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
ozfly
887 posts
 
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head. The writing is vague and tries to please the manufacturer. I love the interpretations offered above.

On the other hand, I've seen some reviews in Stereophile recently that have surprised me. There are direct comparisons to other units and specific strengths and weaknesses are listed -- e.g., the bass extension is better in unit A but the midrange is more liquid in unit B. Those are the types of reviews that are more meaningful to me. Of course, our reference should always be live music and units don't have to be compared to one another to produce a good review -- however, few products are uniformly better than others. I've heard speakers that reproduced a piano brilliantly but couldn't do much else well. I'm auditioning a cd player now that sounds "hissy" at the high end but is really wonderful in other ways. Sometimes, the direct comparison of two or three different units (e.g., cd players or cartridges) is the best way to produce a meaningful review. I love it when that happens, and it appears to be happening more often now. Let's hope it continues.
sbank's avatar
sbank
3,378 posts
 
There's as much wisdom in this thread before my comments that exceeds that in your typical issue of the big two, both of which I subscribe to. A-gon & audioasylum clearly offer more independent thinkers. Unfortunately, I hear there are also lots of stealth shills among us. Nothing is perfect.
At least with the mags, you know to take it w/grain of salt. When those with vested interests fail to disclose on the boards, it's a real conflict IMHO.
Trust your ears, trust your friends w/good hearing, and trust your gut. Read it all, but a little healthy skepticism never hurts...Cheers, Spencer
avguygeorge
2,300 posts
 
I still remember Chip Sterns rev. on the Mesa Baron. He thought it to be the next best thing to sliced bread. (My dealer 'made me take one home;--- It was much less than my MR 9mk2.) After Chip's rev. and on the same page,--- John A chimes in; "Chip is new and is eaisly pleased". BTW, it was Chip's first article. MR9 mk2 class A Mesa Baron class B.--- No they can't do all our homework for us. Sometimes what they use with what is telling,as well.
buscis2's avatar
buscis2 OP
468 posts
 
Another consideration which is somewhat ironic, even though we may consider their reviews "wishy-washy", I have seen these reviews make or break a specific product and/or that product's manufacturer.

Which means, someone MUST be embracing the results of these "reviews".

An ass for every seat or, vice versa. I forget how that goes.

mt10425
1,138 posts
 
I often find there is plenty of (I really don't want to use the word negative) objective information in the body of many articles. What is important is that you don't read the last paragraph where the reviewer endorses the piece of equipment they just subtly ripped. I get virtually all of the rags delivered to my home. Recommeded component issues are worthless. Virtually every piece of equipment reviewed the previous year is recommended. I highly recommend reading some of these mags for their entertainment value. And yes, having to weed through vague, confusing and contradictory comments is annoying.
More to discover