[Brooko]

Banned from what? If all review loans are forgiven / forgotten about then it is actually a gift not a loan (you are the one stipulating it a loan, other reviewers say it was gifted). So, you do the review on the basis that you will sell their gift when you deem you are finished with it - at some point it will become irrelevant to most enthusiasts or someone else who still has it will help them. Keep it simple. Keep doing the reviews & raise a bit of cash for charity. Who is going to ban that? And, if they do maybe they are the wrong people to work with?

Not the companies - the site:
The rules are very clear: -

Selling or trading free review samples is strictly forbidden.

Review samples and accommodation purchased items.

7. Items received for free for reviews posted on Head-Fi CANNOT be sold or traded ANYWHERE, period.
8. Accommodation purchases, that is, items sent for review on Head-Fi but then sold afterwards to the reviewer at an "accommodation price" CANNOT be sold at a higher price than was paid for the item.

Doing either is highly unethical and a serious abuse of your membership here and, not to mention, a serious abuse of the manufacturers. Not to mention, no member that does not have an official review tag and/or is formally listed as a reviewer can call themselves as such here. Using the classifieds or Head-Fi to make a profit comes under the same rules those for Members of the Trade and abuse is considered to be "flipping for profit" or shilling, depending on circumstances (eg: Telling a manufacturer you'll post a positive review if you can get the item for free or at a discount). Members found to be using the classifieds and/or review system to profit from review items, even if the items were sold or traded elsewhere, may have ALL their reviews deleted, access to the classifieds removed and/or will be banned.

9. Items received for free from a manufacturer can be given away.

That last one might be a good one though - I'd have to talk to the manufacturers about it, as ultimately they might want the gear returned. Like I said earlier - I don't consider that i own it - they do.

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

[a_recording]

Hey Lachlan - nice to see you back. I guess I really am banging my head against the proverbial wall here then.

Here's the question though - if I look at the number of followers, it clearly indicates the way I'm reviewing has more value to a lot of people than a lot of others. If that is the case - then why can't we change the system? Companies want to make better products - lets help them. Consumers want a better idea of the bad ones - lets help them. Head-Fi wants to bring more traffic in - lets do it by accuracy in what is written.

Surely the alternative is that eventually all standards drop, and we're left with a site which has such a low SNR ratio a lot of people no longer see the value in it. This leads to lower numbers of credible reviews. Which leads to lower sponsorship. Which ultimately leads to a self-fulfilling negative cycle.

There is a reason why (until recently) I have chosen to keep virtually all my reviews here, to not look for any rewards or money (although plenty is on offer), and keep the standards I have done.

And I refuse to believe it is impossible to change this cycle.

I don't necessarily think companies want to make better products. Companies want to sell more products so that people can go home and feed their families. Making better products is one way of doing this, but getting a lot of people talking about your product and buying it is obviously another great way. And I know that plenty of people will disagree with me here, but audio has become a fashion market - just not the kind of fashion people think of immediately. It's all exotic topologies and the sudden introduction of forgotten technologies, so you get truly absurd products like Audeze iSines selling to people who enjoy a challenging, retro chic kind of product aesthetic. It's irrational, and in an irrational market its probably cheaper to generate a lot of enthusiasm and interest than it is to make an objectively better product, if such a thing even exists. Engineers just start doing things because they can, and the marketing departments run with it.

Obviously some platforms will mature and do better than others over time. But for head-fi, the most important thing is that people log in here every day and feel good about talking with other people about gear. Good reviews are a part of this, but I hardly think they are the most important part of the engine for growth. The most important part is making connections between people to create a self sustaining level of community interest, and people bond by going nuts over stuff together. See also: any fandom.

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

[a_recording]

Also, I should add, some outlets like The Verge have a specific policy that review units are NOT to be used for personal use. This kind of thing makes sense to me for a smartphone, but seems absurd to me for audio products. I don't expect any people to have the mental ability to compartmentalise a review sample they have been given permanently from their own personal collection, and it seems like mental gymnastics to attempt it. It reminds me of a person in high school who said that certain acts aren't sinful if they didn't fantasise about anything while doing them.

One thing I will say is that I absolutely think selling review samples creates a terrible incentive. You get a financial gain from simply receiving review units, which means you will make sure you continue to receive them. Whatever the solution to these issues may be, I can't see how being allowed to sell review units can be part of it.

 

[Brooko]

@Brooko you're too dry when you say that everyone is trying to please the manufacturer. I think I have exposed the flaws within products countless times.

Even in my latest review, I note that I got the Q29 and that it disconnects one ear from the other, quite often, and even without much effort. I say that. I am trying to enrichen my vocabulary because I want to, not because I am trying to please someone. Also, Kinera H3 is worth 100$, you can't really sell it. I don'ty think anyone made anything from giving it a thumbs up, it is just that maybe some people liked it.

Here's the point you seem to miss though George - the reviewers who did review it did exactly that. They sold it. 13 reviews. Mores 5s than 4s. Reading the reviews, apparently it can be "a bit bright". OK I can live with that. Penon to Brooko - which one would you like to review for us. I'll take the H3 - it seems to be well regarded - and according to all those reviewers it should be great quality.

Guess what George - its not.

Now imagine I'm a buyer. Further - imagine I'm a buyer on a limited budget.

If you can't see that - then you shouldn't be reviewing. And calling me "dry:" does not change the fact that:

• You claimed the X7ii was U shaped
• When I called you out on it - you explained that it was Fletcher Munson
• When I shot that down - you said that the X7ii impedance could change the frequency response of the IE800

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

So how can any punter believe a single word of any review you write. Further - how can Head-Fi knowingly put your reviews on the front page if you are making these sorts of claims.

That right there is everything that is wrong with this hobby. The fact that you are in denial makes it worse.

I would rather be dry and accurate than perpetuate the current situation.

 

[sjb57]

Not the companies - the site:
The rules are very clear: -



That last one might be a good one though - I'd have to talk to the manufacturers about it, as ultimately they might want the gear returned. Like I said earlier - I don't consider that i own it - they do.

As you say YOU don't consider that you own it.


BTW the rule is naïve & one-sided IMO because it is OK for Head-Fi to make money out of the fact that you & others publish reviews here & attract readers for sponsors & advertisers to target. A slightly better rule might have been to say that such items could ONLY be sold via Head-Fi.

Punters just need TRANSPARENCY & it protects reviewers too - keeps notion of bribery out of the debate.
Now it is very late in the UK - good night & good luck.

 

[Brooko]

Paul, please think it this way:

How many people like a headphone you don't?

Many.

Are they wrong?

No.

Then don't write negatively about something because you don't like it. Try to write as objectively as possible. Nobody cares if it is neutral or natural, they might not want that. IF your sole factor for giving a product a 5/5 is it being absolutely natural or neutral, then your lovely HD800S fall way off the scale, as they are not quite natural or neutral... But you love them. Why would you want to fight people who just want to have fun?>

Again - I'm mot talking about preference here - and its clear you simply can't see it. I've reviewed products that I haven't particularly liked before, and given them reasonably objective scoring. I've also reviewed products I loved, and not given them full score because of price or other issues.

And go back and re-read my HD800S review George. Right throughout I stated that it was to my personal preferences. But I also give a base line on what those preferences are. Where do you give disclaimers about your own bias? We all know that you listen to music at far higher than normal levels, and that you boost the treble to levels that most folks would find excruciating.

Try to write as objectively as possible

I can't quite understand you typing that bit. Are you giving me advice to be more objective? Really?

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

[ryanjsoo]

Punters are not thick & will quickly spot & call out such a corrupt reviewer. Unfortunately, some punters are cruel too. And, it you are selling after say 6 months you are only getting a fraction of the original value. OK might still be good money on expensive kit but TRANSPARENCY is the answer, not pretending gifts are loans or sample.

@Brooko Not to stretch you or anything, but you treat your samples as extended loaners, I'm curious as to whether a manufacturer has ever asked for a sample back?

 

[Brooko]

Yep a couple have (mainly to move them to other people so they could review them), and I've also have had a couple where the companies have changed their minds and told me to hang onto them.

 

[Dobrescu George]

 

[ryanjsoo]

Also, just a hypothetical, but say we were all to start reviewing on loan only. If the manufacturers see reviews as ads, isn't that just free advertising? If there's a cost to the manufacturer, at least they have to be picky about who they send the products to, usually it's a mix between lesser known writers that have the potential to hype or bigger, trusted writers like yourself and inevitably hype will be squashed out due to the trust placed within your more experienced opinion and varying user opinion on the net.

 

[Brooko]

No. You force people into a conversation they are not fit for.
You're mighty and strong and ye shall receive all the samples from all companies to do the best job
Does that work for you?

I was talking about a certain pairing, that does sound like that. I am not inaccurate, you force people into conversations where you weild better control because you probably want more samples for yourself, or you dislike someone. That is quite bad, if you ask me.

Congrats - you just accused me of shilling. Provide the proof.

The whole reason I'm considering getting out of this game is because of what it has become. And if you think for a second that by attacking me will take the focus away from the claims you are making .... think again.

How can I force you into anything - when it is you who is making the claims?