Based on certain (unpublished) manufacturers' responses to specific reviews they considered lukewarm or overly critical, it seems prudent to reiterate certain aspects of the review process that we perhaps shouldn't take to be self-evident:

  • We cannot be advocates for the manufacturers. Instead -- and to use our own Chip Stern's words -- we must endeavor to write as consumers by proxy. If we find a product overpriced for what it delivers; or to suffer certain aesthetic, finish, performance, feature or interface issues; it must be our stated responsibility to alert the reader, not to downplay or even overlook those aspects. After all, we're not in the business of protecting manufacturers from themselves. It is their job to investigate the current status quo of product offerings to insure that their product and what they ask for it remains competitive. They can employ beta testers. They should purchase and investigate products from their fiercest competitors. They might want to pay for professional performance evaluations, independent lab tests or formal business plan consultations. But once someone enters our review process, we have to assume that they have done their home work and are prepared to let us do ours.
  • We have created three tools which manufacturers should use prior to committing to a review:
    • Our Reviewer Bios clearly describe the room and ancillary equipment of every writer as well as provide further impressions on personal biases (scroll down page to locate).
    • Our How & Why We Review statement explains the process in general.
    • The By Writer review archives make it easy to investigate every writer's work prior to any review assignment to evaluate matters of writing style, personal likes and dislikes and so forth.

  • Having made all of this information available upfront, we then cannot tolerate complaints about room size, ancillary equipment or style of presentation after a review is written. We can take neither responsibility nor blame if a manufacturer fails to perform due upfront diligence on us or their product.

  • Clearly, reviews are subjective findings and personal opinion. Additionally, 6moons does not use test equipment of any kind. Manufacturers should not complain about the very nature of this process in the wake of a review that criticized their components. After all, even a highly favorable review relies on the same subjective evaluations and personal opinions.

  • Reviews are supposed to be critical. If one is uncertain about one's product being ready for prime time, it is perhaps premature to pursue formal reviews.

  • If one does pursue reviews, one must be prepared for publicly stated opinions that could diverge modestly or even wildly from one's own. That plainly is the risk to embrace -- or the payment so to speak -- for enjoying the PR opportunity of being featured in any critical yet subjective performance evaluation.

  • To put it even more plainly, if a critical review can put you out of business, don't pursue the review. The decision whether to pursue reviews or accept review solicitations is entirely at the discretion of the manufacturer. We will always understand if one of our review requests is turned down for that or any other reason. However, once you commit to a review and dispatch review product, we have to assume that you have considered this matter from all angles and are fully cognizant of the risks involved. We then cannot and will not tolerate requests or underhanded machinations to have a review pulled or influence a writer's observations once the evaluation process has commenced.

  • Also, carefully consider how best to maximize your manufacturer's reply opportunity. What you say and how you say it reveals much about yourself and can negatively impact the actual review.

  • Be aware of the distinction between review and consultation. The former is free, the latter is paid for. The former is published, the latter for your eyes only. Any 6moons writer may be approached to act as a consultant if your product is still in the development phase. Naturally, consultants thereafter cannot formally review your product. Each one of our writers is available for either a review or a consultation but never for both.

  • If you have any issue whatsoever with how a review is handled, go straight to the top and contact the publisher - immediately. All of our writers work pro bono and for the sheer sport and passion of it. I do not expect them to be accosted, ridiculed, threatened or insulted. We endeavor to be professional to the best of our abilities and expect to be accorded the same treatment in turn.

  • Lastly, we do not get involved in copyright or patent disputes or hire outside engineers to analyze circuits. We rely on the manufacturers to provide us with information about their designs and how they work. We will always assume that once they dispatch a product under their brand name for a formal review, we're in receipt of their rightful design and physical product and thus always return products to the party which sent them. If other firms or individuals claim otherwise, by alleging ownership of the actual product or intellectual or brand name property rights, we will not become a forum for such disputes as has recently been attempted. That domain is for the lawyers and independent engineers who are specifically hired and handsomely paid to conduct any litigative or exploratory fact gathering missions. Only if we are presented with a legally settled court document that accords intellectual or physical ownership rights to a party other than what was stated in our review will we amend such review information to reflect this formally awarded judgment. However, we will not cancel or delete such reviews but merely amend the relevant information in a manner that let's the reader know about any changes, why we implemented them and what kind of proof we received to feel duty bound to make said changes.

Having said that, you will agree that nothing here is anything other than perfectly good and common sense. It is. But it is also true that especially newer and smaller manufacturers sometimes are unfamiliar with the ropes or simply haven't fully considered all the implications -- good or bad -- a review could have on their business. While a fair but also very critical review could negatively impact sales, an enthusiastic write-up could stimulate demand beyond ability to supply and cause very real problems as well. Getting a review prior to having established some form of dealer network can backfire if one wants to pursue the traditional retail route. Getting too many reviews at once and then none for a long time can be disadvantageous, too.


Certain manufacturers design in limbo without conducting actual side-by-side comparisons with competing products. Since the review process ideally compares products to others rather than against an abstract notion of the absolute sound, it could then come as a surprise to find one's product unfavorable compared to another which one wrote off without testing because it appeared inferior on paper. We cannot stress highly enough that most product categories in the HighEnd audio industry are incredibly mature. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't guarantee that doing it now will be a success (there could be very good reasons why it wasn't attempted before). Just because your design looks better on paper doesn't mean it will actually outperform another product. Just because someone operates on a large commercial scale and can sell at very good prices doesn't automatically make his product inferior to one that's built by hand and in very limited numbers. Ditto for certain products manufactured in China. Some components coming out of Asia are exceptional and US-based products simply cannot compete with them on price. Take experiential stock of your competition before you commit to a business plan, R&D investments, manufacturing and reviews. Deal with reality while you pursue your dreams and noble ambitions. Just because you can build it doesn't mean it will sell. Just because you like it doesn't guarantee someone else will. Just because you've compared it to a Honda and found it superior doesn't mean it will hold up when compared against a Toyota. If our writer drives Toyota, that's what your product will be compared against.


In the end, we hate to be the bearer of "bad news". However, if and when we come across anything that prompts such a reaction in any way, shape or form, we're duty-bound to report on it. That's what our readers expect and, let's face it, what they have every right to expect if we're to be more than just soft entertainment. You can help us minimize the chances for heavy criticism by performing due diligence upfront - both on us and on your own product. Please do your home work before, not after the fact.