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
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.
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
It's entertainment and nothing more.

Look at a cross section of the "reviewers" we read (well you read, not me); bearded old fat men, failed college professors, preachers, and midgets are only some of the cast of characters.

It would be a great reality show.

"Audio Reviewer Survivor"

10 reviewers flown to a tropical island. They read their articles to each other 24/7. Only breaks for meals and bathroom allowed. No hygiene permitted although some of them have mastered this already.

Last person listening wins.

Coming to pay per view soon.
buconero117
2,311 posts
 
Being corrupt, as you find that only by getting in bed with manufacturers, get you actually make a living doing such.
More to discover