The Audio Science Review (ASR) website has become a significant player in the audio equipment review landscape, where its founder Amir Majidimehr conducts rigorous tests on various audio products and publishes the results alongside his written review. The reviews then become the focus of comments from Forum members, often leading to quite heated discussions on the product’s performance as outlined in Amir’s review. The website’s approach has sparked controversy, particularly when negative reviews have led to substantial business impacts for the companies involved. Two cases that highlight this are the reviews of products from Tekton Designs and Bob Carver Corp.
Case Summaries:
- Tekton Designs: Tekton Designs came under fire in October 2023 after ASR published a review of their Mini Lore speakers, which included poor performance measurements and subsequent negative commentary. The backlash was swift and severe, leading to a public dispute between Tekton’s owner and ASR. The owner of Tekton Designs threatened legal action, which escalated the situation into a highly publicized controversy. The negative press from this review reportedly had a significant impact on the company’s sales, as publicly acknowledged by the owner. [My take on this saga between ASR and Tekton, also involving ‘Erin’s Audio Corner’ can be read in detail here.]
- Bob Carver Corp: Just as a new iteration of Bob Carver Corp was being launched by Jim Clark and Bob Carver in February 2022, aiming to rejuvenate the brand with new products, ASR published a review of the Bob Carver Crimson 275 amplifier. This review pointed out that the amp’s transformers were under-rated and incapable of producing the advertised power output. It also later came to light through forum discourse that a potentially lethal issue with the amp’s earthing arrangement existed. Although these issues were associated with designs from previous versions of the company and not the newly launched entity, the review caused severe reputational damage, contributing to poor sales and the eventual closure of the company on April 23, 2024.
Moral and Ethical Obligations – YES OR NO?
The situations involving ASR, Tekton Designs, and Bob Carver Corp raise critical questions about the moral and ethical obligations of review platforms like ASR. The fundamental ethical dilemma centers on the balance between the duty to provide honest, objective consumer information and the potential consequences of that information on businesses.
Arguments Against ASR’s Approach:
- Potential for Harm: Negative reviews, especially those highlighting significant flaws, can disproportionately damage small companies’ reputations and financial viability.
- Responsibility for Accuracy: If not meticulously accurate, testing methodologies and their interpretations can unfairly harm a company’s reputation.
- Impact on Livelihoods: The closure of businesses following harsh reviews affects not just company owners but employees and their families.
Arguments Defending ASR’s Approach:
- Consumer Protection: ASR’s primary obligation is to its readers and the broader consumer base, providing them with accurate product measurements and subjective assessments to inform their purchasing decisions.
- Encouragement of Higher Standards: Rigorous reviews pressure manufacturers to improve quality and transparency, which can lead to better products in the market.
- Transparency and Honesty: Upholding integrity in reviews ensures that the evaluations are honest and unbiased, which is fundamental to the ethical standards of consumer advocacy.
The arguments listed above assume that ASR is operating fairly and without any negative bias or agenda toward the subjects of its reviews. From what I can see on their website, that appears to hold mostly true. (my objective assessment of what is an oftentimes subjective platform and community). However, once Amir’s reviews are published, they open the floor to the wider forum community, where the discourse often broadens in scope and tone. Unfortunately, this frequently leads to discussions that are less constructive and objective than the insights presented in the original review. It is often the commentary from the broader community that inflicts the most damage on a manufacturer’s reputation. An important question emerges: How effectively does Amir manage or attempt to manage the vitriol from his forum members? The degree of moderation and guidance he provides in overseeing these discussions plays a significant role in determining the extent of reputational damage that manufacturers may endure.
Impact of Forum Discussions: The dynamics within the ASR forum often exacerbate the negative impact of a critical review. When a product receives a poor review, forum members may engage in a ‘pile on’ effect, where multiple individuals add their negative commentary, further cementing a negative perception. This can escalate into severe trash-talk against not only the product but also the manufacturer, impacting the brand’s reputation and sales. Such discussions can create an environment that feels akin to a witch hunt, where objective critique blends with subjective disdain, making it difficult to separate fair assessment from hyperbole and bias.
Challenges for Manufacturers in Responding: In this charged atmosphere, manufacturers find themselves in a precarious position. Responding to criticisms on the ASR forum can be daunting when the community largely supports ASR’s findings and its owner, Amir. The alignment of forum members with the review outcomes can make any attempt by manufacturers to clarify or correct aspects of the review seem self-serving or defensive, often to little avail. This scenario is challenging because it does not provide a balanced platform for manufacturers to engage in constructive dialogue about their products. Of course, it’s quite easy for manufacturers to take a defensive or even an aggressive stance given what’s at stake. Case in point – Eric Alexander and his threat of litigation towards Amir should he refuse to remove/correct the negative review.
Potential Bias and Implications for ASR’s Reputation: There is a concern that Amir, as the owner and chief reviewer, might be building a following and a reputation at the expense of manufacturers – intended or otherwise. This situation raises questions about the fairness and objectivity of the forum as an assessment environment. While rigorous and critical reviews can drive improvements in product quality and encourage transparency, shouldn’t they also ensure fairness and allow for equal responses from reviewers and manufacturers alike?
Fairness and Ethical Considerations: The key to maintaining fairness lies in the ability of the forum to foster a respectful, informative, and balanced discussion. ASR has the opportunity—and responsibility—to moderate discussions to prevent unfair damage to manufacturers’ reputations and to provide a space where constructive criticism leads to industry improvements rather than just controversy. In my opinion, the forum fails to adequately maintain and foster an environment where fairness, transparency, and sensible moderation work together to provide truly useful information for potential consumers.
The fallout from both the Tekton and Bob Carver threads on the forum serves as clear evidence of shortcomings in the review and discussion process, in my opinion. These incidents highlight systemic issues where the initial reviews, while potentially grounded in factual testing, spark disproportionately negative reactions among the forum community. This often escalates into a frenzy of criticism that goes beyond constructive or technically valid commentary, venturing into personal attacks and hyperbolic negativity. Such dynamics not only tarnish the reputation of the manufacturers but also cast doubt on the credibility of the forum to provide a balanced and fair platform for product evaluation. This suggests a need for more robust moderation strategies and a reevaluation of how feedback and criticisms are managed to prevent similar scenarios from recurring.
Strategies for Balanced Engagement:
- Moderation Policies: Implementing strict moderation policies to curb personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims can help maintain a professional and respectful level of discourse.
- Manufacturer’s Right to Reply: Ensuring that manufacturers have a clear right to reply within the forum could help balance the narrative. This could be implemented as a formal response mechanism that allows manufacturers to address specific points made in the review while shielding them from a barrage of adverse comments from forum members..
- Community Education: Educating the community about the difference between constructive criticism and harmful commentary can elevate the quality of discussions and reduce bias.
You Decide.
While ASR has a responsibility to publish truthful, evidence-based reviews, I believe it also bears a moral obligation to consider the potential impact of its content on the livelihoods of those behind the products reviewed. ASR might argue that their responsibility is to the consumers, ensuring they make informed decisions based on reliable information, rather than concerning themselves with the business interests of manufacturers. Which approach is right? Please leave a comment below if you have an opinion on this.
Expanding ASR’s possible perspective further, they could contend that any consideration of a manufacturer’s well-being could potentially compromise the objectivity of their reviews. As long as the products are measured accurately and the results are delivered impartially, they are fulfilling their ethical obligation to the public. If manufacturers produce high-quality, accurately described products, then positive reviews will follow naturally, negating any need for concern about negative impacts. In this view, the onus is on manufacturers to meet the standards expected by consumers, and it is not the role of a review platform to cushion the consequences of product shortcomings.
I’m not suggesting that ASR should compromise on the truth but that there’s a need for a more balanced approach that considers the broader consequences of reviews. Perhaps enhanced dialogue with manufacturers before publishing negative reviews, or providing a right of reply, or better controlling negative forum-member opinion, could mitigate some of the more severe business impacts while maintaining reviewing integrity. This approach would serve both consumers and manufacturers, fostering an environment where constructive criticism leads to industry improvement rather than a business demise, as is the sad case with Bob Carver Corporation.
What do you think? Leave a comment below.
CAH April 2024
Discover more from Audio Resurgence - High End Audio Reviews and Products
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The internet is a cesspool you can’t trust anything anyone says anymore. Who says asr’s motives are for fairness to consumers? Why is that even a thing? Who cares about consumers anyway. Just let everyone figth it out and last man standing wins.
It isn’t just the ASR forum that goes overboard. Just look at audiogon and wbf.
I think Tangi might be right. It’s the Wild West, lawless, and corrupt. One only needs to spend a couple days on Twitter (X) to realize how hopeless it’s become.
The enjoyment of music is subjective. A little cheap piece of kit from China may measure well, but often sounds flat and lifeless.. especially when pushed even a little bit.. early distortions. ASR puts itself out as the arbiter of “quality” when in fact there is no objective “quality” for listening. People have a wide range of preferences and even physical differences. What is enjoyable isn’t always what “measures best.”
(especially when “measuring 40 year old devices of unknown provenance or blaming a company for devices built by a different company)
Insects may “measure” as the “best” protein source, but nope, never, ever.. And that type of “science” is what the “Audio Science” is pushing.
Go eat your insects if you want.
I will stick to my steaks, my Carvers and my Tektons because they satisfy MY preferences.
Anytime any single person or group of people intentionally bring harm to other individuals it is a very bad thing, regardless of the intention or reason. It’s odd how sometimes we cannot seem to learn from past history. Adolph Hitler jumps to mind quickly as do the congressional witch hunts of the 1950s against Hollywood. When we can’t learn as people from our past historical mistakes I feel sad wondering where we are heading.
Martin, In this case, it’s the manufacturers bringing harm to consumers. Reviewers are just shining a spotlight on it. They’re to be lauded for this, not shot down.
Amir’s methods are transparently presented. If someone has a contrary method, they are free to present that as well. And I have seen adverse views exchanged, generally cordially, in the past several years that I have been a member. If Amir were not transparent in his methodology, then that would be truly unfair. If I were to present a product with specifications, then it is on me to make sure my product fulfills those specs. If my product does not define specs or performance, then all is fair – Caveat Emptor.
Anybody can mesure the transparency of hifi stuff at home. Nothing subjective. Takes time and work. Don’t nead big money to do it any more. Only a computer and a standardised room.
Anybody can edit a review on the web and share the work he did before. That’s the way Internet work. Sharing is free and can be done honestly.
Both can ruin a reputation for sure. So what ?
You have plenty of professional subjective review if that’s your preference. But it’s not. That’s a matter of fact.
Then,it appears that transparency is not the goal for every one. Some may want to improve the music to their taste. Like cooking… But that’s not hifi anymore.
In fact, what you can read on ASR is simple : Transparent hifi stuff is quite cheap nowadays. No nead to pay more as you won’t ear any difference.
How can you choose between A and B if everything sound tranparent ? No way !
Hifi business is dead. No need to be sorry. ASR is not gulty. Transparency is. You have looked for it and now you have it.
And also, the logical way to cook with music when looking for taste is to use a DSP. May still need some research to produce good DSP… If the market really want it.
We would like any recording to sound good, even a bad recording. That’s a problem 🙂