[Rick Craig]

The reason these people are writing for you is that they can't make a living writing for only Rolling Stone, SPIN, Jazz Times & The New Yorker.

Gerald,

This is uncalled for - please remove your comment. You have made some valid points in your other posts but you lose credibility when you say something like this.

[TONEPUB]

What does any of this have to do with magazine ethics?

We've tried to explain our perspective and process in a
very transparent way.  I've seen John Atkinson do the same
thing, he is always very professional.  Mikey gets a little grumpy
but I can see why after this kind of banter.

At the end of the day, we tell you why we do what we do
and you can choose to accept or reject us.

But the childish comments are just that.  You pulled the
same kind of thing at the Steve Hoffman forum and everyone
got fed up with you.  It's always negative.

Any of our readers or people from this forum that have chosen
to correspond with me or my staff have always found us to
be as helpful as we can and if that doesn't speak volumes
for our "ethics" than nothing else does.

All you seem to keep coming up with is negativity that
has no basis in fact.

How does this help anyone?  Please explain.  You keep
trying to discredit me and it's not working so now you resort
to cheap shots.  How ethical is that?

[gerald porzio]

As I recall you were the one who resorted to name calling. That isn't childish?????????????????????

[MaxCast]

gerald, you have a PM.

[gerald porzio]

Gotcha PM. I'll try to be more temperate in the future.

[Rick Craig]

Rick,

I do appreciate your comments here because you, unlike most readers, actually interact, to some degree, with magazines and reviewers behind the scenes. However, I must suggest that raising this issue and providing specific examples of mis-conduct without actually naming the names does more harm. Using the term "magazines" leaves the impression that you are referring to print as opposed to internet publications. I, and I assume many readers, are left to speculate which magazines and reviewers you are referring to, which only serves to impugn the innocent entities, because, we think, maybe you are referring to them when, in fact, you are not. Sort of like the teacher punishing the entire class because the teacher did not know which student threw the eraser. Guilt by ignorance.

Secondly, if you have experience with a reviewer/magazine that suggests it is not ethically solid, then perhaps we should know that information, on the assumption that we are reading that publication, and, to some extent, relying on their opinions, which may be suspect.

Sorry I didn't make it clear - all of my comments, both negative and positive, include print and internet-based magazines. I have not interacted with all of them but my experiences with Positive Feedback, Soundstage, and Affordable Audio have been great. The reviews were fair, nothing demanded beforehand or afterwards in terms of discounts or paid advertising.

From my perspective I could call out the offenders but then I would probably end up spending countless hours in a flame war. The best thing I can do is stay away and not supply products for review or place advertising. All I can tell you is take everything you read with a grain of salt. If you find a product reviewed that's of interest go hear it at a dealer or have it delivered to you with a reasonable free trial period. If it turns out that you find the review to be questionable then avoid that particular reviewer. Keep in mind too that this doesn't automatically make the reviewer or magazine suspect ethically - it may just be a difference of opinion. There may even be another reviewer for the same magazine that you find to be helpful so I would consider that before avoiding the magazine altogether.

[Rick Craig]

What does any of this have to do with magazine ethics?

We've tried to explain our perspective and process in a
very transparent way.  I've seen John Atkinson do the same
thing, he is always very professional.  Mikey gets a little grumpy
but I can see why after this kind of banter.

At the end of the day, we tell you why we do what we do
and you can choose to accept or reject us.

But the childish comments are just that.  You pulled the
same kind of thing at the Steve Hoffman forum and everyone
got fed up with you.  It's always negative.

Any of our readers or people from this forum that have chosen
to correspond with me or my staff have always found us to
be as helpful as we can and if that doesn't speak volumes
for our "ethics" than nothing else does.

All you seem to keep coming up with is negativity that
has no basis in fact.

How does this help anyone?  Please explain.  You keep
trying to discredit me and it's not working so now you resort
to cheap shots.  How ethical is that?

Jeff - please don't stop posting - your side needs to be heard as well in order to have a fair discussion. your comments are welcome here.

[mcullinan]

One look at Jeffs pic on the Zine site and you know hes an honest guy. I mean who would dare look like that. Hehe only joking of course. I enjoy your interviews with bands, and understand that you want to reach a broader audience but temper with product reviews, And the design is so perty. Since I am a designer I notice that!

Everything said isnt all truth its somewhere in between, so anyones comments are never gospel and we are not sheep.
Mike

[gerald porzio]

We do NOT rehash what's on manufacturers websites.  We spend anywhere from a
few hundred hours to a thousand hours listening to a component before we start typing
up a review.

This being the case, one might posit that w/ the take of 2 or more reviewers being sought in these 1000 hr. evaluations, the takes of the 2nd & 3rd reviewer might give the reader  more informed opinions to help decide if the component is worth investigating further. Surely there can't be a unanimity of opinion regarding all the features & benefits of every component 100% of the time. This is hardly a novel approach being used by at least one other Ezines. On rare occasions, the opinions don't dovetail. One might think the reader would appreciate this knowing that they might diverge in certain areas. With measurements being anathema, this is a win win situation.

[TONEPUB]

Where this really comes in handy is with our upcoming review of the
SIM Audio I-7.  The reviewer that is working on that one has Magnepan
3.6's and the I-7 is not a great match for those speakers.  Marc had
great luck with it with his DeVores and I didn't have any problems with
all of my speakers, but it's essential to the review in case there is a
Magnepan owner thinking this might be the amp for them.

I borrowed a pair of 1.6's from a friend and had the same results, a little
thin in the bass. That's why I maintain the relationship with the local dealers that I do.
If I need to borrow a component that we don't have in house to see how
compatible something is, I have that option.

We never agree totally with how a component performs, because we all
like different things and have different priorities when it comes to
component functionality.

That's why we are doing this more and more.  We don't claim it to
be novel.  I know that James Darby likes to think that he's invented
this format of reviewing, but Stereophile and TAS have been doing this
for 20 years.  I'm sure the main reason they don't always do it is the
time factor and the cost of shipping expensive gear to a few different
reviewers,  can get spendy.  And then there is that much more
of a chance that a component will get damaged.

These days FedEx is not terribly good at paying claims. When we did
the recent review of the ModWright phono preamplifier, I packed it in
the original factory carton, and a larger carton with another layer of
packing peanuts before sending it to another reviewer for his opinion. 
FedEx DESTROYED the preamplifier and refused
to  pay the claim.

So guess what, for the benefit of getting a third opinion, I almost had
to take it in the shorts for 3000 bucks.  I did own the preamp that we
sent to our other reviewers, so it was completely my loss.  And if we
would have had the preamp on loan from ModWright for review, I would
have written him a check.  Fortunately, Dan Wright is a very cool guy
and he only charged me a few hundred dollars to repair it, but I'm still
out of pocket. 

It's not all fun and games.

[TONEPUB]

Thanks, much appreciated....