A direct question. Has anyone ever read a review of new equipment in which the reviewer simply disliked the product? Sound quality far below the sales price, overhyped, chintzy build quality, etc? Has it ever happened?
The Impossible Has Happened
If you've been visiting this forum for very long you know that many people consider professional audio reviews, the ones in the print (Stereophile, TAS, etc.) and online magazines, at best to be paid promotion and more likely outright lies in an attempt to scam you out of your money.
Here is a quote from a recent thread that was about reviews, not about their honesty or value, but got a number of posts about those attributes anyway.
Just once I would like to read a review of a pricey piece of equipment that said that the reviewer couldn’t hear any difference between that and something far less expensive . . .
Well believe it or not that has just happened in TAS, considered by many to be the worst abuser of the truth. The situation is not exactly as in the quote above, the less expensive gear is being reviewed in this example, but it is the same in essence, IMHO.
Alan Taffel wrote a review of the T+A Series 200 components. In it he says
"I happen to own a wonderful-sounding modular integrated amp: the CH Precision I1. Comparing it to the Series 200 was natural but a bit unfair. The CH unit costs more than double the price of the Series 200 stack. Nonetheless, I was glad I embarked on this comparison, because otherwise I never would have known that the two systems sounded almost identical."
The CH I1 starts at $38,000. Fully loaded it costs over $50,000..
The Series 200 stack, consisting of a transport/streamer, a DAC and an integrated amp in 3 separate boxes, costs $18,475.
So I'm not saying you should believe everything you read in professional reviews or even any of it, but here is an example where a reviewer stated that a system costing less than half a more expensive system sounded "almost identical" to the more expensive system.
And CH Precision has a full page ad in that issue of TAS, February 2023, while T+A has none. Just thought you might like to know.
- ...
- 45 posts total
@chocaholic How about: “it looks like they copied the Titanic complete with the hole and headed out to sea.” Does this qualify? |
I understand, appreciate and wholeheartedly endorse the skepticism in this regard. However, there are some reviewers I've followed and read over the decades whose opinion(s) or evaluation(s) of stereo toys I've come to trust. Sometimes, I've read reviews prior to shopping for a piece of equipment and sometimes afterward. Yes, one should always be judicious about advertisers' influence on the overall picture. Regardless, I find it useful to use reviews simply to keep up with latest developments and establish a list of possible suspects before going out to do my own critical listening and evaluations. I find it informative to pay particular attention to the type(s) or genre(s) of music that reviewers use in their evaluations and obviously personally enjoy. This is especially important for reviews of speakers as some perform better with Rock, some better with Classical, some with Jazz, etc. There's nothing wrong with professional reviewers being politic or polite in their assessments, notwithstanding whatever influence(s) advertisers may have. With the best reviewers, you can usually read between the lines. Have you ever been asked how cute a newborn, or somebody's kid was? What are you going to say to the parents? Ugliest kid I've ever seen? In the end, reviews are somebody's opinion. The most important one, is YOURS. |
I have subscribed to Stereophile and TAS from the J Gordon Hold and the Harry Pearson days. Once upon a time you could actually read a bad review. When a manufacturer submitted a component for review they held their breath. So what changed? Here are a few things that I have witnessed in my audio journey. 1. The industry matured and every new component from mid price on up sounds good. Unless you are buying something from a crackpot in a garage, the designer has compared his/her new gizmo with state of the art competitors. New gear isn't released until it has been vetted for acceptable sound. A corollary of this is that the sound of all new gear has converged. There is a generally recognized standard for good sound quality and nobody is going to release something that sounds very different. 2. The audiophile publishing business has ballooned into a much bigger industry with slick magazines staffed by well paid writers that include dozens of full page ads from the major companies. Their role has moved from that of an independent critic to a mission of supporting the audiophile hobby and the related industry. Stereophile and TAS are much more like trade magazines now instead of publications that provide critical buying guidance. 3. The magazines have admitted that if they encounter a substandard product they don't review it. They intentionally filter out any products that would receive a bad review. I don't have a problem with this because if a brand or component has been reviewed positively in one of the publications I'm comfortable that it's going to sound good. 4. The publications have declared war on blind testing exactly because most components sound virtually identical. The entire industry is founded on expectation and confirmation bias. IMO this is fine because we are not using our stereo to treat our chronic diseases (hopefully a bad component won't kill us) but I think that a sober recognition of this is important. 5. I believe that the magazines have adopted a role of making us feel good about whatever gear we purchase. If we are drawn to a particular piece of kit, a thorough review can help us justify spending the money (or perhaps raise a red flag). One especially good feature of a speaker review is an analysis of how that speaker will match with an amp (sensitivity, impedance curve). Same thing goes for amps. Even very positive reviews can be informative and therefore provide value to the reader. |
- 45 posts total