Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

[GaryProtein]

That is not true if you don't talk about it. . . .

If you get something to review, talking about it is your job.

Not talking about it is no less shirking your job than a guy with a gunshot wound going to the ER and the doctors turning him away saying they don't want to treat people involved in violent crimes.

 

[rbbert]

That's no less shirking your job than a guy with a gunshot wound going to the ER and the doctors turning him away saying they don't want to treat people involved in violent crimes.

The thing is that there are very few truly bad products out there. Should a product get a bad review because it's not to a reviewer's taste, or because it doesn't match well with his system or his room? And how do we know how ethical the reviewer's behavior is (viz. examples above)?

 

[TheMadMilkman]

This stuff happens: bad reviews are an unethical practice.

Just name Harry Pearson. His unethical behavior was no secret.

I will gladly accept this statement: "Most published negative reviews are the result of unethical behavior on the part of the reviewer and/or publisher who are seeking some personal benefit in exchange for a good review, and use the negative review in retaliation or as punishment."

But I will not accept that ALL bad reviews represent unethical behavior.

 

[LL21]

That's no less shirking your job than a guy with a gunshot wound going to the ER and the doctors turning him away saying they don't want to treat people involved in violent crimes.

I see both sides here

1. I have appreciated and respected review and reviewers that pointed out strong negatives...so that i get the sense (perhaps falsely as Atmasphere points out) that the publisher is trying to be honest and not just a marketing publication.

2. At the same time, if someone i don't respect as a professional very much asks for a recommendation/reference for a job, i dont say yes, and then trash them in front of the future potential employer. I suggest they would be happier if they found someone else who would provide a stronger reference. i take the view we all need to eat.

 

[morricab]

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.

Not to give you a hard time, Ralph, but there are just as many false reasons to give good reviews and they often result in some kind of reward for the reviewer...thus more incentive to do so.

Also the OP was talking mainly about show comments so many of your reasons for bad reviews are a moot point as they don't really apply.

IMO, if an expensive system at a show doesn't deliver it deserves to be panned because the people involved are supposed to know how to get good sound out of it. And if they are trying to squeeze blood from a stone (or polish a turd) then that is also their problem for trying to peddle inferior products...better to hide behind some glowing reviews in the audio "infomercial" world.

I have been on all many sides of this industry, citizen, reviewer and dealer. I have done a couple of shows and we got great sound because we had great gear (KR Audio, Dr. Feickert TT, Ikon Audio speakers). I have been a very critical reviewer in the past and got turned down by darTZeel for a review of their amp (small one) and preamp AFTER I had visited them a day in Geneva and got their initial ok to do the review. Apparently I told them I am pretty critical once too often for their taste...and I discovered a huge channel imbalance in Herve Delatraz's system that day that apparently they hadn't noticed! Guess it made them nervous.

 

[Al M.]

Pointing out weaknesses in an otherwise positive review is fine.

Good, but then why on earth does it happen so rarely?

Wouldn't the manufacturers themselves also be interested in something that looks like an honest review rather than an advertorial? That would give the reported performance of their product much more credibility.

 

[amirm]

The thing is that there are very few truly bad products out there.

That is the elephant in the room. Objectively, almost every electronic product has levels of fidelity beyond what anyone can detect in the show scenario. I know we are talking in this thread in the context of subjective assessment. But at the same time we can't completely ignore the fact that the odds are way against us in hearing non-performing electronics.

Speakers and rooms are a different story of course. As is selecting content that either sounds to the listener (me for example in many cases) or by mistake is revealing of problems in the speaker/room.

Should a product get a bad review because it's not to a reviewer's taste, or because it doesn't match well with his system or his room? And how do we know how ethical the reviewer's behavior is (viz. examples above)?

Or if they are unethical why would us declaring bad reviews should not be published is something they will obey!

 

[Atmasphere]

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.

That latter comment is certainly the truth. The principle here is 'A rising tide raises all boats.'

If you get something to review, talking about it is your job.

Not talking about it is no less shirking your job than a guy with a gunshot wound going to the ER and the doctors turning him away saying they don't want to treat people involved in violent crimes.

No- when its a dud your job is to not talk about it. Send it back- maybe it needs repair and you didn't pick up on that. Or maybe it really is that bad. Not talking about it has almost the same effect as a bad review- which is to say no sales. Recognizing what is the reviewer's task here is the issue.

Just name Harry Pearson. His unethical behavior was no secret.

I will gladly accept this statement: "Most published negative reviews are the result of unethical behavior on the part of the reviewer and/or publisher who are seeking some personal benefit in exchange for a good review, and use the negative review in retaliation or as punishment."

But I will not accept that ALL bad reviews represent unethical behavior.

OK- I'm good with this, mostly. The only thing that you need to consider is how much of the underpinning you know about. Usually you don' t know any of it other than the reviewer says the product showed up at his house.

Not to give you a hard time, Ralph, but there are just as many false reasons to give good reviews and they often result in some kind of reward for the reviewer...thus more incentive to do so.

Also the OP was talking mainly about show comments so many of your reasons for bad reviews are a moot point as they don't really apply.

IMO, if an expensive system at a show doesn't deliver it deserves to be panned because the people involved are supposed to know how to get good sound out of it. And if they are trying to squeeze blood from a stone (or polish a turd) then that is also their problem for trying to peddle inferior products...better to hide behind some glowing reviews in the audio "infomercial" world.

I have been on all many sides of this industry, citizen, reviewer and dealer. I have done a couple of shows and we got great sound because we had great gear (KR Audio, Dr. Feickert TT, Ikon Audio speakers). I have been a very critical reviewer in the past and got turned down by darTZeel for a review of their amp (small one) and preamp AFTER I had visited them a day in Geneva and got their initial ok to do the review. Apparently I told them I am pretty critical once too often for their taste...and I discovered a huge channel imbalance in Herve Delatraz's system that day that apparently they hadn't noticed! Guess it made them nervous.

I concede that the topic has drifted somewhat, but what I am discussing has relevance in that if a person sticks his head in the door of a room at a show for 15 seconds and makes a negative pronouncement, that really isn't ethical.

The issue here is that high end audio is shrinking in the US at least, partially due to our not being very relevant, and partially also due to a lot of nonsense or outright fraud. We need to present a legitimate good face to the public. That's how you build credibility. So everything needs to be presented in a positive light; when its negative people find other things on which to spend their time. So in service of that, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything; that's how it works. So a reviewer, if stuck without good results, needs to talk to his/her magazine and the manufacturer and find out why, and perhaps the result is that it is agreed to send the product back without any comment at all. That is really the only ethical way to deal with bad results and by ethical I mean 'preventing the frailties of human nature'. I hope I don't have to spell this out again.

Yes, this results in all reviews being good ones, but hopefully also reviews in which weaknesses are discussed. These reviews tend to be more credible and carry more weight as time proves them out. We all know that the Quicksilver review was unwarranted; Quicksilver's product proved that out. If the review had corresponded with the actual goodness of the product, credibility would have been the result.

 

[Atmasphere]

Good, but then why on earth does it happen so rarely?

Wouldn't the manufacturers themselves also be interested in something that looks like an honest review rather than an advertorial? That would give the reported performance of their product much more credibility.

Actually that has happened in every review we have ever gotten. So I don't think its that rare, at least not from my perspective.

 

[DaveC]

A bad review as "punishment" is slander but impossible to prove unless facts are misrepresented, and I'd guess this kind of thing is mostly subjective. But, just because some folks are morally bankrupt it shouldn't determine the behavior of the industry in general.

I think it's obvious that the lack of unbaised reviewing is a huge negative to everyone involved in hifi audio, it diminishes our hobby and makes us all look like fools.

I didn't understand it before but now I do understand why some cottage industry / direct sales folks eschew reviews entirely. Personally, I am unsure which way to go. I know through testing I have a product that represents an amazing value but not sure I want to get caught up in the shady world of hifi reviews.

 

[GaryProtein]

. . . . No- when its a dud your job is to not talk about it. Send it back- maybe it needs repair and you didn't pick up on that. Or maybe it really is that bad. Not talking about it has almost the same effect as a bad review- which is to say no sales. Recognizing what is the reviewer's task here is the issue. . . .

We'll just disagree on that.

Not talking about it does NOT have the same effect as a bad review because the public never finds out the unit didn't perform.

 

[Bill Hart]

Ralph just made the case for Internet reviews by non-professional reviewers. (It sounds like he modified his view that any bad review is the result of unethical conduct). I don't doubt that unethical conduct of the type he describes occurs-- but what he is describing is worse than unethical- it sounds like extortion- demanding something of value under threat.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Yes, this results in all reviews being good ones, but hopefully also reviews in which weaknesses are discussed. These reviews tend to be more credible and carry more weight as time proves them out. (...)

It is still my preferred view about high-end audio reviews (posted in 2012):

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?9004-Logical-assumptions-Predetermined-biases&p=158025&viewfull=1#post158025

Long time ago I read in an Hong Kong magazine how they tested components: they had about one dozen reviewers and they handled one of them the piece. If he was not pleased with its performance they would handle it to the next reviewer in the line. If he still was not happy the sequence would go on until they get a reviewer who liked the equipment and wrote the respective review. Otherwise, if no one liked it, it was politely send back to the manufacturer with a letter stating something like "We are sorry to have to decline reviewing piece X. We thank you for your kindness to submit it, but none of our reviewers was able to provide an adequate system to test your equipment, and get a good and enjoyable performance. We apologize for not being able to find an appropriate system to carry this review, we are sure that your equipment has many good qualities, but we were not able to find them" .

Except for the rare cases of really flawed components, IMHO an extremely negative review is an indication of a an inadequate system or room, or even negative bias. I could learn a lot from extensive reviews of great components, but I do not remember learning anything from a negative review.

Although I understand his views and congratulate Peter of openly posting his opinion, disagreeing on his too aggressive style and even menacing words, I mainly think that WBF should prepare their readers to analyze properly the negative reviews or opinions by themselves, showing how insignificant they are most of the time, not insult or intimidate their authors.

 

[Jeffy]

I was in the room also at CES when this happened to Rasmusen. He still had dealers at the time as I and a bunch of others were invited to dinner at the Palmer House in Chicago. Probably the best steak I had at that time and 50.00 to beat. Today's dollar that would be over 200.00. Mike Maloney who started the Show also went out of his audio manufacturing business due to a bad review on his speakers. He made tube amps and preamps as well. He started the show after this.

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.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

The reviewer gets paid by the magazine and the magazine gets paid by the advertisers and the advertisers are manufacturers. Certainly some magazine revenue comes from subscribers. I'm not suggesting every reviewer is totally in the manufacturer's camp but I would suggest that if a fair reviewer were TOTALLY in the consumer camp (manufacturer be darned), some of the reviews might be a bit more open about the true feelings on the sound of a product.

I've written about this quite a bit, but it's worth mentioning yet again that the First Amendment of the US Constitution only applies between speech between individuals and government, and not between individuals or between individuals and corporations. There's a whole other set of laws around slander and libel that cover that stuff. Believe me, those are very well-worn paths -- even in writing about high-end audio -- and it's something worth being aware of, even if you're just a "little guy" ... or a forum contributor.

Fact is, getting sued is no fun. It's also expensive; you might win, eventually, but even if you do eventually come out victorious and win back your legal fees, you still have to pay upfront in order to play -- and while you're fighting your frivolous suit, you may actually be unable to continue to work ("Honey, what does 'injunction' mean?") ! Given that the average audio reviewer is paid peanuts to write (usually less than a couple of hundred bucks per review each of which may take several weeks -- or more -- to pull together), there doesn't really seem any upside in being negative -- "the betterment of humanity" notwithstanding, which, now that I think about it, rarely chips in for legal fees. Anyway, if you're ever sitting alone, flipping around online while sipping your mochachino and marveling/railing at the sorry state of reviewership, now you know why that is. Ta da!

All of that said, once I finally figured out reviewers were actually human and may or may not have any better ability to hear differences than I do, I began to use reviews as nothing more than a product introduction. And the other component that is necessary to remember is that even if the reviewer is totally in the consumer camp AND has great ability to hear, it is is still his opinion based upon his PREFERENCES. Mine may or may not align with his. The best judge of what is good and what I like is still me.

Amen. Beautiful sentiment. I agree one hundred percent. Couldn't have said it better myself. Even though I have said this myself about a million times (okay, at least once).

 

[Jeffy]

A certain magazine was in bed with the time with Sonic Frontiers. They also got highest grade reviews and when a smaller digital company that came along, Timbre Technology they got a mediocre review which happen to be way better sounding than the Sonic and Mark Levinson at the time. They did not want to upset SF and their big advertising campaign. Timbre slowly went out of business. I don't know if the next statement is true because Jeff Rowland is such a laid back guy. I heard that Rowland got a bad review by Harry Pearson of the Absolute Sound. When Harry showed up at CES Jeff tackled HP to the ground because he was so upset. If this is true I would love to have it on camera. Harry was afraid to go to shows after this.

 

[rbbert]

... Timbre Technology they got a mediocre review which happen to be way better sounding than the Sonic and Mark Levinson at the time...

Really? That seems doubtful, especially in such a subjective arena. I'm sure there were also careful listeners who felt the opposite.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is audiophile journalism actually journalism? Or is it fanboy hack writing? Because if it is journalism, the writers have a responsibility to report when something sounds bad, not make excuses for it. If all they do is positive reviews, unless they have the unlikely experience of only hearing stellar systems/components, they are just fanboys with word processing programs, not reporters. It really isn't complicated. Reporters report what they see/hear. Critics do critical analysis. That this is such a controversial topic of conversation at all speaks ill of the profession.

Tim

 

[kevinkwann]

Is audiophile journalism actually journalism? Or is it fanboy hack writing? Because if it is journalism, the writers have a responsibility to report when something sounds bad, not make excuses for it. If all they do is positive reviews, unless they have the unlikely experience of only hearing stellar systems/components, they are just fanboys with word processing programs, not reporters. It really isn't complicated. Reporters report what they see/hear. Critics do critical analysis. That this is such a controversial topic of conversation at all speaks ill of the profession.

+1

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Ralph just made the case for Internet reviews by non-professional reviewers. (It sounds like he modified his view that any bad review is the result of unethical conduct). I don't doubt that unethical conduct of the type he describes occurs-- but what he is describing is worse than unethical- it sounds like extortion- demanding something of value under threat.

And you're surprised by this?

It's important to note that Ralph isn't (and here, I'm putting words into his mouth -- sorry, Ralph) saying that "all reviewers are crooks". But the fact that some are isn't weird, unusual, or even unexpected. All reviewers are people. Some people are crooks. It's not implausible to jump to the conclusion that some reviewers are crooks. The thing to do is to find them out and call them out -- at the very least, treat them like trolls, stop feeding them and encourage them to go away.

I was going to comment on Peter's OP (buried now a million comments deep) like this:

It's a fallacy that "sound at an audio show is always terrible". But that said, this was practically a meme when I first started going, some 5 or so years ago. I've been to a few since (30+), and I can happily say with some authority that this "truism" just isn't true. Some rooms are simply superb.

That is worth calling attention to. That speaks to a whole lot of wonderful things -- great gear, great room, great setup, great luck, whatever. The fact that the room sounded great is worth celebrating. And that's probably why PFO and AVShowrooms and ETM bother with creating and distributing awards. Well, that and the good will. Awards always play well -- both with readers and with vendors. Everyone loves a winner.

When things go south, I have more problems. Sometimes it's the music selection. Sometimes it's the room. Sometimes it's setup. Sometimes it's something in the system. I have a really hard time pulling these issues apart, however, so I generally choose to move lightly past the sound quality and either note my unhappiness or ignore it altogether. There's usually something in the room worth talking about, so in good audio-show-reporter fashion, that's what I focus on.

But sometimes I am familiar with the gear. All of it. Some of it. Enough of it to have a pretty good idea where or what the culprit (or the hero) is. When it's good, I should try and call that out, no? But when it's not good, what then?

Look -- I don't want to be wrong. And not just for fear of looking a fool, or being sued, or losing advertisers, or whatever. The fact is, I can be wrong. It happens. Care is always warranted.

What if it's a matter of taste? Personal preferences and taste are valid, important and impactful things. As a reviewer, I can be accused of being an arbiter of taste, though I'm the first to state that I'm only the arbiter of my taste, but that's beside the point. Passing judgment is powerful. Regardless of who you are.

But when is it okay to call BS?

I've had a few discussions around this, but no real conclusions. Take, for example, the speaker-maker that shows up with an unfinished prototype. Is it okay to bash the sound of a prototype? How about a broken speaker? What if the at-the-show demo blows out a tweeter? Or a woofer? Is it okay to say "after the mishap, the demo continued on ... and yes, it sounded like grinding death."

• What if the designer shows up with a brand-new just-off-the-line amplifier? Or with a speaker with just-off-the-assembly-line drivers? That latter happened twice at Munich and both times, and you could hear it plain as a dude in lederhosen with an accordion, sailing blissfully through yet-another-"Hotel California" reprise. What do you say? Besides a raised eyebrow and an under-the-breath "Seriously?"
• What about the guy that pushes the rear-ported speakers right up on the wall?
• Or only plays 3 songs and every one of them at 110dB? Or 70dB?
• Or the one that brings a full-size speaker but fails to bring anything resembling room treatments?
• Or one that shows up with a partially finished speaker, or one with the veneer peeling off or wildly scratched/dented, or what if the amp has wires hanging out, or is actively sparking, or what about that dude in the room soldering ... things ....
• Or what about when a pair of someones are actually fighting?
• Or what if someone takes a massive dump in the attached bathroom, or fails to bathe after being attacked by what can only possibly be described as an enraged horde of skunks?
• Or what if the proprietor is staggeringly drunk? Or high?

What do you do then? I mean, as a reviewer, writer, reporter-on-shows. Do you ignore that stuff? Every single one has happened to me. Do I ding the room because of that stuff? Is any of it in-bounds?

The point is, making great sound at an audio show is hard. It's totally possible, however. I don't agree with Peter that throwing a penalty flag on a sub-par showing is the lowest of the low, however. I think there's quite a bit lower that you can go. But he has a point. When things go south in a demo, there's quite a lot at play there. Just as there is when things go well. Care in calling attention to both is required -- and that's probably why only us B-team rags tend to pass show awards around. Ha!

As for that bit about experts, well, that was inelegantly stated, but again, he has a point. In his defense, stating the problem clearly and concisely is quite difficult (“About Experts” (Part 1, Part 2.1, Part 2.2, Part 3 and Part 4) as there are more than a few moving pieces. There are a lot of folks saying truly odd and regrettable things and you do have to wonder why they bothered, or if they're ever satisfied, or if someone is continually running over their pets, or something. Likewise, just as there's a lot of folks running around saying "The Sky is Falling", there are those chanting "Everything is Awesome!" You do begin to wonder how it's possible that two reasonable, healthy people can come to such vastly different conclusions. Experts and context are important.

Anyway, wild thread.

Special thanks to Amir for all the great comments on listening. And also thanks to Al M for that reference to the review-of-the-review of the Thiel TM3. Some brilliant feedback, there.