty much all of them have a story to tell.    I've seen it myself.   You are going to have a hard time telling guys that have experienced it that it isn't real.   

And Jeff,  I'm making a generalization.  Like all generalizations it doesn't apply to everyone.   I don't know you or your publication nor am I throwing stones specifically at you but there is enough history of impropriety that to pretend it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory isn't really facing the facts.

I applaud you and your efforts, and I think there is nothing wrong with advertising or asking people to support you.   There is nothing wrong with you making a buck.   I also don't think you need to answer to everyone's behavior.   If you keep a clean house your reputation will proceed you.

[TONEPUB]

Hi Kevin:

No sweat and no offense taken.  I just find that the more transparent we can be,
hopefully the more questions get answered.

We've certainly tried to keep it as above board as possible. 

 I think that you could probably ask anyone that we work with what
their experience has been with us and find out it's been positive.
There are always that 5% that you can never make happy, but
we keep trying!