Thank you so much. Patreon link for anyone else who wants too (can sign up for 7 day free trial) www.patreon.com/user?u=20783218

Thank you. I did say the cxn v2 is not as good now as the eversolo dmp-a6 in my a6 video before i changed my approach on doing that. Hifi companies have so many reviewers and it’s understandable they can’t reward them all and I just think a subscriber model is the way to go. If I don’t get enough support I’ll do something else. I need around 300 to make it sustainable and I’ve got around 50 at the moment and it’s growing faster since I’ve been mentioning my patreon model. It’s literally the cost of a drink a month so who can grumble at that when people spend thousands on gear.

I think it was worthwhile John. I don’t think he is deceiving people per see. He is caught in a trap of a philosophy of how reviews happen. I get what you say about building trust to then subscribe. I’m doing that in a way to deconstruct reviews to lay them bare to the realities of how I (and they) operate. It’s risky but I doubt the brands care too much because it’s just about brands sending products to influencers who have an audience who believe them (in a valiant good and legitimate way) If have to be honest I think I’m pissing in the wind of making this work, because I’ve put so much effort in and it’s extremely hard to monetise, the way I do it. I don’t think too many reviewers would return products costing £2000, except not blowing my own trumpet, me - in a manner of calling eversolo up on review philosophy as I did. It might be a little naive of me. Personally I think this is about educating people about the likes of pretty lean hifi businesses like Eversolo, where this is a brand market for reviews. At the end of the day, do people want to save money or be taken along for a ride by reviewers who are hook line and sinker to pretty thin practises. I really don’t think most people have a grip of how this industry works. You do from our chats. Bw Simon 😀

I agree I’m not optimistic too. I think Steve Huff is hard to get info from. I felt some aspect of his content were credible when he compared it to pricier transports like lumin but he backtracked on that. It’s not helped as he doesn’t script and it’s all a bit Wild West for me. That’s why I’m so diligent in scripting for my own good really. I don’t tend to get into the minutiae of hifi that defines one product being amazing and another terrible. I look for good differences, or where differences are small but that’s the privilege of having decent amount of stuff to try I guess and the reality of being a consumer I guess. I do try and look at it with consumer eyes of course.

Thanks very much too. If you do reviews then please do make it. We need honesty in this industry. The argument people make through familiarity with a KZfaqr that they know them and they have helped in a way is a valiant and credible one with all of them, and I wouldn’t decry people taking that view or thinking that for all KZfaqrs at times. But judging by the comments they then use that as a basis of thinking the review is helpful every time and the reviews proceed to make products all the same on KZfaq, that the KZfaqr is all honest, and they know them. It’s often the very small things that turn to whether the information can be relied on - I’ve just finished a review of a pair of speakers that other KZfaqrs are awarding with no comparisons, to watch one British KZfaqrs video that says it’s outstanding with no others mentioned. I’m featuring next warts and all on KZfaq. We know he gets paid for awarding and there is no way anyone with that model is going to turn down badge award money from a brand that he knows in the future will pay. He isn’t changing his view to say it’s outstanding for money, but he is more pliable to it and saying the speakers are good, when often hifi is quite similar. This is a very subtle distinction that makes him available for hire, makes him believe himself, and makes his audience believe him. Another reviewer who has reviewed the same brands stand-mount in the series, told me in a phone call that with regards another speaker firm, he asks for their products on the basis that he is to get paid for the award badge when he reviews their product. This is even before he has got the product.

@@13thnotehifireviews7 Fascinating to hear that inside information. I suspect a lot of similar things happened with the audio review world even before KZfaq but at least the potential buyers made more visits to the local hi-fi shops for a demo. If it is their (content creators) sole/key source of income then the award position is understandable... but needs to be transparent. A good example of this is another Australian... Chris Eyre-Walker who clearly states his financial association with Olympus - and then proceeds to show very clear, real world use to support the reviews. Back to audio... I mentioned that this is a hobby where the end product is highly subjective. The same gear is experienced differently by a 30yo vs a 60yo due to differing physical (hearing) states. I saw real world proof of this when a close family member revealed hearing difficulties... and could not hear the touted strengths of my special audio gear. A lot of where this discussion's core sits relies on gullibility. That is why the need for honesty. Keep at it Simon... the road may be longer but sleeping better at night ensures your ability to travel further. Thanks again.

If you are getting only comparisons but you don’t think there can be consensus opinion and objectivity in comparison around what are good products, I wouldn’t watch KZfaq videos. You might as well go to a dealer and just listen to a load of stuff and pick one. The notion it’s just subjective is something I’ve been perennially trying to break down in reviews. With the benefit of quite a bit of hindsight, I don’t think anyone has a right to earn money from reviews just by taking advantage of practises to give products to curry opinion which are not helpful to consumers in the above way. That’s not really the economic worth of that reviewer. Their worth is what they bring when they get sales, but it’s so hard in hifi reviews. I still don’t know how to make this work - patreon subs would sort it - but I’m still holding onto the notion my project has worth somewhere for the massive effort I’ve put in crafting lovely videos.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ Simon, I like your content and value your opinion. But as I said , it’s subjective listening impressions of products unless you are like Erin’s Audio Channel or ASR which dedicates a chunk of their reviews explaining methodology, graphs and illustrations of their measurements by sophisticated machines… unless you are those channels then it’s still subjective but that’s OK for me. You can claim to be independent but the reviews you come up are still going to be your opinion based on your listening if your methodology is the one you are using in your reviews. Bigger audio related channels with thousands of subscribers all have Patreon channels but I don’t think they are buying all their products for reviews off of what they get from Patreon

@@delvalle9256 I’m sorry but that’s misguided I feel. Where the differences are marked but obvious and price is much less, it is possible to form objective opinions, with others agreeing. Obviously my preferences play a part but I still rate gear that I wouldn’t buy myself. ASR in their approach to measure which is often flawed totally discount the objective listening element. It’s no coincidence so many people love the chord Dave but asr don’t. If you compare the Dave to say a qutest it’s an objective opinion that it’s a better product built up around many peoples opinions. If 75 people of 100 prefer one restaurant over another, that’s an objective test. They are not subjective opinions that the individuals just prefer one restaurant. That’s what I’m doing with others in reviews. It’s for you to pull the threads of that objectivity when you try. It’s true that in comparing that qutest and Dave that the difference is objective based on comparison to a marked difference. It would be ludicrous to say that getting into a family car versus a Ferrari that it’s only the subjective opinion of the tester that the family car drives as well. That’s what we are doing. And we can save you money doing the same tests, where two products come along. One costs £2000 and the other £750 and they perform similarly.

@@delvalle9256any reply to my last point. I would be interested to hear as I debate this with people and then I don’t hear more and I’d love to know what peoples thoughts are on this subject.

I don’t have any more opinion on this. It seems like the bottom line why you made this video is to promote or justify your preference for patreon subscription and I guess that’s fine . Singling out a fellow reviewer? I take issue: why did you not choose to say something about Darko, Jay Iyagi’s or the Audiophiliac, or Andrew Robinson or New Record Day? Do You think these reviewers are objective by your definition? And you know Simon, I have watched reviews of the A8 and I don’t freaking care if those units were given to them as a gift to keep or to sell , all of those reviewers did mention some negatives about the product or compared it to product X or the preamp section is this and that… because of your stand on objectivity and crusade against your fellow reviewers who you think are less honest than you … we your subscribers are deprived of your opinion on the A8 and that is rather sad 😢. To me your opinion is valuable and we miss your take on the A8 ….,Anyway, I hope you move on from this and Good Luck with your move to Patreon.

You are right to point this out.... as I said in this video I have gone back and forth on paid reviews. My video last year was to explain that if a reviewer is really honest and wants to give products back they wouldn't buy against others, but only be paid for reviews where they genuinely rate them - I see no problem with payment for reviews from brands in theory, in a market where the reviewers will be awarded for reviews of products they genuinely rate and where the view checks out. But I think I was wrong, for reasons ; a) given how difficult it is NOW to monetise reviews with 80-90% of reviews expected to be done free or no sponsorship afterwards - any money or pricey product for a review is a huge bias creator, it would unduly and unconsciously affect the review. Essentially this is a 'turkeys voting for xmas' approach to payment on my part as I always wanted to do honest reviews. If a reviewer was paid for all reviews then for the honest reviews they could pick and choose which ones they want to monetise, but this is not how the industry works. b) with regard to most product reviews, many reviewers review too much stuff favourably and dishonestly in the context of competition that gets the same treatment, upon which brands cannot really rely as a decent sales/marketing force. It diminishes the review value to the extent most don't believe HiFi reviews, understandably. Therefore to be paid would even more destroy the credibility of the review looking at it from the brand point of view. c) the way to award reviewers is to sponsor them , but only after the review and not make it part of the discussions, but aside from paid award badges. These also create bias - I just watched one youtuber say a product is the best speaker of 2023 between £1k-£3k despite not having reviewed anything else at same money all year, so how can it be best? That happens because the reviewer gets the award money when the brand put his award badge on their website as the badge and logo is his intellectual property. The problem too is reviewers will only award products of brands that they know are capable of paying for the badge - one such reviewer I know even says he knows he will get paid by one brand for the badge before he even gets the product, as this is, he says, an understanding with that brand. I personally think this is appalling and it shows these people are not even reviewers so why even bother do this?. I also think these badges are poor as they are not reactive to new gear.

Thanks for answering my question. lol.

Thank you very much. I think I’ll prob swerve the A8 tbh as the software is similar to what I’ve covered in my A6 video plus the DACs are a marginal improvement from what some reviews say. I’ve never been much of a fan of super streamers as I think most of the time you can get away with a cheaper streamer and put it into a better DAC. My perception is most people buying the ilk of the A8 don’t get that. I would personally advocate the A6 with its USB output into a great DAC instead then you kill two birds with one stone. Obviously that advice works to most of us who are into separates.

Personally I think benchmarks for computer parts are a fair amount more scientific than benchmarks for audio equipment. Erin's corner, ASR, etc do a great job highlighting some of the measurements which can make a difference (dispersion, distortion, etc) but overall there is so much more which can't be captured by measurements. This leads to all the creative descriptions that some reviews throw at their viewers. This is where I wish more manufacturers had a model like buchardt, buy, try for 30 to 45 days and return for a very minimal cost. If it didn't match the expectations of viewers, the manufacturers would need to deal with a load of returned items.

I completely agree @@jponsie

The issue is that the computer industry is more objective. I watched all the videos when I bought my pc and those that test clearly the ram load times and how fast the cards work with software. This is easy to time and test. In hifi prices are much higher and reviewers have to rely on subjective comparisons (but remember with objective comparison and consensus groups of numbers of people). This means, with most hifi reviewers rating everything, which isn’t real world, there is far less trust. When I did my poll on Facebook which I shared to twenty or so Facebook groups, asking do you trust hifi reviews, the results were very alarming for this industry - 70% of around 1000 people who took part, said no they aren’t. This is an issue which the hifi industry isn’t tackling if it wants to build more sales because obviously if marketing is done in reviews people don’t believe, what worth is that - a code of sales and marketing ethics or honest reviewers (with a code of practise) is something this industry cries for. As it is the industry just says the reviews aren’t us and so leaves them to get on with saying everything is brilliant. I disagree things can be captured by measurements as to worth as it’s so complicated and well outside the scope of amateurs and those amateur electronic people who would like to have us believe they know everything. people like audio science review aren’t really doing science when they slag off a chord Dave, that everybody loves comparative to something like the qutest. They would have, at least, to do science to say why people prefer the Dave and a t test and regression analysis to say that there is a trend in that sense. To say something is poor when more people could independently agree something is better when you have no reason for that, is still science, to the extent you’ve got to try and explain that. Something asr never do.

Thanks Madds. I think you probably know but I do try and base my reviews on highlighting preferences, but also where it’s way apart I think more will think the same that’s important too. But I also go with the finer margins of best like buchardt v totem in my recent 2023 favourites video. When I know how reviews get done and monetised and the over willingness to review too much stuff well, which just isn’t credible, I hardly trust any reviewers especially when I get the same products and they don’t check out. I think the patreon model helps with reviewers and brands meeting half way to monetise this and if people want all my opinion, I hardly think asking for £5 a month is wrong. Bw and HNY Simon Ps none of mine are paid by the reviewing brand and I still give back products from sponsors if they don’t check out. I put a banner up saying all my reviews are unpaid if they are not sponsored videos (ie other brand sponsoring it with website add banners or intros in the video). The rest is KZfaq money and patreon subs. It’s not much!

Thanks very much Alex. I would add I wasn’t narrowing a focus just on him, but just that I felt a) he had made a video in retort to my comment on his A8 video and b) his video about paid reviews for the A8 was so disingenuous I think it needed calling out. 😀

Just sort it out in the octagon, you two. Patreon access only. For integrity’s sake, the winner gets to pay for his own Mcintosh amplifier to review. Otherwise how could either of you possibly have any credibility? Viewers surely can’t be expected to acquire confidence in your utterances any other way.

Did you try it at home before you bought it? What review tempted you to buy it if any?

I totally agree. I’ve been putting in my videos that they are unsponsored and unpaid. The former means no brand is sponsoring to get their products in the video (sponsor not related to the review product is the way I do it). Also that it is unpaid - ie no product in lieu or cash payment. If it’s sponsored / remunerated by the brand like the Adam Audio sonarworks one I just did - I only make them that way when I can do walk through guides and loads of videography where I’m walking people through the software and it can not be viewed as a review or appraisal. I did give my opinion on the software in that video but Im not going to argue with anyone who says that may not be credible, being the video was paid. It adds value in different ways and was intended as a walk through. This is what more hifi companies should be doing - using peoples skills to come up with ideas to promote products that are not reviews and give more knowledge of gear that people can buy.

He was honest in saying the streaming part isn’t better and saying you can get another dac with the a6 which is cheaper but I felt the concluding comments were fudging it a bit, that you may need the A8 if you want an all in one with the features it has - which are not massively different to the A6. How many audiophiles already have a DAC or might get one in the future, and which DACs has he tried that might improve on the dac in the A8 to make an A6 with other better dac a probable better viable option. The fact the review did not cover this was the bit that made me think this is a paid review. The causal observer might think he is giving all his thoughts but not really, and as I say these are the sorts of things I would cover in my patreon video depending on how valid they are on trying it. It was way too convenient to say because it’s a one boxer that’s a reason to buy. These are the main questions people want to know…..

He is very thorough with going through features and he does his research which many don’t. I often watch his and Hans’ videos because I know they will cover the whole product. He often too does call out misgivings where he isn’t ripping into the whole product. I do think his jump cuts could be overlayed with b roll and videos more professionally edited but most people, I think, don’t care about that. I don’t think it helps him he is too forgiving as you’ve sussed and so have I, and that doesn’t help the brands. Largely this happens through what is not said and nobody has got together and said - ‘reviewer if you don’t believe in the product can we work together and do a video about how the product works or some other video that could have just as much impact for us, the brand’. That would be a valiant way of promoting it properly rather than making me, as a reviewer, lie. Or at least pressure too as I’ve never lied as to my view of products. This largely comes from the fact it’s a brand market of reviews but I fail to see why I should follow the status quo when a) I don’t like telling lies, b) it’s not helping the brand, c) I want the brand to respect me and not just see me as - ‘you get the product and say good of it’. It’s only if I truly believe that should I do so. There can never be a basis to work with a company if there is no self respect in this regard. One distributor never wanted to work with Tarun again just because he gave the product back unreviewed. I thought that is awful. Sadly this is not uncommon. I agree with the sentiment of that books synopsis, but equally an alternative book could be proposed about how commercialism sometimes doesn’t help itself. Thanks for your very balanced comment.

Simon! Thank you for this extensive, expensive and thoughtful comment 😳 I was not expecting it so quickly! I shared my video with my brother and my girlfriend because I think this is something that not only applies for audiophile reviews but to almost every product that is being reviewed these days. I agree with your additional comments about Lachlan as well. I have learned good things from his reviews as well. I have considered the one hour consultation with you! Maybe in 2024 ✨ you are very knowledgeable and I appreciate your time and effort!

Ok thanks, man you are good on piano. Maybe I could clip some of your recordings. I wish I could play. I was thinking of getting a keyboard

Happy New Year, Simon! Thank you! You are so kind! The videos on my channel are a bit old. Nowadays, I am studying a masters in film scoring and teaching piano. I can recommend you a keyboard if you can tell me a price range and what you are looking for. I think learning piano can be very enjoyable at any age and gives another perspective when listening to piano music (as an audiophile as well hehe) @@13thnotehifireviews7

Exactly Michael. Normally 60% of products trading blows and similar quality. 10% are turkeys relative others and then the remainder you have the finer margins between worth of different products. All of this is what viewers want to know. The +/- thing to making reviews all 8/10 and people believe the reviews are credible does my head in. Hope to see you on patreon again soon.

I don’t want to blast them. This video needed saying, but I want to give them the option of giving it back for a KZfaq review in exchange for them having the confidence to lend it, and realising around the corner they may bring out a gem I do want to feature. This is the swings and roundabouts of true reviewing. Not all of a brands products can be A1.

Thank you too. Wow. 😀🎼🇬🇧

If you don’t pay for a review then if you rely on the others like Darko then you won’t get very good shortlists. You are contradicting yourself…..The point of a good honest review is to help inform own decisions as you say, then you say they don’t inform your decision to buy. Good honest reviews are to give a shortlist not just highlight the product - that’s on the brand website. The fact people don’t pay means reviewers like me can’t really be arsed much anymore and we can’t survive because it’s the viewers who don’t invest in honest reviews that mean you just get shitty shilling reviewers. That all said I am just saying it as it is for products lent but ones brands give me go back if I don’t rate them and I tell patreons to avoid them. You can then go to a British audiophile or Darko or countless others and they will tell you it’s great, so it affirms a bias to buy. Your point in your penultimate paragraph is nonsense because the reviewer is reviewing with everything the same and one component difference and a wide variety of kit so they can tell you what will likely work and you can take from their descriptives if it likely will too, and put it on the shortlist. Also there is lots beside just audio quality. How about operation, faults and bugs. These are all things a shilling reviewer like Darko won’t mention but an honest reviewer will

2…Your point about manufacturers funding via patreon - I don’t know how that would work and I don’t think you’ve thought that through. You mean they pay me on patreon to say products are great. How would that work when there are no adverts on patreon. The only adverts are on my website and and at the start of the video. It’s very small amounts and btw I have turned down products from brands that sponsor me when there products are not competitive - many of the shilling reviewers don’t do this and they don’t then compare and benchmark the products. Also I only get sponsored when the product has wowed me. I turned down £2000 for this streamer and I also turned down £3k from a brand that wanted me to say the product was good for money. The problem is there are so many dodgy reviewers in hifi I wouldn’t blame you. I’m like the turkey voting for Xmas in my commercial considerations with brands and that’s why I ask people help support me. The reason is is it would be soul destroying for me to make videos saying gear is good for money when I don’t believe it. I couldn’t just keep putting award badges on products and making everything similar like a British audiophile so that he then gets paid when the brand use his intellectual property badge award on their websites etc. that’s how lots of hifi ‘reviews’ work and when you see all the people write great review in the comments, too much stuff gets rated by that reviewer and it flies in the face of my view and so many others, or where differences are big but not described as such, i realise as a fellow hifi reviewer, how gullible people are online.

The argument works both ways because if it’s cheap to a KZfaqr it probably doesn’t matter if they dont benefit and have to return it, and not do a review as a poor product. Lots are not returned to Asia but from local distributors so can be returned easily. What’s of more concern is pricey products. If Fremer knows he will receive such a product and it could happen again, he will rate it as it’s likely to form a large part of his income. I don’t think he would be the type to give it back. I’ve seen this with his reviews of network switches which most think produce ok, if not amazing changes. My points in my video makes the premise that it may not *necessarily* matter if they keep them if you can access their true thoughts. I questioned whether this is possible on KZfaq when a) they haven’t declared keepers and b) if they are donated pricey products, can you really rely on them. Personally I only think you can rely on advice from a KZfaqr on patreon or privately to the extent of new products taking the better place of others that have previously been rated without references to these better competition, that the brand has loaned and I have to offer the right of return if not competitive, nor upset those brands who would bring out crackers in the future and keep relations with them. I did change my previous model of warts and all reviewing (for every review) to patreon now, on this basis. I’m still keeping it honest just not always on KZfaq. Lots of people I think look to bias in reviews to affirm opinions and it’s often the minutiae of a review and turn of words, which gives a clue as to the reviewers approach. For example saying he gives opinions of bad products but also rates everything with pluses and minuses is a clue to how he reviews. I would prefer it that a reviewer was very clear they can access all my opinion and a true opinion and there is a way to achieve that, so I’m not trying to encourage bias, but get you what you want. I wasn’t making this video to virtue signal. I have firm convictions about what is honourable and has integrity and a view now as to what is the right way to review. I was incensed and angered the reviewer could make such a blatantly self interested video with a skewed opinion that simply doesn’t stack up. I wasn’t saying I’m the one to trust - I was saying patreon is the one to trust according to the reviewers you like and that applies for people supporting Lachlan there as much as me. My approach also shows that I’m not scared to show my integrity as I hate the notion we as audiophile journalists have to respect such poorly constructed ways of doing things and not call it out. The papers do it between each other, why not audio reviewers. Edited - this comment is from Oscar Stewart who posted a similar comment on another forum. He works as a reviewer and benefits in getting gear for free, so it’s hardly surprising he takes his view.

I do know what you mean. My Dad pays for my Netflix as I was paying for him for years on mine. I think they do a thing on patreon where you can get a discount if you sign up for a year. I need to set that up. Hopefully great if you can think of it when times are right. 😀🔉🇬🇧

I don’t think there are problems generally. You have to poll people that haven’t got an axe to grind too. Much of the review industry covers for bad products. You’ve got to really get a grip on that too. Eg my ifi zen stream review and half or more of all owners saying they had issues, but reviews being silent.

If the reviews don’t benchmark, which they can’t on KZfaq for such reviews, then you’ve no idea of knowing which are the better products according to them. And say better at much lower price. That’s a much more useful thing to know than loads of product x versus product y opinions where the products are always the same quality. That’s not credible or real world. That’s why people who watch KZfaq reviews should support reviewers on patreon to get more, particularly when buying. Those reviewers who maintain the position that their KZfaq reviews are their true thoughts and all products are similar quality, almost all of the time, your ears should prick up as fervently as a hare in a field with a farmer with a 12 gauge.

I was suspicious of this brand, out of the blue, no one had ever heard of them and then suddenly everyone master bates all over them, gotta to be a kick back somewhere. All these dealers ( especially that UK one who is constantly jackin' himself off about it) scrambling to get the latest flavor of the month in their portfolios. If you took away that screen people would be putting their little Richards back in their trousers.

I don’t earn much money from reviews and I didn’t leave any job recently. I’ve been doing this full time for a number of years. As an idea I currently receive about £300 a month from KZfaq and £200 from patreon. I have to try and get sponsorships or brands to sponsor my videos but I want to see if growing patreon is viable. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

@@13thnotehifireviews7 I could swear that a year max has passed since I saw your video where you were saying that you'll start reviewing full time. Or was it doing graphic design full time. Either it has been much longer or it might have been someone else. Anyways, mybad. Thank you for the reply, Cheers!

Thanks very much. There are lots of idiots online for sure.

@@13thnotehifireviews7 and we have no idea who they are , how old they are etc. in a corporate run world, this is the new reality, unfortunately. So try and avoid comments so you can keep your head straight because it will drain you and make your hobby and channel not fun anymore and even painful as we are all human beings and get bothered by this stuff Godspeed !

Reviews are for a shortlist. You can reproduce observations of the reviewer. I agree with your last point….that harks back to facts I’m not selling you anything and they are for a shortlist. 😀

You didn’t try EQ?

Thanks , hopefully you can consider subscribing to patreon too.

The issue is that buying behaviour dictates people select products based on what they are eyeing and the review serves as justification to buy. That’s another reason why patreon is so important as I spoke to a patreon a few days ago and we worked out the product he would need to try that was different to my opinion and his original thought. I would have loved that when I wasted loads of money on a amp rabbit hole I went down that was more expensive. I think the differences as to why reviewers say what they do is interesting. Lachlan does comment on others to his credit as I do, and if a reviewer ignores others opinions and doesn’t tackle them or explain it could be for any number of reasons. But it does somewhat show they are not interested in some level of truth which I always am. I always watch all reviews and tackle the points in them. Amir’s position is fraught with difficulty because it’s like trying to find a technical chemical reason as to why everyone is going to one Chinese restaurant over another, and the chemical composition of food is better, yet people all taste better at the other restaurant. That makes the reviews from ASR impossible to rely on because subjective consensus is so important. I think others are in difficulty because their default position is all products are the same. One KZfaqr I know told me he doesn’t believe in the law of diminishing returns as price increases, unbelievably. You have to form opinions about reviewers once you know these things or take a view. You can’t make them all equal.

@@13thnotehifireviews7 Your point is well taken. I wasted a lot of money buying and selling amps/dacs for my headphone system. If I had the luxury of talking to a reviewer I might have made a wiser decision early on. I finally settled on a Bryston stack (amp/dac/streamer) only because I heard these in a store and was impressed and they sounded better than anything I had heard previously. Your reviews are insightful and I watch them even though I am not in the market for anything at the present time. Thank you again.

I didn’t know that. Thanks for pointing it out. Maybe they changed their policy.

@@13thnotehifireviews7It just came out a day or two ago. Maybe some reviewers got free units and some didn’t.

His review was for the A6 not the A8.

I think they have now changed it after this video.

@@13thnotehifireviews7 still, I'll avoid them in future on principle, I don't care how well it sounds. It's also why I rarely watch review videos, but heard about your channel and honesty over at ASR and quite frankly it's great to see someone actually on the level. Great job, and kudos to you.🙂

It is more regular than you think that products are improvers on others. The notion a subjective review can’t have an objective element based on comparison and consensus with price in the mix, is the glue that pushes up prices and gets you miss-sold stuff. Let’s apply the example of two Italian restaurants. One is busy with good prices and quality food. The other less busy, higher prices and relatively bland food. Ask people from the local community and they all agree the first is better based on their comparative experience of both. Which is objectively better in comparison - the first one. You could say taste and price is subjective and you are right, you might prefer restaurant B, but if you ignore all those local residents opinions and don’t try the first one but just assert it’s solely a subjective taste thing, you’d be a fool to do that. That’s all my argument is and what I’m doing in a wider circle of reviewers and those experiencing products. And when I put it like this I think arguments like yours fall apart that reviews like mine have no value. Also I think an element of objectivity can be had by one reviewer between two products that sound similar or trade blows but prices are wildly different. Ie in direct comparison, especially when validated by you on trying. That’s because a lot of this isn’t rocket science and it’s pretty easy to place products into tiers on sound quality with preference in the mix. You are really only then looking at features, connections and value.

Sorry reviewers saying that is nonsense. Look at my bad ifi zen stream review and one reviewers comments saying ‘it’s the review he wanted to do’ but didn’t. It means I trust very few reviewers per see, and only when what they say stacks up with credibility and checks out with me and others. Firstly, liking something and rating it are too different things. Obviously a reviewers preference cannot be wholly separated. But secondly, the fact so much stuff gets reviewed and it’s all fabulous , yet we buy more stringently and with scrutiny, is the clue you need to look at. Are they really reviewing the finer margins between good and bad. No. The smart people get they aren’t doing that on KZfaq. I’m trying to review as to all my thoughts on patreon and make it clear that’s what I’m doing and just featuring best and worst there but generally competitive stuff on KZfaq and use KZfaq to add value in other ways - app guides, tech info etc. Every now and then throw in a bad review on KZfaq where I can and I’m unlikely to have any relationship with the brand. I think that’s a much fairer way of doing it. If a brand takes the risk to send a product that isn’t competitive then I will reciprocate by allowing them to collect it unreviewed on KZfaq. But I can still give my experience to a supporting paying audience. Sadly what’s happening and I think loads of people are just gullible to this with all the ‘great review’ comments on some channels, that they are coming up with excuses to make it good or appeal to someone even poor relative products and stuff that’s very expensive. One review guy who is saying in a speaker review that the new budget line is as good as the more premium offering is talking BS. I’ve intricate knowledge as an owner of many speakers in the brand. This is the same British review guy who received a streamer from a British distributor after it had come back to the same distributor from another British reviewer unreviewed due to being poor performance, but himself saying it’s a great product. When I’ve seen another US reviewer then saying this streamer is the same quality to another one half the price, what do you think is going on with the British reviewer rating it. There is also, a preponderance to say that products are equal all the time and use preference - that someone somewhere might prefer the sound character, as a get out to do a proper review and then review it the same. Reviewers can justify it to themselves that someone might like a bad product , but of course that’s not reviewing and doing critical appraisals. It is true most stuff is competitive but the acid test of good or bad reviewers comes in more commonly in differentiating bad products and finer points of good and bad. After all that’s what people want - the finer margins. If they are going to fudge it they shouldn’t call it a review. Then what gets mixed up is - it’s just one view , but commonly we see threads of consensus and when products are so far apart at price they can be objective. The other issue which should get alarm bells going is saying something is an award winner or outstanding with no reference or mention of other gear and why that’s inferior or where you might get further opinion, especially where the reviewer monetises those badge awards. It would be easy to think - he reviews lots of stuff so when he awards something it must be good. But It’s a racket to awards from brands who can and do pay and I think it’s outrageous. What happens when a reviewer awards something and then gets paid, they know the market value and will award another product from that brand again. And we see this. It creates massive bias. We’ve seen one of the biggest KZfaqrs comparing speakers to ice cream flavours and he says it’s what you might prefer, not the fact there is Ben and jerrys and budget stuff. It’s totally disingenuous. Another review guy told me point blank he reviews stuff well to monetise his badge awards and that he has an understanding before he even gets the product with one British speaker brand that he will get paid for the badge. What’s his review gonna say then? Inactually think it’s an example of a failed market and is really messed up. I think a model of less reliance on brands and more on consumers paying me is what will make me sustainable, and honest, but people have to stop being gullible. If they don’t support me I’m doing something else

That’s probably right. 😂

Who were they ?

I think it’s about being aware when bias happens. One way is removing ego. For example if I own a brands product and another brands product comes in and trumps it at price, that’s fine with me ….but you can tell many buyers online don’t like it. It’s like ‘my owned brand is always best’ attitude. The luxury of being a reviewer. If a reviewer just relies on the samples to sell them then I think it will show, as everything will be good. I think one of my commenters said in regard to Lachlan he is doing that, I called it fudging it. It’s not doing the brand any good and in fact it’s anti marketing and promotion because no ‘review’ is happening. Review means critical appraisal when it’s justified. It’s just bad, old school 80s hard selling to do these product placements, in a information sharing world nowadays it doesn’t work with smart audiences. I’d question what is the point of tuning into that. So you have to be smart with the way you review too. One example I’m up against at the moment is two streamers come in and sound quality is ok but not amazing and the products cost a bit more than competition but the products do have features with the app which may make them worthwhile. I can’t in the review just fudge it and say or imply sound quality is similar to the cheaper more common competition, if I’m going to be honest - most reviewers will just find a way to fudge it to keep the samples coming and everything the same. One called it ice cream flavours unbelievably. But what I’m going to do is talk to the brand and say ,if the app does make it worthwhile for the extra price - “I’m not happy suggesting sound quality is either the same or not better, at price.” Is that ok, but can I do a video that’s not a review but which helps, in those circumstances to promote it. If I think the app is the same as the competitor then I don’t want to do a review. This is a much fairer way of doing it because the brand won’t respect me if they think they just give the product out and the reviewer says it’s great. This way too I can help in other services like videography which means I don’t have to do reviews to promote products and do app guides and walk throughs, all of which help people online. Sometimes when I look at the content of some KZfaqrs I think the video skills are terrible and it must be soul destroying saying something is good for money to a pretty boring uncreative video where they aren’t considering ‘how can we do something different to promote this product’ On your point of stuff they like, I’d point out reviewing well is not based on what I like. I keep saying this which people don’t seem to get. I rate gear (or not) even if I don’t like the tonal character of the gear and I’d not buy it. It doesn’t mean I’m shilling the gear but it means I’m rating gear on how impressive it is sound wise and considering price in the mix. This is because I have to put myself in the position of another buyer who wants something of different character but equally as impressive at lower cost to the same or similar component. It’s a journalistic exercise. This is not really rocket science and it’s easy to tell which products have higher value for money.

It goes with the territory .I think my block list has got about 500 people on it so far after 4 years doing this. The worst one was a guy who said he wanted to kill me. So far it’s been overwhelmingly positive.

Thanks very much. I don’t think they are standard, or they shouldn’t certainly be so. Most companies don’t provide freebies. My aggravation with this industry is hifi companies conflating my wish to benefit (when I rate gear more than others and I’m clear about which) with the need to be journalistic and honest to an audience. That way there is no reason the reviewers can’t be supported by the firms and still promote their products, only when they are better than defined competition. I don’t ever want to benefit just by product placements - EVER! Largely this conflation comes from those commercial hifi firms, means their experience of reviewers, is the same (ie in it for a buck) and without any journalistic integrity. That’s not what proper hifi reviews is about. Sadly the market is mainly 80% of ‘dodgy’ reviewers this way. Darko, Gutenberg, pursuit perfect system, stereonet, hifiplus, a British audiophile.

As so you should, the review is a shortlist to balance your conclusion once you’ve tried. Affirm or reject the reviewer.

Thank you very much for the support, means a lot.

Thank you too. It makes me angry these people. It's destroying everything I hope to achieve in reviews.

He is helping people with the streaming engine diminishing returns angle and the comparison to the other DACs, but his reviews wind up to make pretty much everything positive, per his conclusion, and that should be an alarm bell when everything is. It depends if the viewer wants to know whether the review is pointing the buyer at what they think is best, not just reasonably so, or where available (patreon). If they aren’t what’s the point of the review…..They do have leverage if the reviewer succumbs to the paid review as Lachlan has, as the brand know they can do that again and it reduces the relationship, plus I refused to be bought. It totally undermines all the effort, passion and enthusiasm for making my videos. It also diminishes Lachlan’s value to Eversolo given most of the audience knows the above goes on…..If you want to see a forthright review watch my one on the pmc prodigy 5 ‘s. That helps people know that when a product competes, I’m benchmarking and setting my stall out because people know where this other product fits into the picture and why.

Yes I’ve done that eg ifi zen stream….but people take and don’t award. if you don’t subscribe to my patreon you will get bad products. That makes my own argument for me. Your thought should be why not subscribe given the difficult position reviewers are in. No….😀

Thx for your replies, Simon. I just got a bit triggered by your triggered response to PFS’s video! The basis for endless YT threads! ;) FYI, I did buy a Chord Mojo 2 based on watching a number of quite positive YT videos, including your’s, plus listening to one of these in a local bricks ‘n’ mortar store. I’m very happy with it used together with a pair of Sennheiser HD600 headphones. Perhaps the best advice I can give music fans is to be happy when they are satisfied with the sound of their gear, unless money is no object. Then get on with buying music that brings them joy before their hearing deteriorates. For all of us, the clock is ticking on the quality of our hearing.

I’m all over the gaffe with my politics - right, left and mid. Lol. Thanks very much

@@13thnotehifireviews7 sorry, if my presumptuous comment about politics was too intrusive. Thank you for your work. I struggle to connect with materialism and the ethos of capitalism, yet I love music and hifi. It’s perhaps this all too apparent contradiction that underlies my guilt revealing assumptions. Please accept my belated apologies. Peace etc.

@@gregh4292 no it wasn’t such a comment - I liked it. No need to apologise. I think it is an odd dynamic. Music is creative and free for all yet premium audiophile hifi is not available to all. It is a challenge the hifi industry needs to take on. 😀

I’m flattered, thank you very much 😀

You sound like an industry person from your comment on the pfs video. This is an important message that ultimately benefits everyone in hifi. I think he’s the best in the business at presenting and describing and quite cool at doing it, but it’s hard to believe KZfaqrs in this context of this brand sponsored model. It backs them into a corner of stating they are offering all their views on KZfaq, which many disagree with. The speakers are just ‘different flavours of ice cream’ statement…..ultimately I think there is a place for everyone and if my subs on KZfaq believe me and on patreon too, I’m benefiting the industry and that’s good for all. Cheers mate.

I’m obviously going to stick up for my model, but I genuinely think having done this for nearly 5 years this is the best one. If I get 250-300 patreon subs at £5 a month, with KZfaq income around £300-£400 a month at the moment, with some sponsored videos (brand ads at the start) and videos I can make, I can sustain this project. I need people to get the message and help and I’m doing loads of content for patreon and taming production values a bit to get more content out, so please all subscribe.

​@@13thnotehifireviews7 Ok will do, I like your reviews the "PFS" guy is fake when he reviewed a product and failed it because the coax spdif was noisy and it has Galvanic Isolation, which would mean it's defective!!!...... I use the FX-Audio SQ3 as a DIY Output DDC.... Amir had tested it technically with high marks

Thanks for pointing it out.

I was dealing with the issue that reviews with a money motive before a view is formulated have huge bias. If a reviewer decides to then trash a product then that’s one thing but your point is too simplified and seen through ‘rose tinted spectacles’ to the reality of most reviewers giving positive views even if they might not really think so, so there has to be a context. If all reviews were honest and capable of being honest I’d agree with your point.

One reasonably thinks the purpose of watching a review is for the very purpose incumbent in a review - Shortlisting and gaining an insight on products and perceptions which may or may not chime with viewers on trying products themselves…….If they are watching for reasons other than that or where that value judgement around the credibility of the review has no value to the viewer then I wonder what purpose is served in the viewer watching? Are they just watching as they like hifi and the video provides a vicarious window into what they should or might own , or what they might like doing themselves as a hifi lover wanting to do reviews, rather than this approach to reviews of people wanting to buy (good or bad) or an opportunity to do so. Regrettably I think hifi is flooded with the former and I think it’s an unenviable part of the internet which makes reviews not get conducted in a correct manner in which you allude and which you indicate makes reviews have no value to the casual observers. I’d much rather it were the case my reviews get watched by a smaller audience who are watching to buy or confirm otherwise and with own experience as I’d have more value that way and so too the audience considering buying. Ultimately what you describe diminishes my value .

I think you missed the point of the video