How honest you think the reviewers are? How often you see them saying one component is not good, most of time they will say this is the one of the best..... And you think when they say "I like it so I buy it." is more like " I get it free from the manufactor"?
If I resist the temptation to generalise and/or am able to successfully combat "paranoid" tendencies, which would lead me to bedevil the entire breed, I've through (much) time and experience learnt to trust those reviewers - not in their judgements, in that they find something good or bad - but in their descriptions of how a unit may sound and perform. This always under the condition, that with quite a few gear, I've more or less heard the same as what they had described. There was a time, long ago, when TAS did not take in advertising and I often felt comfortable with what John Nork and even HP had to say. The early Threshold and the Maggie bass panels come to mind, the SP6, the Dahlquist speakers, but that was long ago. What makes me uneasy these days, is the fact, that often newly published rave reviews in the rags will be accompanied by a first time advertisement of the the same product under review. Also it seems to me, that critical reviews are getting more and more rare.( Which also has a good side, because by hatchet job reviewing, fledgling products can be driven off the market and businesses ruined, (eg Modjieskis "Beveridge"preamp, a very promising design, killed by HP in favour of the SP6) Lets face it, its business and without advertising most publications could not survive. I've learnt to mistrust final judgements like "state of the art", or "Class A products", but with reviewers, whose stile, language and musical tastes have become familiar, I find their description of how a product sounds and with what associated gear, generally very helpful.
Well Bigboy, I'm a reviewer and I know that I'm very honest when I express my views and I believe that the other reviewers who I know personally are also honest about their opinions. With commercial magazines the reality is that for the most part you are only going to see positive reviews because negative reviews scare away advertizing funds (which support the magazine). Often times, if a reviewer gets a product that he really doesn't like it ends up being returned to the manufacturer without a review. The manufacturer is informed of the product's shortcomings. This is actually the exception. Normally, products submitted for review are adroit performers. If you were a manufacturer, would you submit a product for review if you felt it was only mediocre? Believe it or not, I've seen manufacturers threaten lawsuits -- not because their product didn't get a good review, but because the review contained too many caveats for their liking. Recently, I gave a decent tube preamplifier a deservedly positive review. The company's CEO (who shall remain nameless) is no longer speaking to me because I mentioned some mild shortcomings and noted that the unit was built to a price point. Oh well! And believe me, we reviewers put a lot of time and effort into our evaluations -- and though we usually have the option to buy a review sample for around dealer cost (far from free!), reviewers are very rarely offered free gear. I've had about 40 reviews published over the last 5 years and the one time I was offered a free component was after the review was already written and published. I called the manufacturer to make arrangements for the product's return and they told me to keep it with their compliments. Also, this particular item was of foreign origin and was not expensive, which probably had some influence on their decision.
If you see an Audio Magazine where the ratio of ads to reviews is 10(ads) to 1(reviews) you have to wonder. What Hi-Fi comes to mind. They are a budget audiophile to mid-fi magazine. Whenever I look at a copy I am always amazed at how they tend to favor the budget gear over the better gear. If memory serves they gave the Rotel RCD951 CD Player 5 "gold" stars and the RCD971 something like 3 stars. It also seems that almost no gear gets a rating less than 3 stars. They don't want to piss-off any potential advertisers. They also seem to have never reviewed an NAD or Marantz product they disliked.
There are some other threads on the subject of Reviews. I remember Stereophile came in for some bashing for "selling out" to the Ad dollar.
Plato, I find this an excellent and well considered post and have voted accordingly. I've followed the "history of reviewing in the then underground mags" practically from its beginning and hence know, how raving mad manufacturers can get, even with a midly critical review. William Zane Johnson of Audio Research for example, would not talk to HP for months on end... and that was after all those rave rewiews about Sp6 and the 110 tube amp for example. On the other hand, I also remember Michael Fremer raving about the (in)famous Tice clock, which, after getting one for myself out of sheer curiosity, proved to me, that reviewers are humans too, not neccesarily dishonest, in this case especially not, but sometimes prone to attacks of gullibility, which none of us can be sure to always be completely devoid of. That's also, why I like mags, where more than one reviewer writes about the same product.
Detlof, you raise some good points and I appreciate your response. As you noted, even the best and most respected reviewers are not immune to psychological hype and can occasionally make errors in their assessments. We are above all, human, and readers need to be aware of that aspect -- especially condidering how subjective most reviews are. Indeed, at times it's more akin to judging a poetry contest than related to science. That said, I've read many reviews that in my view accurately captured the review item's intrinsic character. :)
You see, my typo above, "condidering" -- just serves to illustrate that we reviewers are human. I wish Audiogon allowed one to edit his comments after posting! :)
You just need to appreciate that reviewers have two main incentives. First, they must have some credibility. Arguably, only enough for their target audience, but if they are ambitious they may wish their name (as opposed to the mag they work for) to stand for something. Second, they have to pay the mortgage like anybody else - ask yourself what conditions you have to place on your own integrity at your place of work. Just appreciate that they are neither altruists or public servants.
I think we have to look at ourselves in the mirror when asking questions of these reviewers. They're just feeding our habit and doing so eloquently. Haven't we spent time carefully listening and researching equipment, buying it taking it home and smiling ear to ear only to find out that something better just came out? And away we go again. I read the reviews to see what somebody with more dollars than cents can buy and occasionally to self-congratulate myself on a decision that I and the reviewer came to. I see reviewers as good authors who talk about stuff I'm obsessed with. Don't shoot the messenger.
I suppose there may be a dishonest reviewer or two out there, but I think the vast majority are honest, and their reviews are compromised only by their own belief systems and biases, same as you and me. I see no evidence that any of the buff mags are pimping for the big equipment makers, like the car buff mags do. Stereo Review, of course, if it still exists, is another story. I doubt anyone interested in this topic takes anything in that magazine seriously.
But, what motivated me to respond to this thread is the comment above that reviewers have to pay the mortgage. Except for the principals involved in the serious magazines and the internet mags, my impression is that most reviewers have day jobs. For example, my favorite reviewer (because he turned me on to my Harbeth Compact 7's), Robert Greene, is a math professor.
Now, there are editors and publishers whose livelihood depends on advertising revenue. Thus, I would be surprised to see really negative reviews in the buff mags. What purpose would that serve? Yet, for example, John Atkinson, wrote a very positive review of my Harbeth HL-P3's and later a very negative review of the Harbeth BBC LS5/12a's. (BTW, the P3's, like my Harbeth Compact 7's and all the current Harbeth speakers, were designed by Harbeth MD Alan Shaw and the 5/12a's are a BBC design). Now, Harbeth was never a big advertiser, and Ive never seen a bad review of a B&W, but still my impression is JA is a straight-shooter (quasi-anechoic chamber notwithstanding).
You also have to consider that except for speakers and mass market junk sold at the electronics emporia, most audio equipment nowadays is fairly priced, i.e, performance is about what you would expect for the price.
Audiophiles are generally no fools and mostly educated. So a truly dishonest reviewer or magazine would soon be drummed out of the corps, not taken seriously and sooner or later be out of business.
Well, I'm not sure that "audiophiles are generally no fools." Do you have any idea how hard it is to sell something though really really good is not listed among Stereophile's recommended components. Or how many sales are made immediately upon a rave review to people who have never heard what they're buying? Let's, please, not get into the prices paid for designer cables (I'm NOT a wires is wires troll, but know that the margins are really big).
Red, you're probably right about the salary. They do get good salaries, but the income from their reviews or editing or whatever helps.
Dear Mr. Magoo, why read at all then, if it isn't true anyway and when listening, what should I do with the other half? Do you really think, life is a simple as that? Come now....
As a professional who has spent more than 20 years in the news business including more than a few of those at major national news organizations I have to tell you that all these conspiracy theories about what goes on in new orgs are complete bunk. It's a bunch of people trying to do their best to tell the stories they believe are important for the people to know, and trying hard to get it right and get to the bottom of the stories. Of course it's a human enterprise so mistakes are made, commercial pressures are felt (especially in these days of free ad content, graying audiences for news and shrinking ad revenue), individuals have biases etc., and sometimes very bad things happen. And maybe its true that we journalists as a group have not done our best work over the last 15 years here in the US. But it's not the world of censorship, manipulation and b.s. that people too often think it is. I can't speak too much to the questions about the audiophile press. Trade and enthusiast publications -- where advertisers, sources and readers all tend to come from the same community -- face much more extreme, even sometimes existential ethical and financial pressures than general interest press as a result of that narrow, circular world in which they operate. And I'm not sure what codes of ethics they have in house -- certainly every major news organization I've ever worked for has had extensive, explicit, written and codified ethics guidelines -- and I know that often writers in audio mags come not from the world of journalism but are hobbyists from other walks of life. But still, as someone who has seen this practice from the inside for most of my adult life I gotta say, it's a lot less nefarious than many people seem to presume.
Chervokas, You have got to be kidding about the news organizations only wanting to get the truth out. We've both had our say, now lets get back on topic.
As a professional who has spent more than 20 years in the news business including more than a few of those at major national news organizations
Over 20 years ago I stepped onto the Liberal Land of Free that became gradually Home of the Slave just like it used to be...
Back to the topic:
An English language, by it's not so nice nature, has many words that pronounced one way, but spelled different. I also noticed that not only words pronounced different ways, but phrases also!
You Pronounce: Professional Review -- You Spell: Advertising!
I also have a HUGE list of such phrases that designed to mask truth by being pronounced DIFFERENT, but will probably just say that:
Tomorrow is another New Year and let it be Happy for everyone and let it be tomorrow -- not yesterday and not 20 years ago! CHEERS!
Many years ago I worked at a high-end shop and we had a number of bookshelf speakers in the $700 or so a pair price range. One of the major audio publications of the time gave a glowing review of a pair in that range from a major manufacturer which were well made, but we never sold them after demonstrating speakers from other manufacturers in that same price range, not a single pair. I suspected that, when a manufacturer is spending significant amounts on advertising with a publication/website, that might be sufficient "persuasion" to generate positive reviews.
I will second Plato's response. Several things seem inescapable when you consider this question dispassionately:
1) Good reviews matter a lot to manufacturers and they will do all they can to avoid bad ones, which do more harm than a good review, benefits.
2) It follows they will not give kit for a review, if they aren't sure of a glowing response.
3) Reviewers and editors know this perfectly well, so they won't publish a bad review.
4) If a magazine repeatedly reviews c--p in glowing terms, it will soon be obvious to everyone and they will be slammed here and in other forums and no one will buy the magazine.
5) It follows kit found to be rubbish will be politely returned, perhaps with a note as to why a review isn't being published.
These strictures apply to magazines online reviewers who don't take adverts, just as much, perhaps more. They have to borrow kit as well, for review and a manufacturer will be doubly suspicious when they know a big advertising spend, doesn't give them a hold over the magazine. This isn't my opinion, but what has been expressed to me, by a number of reviewers in sources which do and do not take adverts.
It follows, I believe, that magazine reviews can be relied on, with qualifications, as much as any other source of information. That is as a guide in making a short list of gear to be auditioned myself.
It would appear that the role of the reviewer is as tricky as it ever was.
Either you blatantly lie and shill on the behalf of familiar dealers and manufacturers to curry favour or you risk being outcast into the wilderness.
Treading the middle ground between seller and buyer seems to be as difficult as it ever was.
The approach adopted by the likes of ASR bypasses these issues but only because of the goodwill of the members who freely send in products to be reviewed by Amir.
Just a few days ago I watched a YouTube video by the cheapaudioman in which he describes what sometimes happens if he gives a bad review.
I checked back today in the community section and found the livestream video had now been made private.
I'm guessing that someone at iFi audio wasn't too pleased with the video...
I tend to look at the review sites purely to keep tabs on new releases and also to find measurements and objective information.
Beyond that, I always put far more weight on forums and actual users who (most of the time) have nothing to gain or lose by offering honest feedback. And even better, conversing with other forum members with similar setups and preferences who are nice enough to share their thoughts on a particular component.
That’s a little disappointing as I thought he was one of the more honest ones.
I remember a while back he did some videos on his struggles with audiophile addiction. Andrew Robinson is not only very experienced reviewer, he also seems to be one of the more open and candid ones out there.
He even goes as far as to suggest taking all reviews, including his own, as primarily entertainment value only.
I cannot believe what I'm reading. If any of you Audiophiles really desired honesty in reviews / reviewers, you would not have destroyed Julian Hirsch and Stereo Review.
All it takes to be a reviewer these days is to ask, what is the MSRP? The higher the MSRP, the mo' better it must be. Also, knowing a few nonsensical words to describe things helps.
My favorite, "it's a nice well rounded amplifier, but it's not built for anger." (what hifi)
before I came here, I read, for about 3 decades: car reviews. Every car that just was released got rave reviews and the others came in 2nd, 3rd and 4th. I could tell the pattern, the reviewer had to be able to
1) hype up the product
2) be able to defend their review later
3) be able to justify saying bad things about the product later
It was pretty obvious that they weren’t independent.
I find the audio reviews similar, although more nuanced, e.g., Darko never says: A is better than B, he’d say A is better in a small, untreated room ad B is better in conditions x,y,z.
And I am OK with it, I learned to infer the relevant information from it.
But when someone claims that the best speaker between 1 and 2 grand is one that is absolutely an inferior product to nearly any in the category (I would have a hard time finding a product that is worse), I will stop watching
well they are not that entertaining. We are paying dearly for watching those reviews, we better get some value out of it. Please. It's my time, my watching ads, my going through a bunch of info I don't need.
Also, nobody mixes and presents information and entertainment well, they do either one.
The funny thing about these youtubers is how much they talk about themselves. I understand that the reason people get in front of a camera is because they believe they are interesting and need to be heard but hanging a sign on the teleprompter: "it's not about you, it's about what you are reviewing" would help. A lot.
I grew up riding my bicycle to Radio Shack where I read everything I could get my hands on. Like Isaac Asimov whose father owned a bookstore but he still couldn’t afford the books so he carefully read each one and put it back looking new, I read all the magazines and tech specs. The guys in the store even put up with me trying out all the different speakers and stuff.
At some point as I moved up from paper route money to McDonalds ($1.35/hr!) I was able to afford a subscription to Stereo Review. I read each issue cover to cover, memorized all the words of wisdom of that greatest of greats Julian Hirsch.
Years later after college when finally I had some real money and went shopping it was like pulling teeth to get me to realize there really is more to wire than gauge. Frequency response is not paramount. Signal to noise unless obnoxiously bad isn’t even relevant. Watts aren’t equal and hardly even matter. And I could go on.
Learning all this, or more to the point unlearning all this, was a long slow painful process.
It wasn’t until much later that I came to learn another guy J Gordon Holt had been writing on audio around the same time. Only unlike Hirsch and his measurements Holt had it right: the final arbiter of fidelity is the listener.
Hirsch harmed a whole generation of audiophiles, hopelessly misleading them into a fruitless reliance on numbers. His legacy haunts us to this day.
Speaker cable is a bit different from a lot of the interconnect cables we handle, in several respects. Because speakers are driven at low impedance (typically 4 or 8 ohms) and high current, speaker cables are, for all practical purposes, immune from interference from EMI or RFI, so shielding isn’t required. The low impedance of the circuit, meanwhile, makes capacitance, which can be an issue in high-impedance line or microphone-level connections practically irrelevant. The biggest issue in speaker cables, from the point of view of sound quality, is simply conductivity; the lower the resistance of the cable, the lower the contribution of the speaker cable’s resistance to the damping factor, and the flatter the frequency response will be. While one can spend thousands of dollars on exotic speaker cable, in the end analysis, it’s the sheer conductivity of the cable, and (barring a really odd design, which may introduce various undesirable effects) little else that matters. The answer to keeping conductivity high is simple: the larger the wire, the lower the resistance, and the higher the conductivity. -- Blue Jeans Cable
That’s all there is to know about wire. No magic, no sentient being.
Frequency response is not paramount
If not paramount, I can’t think of any other thing that is more important. The entire freq spectrum of the music must be reproduced.
Signal to noise unless obnoxiously bad isn’t even relevant
Would you buy an amp with 15% THD? Regardless of what you hear, it’s an indication of the skill of the amp designer.
Watts aren’t equal and hardly even matter
The watt is the unit of measurement of electrical power. Period. Manufacturers have been known to lie about watts.
the final arbiter of fidelity is the listener.
The listener is the final arbiter of the decision to buy or not. Fidelity can be measured. Fidelity being identified as the degree to which the signal is faithful to the original signal. Once into your speaker and out into your room, well, that’s unknowable except to the listener.
@rok2id "Because speakers are driven at low impedance (typically 4 or 8 ohms) and high current, speaker cables are, for all practical purposes, immune from interference from EMI or RFI, so shielding isn’t required”
-there is a loop inductance of the speaker cable as well, which sometimes resonates with speaker’s crossover circuit, and gives amp hard time, to be stable! Kimber kable uses minimizing loop inductance direction in their speaker cable designs, using those in my setup improved SQ significantly.
-most amplifiers have feedback loop, which can be affected by very high frequencies from RFI/EMI sources. I use low loop inductance Kimber Kable cable to lower such impact in my system.
-some of 4/8 Ohms speakers with higher order filter crossovers have much lower impedance than rated, sometimes 1Ohm, thus higher output current amp does sound better with them.
The listener is the final arbiter of the decision to buy or not.
Fidelity can be measured.
Fidelity being identified as the degree to which the signal is faithful to the original signal.
Beautifully spelt out.
I hope Miller appreciates that things have changed somewhat since his last tenure here.
If any of you Audiophiles really desired honesty in reviews / reviewers, you would not have destroyed Julian Hirsch and Stereo Review.
All it takes to be a reviewer these days is to ask, what is the MSRP? The higher the MSRP, the mo’ better it must be. Also, knowing a few nonsensical words to describe things helps.
My favorite, "it’s a nice well rounded amplifier, but it’s not built for anger." (what hifi)
I’m not familiar with either Julian Hirsch or Gordon J Holt but their stories seem to match with what happened in UK reviewing.
It basically went from information to entertainment.
You only need to look at YouTube to see which is more popular.
I’m definitely old school in this regard and Hirsch sounds like the one I’d put my confidence in.
I wholeheartedly agree with you in regard to reviews. They are merely entertainment, and often not even that.
The funny thing about these youtubers is how much they talk about themselves.
Since the days of Milton Erickson his work in hypnosis has been increasingly used as a sales technique.
I guess some of these reviewers believe they actually have a personality. There were quite a few DJs I recall who had similar issues.
[Ericksonian hypnosis is based on 3 principles –
To help someone, you have to empathise with the person and establish a connection (we now call this ‘rapport building’). Otherwise, the person would not trust you have the intention or the ability to help them.
To access the unconscious mind, you have to distract the conscious. He achieved this using a variety of techniques.
Indirect suggestions have a greater likelihood of being accepted by the unconscious and helping the person make natural, sustainable changes.]
I apologize for my jaded attitude towards it all. I cannot remember all the dragons(noise, distortion etc) I have encountered since I started almost 60 years ago. A few were slain, primarily in the tape recording arena, most were just tamed. Some just sort of disappeared by themselves. JITTER, TIM, and SLEW RATE come to mind. On day they were all the rage, the next day they were never discussed again. And some just made a come-back, warts and all. LPs.
The whole industry reminds me of what a British news reporter once said concerning electronics, "we all just sit here like knots on a log waiting for the next American Gadget that we can't live without."
Well there certainly was something romantic about analogue tape.
With 2 inch tape at a decent speed the results have probably never been surpassed.
Even in this age of digital recording some studios still use tape for the odd recording. This is despite its issues of tracking, maintenance, wear and tear etc.
Perhaps not everyone is convinced by the effectiveness of all the various so-called analogue sounding digital plug-ins?
Perhaps that’s what the history of audio is really teaching us, perhaps what the reviewers should be saying is that things are changing constantly, but not always for the better.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
