2. misc-audio
  3. 1315276819

What does it take to qualify as a reviewer?

Posted in this thread earlier;
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1313300093&read
some participants said they are reviewers.

One said;

"I myself was once asked if I would be interested in reviewing for one of the publications mentioned above, by its editor. I wasn't, but also declined because I didn't feel that I was qualified: not as an audiophile, nor technically, nor as a writer."

Another said:

"let us consider what might "qualify" someone as a reviewer. Would it be an EE degree, years of experience in audio, experience as a dealer in audio, knowing many manufacturers, being wealthy enough to not be bought to give a good review to get the component at a good price, being articulate, hearing well in tests, etc.?"

And he goes on to make some other interesting remarks in the same post, in my opinion anyway.

Out of respect to the OP and not to further divert the thread from its' original theme, I began this thread.

So, what qualifications, experience, education, characteristics etc., do you believe one should possess and needs to be a reviewer?

It would be interesting to hear from everyone for I myself haven't really thought about it and can't offer an answer. Perhaps others ideas could help us form an opinion.

Best,

Dave
corazon
tpreaves's avatar
tpreaves
2,682 posts
 
Most car salesmen have the skills to be audio reviewers !!!!!
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,843 posts
 
you must be able to write good fiction. i.e. describe differences in equipment that do not exist. you must never violate the most important rules, if it cost more, it's better. and if the item gives great value for the money i.e. POLK, EMOTIVA, HARMAN KARDON etc.... it must be totally destoryed, or at best ignored. Hell, in this day and age with spell checkers and all, anyone without conscience can do the job.
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
>>09-06-11: Tpreaves
Most car salesmen have the skills to be audio reviewers !!!!!<<

That's an insult to car salesmen everywhere.
rdavwhitaker
173 posts
 
IMHO, Rbstehno, Stevecham and Tpreaves have got it right, although most of the qualities Elizabeth mentions are also required. And yes, I consider that a serious answer to the question. There are, in my view, few bigger mistakes in this hobby than taking reviewers, or the magazines they appear in, seriously. These are entertainment writers -- there is often useful information to be gleaned from the reviews they write, but their equipment evaluations are mostly hyperbole. Read and enjoy, by all means (I read two of the periodicals regularly, and another two when I can stomach them), but don't think for a minute you're getting objective information.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
accuracy of perception and aural acuity are key ingredients.

if you can accurately describe ehat you hear and write well, that should be sufficient.
More to discover