Stereophile’s top twenty advertisers

[Purité Audio]

After some exchanges with John Atkinson, I don't put much stock in his ability to correctly perform those tests or interpret the results.

nooooooooooooooooo really?
keith

 

[oivavoi]

Dutch& Dutch’s award winning 8C monitors are always available for evaluation/demonstration at Purité Audio, North London.
Where you can compare them directly with Kii THREE. Grimm LS1be, Hedd’s Type 20 and the superb ‘Towers Main’.
https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/dutch-dutch-1

Keith

Those small Gradient speakers are gone, then?

 

[JJB70]

I guess Stereophile is part of a group of information... I mean advertising outlets--sort of a hi-fi mafia, as it were. Most of what is dished out is blather at best. At worst it is opportunistic shilling. The most recent idiocy comes from one of Stereophile's sister sites, Audiostream. The 'reviewer' (I laugh when I use that word), one Rafe A., writes up his exquisite impressions of a forty four thousand dollar DAC, using about every cliched, nonsensical audiofool phrase you've ever had the misfortune to come across:

...if you are someone who has an incurable need for access to the bleeding-edge of file types or the highest digital resolutions available, then perhaps the DAC 5 is not for you. That said, if, like me, this is not of paramount importance and musicality, flesh-and-blood authenticity, sonic coherence, low-level note separation, full-frequency spectrum resolution, sound staging, and addictive rhythmic timing along with transient detail and speed are your jam… then [it] could be the last DAC you’d ever want to buy.

Notice two things. First, understanding that the device doesn't translate DSD 32-bit/384kHz DSD64 or DSD128, or even 24/192 PCM files, and knowing how another opportunistic company will come out with an even more expensive DAC, Rafe leaves open the possibility that someone might want that, instead. Second, to his credit (LOL) he doesn't call this thing a 'bargain', or bring his wife in from the kitchen in order to validate his golden perception.

These people are bad jokes. They've long gone past the point of self-parody. How anyone can take any of what they write seriously is something I'll never hope to understand.

Couldn't agree more. I think it is about being in a club and a combination of reinforcing beliefs on the part of the press and seeking to have some sort of vindication for those beliefs on the part of readers. The system seems to petty much rely on maintaining a belief that audiophiles are blessed with superior hearing and a more highly developed sense of discernment than the cloth eared riff raff. I would say it is very cult like, but I hesitate to do so given how sinister some cults are. I can actually understand buying expensive gear because people like audio jewellery, build quality, great industrial design etc but of course the reviewers have to maintain a great fiction that it is about SQ. The irony is that aa lot of expensive boutique gear has rubbish measured performance and is shoddily designed and built.

 

[Tks]

After some exchanges with John Atkinson, I don't put much stock in his ability to correctly perform those tests or interpret the results.

Do tell more.

 

[mansr]

Do tell more.

Start here: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=979926

 

[anmpr1]

I really cannot recall any instance in which a manufacturer has offered the review sample for sale unsolicited. The presumption is that the product will be returned in good condition. (Often that is contractually required.) The reviewer, of course, can ask.

Whether they solicit the sale is beside the ethical point. If they allow it, then that fact should be stated up front, along with the amount of discount applied to the purchase.

Not only that, if a manufacturer 'sponsors' a reviewer's trip to their factory, trade show, etc., by providing hotel accommodations, food and such, that should be noted. Any 'long term' equipment loan should be noted up front.

I'm not saying that these practices necessarily constitute bribery, or that reviewers are on the take. I'm just arguing for ethical transparency.

FWIW, when I was working, any 'gratuity' I was offered in exchange for my work had to be strictly accounted for. The organization had strict rules in place for what I could and could not accept from a vendor. Really, taking anything much over a bottle of water, cup of coffee or a finger sandwich on a tray at a party would be grounds for dismissal. That's why I had my own expense account--to pay my way, and to keep the company free from payola type scandal.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

But then you get those reviews (where you know deep down the manufacturer told them to keep the AP as far away as possible). That's just annoying ..

It would be if it were true. The policy is that all products in stand-alone feature reviews are subject to test measurements. Some manufacturers have asked for reviews but declined to submit product unless the magazine agreed not to measure them. Those products are not reviewed.
OTOH, the products reviewed in regular columns in Stereophile are not generally subject to measurements (probably due to inadequate resources).

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Whether they solicit the sale is beside the ethical point.

I agree. Such discussions should not happen prior to or during the review process.

 

[Purité Audio]

Those small Gradient speakers are gone, then?

No, well out on dem at the moment, we may be getting some ‘Revolutions’ to go with them.
Keith

 

[anmpr1]

The presumption is that the product will be returned in good condition. (Often that is contractually required.) .

I recall reading an on-line review (Stereophile) of an Ortofon cartridge. I don't remember the model, or how much it cost, but it was one of the high end Ortofons, so you know it probably cost as much as a high performance Japanese motorcycle, or at least a used one.

Anyhow, the review 'lost' or 'misplaced' it. How can anyone misplace a multithousand dollar phono cartridge? Wouldn't you take some care over that? Well...that is not really the story..., from what I remember, Ortofon never inquired about it. I guess it wasn't important to them. Five or six years later (that's how long it was 'lost'), the reviewer found it, sent in some copy, and that was that.

When I first read the article my thought was, why wasn't this guy fired for general incompetence and dereliction of duty bordering on theft? But since Ortofon evidently didn't care, and since no one in Stereophile's front office evidently had any idea of their review inventory, I just concluded the entire scene was a bad joke. I thought, who is in charge at both Ortofon and the magazine, and what kind of accounting is going on at those operations?

I don't know how it is anymore. When I was in the workforce we had routine audits and had to account for things. I mean, if I had 'lost' my Blackberry phone or laptop, and didn't report it as soon as I found out, it would have been the end of me.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I recall reading an on-line review (Stereophile) of an Ortofon cartridge. I don't remember the model, or how much it cost, but it was one of the high end Ortofons, so you know it probably cost as much as a high performance Japanese motorcycle, or at least a used one.

I do not know anything about this.

 

[Aaron Garrett]

I remember that too, although now I can't find it on the site. The reviewer misplaced it on a gear shelf -- I think there was even a picture of the shelf. I generally like Stereophile. I've learned a great deal from many of the reviewers. Art Dudley, Herb Reichert, and a few others are some of the best out there even if I'm not likely to be powering horns with 300bs any time soon and my taste in gear leans more towards (the also excellent) Kal Rubinson and John Atkinson. My main complaint is that they seem a bit too chummy with Brooklyn-based manufacturers, in particular DeVore and Mytek. The gear may be great -- although DeVore speakers are not to my taste. But it seems like they get featured a lot primarily due to geographical proximity.

 

[anmpr1]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ortofon-xpression-pickup-head

Ortofon is asking almost six large to get involved. Do you think if I ask them for a sample, they'll let me keep it for five or six years? And then return it after I tell all my friends about how detailed the midrange is? Ridiculous. But that's audio reviewing for you. If I didn't know better, and if I was a bit on the suspicious side, I'd think the manufacturers were 'in bed' with the reviewers. I know about the MIC (military industrial complex)? Could there a similar revolving door at the review sites? Or are these not the 'droids we're looking for?

 

[Tks]

Start here: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30381-mqa-is-vaporware/?do=findComment&comment=979926

That was something to behold. Also learned a few things from that exchange myself. Likewise with yet another definitive example of MQA's nonsense.

 

[CDMC]

I look at the bright side, at least some of their recommended products are reasonably affordable. This is a far cry from the years of their recommended products being ridiculously expensive. Perhaps this is signifying the market shifting back to realistically priced components. I think $10,000 is a reasonable price for a pair of reference statement speakers. It seems that for that price, a manufacture should be able to get state of the art technology and sound.

 

[CDMC]

No doubt. Stereophile is a publication that you must read CAREFULLY in order to make good sense out of it and use it productively. It can be done. In the often floral language there are at times coy passages that speak closer to the reviewer's real opinions, mostly in reviews of the more expensive units. Their grading system also is a way to circumvent a lot of the issues related to their often pro-advertiser "aesthetic" if you permit me this word for their rhetorical style. When you see a reasonably priced unit next to $35,000 ones, it should make you think about how to value them all. Still, I can understand how this can be grating at times. But it must be acknowledged that every publication has cultural biases (see for example the Aegir review--I REALLY do like Reichert a lot even though I cannot take a lot of what he says in the review seriously). It is the devil's bargain that keeps Fremer around; no doubt they would not exist without him and the money he must bring in. For a good laugh, find the interview about him being a consultant for a Michael Jackson lawsuit. He fits so perfectly into that world. At least it is easy to ignore him because he is so over the top. Times are changing thanks to sites like this, and I really hope they can adapt.

They are making progress. Remember that nutball Jonathan Scull that used to write for them? He would argue over what type of green pen made the best improvement to sound of CDs. He would start a review with how bad a pair of speakers sounded until he put the cables on tip toes at which point they were transformed to a Class A product.

 

[anmpr1]

Stereophile is a publication that you must read CAREFULLY in order to make good sense out of it and use it productively. It can be done. In the often floral language there are at times coy passages that speak closer to the reviewer's real opinions, mostly in reviews of the more expensive units.

If that is true, then the entire reason for Stereophile's existence is now corrupted. Maybe it's what is called (in another sense) convergence. You see, when Gordon Holt started the magazine it was for the express reason that, in his opinion, the hi-fi 'slicks' were glossing over problems with the gear they were reviewing. So he started Stereophile to rectify the situation, as he saw it.

I have no doubt that the industry calls the shots with Stereophile, and the other rags. Why would anyone believe anything else? At the same time, I am convinced that at least some of their reviewers actually believe the party line. They are, in effect, working for the Audio Ministry of Truth, but truly believe that 2+2=5.

 

[HammerSandwich]

Everybody should be aware of "Gell-Mann Amnesia." No reason for audio to be immune to it.

 

[Tks]

Everybody should be aware of "Gell-Mann Amnesia." No reason for audio to be immune to it.

Last time I heard of the Murray Gell Mann effect was in the early 00's. A bit ironic (not really) that I've been killing myself trying to remember it's name when the appropriate topic warrants it.

There seems to be a very distinct lack of this awareness in audio mainstream discussions. Even seemingly rational people in other fields - right when they start talking about audio, they seem to be on a script of the most ridiculous terminiology trying to review and evalute an audio experience or device as if they were describing a whole other sensory organs' perceptions. (You know, the whole "the breadth of auditory alacrity from this DAC makes the sound arrise from it's native iron-forged rigidity and flat nature, into something all together mellow, deep, intensely bright, and just superbly scrumptious for consumption!")

 

[elberoth]

Whether they solicit the sale is beside the ethical point. If they allow it, then that fact should be stated up front, along with the amount of discount applied to the purchase.

Every reviewer can buy anything with a discount (which is basicly similar across the industry). It is a known fact and nobody ever denied that.

It is similar across all industries AFAIK - I have a friend working for a major car publication, and he can buy basicly any car @ -25% off retail (at least all the major brands; not sure about some exotica one-offs).

It is important to understand, that when you are able to buy anything with a (similar) discount, then the discount itself is not an incentive anymore.

If all reviewers were buying stuff with a discount, and then one just got something for free - that would be an incentive.