I still subscribe to both SS, TAS and even S & V. I do so because with the professional rates, they are nearly free. I can't say that I pay much attention to any of the reviewers and can't say trust any of them. I would never buy any product sight unseen because of a review. I use the magazines basically in an effort to keep up on the industry and what is new. I even watch peter's videos. Still will despite the OP. I would love less catering to the ultra high end and would love to see less expensive products get more attention.
Negative show report posts... enough is enough.
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
One last volley then I'll move on to other more important things like chest waxing, eyebrow plucking, etc. I disagree with you Peter B that negative posts regarding eqpt auditions at shows should be off limits. I am a 1st amendment kinda guy..."this isn't Russia...is this Russia Danny?" I do agree however that if someone decides to trash a particular room at least provide some context...such as "disclaimer: I am not an expert audio reviewer...I am a coward...I am chaff...I am pond scum". Then the reader can choose to ignore said post 
Now there's a concept. I'm in the market for a phonostage and I have limited funds.......I'll never get to see a review.
Not that I really want to subscribe to TAS anymore, but I never found a competitive rate for the print magazine (the e-mag is nicely priced, though)
There are always at least a handful under $1000 in both Stereophile's and TAS's Recommended lists (usually not the same ones in each mag, either)
Regarding negative reviews: They carry with them the easy conflict of interest that results in poor ethical behaviour:
A reviewer can be in a bad mood or not like the manufacturer, or have a particular beef with him.
The magazine might want advertising, and upon not getting it, issues a bad review.
The reviewer might not know how to set up the equipment.
A reviewer might be mad because the manufacturer won't give him the equipment for free.
The reviewer may have tampered with the equipment.
There can be any amount of politics not visible to the reader. So generally speaking, a bad review is generally a sign of poor ethics on the part of the publication. The right way to do it is if the reviewer for whatever reason can't find something good to say then the gear gets sent back and that's the end of it. Out of sight out of mind.
I'm not making any of this up; I have seen all of the above first hand. If you think being a manufacturer is some sort of cake walk please dump that mistaken notion. I once sat at dinner between the chief editor of a major US print magazine and a potential advertiser, and so heard first-hand the discussion about putting the equipment to be advertised into the review cycle. I've also experienced first hand what happened with one magazine when I didn't place an ad campaign with them. I hate to burst y'all's bubbles in this regard but plain and simple (and I think this has a lot to do with the OP): its unethical to publish a negative review. Yah sure, you think hard-hitting journalism should be all of that and you are right. I'm just pointing out the simple and very real fact that it does not work that way.
A reviewer can be in a bad mood or not like the manufacturer, or have a particular beef with him.
The magazine might want advertising, and upon not getting it, issues a bad review.
The reviewer might not know how to set up the equipment.
A reviewer might be mad because the manufacturer won't give him the equipment for free.
The reviewer may have tampered with the equipment.
There can be any amount of politics not visible to the reader. So generally speaking, a bad review is generally a sign of poor ethics on the part of the publication. The right way to do it is if the reviewer for whatever reason can't find something good to say then the gear gets sent back and that's the end of it. Out of sight out of mind.
I'm not making any of this up; I have seen all of the above first hand. If you think being a manufacturer is some sort of cake walk please dump that mistaken notion. I once sat at dinner between the chief editor of a major US print magazine and a potential advertiser, and so heard first-hand the discussion about putting the equipment to be advertised into the review cycle. I've also experienced first hand what happened with one magazine when I didn't place an ad campaign with them. I hate to burst y'all's bubbles in this regard but plain and simple (and I think this has a lot to do with the OP): its unethical to publish a negative review. Yah sure, you think hard-hitting journalism should be all of that and you are right. I'm just pointing out the simple and very real fact that it does not work that way.
I am not offended by Peter B’s original post. I disagree only with his view that if one has nothing positive to say then one should not say anything. I think negative reports by non-experts which are carefully considered, thoughtful and well-written, especially ones which illuminate for the reader the listening preferences and the equipment frame of reference of the writer, are completely acceptable and desirable.
I agree with Peter B. that not everyone is an expert. Watching CNN does not make one a political scientist. (Sadly, Peter B., this is the problem with virtually every professional discipline outside of the fields of science and engineering — every reader, watcher or observer thinks he is an expert.)
All I give an expert reviewer over an advanced amateur is a greater presumption of accuracy. An expert reviewer has listened to a far wider range of equipment and systems and live music and recorded music than have I. But this presumption is rebuttable based on the expert reviewer's listening preferences and equipment frame of reference.
I enjoy reading expert reviews but listening preferences are so varied that I find expert reviews to be of little value except on a relative basis. If I find a piece of equipment in a system with which I am familiar and which is playing a recording with which I am familiar to be bright, and a reviewer loves that piece of equipment, and then in a review of a different piece of equipment the same reviewer finds the second piece of equipment to be brighter than the first piece of equipment which he loves, then there is a very good chance I will find the second piece of equipment too bright for me. It is only in this very limited context of getting a relative sense of sonic characteristics which I find expert reviews actually potentially useful.
I had an amazing time at T.H.E. Show. While it is fun to listen to and see new pieces of equipment I agree with Amir (post # 101) that the most fun part was to get the inside scoop, and to talk to, and deepen connections with, the designers of equipment which I own and of equipment which I respect. (I posted a review of one new speaker, which was a positive review, and a review of one older speaker, which was positive but qualified, and the qualification was explained in the context of my listening preferences.)
I think the “Best Sound of Show” search is silly. I heard several rooms with great sound. Because of differences in rooms and other factors I think picking a single “Best Sound of Show” does not have much meaning.
I agree with Peter B. that not everyone is an expert. Watching CNN does not make one a political scientist. (Sadly, Peter B., this is the problem with virtually every professional discipline outside of the fields of science and engineering — every reader, watcher or observer thinks he is an expert.)
All I give an expert reviewer over an advanced amateur is a greater presumption of accuracy. An expert reviewer has listened to a far wider range of equipment and systems and live music and recorded music than have I. But this presumption is rebuttable based on the expert reviewer's listening preferences and equipment frame of reference.
I enjoy reading expert reviews but listening preferences are so varied that I find expert reviews to be of little value except on a relative basis. If I find a piece of equipment in a system with which I am familiar and which is playing a recording with which I am familiar to be bright, and a reviewer loves that piece of equipment, and then in a review of a different piece of equipment the same reviewer finds the second piece of equipment to be brighter than the first piece of equipment which he loves, then there is a very good chance I will find the second piece of equipment too bright for me. It is only in this very limited context of getting a relative sense of sonic characteristics which I find expert reviews actually potentially useful.
I had an amazing time at T.H.E. Show. While it is fun to listen to and see new pieces of equipment I agree with Amir (post # 101) that the most fun part was to get the inside scoop, and to talk to, and deepen connections with, the designers of equipment which I own and of equipment which I respect. (I posted a review of one new speaker, which was a positive review, and a review of one older speaker, which was positive but qualified, and the qualification was explained in the context of my listening preferences.)
I think the “Best Sound of Show” search is silly. I heard several rooms with great sound. Because of differences in rooms and other factors I think picking a single “Best Sound of Show” does not have much meaning.
DEFINITELY NOT.
If you get something to review and you open the box, like it or hate it, you MUST print your review of it. Not to review it because you didn't like it is dishonest. This would lead to the company only getting favorable reviews and no bad ones that may have been deserved.
If you don't want to review it you can send it back unreviewed, but once you take it out of the box, people will assume you listened to it.
Let people write their reviews. The free market will decide who is the expert and who is not.
We are not demanding negative reviews per se, except when a component obviously does not deliver at all on its promise. However, in the context of an overall positive review, what is wrong with pointing out a component's weaknesses, next to its strengths? Or particular characteristics of presenting the music that make the component more suitable to some listeners than to others, or that require certain system matching? How about direct comparisons with other similar products? And even if the performance of them all can be considered of similar value, give or take, how do the characteristics of the product under review differ from these other ones?
In other words, really useful information rather than just another blah-blah advertorial. Some reviews deliver such information, and some are completely worthless in this regard.
WRT Atmasphere's post... I don't know about that... there are some products that represent a very poor value for the money out there. You think it's best to just keep that a secret? IMO, we lose credibility as an industry and it detracts from the hobby when there are so many choices and nobody willing to write an honest review. It makes everyone look bad and potential customers might just say **** it and spend their money on a new car or golf clubs or whatever instead of a hifi system.
There are some basic issues with this industry and hobby and this is one of them. There is no way you can say bad reviews are unethical as a blanket statement and not come off as having seriously compromised ethics yourself. IMO, we need more honesty and transparency, not more backroom ad money for reviews deals. The whole 6moons pay for review thing is a sign of a seriously sick industry imo.
This also creates an issue with talented designers not wanting to put any effort into hifi, they may say **** it and go put their effort into another industry with less of these kind of issues.
There are some basic issues with this industry and hobby and this is one of them. There is no way you can say bad reviews are unethical as a blanket statement and not come off as having seriously compromised ethics yourself. IMO, we need more honesty and transparency, not more backroom ad money for reviews deals. The whole 6moons pay for review thing is a sign of a seriously sick industry imo.
This also creates an issue with talented designers not wanting to put any effort into hifi, they may say **** it and go put their effort into another industry with less of these kind of issues.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
www.audiophile-magazine.com/reportages/bons-baisers-de-munich/high-end-2015-2/
It's French but Google will help you.
Ok, thanks. My French, while overall non-existent, is good enough to understand that it says "the page you requested does no longer exist"
I think this was the intended link:
http://www.audiophile-magazine.com/...-2015/bons-baisers-de-munich-high-end-2015-2/
http://www.audiophile-magazine.com/...-2015/bons-baisers-de-munich-high-end-2015-2/
That is not true if you don't talk about it.
Pointing out weaknesses in an otherwise positive review is fine.
I knew I would see some disagreement, but what y'all are not considering is that I have seen this first hand and you have not. We all want the hard hitting journalism and we all want to be warned of a dud out there that we should not waste our time and cash on. But the problem is human nature; most of the negative reviews you actually see in print have behind the scenes issues that have caused them to be bad ethics.
Let me give you some examples:
Gryphon, a highly respected solid state manufacturer, got a bad review in the US which killed their US distribution literally for years. I was in the room when the reviewer threatened the owners at a CES; he wanted them to give him the amp for keeps at no cost and he made it clear they would get a bad review if they did not comply.
Quicksilver get a bad review- they never advertise or didn't at the time. The magazine in which the review appeared was known for bad reviews if no advertising was in the offing.
Audio Alchemy got put out of business this way.
I can go on... I think I will.
I know of a reviewer, now dead, that stole amplifiers from manufacturers on a regular basis. If they objected, he took potshots at them in the press. I experienced that one first hand. Cary Audio got hit by him as did JC Morrison, who made amps before he got forced out of business by this tactic and went to work for New Sensor.
We had a reviewer buy one of our kit amps on the open market and reviewed it as if it was factory-built. The amp in question was not wired by an expert and looked like a rat's nest inside. When I called him out on this, he promptly changed a good review of our MP-3 preamp on his website from a good one to a bad one as punishment.
So you may disagree, and I understand why, I'm just saying that if you disagree your viewpoint is idealistic and not realistic. This stuff happens: bad reviews are an unethical practice.
Wow...i had heard this very rumor about that bad review which came out in the early '90s in stark contrast to the remarkable raves from reviewers in Asia around the same time (who actually bought the review pair i believe).
Similar threads
