Stereophile's refusal to review more low

Paul, facts are usually different from impressions. If I had the time to analyze all of Stereophile's reviews for a year I bet there would be quite a good percentage of mid priced gear from small companies. Let's not forget that the reviewers are audiophiles themselves and are seeking out the good stuff wherever it may come from. What does it take for you to get it? Michael Fremer tells you that his reviews do not take the advertisers into account and you still recite the "advertisers control reviewers" mantra. Some people just like to think there's a conspiracy behind everything.

Let me be clear in saying that I have no personal knowledge that certain large manufacturers and importers who spend lots of money on ads at Stereophile and their other audio publications have greater access in getting their products reviewed in those publications. However, I have learned that when things look amiss, they usually are. I count that in 6 of the last 7 Sterophile issues (I cannot find the May issue right now), 4 Harman products have been reviewed. Meanwhile products from Merlin or Aesthetix, for example to my knowledge have never been reviewed. I don't own products from either manufacturer nor do I have any relationship with either or any other manufacturer, but I know the Merlin VSM in all its incarnations (it has been around a while) is at least a very credible product. Many consider the Aesthetix Io the top phono preamp currently made. Why hasn't either been reviewed? The Recommended Components would be even a better example. If the Merlin and Aesthetix are not even mentioned, should we consider it to be not even a Class D component in Stereophile's estimation? As far as reviewers demonstrating integrity and protecting their reputation, we have all heard the stories about the "intermingling" as BMP call it where the reviewers are given price breaks on equipment. As far as how what is to be reviewed is selected, I am sure it is not as haphazard a selection process as Mr. Fremer suggests. Sometimes he gets to it first, sometimes others beat him to it! I am sure that the editor, for the most part, hands out reviewing assignments and that the editor is deciding what will get reviewed and for what issue. After all, that is an editor's job. Whether much is made explicit between advertiser, reviewer and editor is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be explicit for there to be behavior which jeopardizes the integrity of the magazine. As far as negative comments about manufacturers, BMP, I rarely see them. Certainly, one never sees anything that is absolutely clear like: "In my opinion, product A is better than product B". Generally any statements of comparison are marvels of verbal obfuscation and equivocation. Now I am sure that there are reviewers who see the conflict of interest between accepting manufacturers gifts and reviewing the manufacturers products. We just need to know that none of the other type of reviewer works for Stereophile! Now it is interesting that BMPNYC attacks me as having a vivid imagination and suggests that I am one who lacks integrity. He doesn't know me and therefore would be on shaky ground to presume anything about me. I do know that he and Michael Fremer are good buddies. I must say that it was an interesting form of damage control engaged in here: to have Mr. Butler attack me personally while Mr. Fremer takes a much softer tack in defending his magazine. Would there be a strategy there, guys? Anyway, sorry Stokjoc for taking over your thread. In my opinion, it is not so much about expensive or cheap equipment. It's about which manufacturer's equipment gets reviewed. I leave it to others to look at all the info and to make up their own mind.

In my mind, the audio rags are obsolete; I get far more pertinent, rapid, and valuable advice from the knowledgable people on this site than I got reading TAS and Stereophile for 10 years. You folks have no economic reason to share your experiences, as such the very fact you're willing to take the time and make the effort to offer up an informed opinion carries a lot weight with me. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I've not yet stumbled across an audio writer I trust or believe is genuine. So...let's hope the quality of people that frequent sites like Audiogon continues to improve and expand, we'll all enjoy the hobby that much more. Jeff

Ray, the integrity question was not personal, I meant it as a reminder that anyone's integrity can be questioned, including you and me. There must be hundreds of products deserving of review, but Sterophile, TAS, Stereo Review, etc. are not Consumer Reports, and I don't think we should expect them to be. When I mentioned intermingling I clearly meant that friendships that develop between people with similar interests (audiophiles) does not equal a compromise of integrity. I would not mince words about a product if I was a reviewer, and although some do, obviously some don't. In Stereophile I have noticed many negative comments about products and service, which reflect poorly on a company, even if the manufacturers are not directly attacked. As for directly preferring brand A over brand B, look at Mr. Fremer's power cord review this month, there is clearly a first and second choice. Also, it is not always so cut and dry, as in this product is not as good as that product. The reviewer can recognize quality in a product, even if it is not exactly to his taste, or has a few minor flaws, so what sometimes seems like equivocation is merely fairness. I get much helpful information from Audiogon members, and also look at magazines to help point me in the right direction, and to gain more insight into this hobby. Ray, yes, you are being cynical, but that's your prerogative. I prefer to be skeptical, but trust that some people do have loads of integrity, even if they are not perfect, and some of those people just happen to be audio reviewers.

Ray, forgot to mention that I speak for myself, and no one else. Martin Butler, Butler Music Productions New York City, BMPNYC, Audiogon member in good standing for over 2 1/2 years.