As a reviewer I am interested in suggestions for reviews so this is a good thread for me to read. To be up front I have heard most of this before, but each person's comments are worthwhile.
I cannot help but think an interesting exercise would be for contributors here to try writing their own review of a component, say 2500 words. It's harder to write short and be concise -- at least for me, mine tend to run 2500-3500 words.
The hardest part for me is the introduction which should grab attention and be relevant to the product on hand -- reviewer life stories are not that germane and tend to be boring. You should include a little bit of information on the designer or manufacturer, a technical description of how the product functions (beyond a mere repetition of specs), relevant specifications, a brief description of the review context (asociated equipment) and real world product use. That's the first half of the review, the second being your listening experience.
It's fine to offer an overview of sonic characteristics but you also need specific accounts of what you hear from 3-5 pieces of music. Readers will want some sonic comparison with another similar product that you have in your system; be cautious with memories of some prevous product no longer available to you. And, a brief conclusion. Edit scrupulously for grammar and spelling.
Anyone up for the challenge?
An audio review is expository writing and the root word here is "to expose". Anything that gets in the way of that is embellishment. Tell me what you hear, not what you like.
Now I'll give some feedback on a few comments in this post:
I would like to see all publications clearly identify what associated equipment reviewers own and what is on loan. Positive Feedback is the only one I can think of that does this. Also, reviews with no mention or limited mention of the associated gear are basically worthless. TAS is terrible about this.
Thank you for mentioning this. In PF, click on the author's name to read about his system and equipment on loan.
2) Compensation and Perks
Compensation received by a reviewer in connection with, or as a condition of, a formal review or a report at an audio show or a factory visit should be disclosed. The amount of direct compensation, and the approximate value of airplane tickets, hotel accommodations, meals, wine and transportation should be disclosed in the review, report or visit.
You show me yours and I'll show you mine. heh. I got paid $100-$150 for a review at The Audio Beat and currently get $50 for a review from PF, can't remember SoundStage but it wasn't much. I don't do it for the money. For covering CES (in its heyday) I got economy airfare and a cheap room paid by the publisher. Food paid by me.
I don’t trust magazines. IMO most are swayed in their opinions by the advertising dollars they receive. So, IMO these are merely paid advertisements made by word-smiths.
I suggest to keep in mind the distinction between a magazine or publisher and its reviewers.
Publishers do aim to make a profit otherwise they cannot exist. From the publisher's perspective, reviewers and writers draw reader eyeballs which the publisher uses to sell advertising -- the larger the audience the more an ad is seen. The reviewer is typically cordoned off from the business -- the reviewer does not write to sell products, they write to describe products.
There may be a handful of exceptions where a reviewer is also an editor and closer to the business end of things. It is the publisher, not the reviewer, who asks if the product provider who wants a review also wants to buy advertising. Early on I was assigned reviews but never have been told what to write. Nowadays I choose the products I want to write about and get approval to do the review. I have no knowledge of a possible manufacturer - publisher business relationship.
Since audio is a subjective hobby a panel of reviewers would seem to offer a more comprehensive overview. A European Journal does that. They all listen to the gear at the same time in the room and rotate positions and then each reviewer gives his take. Seems a more reasonable approach to me. In fact, I recall a few decades back our US hifi magazines used to offer 2 or more viewpoints on a piece of gear. When did a single person become the final authority, the final word on a piece of gear?
What Lee said. And logistically problematic and expensive. Commitees are great for compromise and hiding. No thanks.
Lee for starters let the reviewers do a phone recording after the words (reviews .)
As an experiment I included 3 videos in my
Aidas Mammoth Gold cartridge review and received a single comment. I don't see this being done elsewhere, but maybe. Do people want this?
A great point. Just how many more veils can be lifted? How many more layers of glare can be removed? Of course, like all of us, I welcome improvements. But there is rarely an appropriate comparison or moderation in the hyperbole. Then again, if there is not the whetting of the appetite, would not sales and innovation slow resulting in stagnation? So, I’m not sure where to draw the line.
This is a good comment.
In one review I wrote: "I can tell you the XXXX improves on
everything and not by a small margin. Yes, the same qualitative characteristics are there with the same adjectival modifiers: increased clarity, detail and harmonic richness, gains in soundstage dimension and image focus, firmer and weightier bass. But there are only so many "more thans," "deepers", and "clearers" one can write before the differences in degree are diminished by the repetitiveness of the vocabulary."
There certainly is repetition in audio description. My sense is some of this comes from reader expectation for coverage of a set of possible sonic characteristics, for example: soundstage, timbre, transparency, dynamics, etc. And there is a set of adjectives frequently used for each characteristic. Part of it comes from writers reusing what they've always used. Creative language can help but only goes so far. It's a problem. What do you suggest?
