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
csmgolf
877 posts
 
I don't get the difference between people on Amazon, Crutchfield and this site. All of the above site reviews are done by people that have the equipment in their system, they all have an agenda, and they all have a bias. What makes any of them different from the other. Is it because the ones you choose to agree with share your same narrow views?
rok2id's avatar
rok2id
7,831 posts
 
my views are many things, but narrow ain't one of them.
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,928 posts
 
"I don't get the difference between people on Amazon, Crutchfield and this site."

People on this site on average are more OCD when it comes to audio than people on those sites.

For better or for worse....

Also those sites track cumulative average ratings for products across many reviews, which is a good thing in terms of being able to identify useful trends and patterns.

Audiogon does not track any metrics regarding reviews or any other qualitative aspect of the gear featured. Synthesis by users is harder and more subjective. The only metrics available are average sale prices of used gear (for a fee).

THis is a very static site. It must be doing well because it has not changed or evolved much that I can see over teh several years that I have noticed. Almost every other commercial site on teh internet does evolve, change and improve. Audiogon is a very interesting beast! Much like the high end gear featured on it.
csmgolf
877 posts
 
Mapman, I agree with what you are saying about how the other sites do a great job of tracking overall rankings. Audio Review is another site that does this. I also agree that the people on this site are more OCD about their gear. My point was, why would a person disregard a written review by a member that they don't know here, but accept the written review of someone they don't know on a different site? Or vice versa? What makes the opinion of one any more valid than the other? The only thing I can think of is a preconceived bias. I know that when I research gear, I use as many sources of info as I can find. That includes the reviews on the above listed sites as well as professional reviews. I also know that when reading a professional review, I have to read between the lines. The reasons for that are spelled out pretty well in this thread. I also go listen to as much of the gear as I can at shows and experiment with my own system.
More to discover