2. analog
  3. 1368037639

What do you expect a reviewers system to be

There has been quite a bit of discussion on reviewers systems, long term loans, favored purchase price etc.
but what do you expect your favorite reviewers system to be if he or she is to be taken seriously about the component under review. does the reviewers system have to be the same as yours. does it have to sound good, or should it be so detailed and etched that its not great fun to listen to, but you can sure tell the difference when a new component is substituted. if not the latter, then how can you tell if the new component just makes the system sound better, but may have aberrations of its own. And, if you demand the review have that detailed system, does he have to pay for it at retail so he can avoid criticism and have to listen to it all the time, or can he have another system he may enjoy more, or for which he got discount pricing.
Myself, I doubt that there are many full time reviewers who are independently wealthy and could afford. I'm ok with a reviewer using whatever system he likes to review a product, so long as he is familiar with that system so he can readily recognize changes, for better or worse. If thats a bose table radio,so be it. but what do you all think?
manitunc
Post removed 
rrog
1,958 posts
 
"The one oddest thing is when reviewing an item: the first one broke, the second one broke"

That item is now history. Would you buy it knowing that companies QC does not exist? This tells me that manufacturer is not one of the magazines favorite advertisers. If it was a favorite advertiser you would never hear about the defective units. It's kind of like paying for protection. Get it?
buconero117
2,311 posts
 
As mentioned, having two systems, in different rooms. One would be a reference system that resulted from many years of listening. The other would be a continual work in progress with testing new components to be compare only against the reference system components sound, not the components themselves.
ptmconsulting
1,000 posts
 
Lets face it, a review article is going to net the reviewer maybe something in the $2000 neighborhood. Perhaps more for a regular senior contributor. I doubt that many a reviewer can subsist on those payouts, let alone amass an expensive state of the art system without some serious accommodation pricing and long term loans.

That being said, they do get to hear a lot of stuff and gain experience over time and pick and choose what they want to purchase for themselves. Yeah, a "neutral" system might be better for discerning differences and evaluating components, but it still depends on their familiarity with some kind of a reference (e.g. their own compilation of components). After all, that what each of us does when we hear another audiophile quality system ... we compare it to what we know and what we like.

However, reviewers will necessarily still try to be upbeat. How many reviews will they get if they trash things big time? So as readers, we have to read between the lines a bit. Somewhat forward sounding means it will etch your ears. Somewhat overfull bass means it sounds tubby and bloated and one note boomy. etc, you get the picture.
mechans
3,048 posts
 
The best measure outside of hearing a component in your own system is to read a review from severaal sources who invariably have different reference sysems. My point is that if you do read several sources and they concur about certain elements found in reviewing a product it is obviously more credible than reading one reviewer with one system.
That said, I did kind of get used to a particular reviewers system even though it often included elements I myself didn't always love an example being 6 moons.
More to discover