2. misc-audio
  3. 1079624068

Does "Non Compensated" Reviewing Still Exist?

I still subscribe to two of the major "audiophile" publications. To be fair, I would rather not reveal the titles of these publications, so for the sake of reference let's just call one Stereophile and the other The Absolute Sound. I have subscribed to both (and other) publications, on and off, for over 20 years. I have also seen a few other publications bite the dust in the past 20 years. I don't really have any specific interest in the equipment reviews but they used to be a great reference source. Although, I find that the music reviews and new music release information is pretty thorough and diverse.

I just received the newest "XXXXXXXXXXX" publication including the "500 Great Sounding Audio Products". It's actually the "Recommended Components" issue. I decided to thumb through the articles containing said components and read the "final conclusions" to some of these reviews.

Below, I have provided some "conclusion" excerpts from the "reviewed" components of some past issues also.

This "review" excerpt was on a turntable:

"I'm not about to tell you to hock the mink and dump the Mercedes. It only makes sense if you listen extensively to analog LP and have a large vinyl collection or the patience and desire to build one—which today will take no little effort. If you do take the plunge, it will likely be your final investment (periodic cartridge replacements excepted) in analog front-end hardware. The sonic benefits are, in this reviewer's opinion, genuine. But to seek them out must be, inevitably, a carefully considered, individual decision."

Here's another "review" excerpt on a CD player:

"I've heard CD players that had better rhythm and pacing, more midrange liquidity and transparency, greater depth of field, and finer resolution. But I can't recall hearing a more musically involving, fulsomely detailed, three-dimensional presentation from any other CD player at such a modest price as the XXXXXXXXXX."

Or another excerpt on a preamp:

"The "XXXX" is a success after all, but a qualified one: It can play music brilliantly well, and it can be a very good value. Having spent more time with this pretty little thing than I usually do with a review sample, I feel unusually comfortable in recommending it—but now, all the more, I look forward to the day when the clever people at "XXXX" turn their attention to the comparatively cheap and electrically messy world that most music-lovers inhabit."

After reading these compelling conclusions, I have to wonder why I actually read the article in the first place. I also have to wonder what the hell they are actually saying with all of their wishy-washy, totally vague, substance lacking, non-committal crap.

Does real, non-biased, non-compensatory reviewing exist any longer? Is there anyone out there who still does a review in the manner in which these aforementioned publications USED to review? 20 years ago? When these guys didn't like something, they TOLD you they didn't like it, and generally substantiated their reasoning behind their opinions. Likewise, if they actually enjoyed a component. They would be more than willing to recommend a listen OR a purchase.

Now? They don't say anything! I find, by the time you get done reading these reviews, you have no more information from listening evaluation than when you started. I take ANY review with a grain of salt. Electronic components only sound "right" to that particular user, in a particular environment, with a particular synergy, with particular corresponding components. But, it would be nice to have some sort of FAIRLY accurate reference.

Here is MY conclusion to some of these conclusions:

"The "XXXXXXX" is one of the best sounding components of it's type. It will compete with any other component in the same price range, if you actually like the sound of the other components in this price range. When listening to classical music, the orchestra REALLY stood out. Rock music reproduced with this unit was VERY dynamic and loud. Jazz and Blues had exhibited a wonderful "Toe Tapping" quality.

If you are in the market for a component like this one, you really won't do better, unless you consider purchasing a better sounding unit for more money. It IS lacking the dynamics, frequency extension, quiet operation, and build quality of better sounding units, but other than that, it's right there with the best of them in it's class, if of course, you like it's class".

Is this an over generalization, or is this a fairly accurate evaluation? Do others feel the same? Are there review sources that actually COMMIT to their opinions devoid of their commitments to advertising revenues?

Has this become a thing of the past?

128x128buscis2
jameswei
883 posts
 
The messages I get from your three excerpts are "good, but very expensive" for the turntable, "OK for the money, but not really good" for the CD player, and "looks good and sounds OK" for the preamp.

Manufacturers are obliged to praise their own products as the best, or the best for the money. They rely on the magazines to position their products in the constellation of the marketplace against direct competitors, often with allusions to the manufacturer's reputation or the designer's history. This almost never involves criticizing the product, just different levels of praise. I find I've become adept at interpreting such bull.

Often price is brought in to help justify a recommendation as a good value, or to assign a product in a not-as-good category. Typically, the more expensive the price, the higher the praise. Perhaps this is real, i.e., better products actually cost more and deserve their praise. It is rare to see a critical review of an expensive item.

Having said all this, I wonder philosophically whether we are seeing some diminishing returns effect on technology. I believe most types of products are better today than they were twenty years ago. Within this context, even a cheap version of something today might be better than something considered pretty good twenty years ago. The same reviewer who was able to make sharp distinctions twenty years ago might find most products sound pretty good today and not too different from competitors. As a reader, I would still like the reviewer to be able to make sharp distinctions today, but it may not be realistic anymore.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
I totally agree Buscis2. You hit it right on the head.

I also subscribe to these two unmentionable "journals" along with a couple of the British ones, and, in addition, to several computer music and music production publications coming out of Britain. I am not British, but, pound for pound, after many years of reading this stuff I have to say that the Brits say more with fewer words and get to the point and provide value in the process. I mean they actually tell you what something SOUNDS LIKE! The quality of writing in the US has sunk to new unfathomable lows. It is a sad reflection of our society and of our refusal to recognize the value in our public educational systems. Disqualifer: I have no professional connection to any trade publication, either here or abroad.

Anyone from Agon want to start a better audio publication with me? At least one that raises the quality bar to the level of the Brits? Of course, in the US it's ALL about advertising and marketing. And that's sad because the real function of good marketing is to provide VALUE to CUSTOMERS. Something some US trade publications seem to have forgotten.

Non-compensated reviewing is why we are all here at Agon, where REAL value in better understanding and enjoying our interests takes place, daily.
sean
6,231 posts
 
The turntable was good but phenomenally pricy. The CD player was musical but lacked accuracy and detail. The preamp sounded good but was poorly designed.

I agree. The "i'll tell you everything but won't come out and say it" kind of reviewing is what allows horrid products to look good in a print review. The reviewers hope that the readers are intelligent enough to read between the lines and that the manufacturers aren't. Given that "well reviewed" units that truly are "pieces of junk" end up selling like hotcakes, i would have to say that the manufacturers are happy and that the readers aren't as smart as the writers think they are.

That is either the situation or the reviewers are simply "crafty liars" and "good salesman". Then again, it costs plenty of cash to publish a "glossy rag" and charging $6 - $25 for a subscription isn't going to cover the expenses involved. As such, the reviewers and / or publishers have to make sure that they can cover the bills and that is where "supplementary income" aka advertising revenue comes into play. Stomping on products in print doesn't bring in the supplementary income and then the doors close. Vicious circle and it is why the reviews aren't worth much. That is, unless you are intelligent to know how to read between the lines and / or know how to interpret specs ( if honestly tested and published ). Sometimes, you can't even read between the lines because the product has been so heavily sugar coated in the review that the frosting blurs where one line starts and the other ends. That's when you HAVE to know how to interpret specs. Sean
>
bigkidz
3,390 posts
 
You are correct sir but in my auditions of many CDPs, preamps, amps, speakers, cables, DACs, etc., I found what I preferred is not always what others preferred. For example Sonus Faber Cremona speakers are to me very musical and more warm sounding than say Talons. Each speaker has their strengths and weaknesses but they are different. In someones system, or musical preference, they may choose one over the other. Same with say a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista CDP versus a Wadia 861, versus a CEC transport and Audio Logic DAC. Which one should I tell you is better? None, they all have strengths and weaknesses and I cannot say which one you would prefer in your system. Same with say the Joule Electra LA-150 versus the Lamm LL2 Deluxe, one is better on vocals the other is better at dynamics and details.

So your conclusions are correct that the mag reviews don't really say anything anymore and you have to go hear the differences in your system with the music you prefer to make your own decision.

I cancelled my mag delivery a long time ago because of this.

Happy Listening, I mean auditioning!
gs5556
1,235 posts
 
Yeah, but it's still ONE person's perception in a system and room that's very different from yours. Even if they could nail down an opinion in no-uncertain straightforward take-no-prisoners honest terms, it still won't help. You have to listen for yourself in your setup. But, you're right - why bother reading the whole article if the terms they use for one piece of equipment has been used in other reviews. I mean, there is a limited vocabulary in how to describe the sound - even though they manage to come up with novel ones. Avoiding being judgmental apparently has made its way into the audio reviewer's world.

What I think would make it interesting is if they created categories of sonic qualities (soundstage, image, dynamics, etc.) and assigned each a number value for the piece in review. Add up all the numbers at the end and divide into the price of the unit. That, I think, would give an instant comparison at a glance.
More to discover