There is one huge problem with giving negative reviews...manufacturers won't want to send you anymore stuff to review. Reviews have far more to do with marketing than they do with actual reviews.  There will always be someone willing to sell out or who doesn't know enough to give proper reviews. In fact I fall under both categories to any manufactureres reading this

What you end up with are sugar coated reviews that gloss over the negatives or people like Tyll who just don't end up reviewing the products they don't like. There is nothing wrong with the latter as far as I am concerned.  Looking at the stuff that he doesn't have reviews for is just as telling as giving poor reviews, except it doesn't piss off manufacturers.

*Supposedly* if you're mean about a product, you may not just lose all access, but get hit with a libel suit. It has definitely happened in other industries, the CR vs. Suzuki fight went on forever. I'm not sure if there's a documented case of that happening to an audio reviewer, but there are rumors at least. Choosing not to review something you don't like is fine, but it does somewhat of a disservice to your readers, who must then by basically only products you specifically recommend, or take a risk unless they can make their way on their own to sites like this one.

It's kind of sad, but What Hi-Fi? Is pretty much the only mag I can think of that regularly pans products they don't like. Hi-fi News and RR isn't too terrible either, but Hi-Fi+ is every bit as bad as their US sister mag, TAS.

I agree with what you are saying, I am just trying to explain why I don't think it will happen. Do you honestly think that manufacturers would jump at the chance to send products to the members here? Go back and read some of the reviews that the folks from here have done.  Look at the difference in opinion on the LCD-X between Purrin/MF and those at HF.  It is detailed pros/cons vs "OMG THIS IS AMAZING BEST HEADPHONES EVAAAHH!!".  If I were a manufacturer I know where I would want to send my product for review.

The mentality of most manufacturers is not making a great product, it is making lots of money.  I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said, but unfortunately that is not the reality of the world and I think you have an unrealistic expectation of the media.  The HF Christmas gift guide basically lists every product available.  Those that want more information seek it out.  The great thing is that we have other outlets to obtain real reviews.  It is the same idea that is being discussed in the "what happened to music" thread.

If a new mainstream audio magazine came out that gave real reviews I would be first in line to support it, but I don't think it is economically feasible.  I am interested to hear how you think it would work.

By the way, thanks for posting this Tari...I forgot to mention that earlier.  Ray is always good for a laugh.

Definitely, I think the onus is on the larger more established magazines to start this trend.  The problem is it almost ends up in a prisoner's dilemma.  If all the magazines ditch the BS we can live in a perfect world with insightful and comprehensive reviews.  However, there will always be the incentive for the magazine to revert back to the old ways; cater to the manufacturers, get more advertising money, get more products to review etc. and the cycle starts all over again.  If one magazine does this, all the other magazines are hurt and we end up back where we started...a bunch of garbage audio reviews.

The other thing to consider is that people like positive reviews.  They use them as affirmation of their purchases just as much as they use them for informing a purchase.  HF is filled with threads for products that get bad reviews with very vocal proponents for those terrible products.  Through a combination of subjective opinion and lack of experience they adore products that we laugh at *ahem-HD700-ahem*.  As a magazine you certainly don't want to alienate readers by telling them that their favorite audio component blows.  If it were me I would much rather cater to the masses than the relatively few people who want real reviews...that is where the money is. 

Also, most of the audio world is based on consumerism.  More positive reviews=more flavor of the month=more people wanting new products=more money spent=more money for magazines.  Purrin summed it up perfectly...people with 5 $300-$500 headphones could have spent that money on better components instead of the constant sidegrades and collecting of sub-par products.  Evidently they like buying stuff!

Cynicism is one of my many character flaws, but this is the way I see it.  It would be great if there was more incentive to produce quality products.  It relies on the ability of consumers to recognize those products, which I am not sure will happen.  There will always be those people who like the HD700.  It is very easy to pick holes in the system and much more difficult to figure out how to solve them.  My only answer is to find a way to better educate the consumer so that they can identify better products.  Nothing original there, this is the basis for every neo-classical economic theory.  More educated consumers lead to rational decision making which, allows optimal market function as you describe.  In practice it is MUCH more complicated than that and making any changes is very difficult.

Damn that ended up much longer than I anticipated.  Sorry to anyone who has made it to the end.

THE (SECRET) RULES OF 'AUDIO REVIEWING'

1. Never anger any protected audio industry entity, such as:

A. An important current, or potential, advertiser; including manufacturers, distributors or retailers, or...

B. Any other audio establishment which has a "personal relationship" with you.

2. Delay acknowledging any serious problems with a "protected" component until you give another rave review to the "updated" model which replaces it and "corrects" the problems.

3. Avoid making any direct comparisons with a "protected" component, but if you have to, follow these "Solutions":

   A. Compare the component only to older and/or obsolete models, especially from the same manufacturer. (See Rule #2 above).

   B. If Solution "A" is not possible, compare the component to "competitors" costing either MUCH more or MUCH less.

   C. If both Solutions "A" or "B" are not possible, "neglect" to mention the actual names and model numbers of the rival components that you compare it to in the review.

   D. If Solutions "A", "B" or "C" are all not feasible, and you must compare the model to a current, similarly priced (and "protected") competitor that you must name, then you must be:

  1. As ambiguous as possible, and you must also...
  2. Never describe any problem as "serious" (See Rule #3.E)
  3. Never proclaim one model to be clearly superior to the other(s). In short...
  4. Both (or all) of the components must be seen as equally desirable and of similar value.

   E. Problems or imperfections that aren't obvious (such as no bass below 40 Hz with small speakers), may be described as "serious" (easy to hear) only when using Solutions "A", "B" or "C".

However, any problems described when using Solution "D" must always be "subtle" and "difficult to hear", or even described as an "advancement" if possible.

4. You must never inform readers if an "audiophile" accessory or tweak is also available in a generic form at a fraction of the price that the "protected" manufacturer is charging (Blue Tac and RFI rings etc.).

5. Any and all "transactions" between you and any of the parties mentioned in Rule #1 must always be kept strictly Confidential. Accordingly...

  A. You must never divulge the actual price, if any, you paid to "purchase" your reference components or accessories, or any extra costs you paid, if any, to have those same components updated, modified, repaired, replaced etc.

  B. You must never divulge any "gifts", "favors" or "perks" that you received from the "protected" audio entities, or those with whom you have a "personal relationship".

6. You must never mention the actual costs, even at retail prices, of the parts that are used to manufacture the component.

7. Further to Rules #4 & #6, you must never state, or even imply, that any component or accessory is "over-priced".

8. The more corrupt your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty.

9. Magazines shall never divulge the actual percentage of their advertising revenues to their total revenues.

10. OVERRIDE CLAUSE- Some of the preceding rules (#1, #2 & #3) may be ignored only in the event of either a serious (and apparently indefinite) breach of the "personal relationship" between the audio company and reviewer/magazine, and/or the termination, or non-payment, of their advertising contract.

I think this is an interesting point m ade by Arthur Salvatore. I'm pretty sure some of you have seen his rant about Stereophile http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html.