1) Antony Michaelson takes an untested unit out of a pre-production run of a brand new up and coming product.
2) He flies across the ocean to hand deliver this unit to Sam Tellig in person
3) The unit dies within 24 hours of installation and turn on ( much like Blackie's unit did )
4) A replacement unit is sent and it performs flawlessly.
5) The unit is an instant success and is placed in the ( new this month ) Class A listing of Stereophile recommended components.
Let's examine this a little closer.
Points 1 - 3: What manufacturer in his right mind would hand deliver an unverified unit directly to a reviewer on the other side of the ocean ? Why would a manufacturer put an entirely new product, production run and his company's reputation at risk without first verifying that the sample was at least up to snuff ?
The obvious reason is that he had no fear of getting "bad press" under ANY circumstances. He also wanted to "get the word out" about his latest "moneymaker" via someone that he knew would act as a high profile advertising mouthpiece. In that respect, i would say that his "mission" was accomplished.
Besides that, ST's unit failed during normal operation and so did Blackie's. What does that tell you about Musical Fidelity's quality control or parts selection ? Not exactly up to snuff for a "Class A" manufacturer, regardless of price.
Points 4 & 5: Tellig downplays the fact that the unit died, makes a joke about an older MF product "fading away" due to technology moving on to lighten things up and then comes back to talk about how great sounding and reliable the new model is. The fact that he happens to REALLY like it and manages to sneak in the review just in time for their latest "recommended components" list is strictly a coincidence.
This is not very different than a "previous coincidence". Sam managed to "sneak in" reviews of their "Class A" preamp and "Class B" power amp just in time to make a previous "recommended components" issue. Kind of amazing how the timing on this stuff works out. In fact, the little blurb that accompanied those recommendations actually stated "See ST's review this issue". Kind of like saying, "this stuff is good. Just ask Sam".
Now factor in how many products Musical Fidelity has had reviewed in the last 3 - 4 years and how many of those products have been HIGHLY recommended. In case you're wondering, their "worst" product ranks in "Class B". Now think about how many other brands and products are out there. You have to wonder how MF has gained priority over the hundreds of other audio manufacturers that would KILL for even a "decent" product review.
The funny thing is that i've discussed this situation with John Atkinson previously. He insisted that ST is NOT "bought & paid for" when it comes to MF gear.
Both the "statistics" and "logic" dictate a different answer though. After all, how many other companies have had multiple products reviewed by Stereophile during the same amount of time ? The fact that JA himself has been called to task about HIS affiliations with Harmon International ( Levinson, Revel, Proceed, JBL, Infinity, etc... ) says something in itself. You would think that they would "wise up" sooner or later, but i guess not.
This has been an on-going debate at AA as many of you know. JA and i ended up going round and round initially and ended up talking privately via email. While he assured me that everything was now "on the up & up" and that they had "cleaned house", he also verified some of the accusations about "reviewer misconduct" that i had made. After all, you can't deny FACTS that came straight from the horses' mouth.
As such, i initially believed what he had to say and figured that he was trying to get things straightened out. Since he did "own up" and come clean about some of the improprieties that had taken place in the past, i figured that things might get better. As such, i figured that we would start seeing some major changes in how products were picked, who reviewed them, etc.. I guess that either i was lied to or i am a fool.
This situation has now spilled over onto A-gon with much the same "flavour". The general consensus is that Stereophile reviews / reviewers ARE bought and paid for. That is, at least SOME of them. The basic platform and reasoning as to why some of us think what we do is covered quite well by Kristian Soholm in the April "letters" section of Stereophile. If you haven't seen that letter, you need to. It sums things up all too well.
Subscribers should take note that nobody on the entire staff offered any type of rebuttal to those accusations or statements. I think that JA figured that just publishing such harsh criticism would show that they had nothing to hide. My take on it is that the argument presented makes so much sense that he has only helped to condemn himself as an editor and the magazine as a whole.
The REALLY scary thing about all of this is that TAS is now supposedly undergoing major revamping with new leadership. While i've seen some very positive comments about what has taken place so far, i shutter to think about where that magazine will end up when all is said and done. If it goes where i think it will go, we will end up with NO American based "glossies" to read and / or believe.
Would such a situation be our fault. Yes, mostly. We've allowed "corruption" in every facet of life to take place for so long that nobody thinks it is "wrong" anymore. It is somewhat expected and treated as if the old adage "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" were true. Keep it behind closed doors and nobody will know any better. The only problem is that the corruption has become SO obvious that we can no longer overlook it. After getting slapped more than a few times on each cheek, there's nothing left to do but face the music and get your hands dirty. Sean
>
