Editorial Policy

Hifiverse.io

Last updated: 7 May 2026 Version: 1.1

What this policy is for

Hifiverse created to help audiophiles and music lovers make informed decisions about Hi-Fi and high-end audio equipment. This page explains who writes our content, how we listen, how we measure, how the work is edited and fact-checked, how we handle mistakes when we make them, and how we manage the independent audio journalism.

We treat this policy as a working document, not a marketing page. If anything you read on the site looks inconsistent with what we promise here, write to info@hifiverse.io with the subject line “Editorial” or “Corrections” and a member of the editorial team will respond.

Who writes for Hifiverse

Every article, review, news item, comparison, and buying guide on Hifiverse is written by a named human author. We do not publish anonymous content, ghost-written content, syndicated press releases, or machine-generated text. Our complete masthead lives at hifiverse.io/company/editors, and each writer’s profile lists:

their professional and listening background,
the audio equipment they personally own and use as reference,
the rooms and systems they review in (with a published photograph of each main listening room),
the shows they have attended in the past two years,
and where to find them on LinkedIn, X, audio forums and other public platforms.

We choose authors on three criteria. First, hands-on experience with the equipment categories they cover. Someone reviewing a phono stage is a vinyl listener with a serious cartridge collection and a properly aligned turntable in their own room, not a generalist filling a content slot. Someone reviewing a streamer has actually run the streamer for weeks against a competitive baseline they know intimately. Someone writing about high-efficiency speakers and SET amplifiers can explain advantages of this combo based from years of living with that combination, not from a press demonstration.

Second, a track record of writing clearly and honestly - in audio publications, on respected audio forums, in academic or engineering work, or as practitioners in adjacent fields like recording, mastering, broadcast or live sound.

Third, willingness to put their name and reputation behind the work - including the willingness to disagree publicly with a manufacturer when the equipment doesn’t deliver what is claimed.

How a piece of content gets made

The pipeline for every published piece is the same regardless of length: an editor proposes a topic, an author is assigned, the author conducts research and listening sessions, a draft is written from scratch, an editor reviews the draft, corrections are made, and the final version is published with byline, publication date, and modification date.

Topic selection

Topic selection happens in weekly editorial meetings, not algorithmically. We look at:

what audiophiles are searching for and asking about,
what is genuinely new in the audio market (a new chip generation in a DAC, a new cartridge body design, a new speaker driver technology, a new generation of digital room correction),
what we have tested recently and have something distinctive to say about,
what gaps exist in published coverage that we can fill credibly with the equipment we have on hand,
and what the long-running coverage commitments are (system upgrades, room treatment over time, the long-term durability of components we reviewed years ago).

We do not commission articles purely to chase trending search queries that we have nothing distinctive to add to.

Drafting

Drafting happens entirely by hand. Authors take their own notes during listening sessions, run their own measurements where applicable, photograph the equipment in their own listening rooms, and write the prose themselves.

Research draws on manufacturer documentation, technical papers, the original engineer’s own writing where it is available, owner-community discussion on serious forums, our own archive of past coverage, and direct conversations with engineers when they are willing to speak. Authors are required to keep their working notes - listening session logs, measurement files, photographs, correspondence with the manufacturer - for at least twelve months in case a fact or a verdict is later disputed.

We never use a language model to generate prose, draft sentences, or “rephrase” copy. We may use language tools at the research-assist layer (transcribing an interview, translating a non-English review for context, sorting sources into a working bibliography) and we will say so when we have. We do not use models to “fact-check” because models confidently invent specifications, particularly the kind of small specifications - Class A vs Class A/B, ESS vs AKM DAC chip, balanced output level in dBu - where small errors completely change the meaning.

Editing

Editing is done by a different person from the author. The editor checks structure, clarity, internal consistency, factual claims, fairness, and adherence to house style. Specifications quoted in a review are cross-checked against the manufacturer’s official documentation as the primary source.

For audio specifically, the editor pressure-tests the listening claims. The questions are not “did you like it” but:

What specifically led you to that conclusion?
What music made the difference clearest?
What would you say to a reader who heard the opposite?
Have you heard a contemporary product that does this better, the same, or worse?
What does the measurement say, and how do you reconcile what you heard with what the measurement shows?

If an editor cannot follow the chain of reasoning, the draft goes back.

Headlines and subheadings are written by editors with input from the author. We avoid clickbait and superlatives we cannot defend.

How we listen to and test equipment

Reviews on Hifiverse are based on extended listening in the reviewer’s own system, not impressions from a press demonstration in an unfamiliar room. The reasons are practical: a system the reviewer knows intimately is the only baseline against which differences can be heard with any confidence, and a press-demo room - built to flatter equipment under sale- is not where readers actually listen.

Minimum listening period

Our standard minimum for a full component review is two weeks of daily listening, with the unit broken in if the manufacturer specifies a break-in period (we report what the manufacturer specifies and whether we observed audible change during the break-in).

Reference chain disclosure

Every review discloses the complete reference chain in which the listening took place, including:

source components (turntable, arm, cartridge, phono stage; streamer, server, network feed; DAC; transport; tape, where relevant),
preamplification and amplification (with topology - solid state, tube, hybrid; class of operation; power output and damping factor where relevant),
loudspeakers and headphones (with critical specs the reader needs to interpret the listening notes - efficiency and impedance for speakers, sensitivity and impedance for headphones),
cabling and power conditioning.

Reference recordings

Reviewers maintain and disclose a reference-recording library they return to across reviews. We list the specific recordings used in each review, by performer, work, label, format and year of pressing or release where the difference matters. The library spans genres deliberately so the listening test is not biased toward a single kind of reproduction.

Comparison

Whenever possible, we compare the unit against at least one direct competitor at a similar price and at least one trusted reference component familiar to the reviewer.

Measurement

When a measurement is reported, we describe the method, the equipment used, and the measurement signal. Common cases on Hifiverse:

Frequency response of speakers and headphones: ground-plane or quasi-anechoic where appropriate, with the gating window and reflection treatment disclosed; for headphones, the coupler/rig used and the compensation curve applied (free-field, diffuse-field, or industry-standard targets) are stated.
Distortion (THD, IMD): the test signal level, the load impedance, and the measurement bandwidth are stated.
Output level / sensitivity / efficiency: under what input voltage, into what impedance, with what reference level.
Noise floor and dynamic range: the bandwidth, the weighting (A-weighted, unweighted, ITU-R 468), and the measurement reference are stated.
In-room frequency response for speaker reviews: the listening position, the smoothing, and the averaging method are stated.

When we make a subjective claim - about timbre, dynamics, soundstage, image stability, micro-dynamics, decay, “blackness of background,” tonal balance, musical engagement- we say so plainly and avoid presenting opinion as measurement. A reviewer who hears more “air” in the high frequencies should not present that as a measurement; a measurement that shows a 1.5 dB lift between 8 and 14 kHz should not be presented as if it explains the entire listening experience.

Review samples and what we do with them

We accept review samples from manufacturers, distributors, and authorised retailers. Acceptance of a sample does not guarantee a review, does not guarantee a positive review, and does not entitle the supplier to any preview, draft access, or veto over the published verdict.

Most samples are returned at our expense within 90 days of arrival, or sooner if the manufacturer requests it. Long-term loans (typically used to verify long-term reliability of expensive equipment, or to allow comparison against products that arrive later) are disclosed inside the review with the duration of the loan.

We do not accept payment to write a positive review. We do not accept payment to suppress a negative review. Where any of these has been offered, we may, at our discretion, report the offer in the editorial coverage of the brand in question.

Travel, factory tours, press events

We pay attention to trade shows (CES, High End Munich, AXPONA, T.H.E. Show, CanJam, Munich/Vienna High End, etc.). We accept public press passes (which are not personal benefits - they are work-entry tickets).

Fact-checking

Fact-checking on Hifiverse is the responsibility of both the author and the editor, with the editor as the last line of defence before publication. The standard is simple: every concrete factual claim that could be wrong should be verifiable against a primary source.

Primary sources for audio coverage are:

the manufacturer’s own technical documentation, owner manuals, and engineering whitepapers,
patent filings and trademark records where ownership or origin is in question,
AES/JAES or peer-reviewed literature for physical claims,
recognised independent measurement laboratories (we name them in citations),
the original engineer or designer in their own words (interview, presentation, recorded talk),
our own measurement work where applicable,
the ownership manuals and parts lists for vintage equipment.

For news articles, we contact manufacturers directly for confirmation of significant claims (new product launches, discontinuations, pricing changes, recalls) before publication. If we cannot reach the manufacturer in time and the news is genuinely time-sensitive, we publish with a clearly worded attribution to the original source and update the article when we receive confirmation.

We do not fact-check by feeding text into a language model.

Corrections and updates

We make mistakes, and when we do we correct them visibly.

If a published article contains a factual error, the correction is made on the original URL with a dated note describing what was changed at the top of the article. We do not silently edit history. The original byline remains. Major corrections - those that materially change the verdict of a review or the substance of a news story - are flagged at the top of the article, sent to subscribers of the editorial newsletter, and added to a public corrections log at hifiverse.io/corrections.

Republication for cardinal errors. A correction that materially changes the conclusion of a review (for example, the reviewer turns out to have tested with an incorrect cartridge loading, an incorrect digital filter setting, a faulty unit later confirmed by the manufacturer) triggers a republication: a new article with the corrected reasoning, with the original article preserved in the archive and carrying a prominent link to the new article. We do not delete the original. We do not negotiate the wording of the correction with a brand that benefits from it.

Minor copy edits (typos, broken links, formatting fixes, image replacements) do not require a correction note, but the page’s modification date in our schema markup is updated only when there is genuine substantive change to the content. We do not “freshen” articles by updating the date stamp without updating the content; that practice misleads readers and search engines, and we don’t engage in it. The same rule applies to manufacturer-supplied photography updates: a fresh photo does not warrant a fresh modification date unless the underlying article has been re-evaluated.

Reporting an error. If you find an error on Hifiverse, please email info@hifiverse.io with subject line “Corrections”, the URL, and the specific claim you believe is wrong. We respond to every error report, normally within five working days. Tipsters whose reports lead to a correction are credited in the correction note when they consent to be named; anonymous credit is also offered.

Out-of-date articles. Articles that have become substantially out of date - for example, a buying guide whose entire field of products has been replaced, a review of a discontinued product where the current generation behaves differently, a setup guide for a software platform that has been redesigned - are either rewritten with a new publication date and a clear pointer to the original archive version, or marked at the top with a notice that the content reflects an earlier moment in the market. We do not delete published articles to hide outdated coverage. The historical record is part of the value a publication offers, and our coverage of vintage and discontinued equipment depends on the historical record we ourselves built.

Conflicts of interest

The audiophile industry is small enough that real conflicts of interest are common, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. Our policy is disclosure rather than denial.

Authors disclose at the top of any review:

any prior or current commercial relationship with the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of the reviewed product;
any personal relationship with the designer or company principals;
any financial interest, including ownership of shares, consulting income, or paid speaking engagements;
any personal ownership of a product from the brand under review (the year of acquisition and the channel - purchased at retail, purchased on the used market, gifted, long-term loan);
any prior unpaid relationship that could create the appearance of partiality, such as having toured the factory at the manufacturer’s expense.

If a conflict is significant enough to compromise independence - for example, the reviewer once worked as a salaried employee of the brand under review, or holds a current dealer relationship with the brand - the assignment goes to a different reviewer.

Affiliate disclosure

Some articles on Hifiverse contain affiliate links. Affiliate participation does not influence editorial verdicts. Reviewers are not told which retailer, if any, will carry an affiliate link before they write. Editors do not change positive or negative findings to favour partner retailers. The fact that a product is available through an affiliate retailer is not a factor in whether it is recommended; products available only through non-affiliate channels (small importers, direct-from-manufacturer sales, used-market specialists, regional distributors without an affiliate programme) are recommended on equal terms when they deserve it.

User comments and contributions

When comments are enabled on an article, contributions are moderated under the Community Guidelines. We delete spam, personal attacks, doxing, and material that violates the law. We do not delete comments simply because they are critical of Hifiverse or of a product we have praised; reasoned disagreement is part of how an audio publication earns its readers’ trust, and a comment thread that contains nothing but agreement is a comment thread we have not moderated honestly.

Reader contributions are not counted as Hifiverse editorial content and do not appear in our author bylines or schema. The community space is separate from the editorial space.

We invite reader expertise. If you have measurements, listening notes, ownership experience, schematic diagrams, factory documentation, or historical knowledge that would improve an article, write to info@hifiverse.io with subject line “Editor” or “Corrections” as appropriate. We sometimes incorporate reader contributions into updated versions of articles, with the contributor credited.

Independence

Hifiverse is independently owned. No manufacturer, distributor, or retailer holds an equity stake. No single advertiser, affiliate partner, or sponsor accounts for a share of our revenue large enough to compromise editorial independence. If that situation ever changed, we would disclose it on this page within 30 days of the change.

Our editorial decisions are made by the editorial team named at hifiverse.io/company/editors. The commercial team does not have approval rights over editorial content. The owners of Hifiverse have committed not to override editorial decisions, and any future change to that arrangement would be disclosed publicly.

The structural firewall between editorial and commerce - the practical mechanics of how we keep the two separated, including how editorial calendars and commercial pipelines are kept aparts.

How to reach us

For corrections, factual queries, conflict-of-interest concerns, editorial ethics complaints or anything else covered in this policy, please write to info@hifiverse.io with one of the following subject lines so your message reaches the right desk quickly:

“Corrections” - for factual errors in published content
“Editor” - letters to the editor, suggestions, contributions, general editorial correspondence
“Editorial Ethics” - concerns about firewall integrity, declarations of conflict, complaints about editorial-commercial separation

For commercial enquiries - advertising, affiliate partnerships, sponsored content, sales - please write to info@hifiverse.io with subject line “Sponsorship” or “Sales”. The commercial mailbox is read by a different team from the editorial mailbox; the firewall extends to who reads which messages.

The full subject-line index for the single-mailbox model is in section 18 of the Hifiverse Terms of Service. If your enquiry doesn’t match any subject line, write “General” and we will route it. We do not reject messages because of missing or wrong subject lines.

This policy is owned by the Editor in Chief and reviewed every six months. The “Last updated” date at the top of the page reflects the most recent revision; substantial changes are summarised in the changelog below.

Changelog

7 May 2026 - version 1.1. Edited and expanded.