My response to Darko's take on negative reviews 

To 'steelman' point 2, there are those who might consider treating reviews as product curation (only reviewing products the genuinely like), but the audience can't know this to be true since they have no evidence of what constitutes 'bad' in that case - and this includes a consideration for evaluations that provide some minor critiques with mostly positive sentiment. Moreover, when you look at the products that are actually being considered in the 'curation', invariably you end up seeing things that would be overwhelmingly objectionable to most people. Not saying it's impossible for that to be genuine but... it's highly unlikely.

OGs know this channel

My take: 1) Darko's Point 1: "Legal action does NOT happen all the time". I wouldn't say "all the time", either. But that's a strawman. He's never emailed me to ask about my reviews. I doubt he's polling other reviewers. So he doesn't know this to be certain. Then again, if *he* isn't giving negative reviews then he doesn't have personal experience here. And his point is therefore moot. 2) Darko’s Point 2: “The existence of negative reviews is not a prerequisite for the trustworthiness of positive reviews” It also depends on who you ask. Some viewers may find that reviewers who give only positive reviews are of little use. At this point the review is just a review of the manual with nice pictures; there’s no substance. Furthermore, and more pointedly, if a reviewer can’t point out bad gear then why do we need them? If they only have positive reviews, then we don’t even need content from them. They can make an Instagram post and say “speaker A” or “DAC Y” and we will know he liked it and it gets his approval. Boom. Efficiency! I like efficiency! I’m more interested in learning how and why you liked something and some evidence for it (i.e., data). Which requires you to break down the positives and negatives (there always are compromises). 3) Darko’s Point 3: Re: Collaborations. I’m not necessarily concerned because the reviews I pay attention to provide data. So as long as I trust the data then I don’t need someone’s opinion and I don’t need to worry about collaborations. What’s WAY more important to me is transparency. Fine. You don’t do collabs. But do you take money to conduct a review? Do you accept free gear or keep the gear you were sent to review? Do you use affiliate links that might influence your decision? I’m not opposed to you getting paid for your time and resources. I do #2 and #3. But I want to know so I can make the right judgment call. There is a reason why RU-vid has the "promotion" indicator when we upload videos and why the FTA has laws in place regarding influencers and transparency.

This video is a masterpiece. Thank you for clearly articulating why honesty and integrity are essential to the review process.

Resolve's Ramblings Ep. 1!!! Was looking forward to hearing your take on all this :)

This is an essential video. The lack of negative reviews undermines the credibility of hi-fi reviewers. I acknowledge that they are the result of disinterest or fear of repercussions. Regardless, it is hard for consumer like us to know if a product was not tested, or was tested and found bad. Negative reviews are common for movies and TVs, and some websites aggregate them. Why should hi-fi be any different? There is something rotten in hi-fi...

He turns off comments on these types of community posts for a reason

Hey remember the time John Darko, absent explanation, did a whole video about how a doorstop made his Modi 3 sound better because of "vibration damping"?

I’m blacklisted by a couple companies for not giving good reviews for everything haha many companies only share products with people who always give good reviews.

I think it still shows someone's merit when they respond so vitriolically to ANY negative feedback. Cameron's situation shows that the mettle of DCS is nonexistent.

Damn a new Resolve video and a new Beetlejuice in the same year. What a time to be alive

Thank you for saying the things that need to be said. I don't see any difficulty in making reasoned comments critical of a product when shooting a review. Nobody, including the manufacturers, have issues with that, at least the ones I've interacted with. You do make an important point about older manufacturers having difficulty dealing with the social media review landscape. Some simply refuse to deal with it at all, because of the stress. These things definitely should be discussed more. There's an opposite extreme of the "only positive reviews" criticism, and that's intentionally creating negative reviews. Many people are attracted to negativity (that's a whole discussion in itself) and there's somewhat of a trend of people creating deliberate negative reviews using misleading information, including misleading measurements (or conclusions about the meaning of their measurements), just to push an image of rebelling against the manufacturers.

I watch Darko’s channel for entertainment, not as source of trustworthy reviews.

I just want to say that I bought Focal Utopia based on your old reviews, about 4 years ago now. Been using it since with all manner of chains and I keep discovering what you meant with different nuances of your experiences with it. I had many other sets since including Susvara, Elite, 1266 TC (only other set I still own), but Utopia is scaling with my gear in a way which blows my mind. Now I run Cayin HA300MK2 with a few sets of totl tubes, and Utopia absolutely rips on that setup. Just wanted to thank you for those fantastic reviews back in the day. They set me on a trajectory that led me where I am today ❤

people should not make a purchasing decision based on one person’s opinion but that is the current state of influencer culture.

I take it from this response that you interpreted Darko's response (at least the first part) as a defense of manufacturers. I think, like almost all of his picture-of-text social posts, it's instead a response to feedback he's getting from the grumpiest, neck-beardiest cohorts of his community. I take this as indication that some obnoxious people are using the dCS ordeal to impune the credibility of "everyone" with what's effectively conspiracy theory, and this is his rebuttal which is part self shield, but which I read this as a response to a broader populist cynicism of the entire industry. Again, just based on his history of these text-image posts. EDIT: In other words, I dunno that Darko would really disagree with the takes you're giving but would still be annoyed by the rabble.

Resolve spotted in the wild! (edit) Yeah in honesty I pretty much agree with all your points here, I slightly disagreed on the point of whether or not the manufacturer has watched a video before Me the viewer has, but in doing so I pretty much came to the conclusion that its pretty much hearsay, and the reviewer could say one thing and still be biased with incentives like you said. also ps 5128 he6sev2 when??? 🙏

Point two is genuine lunacy by Darko, If someone is constantly putting out positive reviews that makes me think they’re either being paid or are just scared about pissing on the brand in questions bonfire and in both cases that reviewer has no credibility, On the other side and as shown in Cameron’s first video when this DCS thing came about he did show feedback from other companies when he did do a negative review and they were gracious and took it onboard and that is to be commended

John Darko´s point 2 - The existence of negative reviews is not a prerequisite for the trustworthiness of positive reviews. My interpretation of that statement is that some producers don´t make great products while others do. A reviewer can decide I not going to include those sub standard products in my reviews, I am just going to compare the good ones. So while I will compare brands A, B or C etc, brand Z won´t be mentioned. This could be because while brand Z is cheap it´s poorly made and sounds awful. They will still point out all the positive and negatives of each product they do actually review. I´m fine with this and I think a lot of reviewers follow this path.

One need only ask themselves "Why are the comments disabled on every single Darko Audio product review?" Because many people know he is a paid reviewer who doesn't give meaningful criticism. If he allowed for people to say as much on his videos, the uninformed people taking his content seriously would be unlikely to watch any further.

IMO, the best stack to listen to Resolve channel content is the warmest stack possible. Tube Filter lvl 3 on the DAC, rebelamp as a pre-amp, otl tube amp.

I don't follow Darko on Instagram, so I hadn't seen this before, but I *have* seen some of his videos on products that I've considered purchasing. They were not particularly helpful in my experience, and that's fine. Negative and critical feedback is part of the job of a reviewer. It is *inherent* to the process if you're doing your job properly. The purpose of someone truly, genuinely reviewing a product in the year 2024 is to inform consumers. Intentionally not publishing content which would otherwise be critical of a product is detrimental to that goal, and a disservice to one's audience. It also can indicate the difference between people or publications with integrity and those which lack it; i.e. the difference between reviews and thinly veiled influencer marketing.

I like how you organized your argument and presented it . I totally agree

Its been a while. I really like how you structure your communication. Very thoughtful and respectful to all parties, yet never skipping a beat.

Wow didn't expect you to upload here anymore

>negative reviews are not prerequisite for the trustworthiness of positive reviews Even if we steelman this with "a negative review is a review which is majority negative, but positive reviews can and should still include negatives", this really only adds up if 1, you simply refuse to review anything you dislike, and 2, your viewers are aware of this. "reviews as curation" is pretty much the best case for this POV, but it will inevitably leave you with a myopic view of the industry and the omission of popular reference points. In the strawman form of "if I get sent it, I give it a positive review", I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that yes, that clearly does destroy all truthworthiness, but I don't think even the steelman is compelling honestly.

Darko audio only does positive reviews, it's basically just an ad site.

It took me forever to find reviewers i trusted and the presence of weighted good/bad features was the only way. Unless you go through someone's entire catalog of reviews to find out if they are biased. I 100% support/agree with your stance.

my personal experience regarding this issue is a pair of speakers. multiple reviewers had given their opinion on them stating certain sound profiles being heard from them that were maybe less than positive. i felt that maybe they were being unfair in favor of another product. i bought them anyway because I thought they were being unfair & biased against them. i bought them anyway, set them up, listened, and i'll be damned if those reviewers weren't spot on in their subjective opinions.

Well done - seriously -- after following this industry for over 40 years: kudos for describing things as they are.

I don’t think Darko is saying that he doesn’t say anything negative feedback on products. He does sometimes, but I believe his stance is that he won’t do a review on something if he doesn’t have anything (or enough) good things to say about it. It’s a bit different. Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel like I’ve heard him state something to that effect before. Not sure where. Anyway, love your videos wherever they are published. Glad to hear that the DCS situation has been resolved. You guys are doing good work.

Man, I forgot I'm subscribed to the channel 😊 I think this would be a good behind the scenes or blooper channel. The problem with Darko's statement is when you said 'I don't think this is what Darko is saying' or 'this is how it comes across' The wording of his statement is bad, not well thought out or too off the cuff. If you make a statement online you need to think it out read it over several times to make sure the wording is good. This is especially true of folks who make a living on-line. When you make your living on-line and you make a statement, that on-line statement is on your company letterhead. You make a comment on company letterhead you better make sure it's worded clearly.

I'm not convinced. There really are two very different styles of reviewers: 1. Reviewers who only *post* reviews of products that they like. There are a bunch of folk who won't ever - or almost never write a review if they don't like the product. Darko, Steve Guttenberg, Steve Huff are examples. 2. Reviewers who post reviews of stuff they encounter - including stuff that disappoints them ( cheapaudioman, Audio Excellence Canada, OCD Mikey, Erin, New Record Day, Skunkie It's weird that this divide exists. I can see the logic for preferring reviews that mix positive and negative - but I don't want to limit my consumption to only these. Is this as simple as personality types? Is it that the positive only reviewers are more money driven? Steve Huff would seem to be a counter-example - given his low volume style. I get a deep satisfaction from negative reviews - maybe I'm just an asshole? I think this is a very interesting discussion.

A lot of good points covered. There are things that both manufacturers and reviewers need to consider and take responsibility for. Reviewers are not advertisers

Well point 1 agreed, however point 2 was the most important according to me, bashing other brands and saying one true brand is good is always an integrity issue. It's impossible that only one brand is doing good. And to that point where you explained curated product review: well said. I got notification on this channel, and I was there the OG channel.

The point about manufacturers trying to influence reviewers is a good one. In some ways legal action is at least one where there would ultimately have to be both documentation and evidence, some of the other more underhand practices remain hidden.

Glad to be an OG subscriber and receive this unexpected video on my feed. I agree with your thought provoking responses! Thank you for sharing them in this video format

Let’s be honest. It is practically impossible to know if a positive or negative review is due to a negotiation ( successful or failed ones)

Negative reviews help avoid buyer's regret.

I remember Darko saying in a video that he considers his reviews to be a form of entertainment, which is fine. But the way he goes about things isn't as well positioned to actually help the consumer compared to a more serious reviewer. I'd lump Zeos into that same camp. If I watch Zeos, it's because he's a great entertainer, not because I expect a hard hitting review that will really let me know the kind of product that I'm dealing with. I mean personally I've been approached by extremely large companies (pc hardware) to do "reviews," where they wanted to pay me to do said review and not disclose it. I told them to kick rocks to this option, and that this went against FTC guidelines. That sort of stuff is all over the place in the wild. I do wish that Darko didn't feel a need to position himself against Goldensound, as I'm pretty sure that comment about never taking consultancy roles was pointed at him. Bias is everywhere, all of the time, and we all deal with it. If you (as in anyone reading this) think you're able to completely avoid bias, you probably have more than most haha. So it breaks down to the rigor that people put into their work to develop frameworks to keep them as objective as possible. It's difficult. I stay subscribed to The Headphones Show and unsubscribed from Darko a long time ago for a reason. Not an us vs. them mindset, just following what I personally pulled the most value from based on what I'm looking for.

"Reviewer" means someone who reports to an audience their honest personal assessment of a product/service based on actually using it. Someone who curates products based purely on features and specifications can also be helpful. But they're less of a journalist and more of an enthusiast or influencer. Followers quickly pick up on whether "reviwers" are "negative" or just less positive. Crin did a whole video on this. And we've seen movie reviewers with 18 "top ten" movies in the same year. The key in all of this is context. For the Headphones Show creators, that's through objective measurements and direct product comparisons. But while affiliate links, sponsorships, ads and collabs are outward business practices--with varying effects on site/contributor reputations--there's a lack of transparency about the more nefarious ones you alluded to, including only featuring products with paid placement. Of course, the flip side is that these channels are not just informative but also entertaining. And the grand caveat is that much of this (especially in the audio world) is subjective. But integrity still matters, along with intentions.

Good job! I like your take on this. To be honest, I would not mind that a reviewer only releases reviews on things that they truly consider good. We do need the list of things submitted that did not meet the mark however. In the meantime DCS has taken steps with Cameron to solve the issue.

Darko’s points are all valid, up to legal action commencing - then things get real. The rest is a known social media tax that “content creators” have to live with or stop making content - or as a minimum prompt rethink the “pitch” of the content being published. E.G. measurements are valid as a benchmark to validate a product has been operationally engineered to MVP. The “sound” can be compared to other products and categorised. Similar with the use of materials, s/w (if relevant) or even user experience. Bring all this together and thats a great review and you have a growing data set for future comparisons. But if your actively debunking a manufacturers PR and creative use of language in their product pitch, your going to generate controversy. If you were a business, your content and supporting evidence would pass through legal before publication and an editor would have green light. In the “controversial” example, a choice is being made to attack a business. You have to get this position 110% right, or face the consequences like anyone else. Even then, companies may take a legal position to wear you down, discredit or in rare circumstances “buy & destroy”. Being a small RU-vidr makes little difference, neither does being 90% right. The law doesn’t change just because you’re a RU-vidr. Having said all of that, I have been following Cameron for years and really like his content + happy the community pulled together during this situation.

Darko being the one to make point 2 and 3 is uh... 😅

The fact that you dedicated 14 minutes of this video to someone like Darko is already way more than he ever deserves. Dude is nothing but a joker

Trusting Darko is like shooting yourself in the foot. Cut that guy out a while ago and I am fairly new to the audio world. The guy has nothing to say, he's paid heavily for his reviews and on top of that when reviewers critique what he says he sends out cease and desist orders even when he has no real reason to fight being critized. He did this to the scientific audiophile, and basically is the same exact garbage as dCs or tekton. Wish you spared yourself from wasting your own time by even making this topic. Yes, I know SA's channel is controversial and not the best by far. It's just funny to see even him with such a small audience is being attacked by darko

Excellent video. Very well thought out and reasoned points.

Darko’s reviews are more like showcases. He only has positive things to say about products, including but not limited to contradicting things. I saw him mention features that every other reviewer says don't work as features that he did not have the time to test. He is not a reliable source of information. He is an AD space, like a billboard. He used to have comments turned off on his RU-vid channel.

I work in the design industry, and critical feedback is 24/7 par-for-the-course. How that criticism is delivered, received and acted upon are all skills that need to be learned. For me it’s consistency and quality that matters, and ultimately my own ears and experience. Reviews are reference points to be weighed up. Entertainment. I never assume a reviewer is 100% accurate. If three or four reviews are mostly agreeing, then I’m more likely to trust the common ground. I can also usually trust a review for something I haven’t heard if that review is referencing several other pieces of equipment I have heard. The most confusing and potentially misleading reference for me personally is the caveat, “in this price range.”

I'm putting you in for Secretary of Communication. Excellent vid

damn. dude's the spitting image of Andrew! on a different note, dcs's position and handling of Cameron's review is both despicable and disgusting, but, all in all, have provided the community with a clear and objective view into who they actually are and how they operate, thus allowing at least myself to know not to give them my money. -since this became a long one (nothing better to do ig) I'll put a tldr here by saying I agree with most of what was said and I appreciate Andrew's direct input and careful elaboration of his views- Bullet points on social media directed or not to who knows who, are far from ideal as a means of communication. There's a lot of info that's missing and could be pertinent one way or another. Having said that, point 1 seems so overly generic and redundant that it could be interpreted as a specific reply to someone or something, or, to an extreme, a defence statement for the 'association of audio companies'. It also doesn't say anything about how often it truly happens and has happened, but it definitely fails to address its frequency, and, especially, its impact, both for potential clients, but foremost, the reviewers or others on the receiving end of said lawsuits. Again, bullet points do not offer enough info, but it is difficult to ignore the timing and correlations with all that's happening, particularly since it does not offer anything specific. Point 2 is a statement portraying itself as a universal rule, also falling short in providing much information. However, I would begin by mentioning that anyone is free to decide how to go about reviewing their choice of products. And I think that's fair enough. However, that does not make them automatically impervious to quality objections by the audience, and it surely more easily lends itself to raising an eyebrow, to say the least, about their integrity since, at the end of the day, almost all of the honesty is either self-purported or hearsay, as we do not get access to their bank statements. Conversely, I am also not saying that the absence of said monetary transparency instantly equates to wrongdoing and fair prejudice. I have seen reviewers receive direct or indirect revenue be it in the form of affiliate links, products and others, and that for me doesn't necessarily taint their objectiveness. It does make it more difficult for sure for the majority of people, consciously or not, to be as impartial as if they were not getting some form of compensation. Although, at the end of the day, we all need to make a living and YT isn't what it used to be, so I personally don't require there not be any form of extra payment, besides ad percentages, but I'd also mention that not everyone (myself included) is an ace at being a 100% fair arbiter on the many moral and ethical layers and ramifications of the x y or z's of the world of audio, and the other general one too. Also, one could as easily say, that the existence of negative reviews isn't on its own a synonym for impartialness, if anything, one could effortlessly come up with a hypothetical case for construing the opposite. Point 3 is quicker. Proof? Again, the lack thereof is not in itself, evidence to the contrary. I'd also add that I used to watch their reviews too, and after a few too many unsubstantiated claims, I no longer do. To be fair, some I can't prove otherwise either. Extra points of my own - also subject to my own potential hypocrisies. Measurements incontrovertibly add to a more concise picture, than subjective takes only. Both can be useful but the former suffers from far fewer questionable objections and biases, and this is taking into consideration that everyone's head-related transfer function will vary to a degree, but the mere interpretation of adjectives and their inherent subjectivity and agreed-upon definition or lack thereof, varies even more greatly, to mention merely one aspect of the subjective eval. My most valuable experience in this field has come from listening to each and every piece of gear I've bought and that collective sum as an experience. I now know what I like and how I like it. But I would be dismissive if I didn't recognise how much I also learnt from all the guys I follow in the reviewing scene (pity no gals, yet), from the most objective and technical - praise galore - but also to the more analogy and metaphorically leaning, as, IMO, there's pertinent information to be had in everything, the caveat being one needs to know what to pick. 8 billion people share a large common view of the world. But not 100%, and never 100% of the time. sry for the long post. no potato unfortunately

How do reviewers standardise for break-in? And how much does unit variation play a part?

Never subbed so hard to a 1 video channel in my life. Post more stuff here man!

Hey Andrew, I was thinking you could use this channel to talk about philosophy-I love hearing your thoughts on that. Maybe you could also do some game streams?

Reviewers are just like movie critics, restaurant critics, etc. You can listen to Siskel and Ebert or not. I didn't watch movies based on their recommendations and I don't buy audio based on reviewers opinions. I just like hearing about audio as I like hearing about sports, regardless of whether or not I agree with the sports broadcaster's commentary.

Steve Huff Hi-Fi channel doesn't put out reviews of bad products. He says if a product isn't good, he just doesn't talk about it. This can create some confusion because it either tells me a product he didn't review either sucks or just wasn't reviewed by him. If he doesn't talk about a specific product or brand I have an interest in, I might jump to a negative conclusion just because he never talks about it.

Andrew I think your criticisms are fair here to bring up. The situation between Cameron and DCS has presented itself in such a complicated way with in some other peoples minds. I don’t fault Darko for saying the things he said, but in my opinion there are some things he said that do need some kind of corrective action. I appreciate you bringing some good points to light, so others can continue to learn from this situation. Thanks a million as always. I’m also wondering in my weird and troubled mind if DCS gifted Cameron a Lina stack as a peace offering. Lol.

1. "it does not happen all the time" Even if it happens ONCE, that's one time too many. If we don't take a stance against it now depsite the "few" times it happens, we're leaving the door open for it to happen MORE often in the future. There's no need to wait for a problem to appear to look for a fix when you can take preventive measures. 2. There needs to be negative reviews. Ignoring the trust aspect (since you could be distrusful of a negative review as much as you'd be towards a positive one), if all product reviews are positive, we lose a sense of scale. By not making reviews of the "bad" stuff, how are we to know what's not bad (as in both average and good). Even in overall positive reviews, there needs to be mention of the bads. Otherwise we can't get that scale and granularity, and the ability to see when two product of overall equal evaluation have opposit strength and weaknesses. Also even for the sake of companies, they might not like a bad review, but they *need* bad reviews so they can improve their products over time, 3. Sounds like some hollier than thou attitude and bitter to me lmao. Whoever that person is I've actually gained a level of distrust towards in some sort of Streisand effect (I know it's not the appropriate effect but it's all I could remember). Kinda like that Just Josh guy that criticized LTT/LMG a few days ago.

Darko is oldschool status quo. His friendly haut monde manner reeks of showroom shoe polish. If he says something negative, its because he thinks he has the heft to get away with it. And then we get a positive 'second take.' Makes my skin crawl. Darko is in it for Darko, and- with a backhanded sort of generosity common in the sort- other people similar to himself.

Agree with your thoughts mate. Only thing I would say is to point 2 some reviewers may have a "If I've got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" mentality, which I think if fine. Due to how subjective this hobby is 2 reviewers could have 2 completely different opinions on a same product and the viewers should be finding a reviewer that has similar tastes as them and listens to similar music. If you go to reviewer has this mentality of not doing negative reviews, us as viewers can see that no review has been done and therefore perhaps the product is not for them. Again because they could get on and leave a negative review that someone could watch that the particular product could be right for them but is deterred due to the review. This made so much more since in my head then what I have written. My Apologies.

Wow I thought I would never see a video on this channel again

I agree that John has kind of missed or glossed over the issue, and as a Patreon supporter of his, have given that feedback.

Darko does not allow for comments on his shallow posts. The guy sucks.

Darko is just stating the rules that have applied to audio gear reviewers since the old hi-fi magazine days. Always talk up the positives and minimise the negatives, otherwise manufacturers will stop spending money on advertising in their publication.

I may be wrong but I interpret John Darko comment re negative reviews means he won't review or post review of something he thinks are bad and not recommended. There are some reviewers who state they prefer to not post reviews of product they do not recommend (ie they return and don't post a recipe). This is different than not saying anything bad about product being assessed, I do also watch Darko reviews and he does point out flaws or weaknesses in what he reviews. So his review let's me know the product is not bad but also provides useful info on if I'd be well served given my tastes. Let me state that GoldenSound is one of my favorite reviewers (as are you 😊) and I think what DCS did and especially how they have managed is just absurd and tone deaf as it comes. I feel bad for the company and surely the majority of staff at DCS, I even feel sorry for the law firm as I am sure they were recommended to stop. On the point re this doesn't happen a lot, I agree the issue is larger than lawsuits and I also agree collabs are not an absolute objectivity/ trust issue. Thanks and keep up the great work but I am ok if some reviewers don't want to post bad reviews as long as they are clear about it and if the reviews they do post include some critical mentions and are not all rainbows and lollipops 😊

Some reviewers like Thomas and Stereo only put to air reviews of products that he really likes. He may still say negative things but he doesn't want to hurt manufacturers who are having a go.

These are good takes sir.

Hmmm.... on point 2: I think what Darko is saying is that he only publishes a review where the item merits it. If he receives an item that does not, in his opinion, meet the standards expected of it it is returned to the manufacturer/supplier unreviewed. I believe this is accompanied by an explanation as to why the item does not meet the expected standard. He is NOT saying that he automatically gives every product a good review. Now whether this is a good or bad practice is a separate argument. Personally I have no problem with it. YMMV.

People constantly bring to the table the fact Darko sponsors products like Audioquest So it’s easy for you to identify which product would be receiving positive review. Isn’t it? I’m fact he is being very open regarding the products that might be affected for this “ conflict of interest “ Secondly, how often he make videos from Audioquest or the gear sponsoring him? Don’t you thing is more like an advertising such we had from companies in sound and video magazine?

1. Is a review for the purpose of consumer/buying advice, or is it more about what a product does and whom it might suit? The first assumes an absolute/objective/functionality goal, while the second acknowledges that people have different requirements and tastes. 2. You’ve made some assumptions about what Darko means and it’s obvious you haven’t listened to any of his podcasts that deal with negative reviews and the purpose of hifi equipment. As a result, you’re not actually addressing anything relevant to what he’s saying. 3. I would LOVE to hear the two of you do a podcast together to discuss the nature and purpose of reviewing. The two of you come at it from different angles, both having a great deal of merit. I suspect you share more common ground than not.

Darko is a highend shill, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as he's honest, just be aware that he's more a part of the marketing team than the community.

Beta traditional audio company: oh no, this bad review may bankrupt our business Alpha chi-fi: we got a bad review, we need to release a better product in 2 months for a smaller price

Freedom of voices shouldn't be interfear altho, that's freedom of voices anyway...Peace!

Its the headphone show guy!😮

Thanks for posting - I did stop about 1/2 way through - for me personally, generalities, and that seems to be at the core of what's supporting your position, simply doesn't cut it, again at least for me personally. To strengthen or enforce your position about anything, let alone this topic - I'd prefer that you sight solid, documented evidence and "actual" examples. What I'm pointing out and for example, when you claim: "you don't have to look far to see - - - " @ about 2:58 well, ok, where? Direct me so I can "see" what you're referring to, especially if I don't have to search much and you're insinuating, so, where? Personally I've never seen a report of a manufacturer claiming a reviewer was "paid" to say critical things, that's a bold statement, basically that's a manufacturer accusing fraud - so what manufacturer said that and to what reviewer was it said? Nice you brought these things up and no, it's not that they may or may not be actual, but if they are, where are they? Who were or are the players and when, and where, etc.? And yes, I do think that what dCS did and regardless of their claim of an employee acting "out of the circle" was despicable and I'll never read, watch any reviews of their products going forward much less consider buying a component from them. So, having pointed out my personal feelings about the dCS incident, it's not like I don't have a genuine interest in your "response" to Darko, but where are the actual facts or statics or documents, etc.?

I think Darko's point 2 might be talking about curated review platforms where anything negative would have not been made into a review piece, but in that case i agree with you that those reviews are not fulfilling the original purpose of reviews, which is to provide objectivity

So, time to take the queen off Canadian currency, or…?

Trust me bro, lol. Great point.

I think it's easy to read too much into John Darko's comments. Clearly he is concerned to preserve the obviously excellent relationship between the vast majority of audio tech manufacturers and reviewers (point 1) which offers some balance to this situation. As to point 3, it is entirely reasonable to point out that if any reviewer were to undertake a collaboration with a product manufacturer for which they expect to be remunerated and then produce a highly critical review of another product which is competing in exactly the same space, they expose themselves to the argument that they may have a conflict of interest even if they are being entirely subjective. Again, that seems an entirely fair observation. Point 2 does seem to be stating the obvious.

Oh snap! I’m on Resolves RU-vid haha

Darko lost any credibility for me back when he reviewed audiophile rocks that weigh down and reduce resonances inside your amp/dac. Just can't take the guy seriously, I never watch his stuff.

I totally agree with this channel’s take on negative reviews: if a reviewer has 0 negative reviews, then their opinion is worthless-unless they explicitly state “I simply refuse to publish reviews of products I didn’t like and couldn’t be positive about, and the list of those products is: A, B, C, etc” without going into further details. When you have nothing negative to say, then anything positive you say basically has no merit to it and builds no confidence in the audience… So Darko Audio is completely wrong there, and that’s why I don’t listen to Darko Audio…

From a viewer perspective when reviewers have collabs with companies it makes their reviews on those types of products less credible.

Darko's not a reviewer. He's a salesman. The arguments he makes when reviewing devices are based on anything but fact ; he's essentially selling lifestyle arguments and he's the sort of guy who otherwise you'd find selling the services of an interior decorator to London's Bond Street crowd.

I think Darko’s comment 1 is stupid, in danish we would call a stråmand (strawman), because nobody is saying it happens all the time - so the statement is obvious and therefore not conducive to any discussion. But I think you misunderstand Darko’s comment 2. For me a negative review is one where the overall conclusion is that the product is not good or at least is not good enough for the price. If the overall conclusion is positive, you can still mention poor or bad aspects of the product- so it’s not like you say, that everything should be positive. So I would agree with Darko, that if you only choose to publish reviews on products you generally like, it can still be helpful. However I also find that including negative or semi-positive reviews is preferable.

whats your mic setup?

Thank you, agree 100%.

You basically agreed with what he said, depending on how you decided to interpret his statements! Not sure what you were trying to achieve with this video. It is an interesting discussion, and maybe a more interesting take would be for you to have real discussion with Darko, as both you and Darko’s approaches to this discussion seems a little simple in its approach.

I do not like Darko's reply in its totality, but I particularly do not like the first point. Luckily threatening, do not happen every time. But the fact that they happen even a single time is relevant, and trying to mild it stressing it is not frequent is hypocritical. Thank you for your video

Re #2, disagree. Highlighting only the good provides data points. Frequently, it is a middle ground, some good, some bad, some ugly. And it depends on the interested party's preference. Take single driver speakers, not for everybody, I love mine. Class A amps: some like the clarity, some hate the heat output. Re #3, getting review gear lent is certainly a problem. Reviewer buying the piece with their own money imbues the review with most trust. I don't think Darko buys all the gear he reviews. In fact, I cannot think of any major reviewer (say, audiophiliac, Andrew Robinson, etc.), who purchase all the equipment they review with their own money. And there's also a bias/bribe of which manufacturer is lending review gear to which reviewer. So "viewer beware" is certainly advised.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with Darko. On his podcast he's talked to these points further.

Don't you share reviews with manufacturers first? Tell them up front that an item misses the mark and it's better not to publish your review.

Articulate and well-considered as always. Brilliant reviewer!

Well done Resolve, an A+

This post does not help us as a community and as reviewers. in fact it exacerbates and Leeds credence to behaving in such a manner as a manufacturer. I do not understand the incentive behind such a post, because in this situation DCS were outright wrong. We will not tolerate such behaviours from a manufacturer to destroy this line of work because of her feelings or just because of the fact they don’t like something or they feel as though the product should be put on a pedestal. A shorter form narrative of this video needs to be on the headphone show, we need to stick together on this one, the situation itself is resolved now but we do not want this door to be left ajar for other manufacturers to behave in such a manner Because I can promise you they would’ve been much smaller channels that would’ve been terrified of this scenario and would’ve had to comply because of the fear or they might have been too scared to speak out, We will not let it become a thing, whatever it takes

If you give a negative review you are opening up yourself to legal action so why risk it , just don't review it.

Totally forgot this channel existed lmao

I actually think you missed on point 2 a bit. There are reviewers that simply do not choose to make videos/ articles about products they think are particularly bad. I'm gonna give Darko the benefit here and suppose that's what he's referring to- he might even be a good example of that. Those same reviewers can tell you things they don't like about a product while still liking it overall. Again, I think he is pretty good example.

Please stop fighting with Darko. 😂

Has he deleted his Instagram? I cant find the post