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.  





Trained Listeners were by far the most reliable. Next, a group of Audio Retailers. Professional Audio Reviewers were third, but with about one-fifth the reliability of the Trained Listeners.

referring to your post, i am curious to know what defined the group of ’trained listeners’ in the listening tests?

Post removed 

Another issue is when old ears are used to evaluate music without a disclaimer.

Another issue is when young ears are used to evaluate music without a disclaimer.


(In other words both has "issue" and a age could be interesting to have declared.)

I recall an article where Fremer talked about the incoming AC service in his building as being compromised as it was literally hanging off the building. Repairs were done and he claimed his system sounded much better. I remember thinking "Does that negate all the reviews he did before the repair?

If you’re in the business of reviewing gear, listening in the same environment time after time and having a baseline is probably most important. Live sound guys who are hired to run sound in churches, clubs, concert halls talk about “ knowing the room.”  I suspect seasoned reviewers are the same, consciously or not.