The "You Know Who" rambling in this video appears to be spreading another falsity. It seems to be a coverup for his own agenda (that he’s trying to blame the shows for).

Here’s what I think the agenda is: "I can’t say anything honest on YT in the public domain. You need to get a paid membership at my website to hear the truth"

EDIT: Looks like someone from Axpona debunked it on the comment section as well.





@tony1954 I had a subscription to The Audio Critic from its beginning in 1976. Near the end it was taking limited paid advertising. It failed because it couldn't raise enough money from subs and limited advertising. There were also several other audio publications with even more limited distribution, like Martin DeWulf's Bound for Sound, StereOpus and Sensible $ound. Stereophile and TAS continue because of an influx of investor money and a strong advertising base. Same for HiFi+ and HiFiNews&Record Review in the UK.

I watched that YouTube because I fell for the “click-bait” title he used. Normally I avoid his videos because I don’t much care for the style of presentation and all the posturing about being the only person on YouTube to have access to the highest of high end products.

I’ve never seen a more blatant self serving video. Sure, let’s all rush to his website and buy a membership so we can hear him speak about equipment most of us have little or no interest in. 

... and now, with great fanfare, he's announced there is no censorship! 



If every time we read a review our brains could remind us that is an opinion or a preference and not an absolute truth…we may then react better to what we read… positive or negative. 

If I reviewed my buddy’s system, it wouldn’t rank as high as mine… and if he were doing the reviewing, mine wouldn’t stack up to his…are we both right?  Are we both wrong?


Do negative reviews actually benefit anyone?