Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Reviews bY TAS. Corrupt or honest?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reviews bY TAS. Corrupt or honest?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 

I have been an audiophile for 40 years. I personally know some of the reviewers for TAS. If audiophiles knew the insight of this publication they would be very hesitant in taking seriously their advice. To keep things level, reviewers should specify if the gear are manufacturer loaners, and if they return back the gear to the manufacturers. What really happens is that the HP publication reviiewers may specify that the gear is "manufacturer loaners" or don't specify anything about this subject. The reality is very different. Majority of the equipment is so called "lifetime loaners". Yes the reviewers get to keep the equipment for free, especiailly if the review is positive. This corrupt practice, my guess is, is widespread in audiophle publications. This needs to stop. For us who trust these publications this is a total scam. As a true audiophile this is totally unacceptable. By though way this is also true of HP  other magazine "Perfect Vision". Just ask any of the reviewers what system do they use at home, and did they pay for it, If they did pay, they need to specify at what price. This corrupt practice needs to stop, otherwise these publications are worthless.











post #2 of 7



You signed up just to accuse TAS reviewers of being "corrupt" along with basically every other reviewer that receives products in return for a review? I do agree that people should specify if they paid for it or they got it for free in the review, but it does not mean that they are "corrupt". 

post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 

If I came on too strong I apologize. In our times many people buy audio gear because of reviews, without hearing the equipment first. Very few high-end stores exist anymore. It should be essential that a potential buyer gets a true, honest review. Reviewers should specify if the gear that is under review is a manufacturer loaner, if reviewer returned the gear, purchased it, or if it's a lifetime loaner-a gift. The last situation besides being unethical, can lead to biased opinion. Total transparency is of paramount importance, otherwise consumers can spend ton of money due to a review that could easily have been shaded. I'm done with this rant.

Here is me personal view of audio gear. Simplicity is a virtue. Gear like Audio Research i overly complicated, overly circuitated, with myriad of integrated circuits. To test it if it's working properly, or to fix it, the gear has to be send back to Minnesota. I would easily take vintage Marantz or even lowly Dynaco 70 over ARC. Vintage gear has simple circuitry and is point to point made. Easy ti fix too. As regards to sound quality both styles of manufacturing have pluses and minuses. Overall they both can sound great. I personally believe that vintage electronics combined excellent engineering wit high dose of art. The other crucial element is quality of tubes. Vintage domestic tubes are far superior than Chinese and Russian clones. Insert a vintage US tube into current gear and sound quality would quickly improve. I hope that there will be new breed of audio makers that will follow the steps of art engineers of 50's and 60's and get back to basics.

post #4 of 7

So you think everyone who receives free samples is biased? Well that would make many very respected people on here "corrupt" too lol. 

post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 

It depends how many readers you have, and how prestigious your opinion is. If you receive 30,000 speakers or amp as a gift from manufactuerer then yes it can easily affect your review. As I said all that information should be disclosed. Transparency is not funny, it's essential for your readers. Don't think that car reviewers get those cars as gift. Review readers should get all information to come to a rational, logical conclusion.

post #6 of 7
Lol, ok.

I'm just going to unsub. Good luck with uh... discovering whether reviews are corrupt.
post #7 of 7
Thread Starter 

You are being sarcastic, that's cool. I read reviews, I prefer British Magazines. I visit audiophile stores and that is where I get the real scoop. My ears don't lie. I like classical, jazz, and indie. For the latter there is nothing like New Musical Express and Melody Maker, by far the best. As you probably you know you can get unbeatable sound from old Quads and Quads II amp and preamp. Or you can spend tens of thousands on new gear and it might match or be 5% better. Still I love reading reviews and stay current.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Help and Getting Started › Introductions, Help and Recommendations › Reviews bY TAS. Corrupt or honest?