EdAInWestOC wrote:..you are taking a stance and viewing this as necessarily a bad thing since a review on a loaned piece of gear must be compromised since the gear is loaned by a manufacturer.
No, my point is that bias is applied as soon as the manufacturer chooses the reviewer. I'm also making the point that the initiative and motive is commercial, not philanthropic.
Ed, you're silent on my suggestion that no cable manufacturer is likely to choose ld to review a cable, despite the likelyhood of an extremely objective and impartial review. And if you concede that, then i reckon you've lost this argument, Ed. It's pretty obvious, IMO.
EdInWestOC wrote: It sort of takes care of itself if the manufacturer is ethical...or not. They benefit the most from impartial reviews.
No, they benefit most from a favourable review.
EdINWestOC wrote:The manufacturer must be willing to take the chance that they have done their homework and produced a quality component.
But manufacturers' 'homework' includes all the usual aspects of promotion and selling to the reviewer. Not least, choosing reviewers based on likelyhood of empathy, relationship building, briefings, expectation setting etc etc. With the aim of reducing the risk of a poor review. You said you're a businessman, Ed, you must know how such things are done !