Some famous reviewers have atrocious listening rooms!


It’s almost sad, really.  Some reviewers I’ve been reading for decades, when showing their rigs on YouTube, have absolutely horrible rooms.  Weird shaped; too small w/o acoustic treatment; crap all over the place within the room or around the speakers; and on and on.  
 

Had I known about the listening rooms they use to review gear in the past, I would not have placed such a value on what they were writing.  I think reviewers should not just list the equipment they used in a given review, but be required to show their listening rooms, as well.
 

Turns out my listening room isn’t so bad, after all.  

 

 

128x128audiodwebe

always get info, if possible, on a reviewers listening room -- it is important context to their review output

the beloved herb reichert for instance... steve guttenberg has well documented herb’s apartment and the set up in his yt vids... it is basically semi nearfield listening with quite a lot of hard/reflective surfaces... that is important to know when reading herb’s words on gear...

 

In my new book, "The Lucky Audiophile - Anecdotes from High End Audio" (Amazon) I share many pictures of my different listening rooms and equipment over the years.

Yes, the room makes a difference to the quality of sound and resolution, but I think critical listening skills and the ability to describe what you hear are more important. Like Herb and his room. Or REG and Myles Astor and their rooms.

I went to visit a reviewers place , where his system are I don’t remember any acoustic treatments? But his systems sounds so musical and involving.

Spoiler alert: You don't need ridiculous looking "treatments" for good sound.