A Closer Look at Recent Audio 'Reviews'
"Journalists should: Expose unethical practices of journalists"
THE CRITIQUES
Ultimate Audio
Soundstage
The Absolute Sound
Stereophile
Michael Fremer-Initial Correspondence
Michael Fremer-Threatens me with a Law Suit
The (Secret) Rules of Audio Reviewing
Personal Disclosure
Journalistic Code of Ethics
Communication Policy
INTERNAL LINKS
In Summer 2000, I received an e-mail from Myles Astor, the editor and publisher of the audio magazine, Ultimate Audio. He complained that my many criticisms of the audio magazines within the essay, The Audio Press, were "sweeping generallizations" (sic). He wrote this despite the fact that I had included a 3 page, and extremely detailed, critique of the Stereophile review (November 1995) of the WATT/PUPPY 5 within the same (15 page) essay he was criticizing.
Later, upon reflection, I felt that Mr. Astor still had a point. The WATT review was by then 5 years old and, who knows, maybe that review was just an aberration. Besides, since that time Stereophile's ownership had changed three times, and The Absolute Sound's ownership had also changed. Just as relevant, the Internet had now fostered an entirely new form of communication, the Webzine, such as the audio pioneer of that type, Soundstage.
When considering all the changes that have occurred, plus the sad fact that no one else on the entire Internet appears to be interested in the "job", I decided to accept the thankless task of taking a second, critical look at the new and current audio press and their reviews.
As just one person, I can only check out and comment on a modest percentage of all that is written, so I will have to be very discriminating about who I choose to focus on at any one time, and I will also have no time or desire for personal vendettas.
Accordingly, I intend to continually change my focus, so that no reviewer will either legitimately feel personally picked on or, even worse, confidently feel they are above all scrutiny. As for discovering material to scrutinize, based on past experience, that will be easier than finding an attractive woman inside the Playboy Mansion.
I realize that creating this column entailed taking risks; Financial, since I was in "The Audio Business" when it started and may be again one day, and Social/Political, since I won't be very popular with either the writers, their publishers and all the other people in the audio industry who want the many favors the press can provide them.
I will have to live with these risks. I just can't stand idly by while a destructive trend spreads like a disease.
My goal is that if enough audio writers understand that whatever they write can and will itself be reviewed, and those re-reviews posted free at this site, that realization may cause them to think twice before they write anything, or even avoid writing anything, that isn't in the audio consumers' best interest. Which was and is supposed to be their highest priority in the first place.
At the very least, any reader, who takes the (very considerable) time and effort to read and absorb the different articles below, should no longer be under the influence of the respective reviewers and editors that are the subject of focus.
Bottom Line: No reviewer that is reviewed below will ever be able to honestly claim that the "attention" they received was not well deserved. In fact, they begged for it.
Top
Please click on the links below to download the file on that particular magazine, webzine or individual.
ULTIMATE AUDIO/MYLES ASTOR-EXPRESSIVE TECHNOLOGY PREAMPLIFIER REVIEW
SOUNDSTAGE-SOLILOQUY 6.3 SPEAKER SYSTEM REVIEW
THE ABSOLUTE SOUND-WILSON WATT/PUPPY 5 AND 6 REVIEWS/CORRESPONDENCE
STEREOPHILE-THE RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS LIST/WILSON WATT/PUPPY 5 REVIEW/CORRESPONDENCE
MICHAEL FREMER-INITIAL CORRESPONDENCE
MICHAEL FREMER-THREATENS ME WITH A LAW SUIT (NEW)
THE (SECRET) RULES OF 'AUDIO REVIEWING'
1. Never anger any protected audio industry entity, such as:
A. An important current, or potential, advertiser; including manufacturers, distributors or retailers, or...
B. Any other audio establishment which has a "personal relationship" with you.
2. Delay acknowledging any serious problems with a "protected" component until you give another rave review to the "updated" model which replaces it and "corrects" the problems.
3. Avoid making any direct comparisons with a "protected" component, but if you have to, follow these "Solutions":
A. Compare the component only to older and/or obsolete models, especially from the same manufacturer. (See Rule #2 above).
B. If Solution "A" is not possible, compare the component to "competitors" costing either MUCH more or MUCH less.
C. If both Solutions "A" or "B" are not possible, "neglect" to mention the actual names and model numbers of the rival components that you compare it to in the review.
D. If Solutions "A", "B" or "C" are all not feasible, and you must compare the model to a current, similarly priced (and "protected") competitor that you must name, then you must be:
1. As ambiguous as possible, and you must also...
2. Never describe any problem as "serious" (See Rule #3.E)
3. Never proclaim one model to be clearly superior to the other(s). In short...
4. Both (or all) of the components must be seen as equally desirable and of similar value.
E. Problems or imperfections that aren't obvious (such as no bass below 40 Hz with small speakers), may be described as "serious" (easy to hear) only when using Solutions "A", "B" or "C".
However, any problems described when using Solution "D" must always be "subtle" and "difficult to hear", or even described as an "advancement" if possible.
4. You must never inform readers if an "audiophile" accessory or tweak is also available in a generic form at a fraction of the price that the "protected" manufacturer is charging (Blue Tac and RFI rings etc.).
5. Any and all "transactions" between you and any of the parties mentioned in Rule #1 must always be kept strictly Confidential. Accordingly...
A. You must never divulge the actual price, if any, you paid to "purchase" your reference components or accessories, or any extra costs you paid, if any, to have those same components updated, modified, repaired, replaced etc.
B. You must never divulge any "gifts", "favors" or "perks" that you received from the "protected" audio entities, or those with whom you have a "personal relationship".
6. You must never mention the actual costs, even at retail prices, of the parts that are used to manufacture the component.
7. Further to Rules #4 & #6, you must never state, or even imply, that any component or accessory is "over-priced".
8. The more corrupt your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty.
9. Magazines shall never divulge the actual percentage of their advertising revenues to their total revenues.
10. OVERRIDE CLAUSE- Some of the preceding rules (#1, #2 & #3) may be ignored only in the event of either a serious (and apparently indefinite) breach of the "personal relationship" between the audio company and reviewer/magazine, and/or the termination, or non-payment, of their advertising contract.
Top
Why am I doing this? Because someone has to start doing this.
Starting immediately, I intend to press all audio journalists to disclose every possible conflict of interest, which is the rule for all other types of journalists (See the "Journalistic Code of Ethics" below).
There is no reason why audio journalists should not follow the same rules as all the other journalists. Since I could be considered a journalist of sorts myself, I feel that I too must disclose all my conflicting interests and financial transactions. I am, at once, setting a precedent and also immunizing myself from any future charges of hypocrisy.
Disclosure 1: I formerly owned a (part-time) retail store: High-End Audio Ltd. My unsold demonstrators, and any used components, are all listed in the "High-End Audio Ltd." part of the site. I do not own, or share in the profits of, any other audio business at this time.
Disclosure 2: I purchased all the components of "My Personal System", except for two that are currently on loan(*). There have been no "gifts" or "favors". While I can't disclose my actual dollars costs because of confidentiality agreements with the manufacturers, I will disclose those costs in relation to the standard wholesale prices I would normally have paid if they were purchased for my former retail store.
CLARIFICATION: "Standard Wholesale Cost" is usually around 40% off the Retail List Price. So a component retailing for $ 1,000 would have a "standard wholesale cost" of around $ 600.
In short, as a former audio retailer, anything less than "standard wholesale" was a "deal" for me, and may be construed as a potential "interest" or "perk". This is what I paid for the components within my personal system (year of purchase).
Forsell Air Reference Turntable/Tonearm- On loan* since 2004
ZYX UNIverse (.24mV Copper) Cartridge- traded for a used model with the distributor** (2007)
Bent Audio TX-103 Prototype Silver MC Transformer- On Loan*** since 2005
Pacific Valve MHZS CD 66 CD Player (Modified)- Purchased Used (2007)
Marantz 10B Tuner- purchased used (no longer available) (2000)
Jadis JP-80 Preamplifier- Standard wholesale cost (1989)
Mitchell Cotter Noise Filter Buffer- Standard wholesale cost (1981)
Behringer DCX2496 Digital Crossover- Standard Retail cost (2006)
Coincident M300B Frankenstein MKII Amplifiers- Purchased in packaged deal for 30.42% below standard retail cost**** (2006)
Coincident Dragon 211PP (Subwoofer) Amplifiers- Purchased in packaged deal for 30.42% below standard retail cost**** (2006)
Coincident Pure Reference Speakers-around 6.7% less than standard wholesale (2007)
Polk Speaker cables- Purchased used (no longer available) (various times)
Coincident Extreme Bass Speaker Cables- Standard wholesale cost (2007)
Ars Acoustica Interconnects/Prototypes- Standard wholesale cost (if they become available) (2003)
Coincident Power Cords- Standard wholesale cost (2001/3)
* The Forsell is on loan from a close personal friend (who is also a former small speaker manufacturer), with the condition that I either buy it or sell it for him after one more comparison with a modern turntable design.
** Two to three thousand dollars worth of ultra rare and sealed records: London "Bluebacks" (Argenta), RCA "Shaded Dogs", "TAS" etc.
*** The prototype Bent Audio Silver Transformer is on loan from Bent Audio.
**** Coincident Victory II speakers were also in the "package". The owner of Coincident, Israel Blume, is a close personal friend.
Top
Then contrast it to the current operating standards and policies of the Editors and Reviewers of the better known audio magazines.
Society of Professional Journalists
Code of Ethics
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
*Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
*Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
*Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
*Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
*Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
*Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
*Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
*Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
*Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
*Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
*Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
*Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
The complete
Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists
This site reserves the right to post ALL communications sent to it.
Discretion may be used in the following circumstances:
A private individual's privacy, identity and address.
Personal information, from both public and private individuals, that is not relevant to the audio issues discussed on this website.
Top
Click here to go to THE REFERENCE COMPONENTS.
Click here to go to AUDIO CRITIQUE.
Click here to go to THE RECENT FILE.
COPYRIGHT 2000-2008 ARTHUR SALVATORE AND HIGH-END AUDIO LTD.