Corruption and scandal in the high-end press?

[old_bassist]

Audio Amateur magazine was recently acquired by Elektor International Media Group, which publishes Circuit Cellar and Elektor USA. The September issue is available for one and all to read at http://www.gotomyxpress.com.

 

On page 44, in an open letter to outgoing publisher Ed Dell, Lynn Olson wrote: "...I admire that you've resisted the horrific corruption in the high-end press that's happened over the last 25 years. You've kept it honest in an industry that's filled with scandal--all well hidden, but well-known to insiders."

 

Can any CA members offer comments or insight on Lynn's statements?

 

Cheers,

 

Ross

 

[wgscott]

Without any substantiating evidence, it is little more than a poison pen letter. I would disregard it.

 

[barrows]

Having worked in high end audio, and dealt with high end magazine editors/reviewers, my "insider information" is that this is nonsense. Entirely, corruption, scandal, really now.

 

If someone wants to be concerned with corruption and scandal that is having a huge effect on our lives one should concentrate on the finance industry and large corporations. How 'bout S & P, and their money making scheme of downgrading America's credit rating... What about their connection to Romney, etc, etc...

 

[Jud]

Oh well, at least it's far less controversial than high end audio. ;-)

 

On topic, there are always rumors, perhaps a bit of truth, floating around about whether some reviewers' opinions are swayed by manufacturers being nice about things like long term equipment "loans," personalized setup, etc. But even supposing there's some truth there, my guess is that the adjectives are way overblown, as they can easily tend to be.

 

[bernardl]

My belief is that most purchase of high end equipment is mostly emotional but that positive reviews are essential to rationalization such a hard to confess irrationality...

 

Considering that there are basically no negative review in high end audio...

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Cheers,

Bernard

 

 

[4est]

Bernard makes a good point. Consider this then, who gets to be reviewed? I think there is some middle ground. Not everyone is corrupt, but it is hard to imagine that there is none either as there is just too much evidence. It would also be naive to think that everyone is into it for the love of audio, even it they truly love it. Fortune, fame or even a good tax write off of all of your gear and trips are compelling reasons for starters.

 

[Phil Townsend]

What runs the Audio Press?

Answer:

Ads.

Who pays for the ads?

Answer:

Builders of gear.

 

The old adage.... The better the ad, the worse the product.

Still applies today even more so.

 

If I buy a years worth of full color double truck ads will my product get a fine review?

answer:

You can bet your life on it.

 

All rags do this.

Again

ALL RAGS. DO THIS!

But the scandal lives within this.

 

It's human nature.

 

[barrows]

You are just plain wrong, and I feel sorry for you with your flawed "human nature".

 

4est: "as there is just too much evidence"

 

please site the evidence, should be easy since there is "too much" of it.

 

I am not saying that every reviewer is a saint, and completely beyond rapproach, but I have met many of them, and the ones I have met have always been honest and sincere in their reviews and their enthusiasm for audio. It is important to understand that reviewers do have their own listening biases, most of the good ones usually are straightforward in admitting what their biases are-there is nothing wrong with that, as the appreciation of high end audio is subjective, and everybody has different preferences. I am saddened though, that some people suggest their is actual "corruption" going on, it is too bad that so many people have such a negative and cynical view of the world-I suppose this point of view is more a commentary on their own selves (as criticism so often is) rather than a valid indictment of the audio press.

 

[bernardl]

Hint... why are some equipment reviewed by a publication instead of others?

 

90% of high end audio equipment DO sound very good. The reason being that this isn't rocket science and that the technology to use to build good sounding equipment is public and has been public for tens of years. Components can mostly be freely sourced. Then it is only a matter of selecting a market segment and of hiring a talented designer,...

 

So I have no doubt that reviewers are honest when they write that the new amp from blabla audio sounds really good when matched with his pair of B&W 802 Diamond. How could it not sound good?

 

The real question is the motivation for reviewing the amp from blabla audio instead of the [neerly] equally good sounding amp from tchatcha audio.

 

Then you have some real breakthrough products from brands like Naim or Devialet and the real question becomes why does a magazine like Whathifi in UK devote pages to the UK designed Naim but doesn't even mention once on their website the existence of the French Devialet?...

 

So what are the factors that contribute to the selection of gear to review? In order of decreasing levels of "honesty" I would guess:

- honest interest from the reviewer/publication,

- expectation from readers (a Wilson Sasha review does sell),

- publication of similar reviews in competitor publication,

- personal relationship with a brand/people,

- paid adds,

- industry lobbies pushing for local manufacturers (Whathifi mostly reviewing UK equipment for example),

- ...

 

In most cases, a mix of these.

 

But again, the real question is not the honesty of the reviewer about a given piece of gear, it is the selection of gear to review.

 

Cheers,

Bernard

 

 

[4est]

Relax.

 

I'd be foolish to cite sources on a public forum, and I am not poking at the reviewers but the magazines. I am also not stating that the industry is corrupt, but that there is corruption within the industry.

 

[barrows]

"So what are the factors that contribute to the selection of gear to review? In order of decreasing levels of "honesty" I would guess:

- honest interest from the reviewer/publication,

- expectation from readers (a Wilson Sasha review does sell),

- publication of similar reviews in competitor publication,

- personal relationship with a brand/people,

- paid adds,

- industry lobbies pushing for local manufacturers (Whathifi mostly reviewing UK equipment for example)"

 

So what is wrong with the above (with the obvious exception of advertising)? Clearly no single reviewer/magazine/website can review every piece of gear available, so there has to be some way of choosing which products to review. I see nothing wrong, or corrupt, with any of the reasons on the above list with the exception of advertising. I have seen reviewers in stereophile routinely mention that they wanted to review a specific product because they are interested in it, nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned-would you rather have them pick components for review randomly? What Hi Fi is a UK magazine, nothing wrong with a little national pride in review choices either.

 

4est, just yankin' your chain a little, but you have to admit making accusations with no real evidence to back it up is a little weak.

 

[bernardl]

So what is wrong with the above (with the obvious exception of advertising)? Clearly no single reviewer/magazine/website can review every piece of gear available, so there has to be some way of choosing which products to review. I see nothing wrong, or corrupt, with any of the reasons on the above list with the exception of advertising. I have seen reviewers in stereophile routinely mention that they wanted to review a specific product because they are interested in it, nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned-would you rather have them pick components for review randomly? What Hi Fi is a UK magazine, nothing wrong with a little national pride in review choices either.

 

I don't remember writing or implying anywhere that all of these were wrong.

 

The bottom 2 do not meet my expectations as a reader.

 

What is their weight in the decision process, I would say that this weight separates the good publications from the other ones.

 

Cheers,

Bernard