Thin Line Between Critique and Courtrooms: A Dialogue on the Recent Audiophile Drama

The point is there are reviews with no feet actually posted on Tekton’s website that do not use the feet on the speakers that he knocked for the review.

Yes I believe that to be true in which case add that to the mix regarding how all this comes off to potential buyers.

- Where do we draw the line between constructive criticism and damaging feedback?

@rowlocktrysail Generally speaking, a negative review (not one that is positive with a few minor beefs) should be looked upon as unethical.

Here’s a list of why:

1) the reviewer might have a bone to pick that has nothing to do with the equipment; IOW its political.

2) the reviewer may not know what he’s doing.

3) the equipment under review might have a malfunction which might be caused by shipping, abuse, inability to follow instructions (see 2 above) etc.

4) there may be a conflict of interest between the advertising vs editorial staff. I’ve seen this one first hand; no advertising=bad review.

5) the reviewer feels a need to prove something (usually that they are some kind of ’expert’; if they really are they don’t need to prove this); whereas if they have any moxy at all this simply isn’t necessary. This is a very powerful motivator!

6) When a reviewer or magazine purports to have ’hard hitting’ journalism, at least in the case of high end audio its usually not the case- more likely, its to cover up problems like 4 above.

If a magazine or reviewer is on the up and up, if a product falls well short of a good review, the ethical thing to do is to send it back to the manufacturer without any mention in print (or in this case, online). Out of sight out of mind, quite simply. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.

When you see a bad review, keep these things in mind. I’ve seen them all play out many times in the past, often hurting legitimately good companies, sometimes even putting them out of business. For example Quicksilver got a bad review (undeserved, as most people here already know) simply because they had a policy of not advertising at the time. This happened with a fairly well-known magazine. Gryphon got trashed about 30 years ago, which ended their US distribution for years afterward, because they refused to simply give the review sample to the reviewer (see 1 above). I happened to be in the Gryphon room at CES when the reviewer made this threat- and a few months later, saw his comments in print. 

I know many of you out there will not understand this right away, because you might think the reviewer is helping by steering you away from a "bad" product. That idea is false- the ethical way to handle it is the reviewer doesn’t mention a product that falls short- its shunned.

I concur with atmasphere here ...

This does not means that negative impressions must not be written in the diplomatic form of reservation or very cautious wordings ..

Being ethical is a fine line ...

Staying objective too ...

If a magazine or reviewer is on the up and up, if a product falls well short of a good review, the ethical thing to do is to send it back to the manufacturer without any mention in print (or in this case, online). Out of sight out of mind, quite simply. Put another way, a rising tide raises all boats.

It’s a dog eat dog world out there for sure. Ethics may often take a back seat which is quite an unfortunate thing really.