What would you donate for us to test speakers?

[restorer-john]

I think donations are a reasonable alternative.

If ASR is being run ultimately to make some money, and not just be a force against evil FUD mongers, then a business case should be made.

Otherwise it's no different to a collection plate being passed around at a happy-clappy place of worship.

 

[March Audio]

I must be old fashioned. I just don't get the modern way of begging for money that seems to be in fashion these days. Everything from 'influencers' wanting free stuff, to people wanting their followers to pay for their overseas holidays. It doesn't sit right with me.

I question why membership should be asked to consider bankrolling expensive test equipment for the site owner to test loudspeakers, when the only benefit they may possibly get is when they open their wallet yet again, to buy another pair of speakers.

It is not, after all, the membership getting speakers to play with, whether they are loaned, gifted, returned or sold for a nominal amount. Without ongoing and updated disclosures of any commercial interests, gifts, etc. (which to date, there are none I can see, despite it being raised a few times), I think I'll just regard my carefully considered contributions to the forums and threads as sufficient at this stage.

Well... Many of us buy hifi magazines to get information about products. It's not just for assisting in making a purchasing decision, it's a wider general interest. So I don't see any issue in helping to fund ASR activities. Especially when it's objectives are for the benefit of the consumer/member contributor and not just a commercial exercise.

Personally I want to see ASR activities expand and grow.

 

[March Audio]

As I have noted in the other thread, the right gear is just waiting for us to start testing speakers at a very professional level. And done right, we should even be able to predict listener performance based on those measurements.

The challenge is the cost which currently is north of $50,000. I am willing to fund good bit of it myself but can't go this high.

Question is, how much would the membership be willing to fund? So how about posting what you are willing to donate toward this cause. Or if you prefer, send a message to me privately. I am just trying to get a sense of order magnitude. No commitment is being asked at this time.

The idea of asking for money from member as it is now is to keep our independence at very high level without sponsorships, ads, etc.

Thanks in advance.

@amirm

Question. If you test a product and just provide data/results without commentary or recommendation, do you still see that as a conflict of interests if the manufacturer has paid a fee for the testing?

I have speakers coming and I am looking for test facilities and would pay for them, but clearly you can't do normal reviews based on that scenario without potential for bias.

Is it better to just supply data to the sponsor for them to publish elsewhere?

I am just exploring the possibilities of generating additional income for ASR beyond reliance on the membership without creating a problem with editorial independance.

 

[restorer-john]

Many of us buy hifi magazines to get information about products. It's not just for assisting in making a purchasing decision, it's a wider general interest.

I totally agree. But we are in the minority.

HiFi magazines these days are really just industry mouthpieces for regurgitated marketing department press releases, masquerading as reviews or new product 'first looks' to gain traction for the hype sales train. Short attention-span consumers with zero appetite for the 'grunt work' behind informed decision making also makes sites like ASR simply become a modern 'consumer reports' where they fly-in and fly-out after reading the first page or two of a review and move on to the next site. They might become a member to get their answer, that's all.

Then there are the diehards like us. We are not where the money is, nor are we the target purchasing audience. Most of us appear to have positions well established and unlikely to be persuaded by one or two rave reviews of a flavor of the month product.

ASR can be a voice, but transparent it is not. There are machinations we don't hear about. There are products that get a second chance when they fail. There often can be bias read into many reviews, whether it is real or not.

True independence can only be achieved with zero vested interests, something that is almost impossible to achieve. The membership buys Amir a speaker testing rig and what do they expect in return? More speaker reviews- lots of them. He's snowed under already with DACs galore apparently.

I still believe that less is more. In depth testing of amplifiers for one. Not just gloss overs.

 

[amirm]

Question. If you test a product and just provide data/results without commentary or recommendation, do you still see that as a conflict of interests if the manufacturer has paid a fee for the testing?

I have speakers coming and I am looking for test facilities and would pay for them, but clearly you can't do normal reviews based on that scenario without potential for bias.

Is it better to just supply data to the sponsor for them to publish elsewhere?

If a manufacture pays for testing, then the test results are theirs to publish, or not. I keep that separate from review work of the forum.

If a product is to be reviewed, then I do not ask, nor accept payment for the testing. The benefit to us comes from having access to the information, rather than getting money.

 

[amirm]

I must be old fashioned. I just don't get the modern way of begging for money that seems to be in fashion these days. Everything from 'influencers' wanting free stuff, to people wanting their followers to pay for their overseas holidays. It doesn't sit right with me.

It doesn't have to sit right with everyone. It is an honor system. Some people pay to enable more of this kind of work. Others get a free ride.

The reason for the new way is that barriers to publishing have crumbled. When we had print, then you couldn't easily give a copy of the information to your friend. With online, you can "hot link" to any graph, copy and paste information, etc. So instead of trying to figure out how to erect a pay wall, we let everyone see the information and hope that others help pay something to defray the costs.

As to the core of your point, I set up a forum without any request for donations. That part I can run on my dime. But then we got into audio testing. I did a few with the AP gear I already had. Again, no request was made for any money because cost was not an issue.

Next phase was people sending me gear to test. I then had to pay to send them back. So defraying that cost through donations so that we could scale was necessary. Otherwise, I would have selected what to test that had value to me personally. Right now I say yes to just about anything people want to send in for testing.

The following phase was testing USB DACs. My AP could not test them that way and the process was manual and tedious. So I decided to buy a new AP at a retail cost of $28,000 plus $1,500 for the AES filter. I didn't ask anyone to help fund it. I made the investment to meet the demand for testing and for my own satisfaction of having better test tools.

We could stop here and all would be well. I am deep in the hole financially but the donations will eventually make me whole.

What got us here was the frequent request to test things that vary a ton from ideal response compared to electronics. Namely speakers and headphones. I was dead set against speakers due to logistical costs, effort, etc. But I accepted that chore and burden because I think collectively we will all advance our knowledge of speaker technology by testing them in detail with advanced methodology.

Put another way, we are collectively getting together to enable something that individually we cannot.

As to where the forum may go in the future, maybe it will become business success. It is quite far though as even in the best case scenario, I will be fund tens of thousands of dollars for the test instrumentation alone. My time and opportunity cost of that will dwarf that. Break-even point is quite far if we go in this direction. I am actually better off not spending more. But my conscious is not clear, optimizing things for me.

The majority of the membership has voted that it wants to see us expand into testing speakers (and headphones). And I am willing to donate my time and significant money toward it. Question is how to make up the shortfall between what I am willing to do and the cost of the gear.

We could do things your way which is me having a business plan for the site. That would immediately call for advertising and sponsorships. Our forum has become highly popular. We have nearly a million visitors a month! With some exceptions, we are the most popular audio website. And growing. I know how to do this and still be objective.

Alas, the membership doesn't like the optics of above. It rather be sure that there is never an influence over something being reviewed. To that extent, then I can't exercise the options you mention. We have to rely on other income and donations is it.

Finally, please don't compare me to random online blogger. I don't ask for free stuff from manufacturers. They sometimes offer them to be me but vast majority of what I test is either something I buy or someone has sent it in.

 

[amirm]

True independence can only be achieved with zero vested interests, something that is almost impossible to achieve. The membership buys Amir a speaker testing rig and what do they expect in return? More speaker reviews- lots of them. He's snowed under already with DACs galore apparently.

There is no vested interest. All manner of gear is sent to me. The backlog is much more than DACs. We have expanded into testing much larger gear with much higher shipping cost such as amplifiers. What gets sent to me, gets tested. The people who fund the site don't decide what gets tested. What gets sent in decides what gets tested.

You may have noticed that people who send in gear have no special status on the forum. Maybe they should get something because they are incurring costs in sending stuff in. But they are not.

All in all, I really don't understand your posts. It doesn't get any better than this. You have a free site where I and others spend money everyday to bring content to you. Equipment gets ruthlessly reviewed with a ton of thumbs down given to gear. It costs me more than half a day to not just run tests, but markup measurements to make them easier to understand. And text that explains what it is we are seeing.

I think I have reviewed more than 200 pieces of gear this way in a little over a year.

As to your notion that I should run a hundred tests on amps, it is not going to happen. There is a reason this site is popular and it is because I appreciate what it means to convey information to general population and others do not. We have a formula here that is working. It saves me time. And it gets information to people quickly by reviewing more gear in a week than others do an entire year.

Remember, all of this needs to remain fun for me to continue. The moment I become the QC department, testing everything possible, is the day I will bail out of this. My goal is to discover if something is well engineered or not. It is not to turn every stone upside down just because. If half a dozen tests don't do that, then that is that. There are anal testers out there who thrive on running scripts with 50 permutations. Seek them out if that is the style you want to see. It is not my personality, interest or abilities to do that.

 

[amirm]

Frankly I'd rather go for a load box to stress-test amps since that seems to be a gap in most datasheets and reviews.

We will build and develop such regardless of we expand into testing speakers. Small investments like that is something I will do. It is this giant cost item that is bringing us to the table here. So no worries about continued investment in electronics.

 

[restorer-john]

Some people pay to enable more of this kind of work. Others get a free ride.

The community here contribute a lot of pertinent comments, technical information and alternative views to facilitate a healthy forum. I don't regard that as a 'free ride' at all. Effort is required in a technical forum to ensure high standards and accuracy from all of us. We all do our best.

As to your notion that I should run a hundred tests on amps, it is not going to happen.

Nobody said a 'hundred tests on amps' did they? Come on. That's ridiculous.

Finally, please don't compare me to random online blogger. I don't ask for free stuff from manufacturers.

Nobody said you ask for free stuff. But don't you think it should be stated where things are given away, not worth returning, gifted etc? If you aren't going to have a list of 'donated' products that is updated regularly, how is that remotely transparent?

I know you are most likely as unbiased as you can be, but others may not. The site is either beyond reproach in that regard, or it is not. There is no middle ground.

Your ASR site is excellent and I enjoy it immensely. I also understand it is yours to run as you see fit. That said, some logical suggestions intended to improve things, seem to fall on deaf ears, be ignored, or be dismissed off hand. Like you say, it's all fun until it isn't, and opportunity costs in this space are very significant for many of us. I get that.

 

[jasonq997]

If ASR is being run ultimately to make some money, and not just be a force against evil FUD mongers, then a business case should be made.

Otherwise it's no different to a collection plate being passed around at a happy-clappy place of worship.

There is no business case here at all, and that should be obvious to anyone with any business sense. Amir seems like a relatively well off guy. This is just his hobby. He has the knowledge and the technical understanding to test products and he is really productive and enthusiastic. He has the time, the interest, and the work ethic. I am happy to play a small part in subsidizing him in all of this because it is a process that directly shapes an entire small industry that interests me.

 

[Wombat]

How about a feasibility plan if the term business plan doesn't appeal.

A very simple one:

Aim: Setting up the means to do loudspeaker testing.

Cost: Estimated at $US50,000

Funding: Donations from members.


Assumptions:

1. $50 average donation - 1000 donations.
2. $100 ................................. - 500 .....................
Etc.

Is this realisable?
E.g.
Do we have 500 regular post contributors who will donate an average of $100?
How many regular 'watchers' are there who would contribute? Probably not many.
Determine chance of success in raising the required funds from forum members/visitors.

Is there an ongoing demand for funding beyond start-up?

If not feasible, consider other options.


Crowd funding may well work.

 

[amirm]

I can create a gofundme and see what happens.

 

[StevenEleven]

I can create a gofundme and see what happens.

If it’s a potential high upside and no or only negligible downside, that sounds like a great idea. In effect you are pushing the role of sale of ad space over to gofundme, and in return you get a way to raise the funds needed just for this instance. I’d say go for it, unless someone can think of a significant downside. Even if it doesn’t get you all the way there it should represent progress down that path and be worth trying.

 

[Vintage57]

I can create a gofundme and see what happens.

Good idea, let us know when it’s up

 

[Thomas savage]

Do you mean like some sort of non-profit.

The Center for Audio Performance Transparency which works to offer third party independent measurements of audio gear for an informed audio buying public.

Open window audio performance agency , we jump so you don't have to..

 

[Thomas savage]

I can create a gofundme and see what happens.

I need to do this , the tequila budget is getting out of hand.

 

[restorer-john]

I need to do this , the tequila budget is getting out of hand.

You can do that? A go-fund my ass for tequila?

 

[Wombat]

Now all we need is a crowd funding expert.

 

[Wombat]

And, include headphone testing gear if crowdfunding - an additional catchment.

A detailed description of test scope, capability and methods should be presented.
This forum can assemble a small group of relatively knowledgeable and experienced members to put this together. Other members can contribute, accordingly, as required.

Sounds like a good project.

The cost of a crowdfunding venture may be more attractive for member donations.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If ASR is being run ultimately to make some money, and not just be a force against evil FUD mongers, then a business case should be made.

Otherwise it's no different to a collection plate being passed around at a happy-clappy place of worship.

I actually share some of your concerns. It won't be hard to figure out where I am thinking about. But another visible forum started and has grown. The person who started it was maybe upper middle class. It is obvious he is now wealthy. He doesn't have a day job anymore, travels extensively and can afford the good toys and his family's needs. Now he didn't ask me for donations. He funded things himself to start. He in time took ads. He took the risk and rightfully he reaps the rewards. I believe he had in mind making it a good business before it ever started.

I'm not at all unique, but I've actually spent ridiculous hours posting useful info, bringing views which bring him money, etc. etc. all of which has helped make him wealthy. In return I've learned more than I could provide knowledge to others, and been entertained too. I do think the quality of his forum has gone downhill from the ads, the business interests which he necessarily has, the brand specific sponsored sub-forums which were added ( I really thought this was a mistake, and believe there is evidence to indicate it was even worse than my expectations). I believe he could have taken some ads to pay for things even his living, but once it came to sponsored forums etc. it was too much influence. I even think this person has been close to exemplary in staying open to everyone's reasonably presented views, and resisting direct influence. But businesses have a tendency to need continued growth or flounder. It seems the old places that could build a certain level of customers and reputation and prosper moderately for a generation or two are hard to find now. Web based places just aren't the right climate for that.

So this is the sticky wicket Amir is trying to manage. It looks like he could get pretty good money placing just a few ads. Whether a small number of audio related ads, or carefully chosen non-audiophile ads that might appeal to the forum readership. You go down that path however, and it has to become a business.

Now I'm willing to help a bit with the costs of speaker testing. On the other hand, I would feel wronged if 10 years from now Amir has taken that, turned this into a substantial money maker for himself and all I got was the T-shirt and the speaker reviews. I don't think he has that in mind, but it might get sucked into such a vortex if one isn't very, very, very careful. If sighted listening is biased, well moneyed interests is almost the bias that can't be resisted (for that matter sighted bias can't either). And this can be without any greed or avarice on his part. If his true goal is the testing, you still have to run the business to afford the testing. The testing becomes like a child and your decisions aren't as uninfluenced as you think they are.

I don't know if Amir should try this let us fund him approach, or if he is just being unrealistic not to go a bit toward the business side and make it happen. Businesses can have goals and being a beacon of real information on audio performance is a simple enough goal. John Gordon Holt's humble Stereophile beginnings, and Harry Pearson's TAS counter-point both were ad free with limited goals in the beginning funded only by subscriptions, but should serve as cautionary tales. In time both no longer had subscribers as customers. Both had subscriber herds of value to advertising and the ad people were the real customers. Google's beginnings and now ludicrous "don't do evil" motto is an even larger cautionary tale.