Reviewing the Reviewers - and the decline of HiFi


I know that Arthur Salvatore has an ongoing tirade with Michael Fremer, and whilst I don't wholly share his views so far as Fremer is concerned, I support the sentiment that reviewers themselves ought to be themselves reviewed.
I say this after having read another 6Moons review that basically says that the item they have reviewed is the best thing since sliced bread. With the exception of HiFi news - and that was about 7 years ago, and HiFi Critic (which is regrettably not distributed very widely as yet)- none of the magazines ever criticize products.
This may well explain why the industry is in such decline. Let's face it in the United States Breitling made more than the whole of the US HiFi industry put together! Think I am mad? Well think on this cars sell, and continue to sell well. New cars are by and large a luxury, because we can recycle old cars, but we convince ourselves on their necessity. Car reviewers are unfettered by the need to give wet reviews. The buying customers are therefore not forced to listen through the BS of a review to get some real and genuine information.
Manufacturers also have to wake up and not be so hypersensitive of any genuine comparative criticism - it leads to product improvement. The reviewing industry should get out of the habit of expecting 5 star reviews when they lend equipment to magazines for 'extended periods'. let's face it - most people see hifi and music as coming out of white ear buds, computers, and mobile phones.
lohanimal
for a review to be of value the following conditions must be met: a) the reviewer be at a non-profit that does not advertise, b) the reviewed equipment must not come directly from the Manufacturer but be purchased in the manner we as consumers would purchase, c) the reviewer does not know and has no contact with the manufacturer, d) the reviewed item is reviewed in a real world system (5k speakers in a 10k system --- not a 40K system; a 4k preamp in a 20k system --- not a 100K system), and e) the reviewed item is compared in one system against 3 other items and reviewed in a relativistic manner (example: 4 total 5k speakers compared & contrasted or 4 total 4K pre-amps).

These conditions are never met.

Thus, no professional reviews are of value --- except as a diversion for a few minutes and to look at pretty pictures.. otherwise, professional reviews are biased, non-relativistic (and thus meaningless) and of no real value to a person considering a purchase.
I hear what you're saying Robsker but a "non profit" for hi-end audio? Another consideration is someone with some business savvy and ambition that might explore the viability of a for profit in the mode of Consumer Reports, not likely either. (I'm not sure if they are a non profit or not for profit but you can bet, someone or somebodies is making money along the line.)

In any regard I'm certain it would take a lot of investment capital and market research as a start that few would risk UNLESS some altruistic audiophile with deep pockets decides to do it as a worthwhile "non profit" or "NOT FOR PROFIT" enterprise in the service of his fellow audiophiles maybe? Again, not likely unless there is some beneficial tax loophole regarding the 2nd option. Consumer Reports researches a wide variety of product so has vastly broader appeal and a greater subscriber base. Another problem is that objective analysis can never override subjective appeal, how do you deal with that? It can NEVER be like Consumer Reports for that reason alone. Remember Audio Magazine and Stereo Review? Everything was pretty much based on measurements and a brief comment or two about how components sounded, which was generally "good".
One has to be naive in the EXTREME to think anything in the USA involving sizable sums of money is not corrupt.
How you thread you way through the mine-field is another matter.
"One has to be naive in the EXTREME to think anything in the USA involving sizable sums of money is not corrupt."

No, I think you have to be cynical.