[howdy]

Don't change for anyone, I trust your reviews and look forward to reading them because I know they are the truth. There are a lot of jealous and over zealous people out there.

 

[TwinACStacks]

I think Your review style is Brilliant Brooko and your ethics regarding review samples straight up and flawless. I joined this forum for the Hobby, and of course got sucked in by the Hype and G.A.S. of new and better products. I never really intended to get into the review realm, I just kind of posted my thoughts on earphones that I've heard and purchased Good or Bad. EVEN I have been approached by manufacturers, (Believe me they READ this forum), for the same advertisement purposes. It's tempting but I personally have refused all such approaches in favor of being non-committed to any outside entities. This is why in a lot of my impressions or even reviews I have no comparisons because I simply don't OWN the particular device or anything similar in question.
 
I say Carry on. Your stuff, HisoundFi's, H20's, and many other's contributions are informative and needed. Especially  if you are a conscientious consumer who is here at the forum looking for some definitive answers and opinions on whether to purchase a certain piece of gear or just make a wise buying decision. Look at it this way you are providing a service.
 
That's my take on it.
 

TWIN

 

[Koolpep]

@Brooko 
 
Not so sure why people love to bash reviewers. Am not saying everyone should write reviews but bashing reviewers who put so much effort and time into it, is so easy, while contributing nothing to the community. If someone doesn't like a review - that's what the comment-section is for, or if you think it's a shill review, report it. Why the negativity.
 
You are certainly one of the reviewers with the most integrity I know and please just continue and don't let a few voices question you so much. They will always find something....
 
I do review occasionally and sometimes I get a review sample unfortunately I have to return them all, haha, my review sample supplier lives close by and is a friend. So if I like something, I write a review, if I really don't like something. I rather don't waste my time writing about it. That's not necessary helping the equilibrium but to be honest, I have other hobbies as well, so I try to focus on pleasant things. And pleasant for me is to praise good audio products that I enjoy. I have a feeling a lot of people see it that way. Tyll from innerfidelity does the same thing.
 
But you do more than that, you really take it way more serious. Please continue doing this, disclaimer is totally fine. 
 
About the argument that one needs to own the things that are reviewed, that's rubbish. The confirmation bias is 100times stronger than the bias you might get if something comes for free. People come up with all kinds of silly reasons. What good is it if someone owns one headphone and reviews it. Might not have ANY reference or exposure. I rather have someone who has reviewed and listened to hundreds of headphones review it, even if it's a present, loaner or whatnot.
 
Really shaking my head about what people have problems with. This is a community website, if people from the community can't review things as long as it doesn't violate the rules, then... my mind will blow...in a bad way

 

[twister6]

Paul,
 
The last time I checked, your signature said "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".  I read the last few pages of that thread, and see a few people really enjoying provoking you because you keep coming back, explaining yourself, trying to make a point to those who don't care.  You have NOTHING to prove to these guys.   Your earned reputation and respect from this community speaks louder than any words.  You made your point, unsubscribe, and move on.  It's not worth your time.

 

[paradoxper]

No one took issue with review samples nor his review style or communion through his church.
 
The discussion stemmed from someone asking -
To 'FREE' or not to 'FREE', that is the question.
 
Keeping review samples, if you're too thick was the topic at hand.
 
Brooko was simply challenged to be more transparent on the matter. I don't see how it is difficult, if you don't return your review samples, you keep them. They're FREEBIES.
 
And before you fanboys blindly back up Brooko, take the time to read the thread in full to understand its context. No one said Brooko was a liar or a bad person or a ****ty reviewer.
In fact, part of the discussion pertained to how Brooko is one of the big boys in this space. Though he's stepped it up, we'd like to see him be even more transparent.
 
Funny enough, Audio360 agrees keeping gear for free is CRAZY! Are we that out of bounds....
post #91

 

[paradoxper]

So I've read the thread you linked and the issue of reviewing free 'sample' gear vs purchased gear is absurd in my opinion. Yes, if you are a shill for a company and gloss over glaring faults then yeah.... but you aren't, and you don't.

How else can you get to your review level without a large sample size of different gear unless you're independently wealthy with nothing but free time? The amount of gear you review is a benefit to the community as you have a broad base to draw from for comparisons and a lot experience to share. Without this exposure I wouldn't trust the reviewer to know what they are talking about.

How about you take a stay back. Brooko is a reviewer and you may very well know he's not a shill, but you're his best pal. How about for the unsuspecting viewer reading his reviews? Wouldn't they like to know full context on whether he's simply reviewing the sample or if there may be bias in ownership.

 

[twister6]

  No one took issue with review samples nor his review style or communion through his church.
 
The discussion stemmed from someone asking -
To 'FREE' or not to 'FREE', that is the question.
 
Keeping review samples, if you're too thick was the topic at hand.
 
Brooko was simply challenged to be more transparent on the matter. I don't see how it is difficult, if you don't return your sample units, you keep them. They're FREEBIES.
 
And before you fanboys blindly back up Brooko, take the time to read the thread in full to understand its context. No one said Brooko was a liar or a bad person or a ****ty reviewer.
In fact, part of the discussion pertained to how Brooko is one of the big boys in this space. Though he's stepped it up, we'd like to see him be even more transparent.
 
Funny enough, Audio360 agrees keeping gear for free is CRAZY! Are we that out of bounds....
post #91

 
Oh, my apologies, I guess I misread where some twentysomething implied ".. except for your BS" to head-fi Contributor who is probably old enough to be his father

 
It's a very simple formula.  Regardless of how you obtained your review sample, it's about the content of the review.  If you are shilling or lacking or pulling stuff out of your arse, your readers will pick up on your insincerity, especially if they purchase a product based on your recommendation and it turns out to be something else.  The consistency of thorough reviews is what build the reputation and respect.
 
Regarding obtaining review samples, most of the respected popular review sites get it for free and allowed to keep it for a long term use and comparison.  There are some that even disclose they received it for free even so manufacturer is a sponsor of their website.  The same is being offered to community reviewers who have been in the game long enough and proved themselves to manufacturers with their consistent work.  And most of it is under the assumption that it could/will go back.  I still check with A&K every few months if they want me to send back AK120ii I reviewed a year ago, and I get periodic feedback from some PRs or direct Marketing of the company acknowledging they read my review of another product where I used their product in comparative analysis.
 
Regarding paid vs reviews received in exchange for "my honest opinion", I like to see both because these reviews are done from a different perspective.  When you purchase the product, many people put a price of it as one of the important factors, justifying the purchase and expressing their opinion if it's a good value or another diminishing return upgrade.  Reviewers of product who received it without paying for it, focus more on the actual sound quality and the design, leaving it up to their readers to decide if it worth their money.  At least, that's my perspective.  And I always appreciate and encourage people to write their reviews about purchased product.  Unfortunately, people usually go on-line to complain about the problem rather than to praise the product.  I get a number of PMs and comments after my reviews with people saying "that's exactly how I hear these headphones or how I found this DAP", and my first response is "why not take a few pictures and write a paragraph or two about your experience?"
 
But anyway, the bottom line, it's a gray area in many cases where manufacturer asks you to keep review sample for long term use - you don't know exactly if it's free or a loaner to be returned back.  That's why we write "I received this review sample in exchange for my honest opinion".  And if after reading that review you don't agree that opinion was honest, then you can question if buying vs receiving it "as is" played a role in that.  Fair enough?
 

 

[paradoxper]

   
Oh, my apologies, I guess I misread where some twentysomething implied ".. except for your BS" to head-fi Contributor who is probably old enough to be his father

 
It's a very simple formula.  Regardless of how you obtained your review sample, it's about the content of the review.  If you are shilling or lacking or pulling stuff out of your arse, your readers will pick up on your insincerity, especially if they purchase a product based on your recommendation and it turns out to be something else.  The consistency of thorough reviews is what build the reputation and respect.
 
Regarding obtaining review samples, most of the respected popular review sites get it for free and allowed to keep it for a long term use and comparison.  There are some that even disclose they received it for free even so manufacturer is a sponsor of their website.  The same is being offered to community reviewers who have been in the game long enough and proved themselves to manufacturers with their consistent work.  And most of it is under the assumption that it could/will go back.  I still check with A&K every few months if they want me to send back AK120ii I reviewed a year ago, and I get periodic feedback from some PRs or direct Marketing of the company acknowledging they read my review of another product where I used their product in comparative analysis.
 
Regarding paid vs reviews received in exchange for "my honest opinion", I like to see both because these reviews are done from a different perspective.  When you purchase the product, many people put a price of it as one of the important factors, justifying the purchase and expressing their opinion if it's a good value or another diminishing return upgrade.  Reviewers of product who received it without paying for it, focus more on the actual sound quality and the design, leaving it up to their readers to decide if it worth their money.  At least, that's my perspective.  And I always appreciate and encourage people to write their reviews about purchased product.  Unfortunately, people usually go on-line to complain about the problem rather than to praise the product.  I get a number of PMs and comments after my reviews with people saying "that's exactly how I hear these headphones or how I found this DAP", and my first response is "why not take a few pictures and write a paragraph or two about your experience?"
 
But anyway, the bottom line, it's a gray area in many cases where manufacturer asks you to keep review sample for long term use - you don't know exactly if it's free or a loaner to be returned back.  That's why we write "I received this review sample in exchange for my honest opinion".  And if after reading that review you don't agree that opinion was honest, then you can question if buying vs receiving it "as is" played a role in that.  Fair enough?
 

You did miss context there as well. Brooko implied we were saying he's doing it for free gear, he remedied his mistake. 
 
Brooko evades receiving FREEBIES. Where he's coming from he doesn't consider any of it his. At any time he feels he will return the review samples. BUT once again, he doesn't.
Whether he wants to keep the review sample or the manufacturers write it off is not the point. 
 
It's important to understand some reviewers aren't up front intentionally. Brooko is a leader in this space, so why not drive him to set the standard.

 

[Brooko]

  You did miss context there as well. Brooko implied we were saying he's doing it for free gear, he remedied his mistake. 
 
Brooko evades receiving FREEBIES. Where he's coming from he doesn't consider any of it his. At any time he feels he will return the review samples. BUT once again, he doesn't.
Whether he wants to keep the review sample or the manufacturers write it off is not the point. 
 
It's important to understand some reviewers aren't up front intentionally. Brooko is a leader in this space, so why not drive him to set the standard.

 
Brooko does not evade anything.  I've stated my position clearly.  Because you (and a very small number of people) seem to only accept your own version of what free means, you seem very happy to paint me with a label. Why should "the standard" I'm supposed to set be "your standard"?
 
The funny thing is that in your other reply above:

And before you fanboys blindly back up Brooko, take the time to read the thread in full to understand its context. No one said Brooko was a liar or a bad person or a ****ty reviewer.
In fact, part of the discussion pertained to how Brooko is one of the big boys in this space. Though he's stepped it up, we'd like to see him be even more transparent.
 
Funny enough, Audio360 agrees keeping gear for free is CRAZY! Are we that out of bounds....
post #91

 
You mention "we'd like" - but who is we?  Who do you speak for?  If you're going to use plain language - like you're suggesting I need to do - then how about some yourself?  You then go on to link a post where the discussion was on someone who was obviously shilling.  What is your agenda?
 
Either way - I don't care.  I'll let the thread run for a day - but I seem to have my answer.  I've been worrying about something I don't need to, and I should have thicker skin.  If you have an issue with me or my disclaimer - report it to the admins.  Report it to the manufacturers.  Do whatever you want.  I'm finished with you.  You hide behind the idea that you're doing it for the good of the community, setting the standards etc In reality - you're taking a shot at an easy target.
 
I refuse to play the game.
 
Paint me as you will.

 

[Brooko]

To everyone else - thanks for the comments.  I appreciate that most of you actually "get" the point I'm trying to make.

 

[paradoxper]

   
Brooko does not evade anything.  I've stated my position clearly.  Because you (and a very small number of people) seem to only accept your own version of what free means, you seem very happy to paint me with a label. Why should "the standard" I'm supposed to set be "your standard"?
 
The funny thing is that in your other reply above:
 
You mention "we'd like" - but who is we?  Who do you speak for?  If you're going to use plain language - like you're suggesting I need to do - then how about some yourself?  You then go on to link a post where the discussion was on someone who was obviously shilling.  What is your agenda?
 
Either way - I don't care.  I'll let the thread run for a day - but I seem to have my answer.  I've been worrying about something I don't need to, and I should have thicker skin.  If you have an issue with me or my disclaimer - report it to the admins.  Report it to the manufacturers.  Do whatever you want.  I'm finished with you.  You hide behind the idea that you're doing it for the good of the community, setting the standards etc In reality - you're taking a shot at an easy target.
 
I refuse to play the game.
 
Paint me as you will.

What is a FREEBIE, Brooko? Come on. You don't pay for it, it's free. Logical thinking.
 
You know it was Taffy that brought up the discussion, stop playing stupid. 
 
The link wasn't in reference to that person shilling. It was Warren explicitly stating we don't receive any revenue from outside sources nor do we keep review samples. That clear cut. 
Stop convoluting the discussion.
 
I'll take shots at everyone and I can take shots in return. I'm not sensitive. 
 
I'm not doing anything for the community, I am simply challenging current standards and engaging you to be more transparent.
 
As said, I don't really pay attention to reviewers or trust them. What a great thing it could be if you were the one to change things.
 
It's all about giving consideration to new ideas or standards. You are way too touchy, though.

 

[Brooko]

A freebie is something that is given freely, without any encumberment - yours to keep, to give away to sell - yours.
 
I thought I'd established that in my opening post - explained it many time, and explained the difference between the term I use "gratis" and the one you propose "free".  Yet apparently I'm the one who should stop playing "stupid" - thanks BTW.  Like I said - agenda.  You seem to have one.
 
And so the "we" is you and Taffy (and maybe a couple of others) - Ok.
 
I don't keep review samples either - I've stated my position on it - oh and BTW - I'm not going to change.  Period.  If you have an issue with that - fine.  Pick another target. I'm done with you.
 
Finally - how about you and Taffy start setting this mythical standard you want?  Assuming the silent majority care about it - I'll be interested to see your reviewing prowess grow .......
 
In the meantime, the majority of others don't seem to have any issue with my disclaimer.  Carry on your crusade - just do it without me involved please.

 

[paradoxper]

You could freely give yours away or sell it. Just not on Head-Fi as that's flipping. I'm tired of this limbo game.
 
You do keep review samples. You're now flat out lying.
 
I'll go dig the post up, if you'd like.
 
You yourself said manufactures don't ask for the review samples back, so you keep them...Seriously dude...
that is the whole focus of our banter.

 

[FastAndClean]

Keep Doing What You're Doing, i like your reviews

 

[Koolpep]

  You could freely give yours away or sell it. Just not on Head-Fi as that's flipping. I'm tired of this limbo game.
 
You do keep review samples. You're now flat out lying.
 
I'll go dig the post up, if you'd like.
 
You yourself said manufactures don't ask for the review samples back, so you keep them...Seriously dude...
that is the whole focus of our banter.

 
I wouldn't accuse people of lying publicly. Keeping something does not mean he is lying. There is a important difference. @Brooko might have the things in his possession but he doesn't claim ownership. You can possess things (like a stolen car) but you don't own it. As far as I understand, Brooko clearly refuses that ownership to these review samples. He keeps them, some don't want to pay for the shipping back but that doesn't make Brooko the owner. Especially if he refuses to take on ownership of them. He doesn't sell them, nor gives them to other people to use. Legally there is a distinction. What he could do (like you said, he could flip them if he wanted to) doesn't matter. It's not minority report here. It's what he actually does with them that counts. 
 
However, since there are reviewers with lower moral standards that are just in for the freebies, I see the point that mentioning clearly what the agreement with the manufacturer is, would be beneficial.
 
Cheerio!