FAKE NEWS - NEGATIVE REVIEWS NOT ALLOWED!!
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.
I remember back in the early 1970's, I bought a subscription to an ad free, audiophile equipment review publication called "The Audio Critic". Their mandate was to publish completely truthful and unbiased reviews of equipment, without the pressure to give favourable reviews to their advertisers. It was great while it lasted, but physical media requires more money coming in, than is generated by subscribers and that was the end of it. |
No negative reviews ever? Maybe that's more or less the case now, but it was not always so. My preferred speaker (and I've heard about a dozen well-regarded and more expensive alternatives in my own listening space over the years, and own three) received a devastatingly bad review from Corey Greenberg in Stereophile when it came out in the 1990s, and that review basically killed the company that made it. Still, it's my strong favorite even against multiple award winners from the reviewers, "Recommended Component" status speakers, and so forth. Why? Am I "wrong"? Are the reviews "right"? A far undervalued dimension of our "hobby" is the ear-brain interface. Personal taste. Even if your "taste" is for "accurate and convincing reproduction of acoustic instrumental timbre, convincingly realistic spatiality, visceral impact"—mine is, and I play several instruments in the same acoustic space my audio system occupies—it remains the case that our bodies and minds are different, and so our subjective experience is different. How different? More difference than a different power cord (etc.!) can cause. |
@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. |
