Negative show report posts... enough is enough.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

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

I don't think there is a real distinction between "good journalism" and "advertorialism", not when talking about consumer products. It's all advertorial. All of it. At least to some significant, non-zero extent. Even the negative stuff. In some cases, especially the negative stuff. But then there are lawyers and those that misuse them. Which puts a rather chilling effect on anyone silly enough to damn the torpedoes (as it were).

My policy is to send stuff back. Sometimes, happy salubriousness is difficult or elusive. That's the job! But sometimes, happy salubriousness does not occur, regardless of what I do. And when that happens, I retreat. Seems wise. Why? It might be me.

Take a recent example about a review about an amp, one where the reviewer was using a notoriously tricky preamp as a mate. He concluded that it must be the amp that's trashing his awesome system's sound, when even a casual reader would wonder about that amp/pre pairing. You do have to wonder if we all wouldn't have been better off had that review not just been tossed in the can.

 

[Joe Whip]

"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. "

Perhaps the negative review is due to the fact that it is a flawed component and that flawed components aren't as rare as you may think. I guess in audiophile land, everything is great. Really?

 

[soundArgument]

Take a recent example about a review about an amp, one where the reviewer was using a notoriously tricky preamp as a mate. He concluded that it must be the amp that's trashing his awesome system's sound, when even a casual reader would wonder about that amp/pre pairing. You do have to wonder if we all wouldn't have been better off had that review not just been tossed in the can.

Can you say which tricky preamp?

 

[GaryProtein]

. . . .My policy is to send stuff back. Sometimes, happy salubriousness is difficult or elusive. That's the job! But sometimes, happy salubriousness does not occur, regardless of what I do. And when that happens, I retreat. Seems wise. Why? It might be me. . . . .

If your job is to be a critic and review products, you are being dishonest sending something back that your reviewed and found inferior and refused to write about

 

[the sound of Tao]

Scott,

I'm sure we all appreciate all the work writers and reviewers do to make our enjoyment of all this stuff more complete but fair disclosure is part and parcel of journalistic codes of ethics. Without being sensationalist about this at all and completely understanding the need for economic sustainability when you are doing this work but it's still troubling that a publisher doesn't see the need for a clear distinction between journalism (any journalism let alone good journalism) and advertorial content.

Graham

 

[Joe Whip]

If your job is to be a critic and review products, you are being dishonest sending something back that your reviewed and found inferior and refused to write about

+1. The bug a boo being that a negative review may mean no more advertizing.

 

[NorthStar]

I wish so too. But the question is not what I hear but who do I trust? The game is... we have to choose the advisor and not hear the loudspeaker.

Hi Peter,

Unlike Kal who said that he has not read this thread and wasn't interested, but did give his opinion, I have read this entire thread very attentively; all the posts from all the members/posters. ...It is for sure very informative to read several opinions from such an elite of gentlemen.

Reading your reply just above I just wonder...how can we do our job properly and professionally if constrained by any barrier? ...Be it anything from audio manufacturers, to the room where the exhibit is taken place, to the setup, to the music playing.

And it is the same with any type of job we perform in life. I strongly believe in that, and no matter what.

Previously I said that I use my ears to assess, and a balance judgement. ...Analyzing the pros and cons for each particular situation/room (space).
Everyone has an equal chance, to fine tune and by using the right tools. ...If some rooms can sound wonderful with modest systems then higher-end systems should not feel @ a disadvantage. ...To the contrary, they should sound spectacular.

How many times we have heard the same tune; it's the room's fault?

Everyone is different when they go to an audio show; from the ready to purchase to the casual interested to the pro audio reviewers to the business audio dealers to the audio manufacturers to the audio magazine writers to the advertisers to the music lovers to the gear lovers to anyone and everyone between.

I am no expert, no audio dealer, no millionaire, no professional audio reviewer, not even a regular audio show goer. ...I'm just a simple music lover in search of happiness, the real thing.

Going to live music concerts from the music we love and the artists playing it is numero uno; everything else is a duplication...the closer the illusion, the best.

 

[Al M.]

And also thanks to Al M for that reference to the review-of-the-review of the Thiel TM3. Some brilliant feedback, there.

Thanks, Scott. I enjoyed reading your posts here, and I also enjoy your site. Seems we both are fans of BorderPatrol, see also my review linked in my signature.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

If your job is to be a critic and review products, you are being dishonest sending something back that your reviewed and found inferior and refused to write about

"If your job ..." There's a lot packed in there. Its hardly cut-and-dried, but again, I think all of this is addressed (and addressable) in your stated Editorial Policy or Statement of Purpose or whatever you want to call it.

The fact is, there's no one thing called "journalist" or "critic". Witness the difference between FOX and NPR, for example.

 

[Al M.]

...If some rooms can sound wonderful with modest systems then higher-end systems should not feel @ a disadvantage. ...To the contrary, they should sound spectacular.

Not necessarily. For example, very large speakers can be more difficult to set up properly than smaller ones, especially when the room is compromised, and issues with the power from outlets may constrain high-powered amps necessary to drive some large speakers much more than modest amps on smaller speakers.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Thanks, Scott. I enjoyed reading your posts here, and I also enjoy your site. Seems we both are fans of BorderPatrol, see also my review linked in my signature.

Because we have excellent taste, obviously.

 

[Al M.]

Because we have excellent taste, obviously.

Hehe.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Unlike Kal who said that he has not read this thread and wasn't interested, but did give his opinion, I have read this entire thread very attentively; all the posts from all the members/posters. ...It is for sure very informative to read several opinions from such an elite of gentlemen.

Well, I have followed the thread since and it has gone off the original track to formal product reviews and to matters of integrity. All I choose to say about that is if a manufacturer sends a product which I have agreed to review, it will be reviewed. Anything less is dishonest.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Scott,

I'm sure we all appreciate all the work writers and reviewers do to make our enjoyment of all this stuff more complete but fair disclosure is part and parcel of journalistic codes of ethics. Without being sensationalist about this at all and completely understanding the need for economic sustainability when you are doing this work but it's still troubling that a publisher doesn't see the need for a clear distinction between journalism (any journalism let alone good journalism) and advertorial content.

Graham

Disclose, disclose, disclose! It's the name of the game.

But I was speaking a bit facetiously. From the view of a savvy manufacturer, all words are good. All attention is good. Heard that directly from a marketing guy at an audio show. And he has a point.

But from the view of the writer, it's all in the disclosure.

 

[NorthStar]

I'm not sure that's being very fair to Peter B. If we cut him some slack for the OP, which I think is as much about blowing off steam on one issue more than a condemnation of every jerk who is quick to offer their not particularly insightful comments about the sound of a room under show conditions, we should still acknowledge that Peter does some very good work everywhere he writes, including AV Showrooms, which is often educational event though its obviously impossible to form a sonic opinion from those snippets. Furthermore, Peter is clearly a gentleman, which sadly, can be in short supply in this business. I think there's a long line of reviewers that you may not wish to take take seriously, hailing back to Bert Whyte (Bose 901s) and Julian Hirsch (never met a piece of gear he didn't like) , but I'm reluctant to kick anyone to that group based on the opinion expressed in an editorial piece that is about something other than the sound of specific equipment.

That, is a fair analysis. It's not few lines written in an audio forum that is going to reverse the world upside down. It makes all reflect on ourselves, not just this audio industry.
It ain't the end of the world, but an open vision for a better one.

 

[dallasjustice]

If your job is to be a critic and review products, you are being dishonest sending something back that your reviewed and found inferior and refused to write about

There IS a difference between a magazine one pays for and a free online magazine. Scott doesn't owe any of his readers anything. He simply provides entertainment and some information. If you don't like it, ask for a refund. Scott's policy is fully honorable and consist with best business practices.

At the other extreme, there is HIFI Critic which doesn't sell any advertisement. Their yearly subscription exceeds $100. I subscribed one year. It was very poorly edited and sloppily assembled. It looked like it was printed out of someone's garage. I cancelled after the first year. There was an issue dedicated to USB cable comparisons. It was a joke, IMO.

Michael.

 

[NorthStar]

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.

Did I just read that? ...I'm going to spin a Jazz CD now, ...John Coltrane.

 

[Joe Whip]

There IS a difference between a magazine one pays for and a free online magazine. Scott doesn't owe any of his readers anything. He simply provides entertainment and some information. If you don't like it, ask for a refund. Scott's policy is fully honorable and consist with best business practices.

At the other extreme, there is HIFI Critic which doesn't sell any advertisement. Their yearly subscription exceeds $100. I subscribed one year. It was very poorly edited and sloppily assembled. It looked like it was printed out of someone's garage. I cancelled after the first year. There was an issue dedicated to USB cable comparisons. It was a joke, IMO.

Michael.

Then it should be labeled as an entertainment site. I guess you get what you pay for from a free on line site.

 

[Joe Whip]

Did I just read that? ...I'm going to spin a Jazz CD now, ...John Coltrane.

John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman? I may just do that myself!

 

[audioguy]

When I got out of college, I was a computer programmer. (This was just after the discovery of electricity). We used to ask the following about someone who, for example, had been in the business for 5 years: Did he/she have 5 years of experience or 1 year of experience 5 times? The same question should be asked about audio reviewers. Because someone has been in the audio reviewing business for some length of time does not necessarily add to the list giving validity to the term "expert" reviewer.