Are audio reviewers biased or incredibly biased?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dpod4 said:
Advertising. Either the manufacturer being reviewed is also an advertiser, or the magazine is writing a positive review in hopes of getting them to advertise or I think most reviewers are allowed to buy the product at industry accommodation, hold it for a period of time and then can sell it and make some money on the side. All of those scenarios negate possibility for negative reviews.
Click to expand...

Even though there's a clear Chinese Wall between reviewers and advertisers? That reviewers don't even have a clue who's advertising? And I think JA has debunked that theory presenting the stats from SP over on AA a while back. I understand that there's no convincing people but the numbers are the numbers.

Remember that in actuality, very little of the gear reviewed, save maybe in the case of new manufacturers, comes through the magazine. Most reviewers acquire the equipment on their own and submit the proper paperwork to the magazine that documents when they receive the gear and how long the the reviewer expects to keep the gear.

As far as the last statement, it is absolutely forbidden for a reviewer to make a profit on the sale of gear. In fact, it's grounds for immediate dismissal from the magazine. (the only cases that I know of that happening actually occurred with the "above" ground, not audiophile magazines.) Do you also realize that most companies nowadays require a reviewer to sign a document requiring them to keep the component for a minimum of a year--and in some cases even two years? So what happens if I come across a piece of gear that I'd like to purchase in those two years? I'm stuck. Or else I buy it and have to wait for the terms of ownership to pass. And at that point, the price has probably gone down too.

Or that some companies will buy back the piece of equipment rather than it go back on the market at a discounted price???

I'd just suggest that readers don't always see the inner working of the industry.
 
Not all magazines are created equal. Lots of behaviors happening at an individual level under the radar. I know reviewers who buy equipment for their reference system ...then sell it. Usually after a period of time. I have spoken with manufacturers who have felt the pressure to advertise so a positive review would be printed. Not occurring everywhere and may not be the norm but it is happening. Not as super clean as the industry leads people to believe it is. I bet the upper echelon of reviewers and mags (present company included) are above the board, but I doubt you have to dig very deep to connect that dots on different behaviors b
 
Dpod4 said:
Not all magazines are created equal. Lots of behaviors happening at an individual level under the radar. I know reviewers who buy equipment for their reference system ...then sell it. Usually after a period of time. I have spoken with manufacturers who have felt the pressure to advertise so a positive review would be printed. Not occurring everywhere and may not be the norm but it is happening. Not as super clean as the industry leads people to believe it is. I bet the upper echelon of reviewers and mags (present company included) are above the board, but I doubt you have to dig very deep to connect that dots on different behaviors b
Click to expand...

Well if it means anything, those people are slowly weeded out. Nothing in life is 100% foolproof. It's like those advertisers who don't pay their bills.
 
What I would like to see is reviewers of all types be it a customer, an actually audio reviewer be able to tell it like it is without repercussions according to the First Amendment. But if there is lawsuits of a peice of equipment or a device or item like when the FTC sued Sketchers for $40 million in 2012 over their "Shape Up" shoe which did not do what they were advertised to do, or the recent class action lawsuit requiring Vibram to refund $3.75 million on those 5 toed shoes. The lawsuit stated Vibram deceived consumers by advertising that the footwear could reduce foot injuries and strengthen foot muscles, without basing those assertions on any scientific merit.

So who knows, maybe one day we could see lawsuits in courts over false cable claims, or those magic steel blocks under equipment that would be interesting.
 
CPP said:
So who knows, maybe one day we could see lawsuits in courts over false cable claims, or those magic steel blocks under equipment that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that someone has already been tried that in court without any success. And other general harassing techniques.
 
jeremyjustice said:
Pardon, but I really dont see the incentive to write good reviews for bad gear so you can get a discount on said bad gear. If a reviewer gets a piece of gear and it sounds like wet mud why would he want to buy it, even at a 70% discount? If a reviewer gets a piece of gear and loves it enough to buy it doesn't it stand to reason he will write a good review, lets not forget Fremer did spend $50,000 on his table, a deep discount for sure but not exactly chump change.
Click to expand...

Who knows exactly the real stories behind the curtains; there are so many ways we can think of, but only the audio reviewers know best.

I have read in a couple of magazines over the years that the reason there are no bad reviews is because of limited print space, the editors choose to promote gear that they feel is worthy of their readers consideration not waste valuable pages bashing gear. Seems reasonable enough but it does give the impression that they only give good reviews.
Click to expand...

I have read the same thing, plus much more...
 
The simple fact of life is this: There are good audio reviewers out there with integrity and without biases.
And we know some of the rest ...

It's up to us, the audio readers, to read accurately, and to separate them towards their respective category.
The biased ones always take the good away from the unbiased others.

_________________

* To be positive we can always start a list of the ones who we consider unbiased and writing fair reviews with absolute integrity.
 
Kal's reviews are useful and informative. He's not afraid to try new technology and unusual ways of achieving great music.
 
Kal is a god example to all other reviewers; as a music/sound explorer, audio technology avant-gardiste, surround frontiersman, and simply as a good normal human being.

Plus he's smart (intelligent), respectful, humorous, and has some of the highest taste in real Music, with a capital M (Classical).
And he's not stuck to solid (stereo), but also appreciate tasteful recorded multichannel music (high resolution).
 
NorthStar said:
Kal is a god example to all other reviewers; as a music/sound explorer, audio technology avant-gardiste, surround frontiers, and as a human being.

Plus he's smart (intelligent), respectful, humorous, and has some of the highest taste in real Music, with a capital M (Classical).
And he's not stuck to solid (stereo), but also appreciate tasteful recorded multichannel music (high resolution).
Click to expand...
Kal listens to good music too. The primary purpose for me is discovering quality music previously unknown to me. Kal seems to have a thing for Requiem Masses. I love them too. My wife doesn't like them much. She thinks they are too morose. :-). Dallas Symphony did an incredible Verdi Requiem this year. It brought the house down!
 
But still (yes, I know I'm a PITA), I'm waiting for Myles to answer to my previous question: how can someone trust a reviewer who cannot figure out the uber-expensive monoblocks under review are unable to put out mor then a couple ow watts, or that the uber-expensive DAC under review is unable to properly reproduce any bass?

And keep the answer simple, Myles​, I'm just a lowly engineer and English is my second (no, make that third) language!
 
iosiP said:
But still (yes, I know I'm a PITA), I'm waiting for Myles to answer to my previous question: how can someone trust a reviewer who cannot figure out the uber-expensive monoblocks under review are unable to put out mor then a couple ow watts, or that the uber-expensive DAC under review is unable to properly reproduce any bass?

And keep the answer simple, Myles​, I'm just a lowly engineer and English is my second (no, make that third) language!
Click to expand...
Reviewers aren't forcing anyone to trust them. I don't trust anyone in this hobby. Even the finest and most advanced manufacturers and designers stretch their expertise into areas in which they know very little. You have to consider the source before you pass judgment. I trust myself. That's it. The nice thing about the internet is that you can post your thoughts about the gear as well. I do it all the time. In response, there will always be audiophiles that tell me I am delusional and don't know what I am hearing. That's fine with me.
 
NorthStar said:
I'm a big Opera lover myself, and love people going to Operas. :) ...The way they nicely dress and politely act, with class and dignity (noblesse oblige).
Click to expand...

You just described the crowd I used to run with for a while, only not totally opera types. We went to plays, concerts (sub-genre rock), dinners, etc. dressed like we were going to opera and extremely politely mannered with class and dignity (noblesse oblige to the nines). I'll put it this way, we were considered local royalty. Shocked the hell out of many folks several times not expecting such, judging from the culture we were associated with only proving that they knew absolutely nothing. (Stands to reason though since there was a mirror culture to ours that was opposite and giving the real ones -us, a bad name).
Kind of miss those days, but we are all retired now and the whole aristrocratic thing has gone the way of the dodo bird it seems. That's ok though because we were getting extremely tired.
 
dallasjustice said:
Reviewers aren't forcing anyone to trust them.
Click to expand...
Of course they aren't! However, if people don't trust reviewers they won't read the magazine, which means advertisers will stop... well, advertising and the magazine would go belly-up!
And so would the perks and "accomodations" for the reviewers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top