"Do you give manufacturers a choice of writer or do you assign which equipment goes where?"

"We make that decision with just a few exceptions. If a manufacturer tells us point blank that they simply don't like the style of a given writer, we'll have the gear sent elsewhere. But it's actually not often that manufacturers make any requests. Our reputation is as a team so not based on particular individuals."

"Do you work to any self-imposed price ceiling?"

"Not really. It's more like what Dawid Grzyb explained in your interview with him. Manageable size and weight are the main deciders. Reviewing a €100'000/pr compact monitor would be a real listening adventure but if it weighs 250kg, I'd be out."

"About that, do you and your writers have an opt-out clause if a component misses the mark or isn't ready for primetime?"

"That's a very important question. Our reviews are independent and not tied to sponsorship packages. No review is more or less important than any other. No client gets preferential treatment. Included in each interaction is an opt-out clause should the reviewer find that a product misses. That's not a question of personal likes or dislikes. A professional reviewer is expected to see beyond those. But if a feature set is half baked, controls wobble, paint chips or performance is lackluster relative to price to make for a review that's wasted space or a train wreck, we'll just send the component back. The manufacturers know upfront that this could happen. Too much time and energy goes into crafting a professional review. We can't afford to waste it on things that don't merit it."

"How often do you return gear unreviewed?"

"Sometimes we have clusters, other times months go by without a wrinkle. I remember a few years back when virtually every week there was a problem somewhere. But usually there are only few returns."

"Do you insist on some form of sponsorship from each and every manufacturer who gets reviews?"

"In the beginning we didn't. The understanding was that if a company became successful, they'd come back and support us. Then we learnt that many small manufacturers without a marketing budget wouldn't last longer than 2-3 years. Creating content costs time and money. Suddenly we had archived content that was worthless because its manufacturers closed shop. After a few years we decided that this wasn't a valid business practice that benefits anyone. Today we won't work with companies that have zero marketing budget. They have no real chance at ever making it. In today's overcrowded market, running a professional business demands a marketing budget. Anything less is unprofessional. It doesn't sound very romantic but that's been our exact experience after the first five years of operation. In the beginning we had far too much infant mortality among manufacturers and their reviews consequently far too short of a shelf life. And to flip perspective, how many startups do you know which a starving hifi freak could approach to get a free component?"

"Quite! Have manufacturers ever attempted to get a review redone to read more favorable?"

"Not in a very long time because it's well known that there's zero chance of that. But during our first few years, such attempts did happen quite a lot. Perhaps they were simply testing the waters or us? Today the fact of that matter is firmly established with us so nobody tries to play any games. It's honestly very comfortable to be known for strictness. And if one or the other manufacturer decides to no longer work with us because of it, then our policy acted like an important filter. Perhaps some money falls off the table but the gains to our reputation weigh far more. And that's good for long-term business. Let's reiterate, this is a business. We're producing a product which happens to be content not a bottle of wine but expectations for quality and consistency are exactly the same. That's why polishing up submissions from our team is so important. It's why we embrace the inefficiency of our approach which returns original copy with requests for corrections or improvements if they're necessary and might do it again with a second draft. It's time-consuming but a very important part of our work and perhaps one which the average reader doesn't really think about."

"Have you lost any writers due to such editorial correction requests?"

"We did lose a few writers over the years but that was due to changes in their personal or professional lives like family/children or greater responsibilities at work. Let's face it, if you review part-time for extra income, there's only so much time you can dedicate to it beyond your main job and personal life. You have evenings and weekends but some of those should really belong to your family or yourself. Even the time for yourself needn't only mean time for hifi. People have other passions, too. Again, we're quite demanding. Writing for us isn't just hitching a cozy ride on the free loaner train. But our atmosphere is very friendly and collegial. I regularly check in with our writers by phone or Zoom and we're flexible if a writer needs some time off from reviewing; or wants to be busier. Two months per assignment is about the maximum we accept for turnarounds. The final review copies handed in are published verbatim so there's zero censorship on our part as editors. We're only involved in the process where it concerns clarity, coherence and facts to insure that we don't publish mistakes or work that's not as good as it could be. It's very important to let each writer develop their own voice and approach rather than homogenize all reviews to read alike. Our form of editing lets our contributors know that we respect and value them and only want to show off their work in its very best light. I'm sometimes told that we create far too much work for ourselves by being this exacting. But on the flipside, that also becomes a real force of motivation to excel."

"Having now done this for going on 15 years, would you say that your personal income has caught up with what it was in your previous regular jobs?"

"I would. It's funny that people into hifi who are familiar with fairaudio think that we must really be swimming in it whilst people who ask me what I do for a living at a party automatically assume that I'm a pauper. As usual, the truth lives right in the middle. We're clearly not Internet celebrities or an IT startup. Friends of ours started one of the very first German blogs. They eventually sold it for ~€9'000'000 to an Irish investor. If that's your aim, you wouldn't choose hifi as a platform. We're a regular magazine that just happens to publish on the Internet. Fundamentally I view us as artisans, just online."