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.  




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. 

@jjss49 You can see the full presentation on YouTube - “Reviewing Loudspeakers: Mesurements and Listening Tests”. The tests were conducted at Harmon, where factors such as volume were controlled. I don’t recall much detail in how they trained the Trained Listeners.


Few of us have proper rooms but most of us strive to achieve a better sound after understanding their limitations. The good thing is that it can work both ways, with or without treatments, but either way it takes time and experience to get most of it right. It's nice to have a well treated room, some can achieve even better results with measurements too, but still an untreated one could work just fine. For example, my room is small, peculiar and untreated with tall speakers and a big amplifier, that would translate in a disaster or wrong approach for many, but after some hard work i have managed to make it vanish, so it can be done. Unfortunately there are several variables that affect sound reproduction in a system so judging by pictures alone we cannot get the whole picture but an idea. 


I don’t know about his room, but Myles Astor has zero credibility with me. In a TAS review he stated the open E string on a 4-string bass (whether electric or acoustic---PLEASE stop calling an electric bass a bass guitar ;-) was located at 82Hz. It’s not, it’s at 41Hz. Where did Myles get that 82Hz figure? Ask him! And TAS technical editor Robert Harley didn’t catch it?!

Even worse, he described 82Hz as low bass. Not in this universe. Once again, an audiophile reviewer with no education in any technical aspects of hi-fi music reproduction. Embarrassing.

Just stop. You can repeat something false a million times and it still doesn’t make it true. I’ve written and told you before that I never wrote that statement. Not to mention that despite my request, you’ve never provided a citation to the referenced quote. You have the wrong person. Not to mention I haven’t written for TAS since 1990 and Frank Doris, not RH, was my editor. So you have that wrong too.


Now get your facts right before going online and slandering people.