Maybe he chooses to not write reviews of gear that does not preform well. I have watched many of his reviews and in most he has a section for cons or negatives. I watch the British Audiophile as well and do really enjoy his reviews. I have a small list of reviewers I trust on the tube. SoundNews, iiwi, British Audiophile and Steve Huff. I usually will watch a YouTube review and try to follow that up with actual end user reports to get an idea of the realism of the review. |
That's the practice of some reviewers, for sure. But in my opinion, he's full of hyperbole and exemplifies the approach and language of marketing and advertising. Marketing/advertising, in my view, is different than critical reviewing, just as science and business are different things. I suppose the question for me is, Would I trust this sort of person to recommend a heart surgeon? Not. A. Chance. |
Huff is just trying to monetize his channel. Nothing wrong with that.
He is also using the sale/resale of those items he buys at industry accommodation (or gets for free for reviewing them) and then after a period of time passes, he seems to sell them on. Nothing wrong with that either.
What’s wrong about this scenario is that innocent individuals (like yourself?) seem to give him and his reviews more credibility than is appropriate. The stuff he reviews is all varying degrees of good to great…which is also the current state of the gear being manufactured.
His system is moving up the foodchain because better manufacturers are willing to let him review their gear now. They are willing to do that because he is getting clicks. He is getting clicks because of his Ginsu knife headline clickbait. Nothing wrong with that either.
He is learing on the fly, just like many of us. His opinions aren’t necessarily invalid but they arent the same thing as Lavorgna or Atkinson or the late Art Dudley saying at the end of a review: “I bought this for my system”. Huff is cranking out seemingly a review per week…that’s not enough time to do one properly. But I get it, he’s trying to earn a living but Huff would likely agree that his reviews aren’t really intended to guide anyone, just to ad another data point.
|
I agree with @ghasley too. The only way I’d demur a bit is that the word "review" helps lend credibility where essential elements of the review process -- a.k.a. honest criticism -- is missing. There is no F.D.A. approval process for this stuff, natch, but people do wind up getting misled by the lingo. Is that Huff’s fault for wanting to "monetize" (what a word) his channel? I suppose not, insofar as caveat emptor still applies. But from the standpoint of a hobbyist who wishes for the best sound for everyone, I suppose I’m made a bit sad when the process of intelligent evaluation is derailed just a little more by our contemporary P.T. Barnums wield 21st c. algorithmic technologies to make bank as they make shilling look like critical reviewing. |
