Audio reviews: too many analogies, never simple, but most of all, never clear.

Unfortunately the state of HiFi reviewing (and other hobbyist reviews) is corrupt.  Too many competing agendas, too much manipulation, bribes and so on.   I began to take offense when too many political views were included in audio component reviews.  I sent a few letters into publications asking a simple question:  How do the political views of the reviewer improve my understanding of the quality of the component under review ?    You can substitute aesthetic/dining/travel etc preferences for "political views".   Some editors did not respond, the rest responded with basically the same answer: "free speech" .  No one gave a direct answer.  Oh Well.

I have read audio publications for a long time.   I like some reviewers and tolerate others.  My experience is to read reviews over time to understand the preferences (biases ?) of the reviewer.  A gross example would be a tube and vinyl friendly reviewer now addressing a class D amp driven by digital streaming.  Will the resulting review be accurate and does the reviewer have enough experience to determine the absolute quality of the components under review ?    Reading the review in the abstract you would not know, but if you are familiar with the reviewer and their style then you can easily pull relevant information and leave the filler behind.

Several comments referenced 6Moons.   Well they are potentially among the worst offenders.  1) the owner is on record as stating that unless a component blows up in testing, or has completely incomprehensible ergonomics, it will not receive a negative review.  2) unless the reviewer is an audio designer/engineer, or has demonstrated professional expertise in the area of design under review, then the reviewer is not qualified to give a negative review 3) the power of the press is substantial.  A negative review can put a company out of business thus he (the owner of 6m) does not want to be responsible for ending someone's business- hence a negative review will not be published  4) they are pay to play:  want a review- buy an ad on the site.    ALL of the above can be confirmed through web search.   Hey- at least they are honest !

I suggest taking what you find by searching the web with a grain of salt, dude.

Journalists tend to think they are writers of novels. They are enamored with their own "creative writing 101" skills.  

Reviewers' personal lives, morality and principles by which they conduct their life and reviewing, work habits in conjunction with communication with manufacturers, dealers and other industry members, writing style, etc. all vary from person to person. 

Imo, it is disingenuous, or ignorant, to paint all reviewers with such a broad brush as, "they all get paid," and "they get free gear given to them after the review," or similar. It is on the level of bikers at a bar talking about surgeons, as if they know what it is like to be a surgeon. I also held some of the biases and disrespect of reviewers prior to becoming one. It certainly has been eye-opening in several respects. The stories I could tell! Such assertions have been addressed before by myself and others; the print magazines have put out articles on the reviewing process. Nevertheless, we have constant regurgitation of misnomers and slanderous accusations. 

I certainly will not speak for other reviewers, but here are some facts about my activities:
I have put in 1,000+ hours related to reviewing (communication with industry members, shipping receiving and sending, system setup, listening note taking, writing and editing - I thoroughly edit all my articles prior to submission, such that normally there is little if any editing done to the article by the Editor), all unpaid. 
I have spent the equivalent of many of your systems' cost out of pocket to attend shows, then written unpaid show reports. 
I have never harbored gear after the review if the manufacturer wishes it to be returned. I have requested longer term loan of some pieces that are used ongoing in reviews, but I never consider them to become mine with time. 
I contact manufacturers over the years to thank them for continued use of any gear/cables, and remind them that I do not consider it to have become mine. 

As regards reviewing style, it takes more work to make an article that is informative and entertaining. We are not all going to agree on the proportion of each in a review that satisfies. If you don't like the reviewer, don't read them. I am more wordy than most, but I also put in excessive time to develop owner added insights that will enhance the ownership of the product. That is not required in reviewing, but I do so as a favor to the community. 

Now, regarding being unpaid and putting in enough time to make it a part time job; I'm no idiot. I gain benefits for my writing skills being honed through reviewing and have potential for industry accommodation if I purchase. I also have purchased many pieces of gear - I am buying one this week, as the manufacturer requested it to be returned, but I will possibly need it in the future as systems are reconfigured so much (it's an integrated amp with flexibility. I also am blessed to have a rotating selection of gear moving through my room. 

As far as ripping on reviewers as having a thing for the gear, SO WHAT? That's thinly veiled arrogance, as though it's a problem to love the gear and build systems. I am a System Builder, I love the gear as much as the music, and NO ONE can tell me I do audiophilia wrong. I build lots of systems and I do more reviews than most; I enjoy it and look for the adventure of discovery of system sound. 

I want ZERO participation in the industry politics, and I have ZERO involvement with the management and money of the magazine. That is true for most reviewers. I don't give a rip what other magazines do, and what other reviewers do, but there is no payola in my life. I attempt to maintain very high principles in my reviewing activity. So, I would appreciate it if the blanket statements were qualified, at least allowing for the potential for principled reviewers. 

There is no other reviewer with such a set of criteria. Every one is unique, as should be expected. I offered this as an example of what I believe are many decent people involved with reviewing who do not deserve to be maligned. If you think they don't know what they are doing in describing gear, you don't know much about system building, or reviewing. 

Finally, thank you to those who have read my work and responded with encouraging comments. It gives me great satisfaction when my work is parlayed into a benefit for the audiophile.  :)

geoffkait

If your comment was directed at me:  Items 1,2,3 are directly from posts by the owner of 6m, in the Audio Asylum forum.  Item 4 is from a post by the owner of 6m in several web sites.

If not directed at me, then I took to narrow a view of your post and I apologize.