Audio vs. Other Reviews

Kirk, Brian, actually I've asked Brian's question of a reviewer or two for a big magazine or two, and was told no, that rarely happens. I think most of the reviewers want to publish reviews and collect their $250 as often as possible.

I think the primary reason you dont see bad reviews, at least w/re electronics, amps, cdps, etc., is that most products are pretty good. The stories reviewers tell to differentiate between similarly priced products are the reviewers' product, all toward selling more advertising. This is not to say that the reviewers do not believe what they write. I think they do, or at least believe that they might be right.

The reason you see the comparison reviews in the car buff mags is that most readers will agree that the test results have some meaning, zero to 60, luggage capacity, slalom course roadhandling, leg room - these are all things that make sense to people and make it possible to differentiate between competing products. Now, audio components can be measured, but most of the subscribers to Stereophile and TAS seem to believe that nothing that can be measured matters when it comes to sound quality (God knows what "high fidelity" means anymore), that is to say, audiophiles who believe that two components with identical measurements can sound different must think that the things that are measured don't matter. So what's to compare, and why take the chance of offending some readers and potential advertisers?

Actually, there have been a lot of comparison tests of speakers, with measurements that vary widely. And it is with speakers that KT's question above really resonates. Speakers sound very different from one another. If fidelity to source is the goal, and accuracy matters, some of them must be closer to right and some very very wrong. So why don't we see more reviewers say that certain speakers are just plain wrong? In my opinion, because most of the reviewers don't know what right sounds like.

Paul

I think these reviews should only be used as a "guide" for targeting a list of items to audition. Companies wine and dine writers (Sam Tellig) in Europe (Triangle/Musical Fidelity), and then he's supposed to give a critical and honest review of their product???
However, I do tend to agree with most of his assessments.
The CEO of Musical Fidelity actually plays clarinet on a CD issued by Stereophile. (SLIGHT CONFLICT OF INTEREST???)
As overtly incestious as they may seem, you have to use these reviews as entertaining idea-generators, and not reference gospel. It would be more entertaining if the reviewers were allowed to refer to some of the products as overpriced, overt trash. However that would mean no more wine tasting parties at the homes the company owners. We cannot have that...

Reviews are most definitely not a substitute for personal experience / auditions. My own answer to the question is a combination of a couple points made above - first, that audio components are reviewed mostly as individual components, but behave in the context of a full system, and second, that most products are, indeed, at least pretty good, and therefore fairly difficult to be negative about.

Still, every review magazine is dependent on advertising for its survival. The audio rags constantly tell us of the separation between editorial and ad sales - ie, no conflict of interest. And yet, I regularly read a review of a component where the reviewer clearly isn't particularly thrilled, but any comments get so watered down that it comes out, at worst, as a back-handed compliment. Maybe it's this way with review mags for higher ticket items. It just seems that you read the comment, "can't match the performance of this $2K amp for anything less than $4K!", but you never read the comment, "This $4K amp is excellent, but you can get the same performance for half this price elsewhere. Therefore, while I like this amp a lot, it's not a particularly good value." Maybe I'm expecting too much.

I basically agree with all of the above, fine points made by everyone. I do think that the current standard reviewing style is of very limited value to audiophiles. There are a few good dealers here and there whose takes on what's what are much more on the money than anything you will get out of the mags (although rarely so when concerning competing brands they don't carry). While I have posted about this previously in great detail, I'll just reiterate here that perhaps the most indicative sign of this milquetoast trend is the ridiculous "grade inflation" exhibited by Stereophile's now-worthless 'Recommended Components' farce. There seemed to be a trend a while back in both some mags and webzines toward multiple-reviewer perspectives per component, but that now looks to have fallen by the wayside a good bit, which is a step in the wrong direction - especially given today's impossible proliferation of published 'reviewers' who possess no track record with the readers to refer back to.

But I'm also not sure if a lot of audiophiles could truly handle a 'real' critic in this business. If audio reviewing were the profession of one of history's great critics - say George Bernard Shaw or Mark Twain - then we'd have to accept criticism of more than just the latest black box, and audiophiles as a group are probably just a little too neurotic, anal-retentive, and insecure to deal with that challenge in good humor. In other words, validation, rather than questioning, sits better and sells better with us. Come back to audio, J. Gordon - it needs you!

Right on Zaikesman! I for one am reluctant to subscribe to the "audioperfectionist" as it seems to echo too much of my current thinking. I want more than validation, I want some one who can present a valid challange to my prejudices as well. As for Mr. Holt, his keen ear and no nonsense sincerity is sorely missed. Perhaps he is appropriately pioneering the home theatre front, but I for one have yet to appreciate it.