Negative show report posts... enough is enough.
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
110% agree. Not to mention as in almost any job you are initially drinking from the fire hose and accumulating tons of experience/knowledge in a short period of time. Also, just because you've been "doing your job" for many moons doesn't automagically make you an expert.
I guess I'm supposed to be offended by that. But since you're not bothering to do due diligence, I'm not sure why anyone else should either.
Feel free to come up with a viable, alternative business model. Believe me, the industry would be "all ears" to hear your deep wisdom on this issue.
In the meantime ... lets argue about negativity some more.
Back to the thread intent...sort of...
A few years ago I attended a show, not as an exhibitor, but as an enthusiast. One room that I particularly remember was inhabited by the manufacturer, his wife, and his kids. I don't even remember his product, but I remember the feel of the room as if it were yesterday. There was a sense anxiousness about it, a presence of desperation, and maybe on the part of the wife, a sense of impending doom. All this was tempered by the guy's enthusiasm for the product and an unconscious projection of hope. No one besides my friend and I was in the room, and I got the feeling that it had been pretty much empty for the entire show. To make matters worse, it sounded bad, not your typical bad, but it met the criteria for a room where there was something bad for everyone. No one I know could have possibly fixed it. I don't think I have heard a worse room at a show anywhere.
I am soft-sell where my product is concerned, but that guy redefined hard sell to a level that rivaled anyone who ever graced NYC's gem district. I got the sense that he didn't just want to sell something, he absolutely had to sell something. I could tell that everything was riding on his product and that show. But, the ship had already sunk. Apparently, his dream had taken the ultimate financial toll and all that was left was for him to take in that last gulp of air. I wanted to give the guy a hug, and tell him that everything would be alright, but I knew better. We thanked him as courteously as we could muster and left the room instead.
Later, I scoured the magazines for comments about that room, but found none. Fortunately, any reviewer or attendee who had been there had the common decency to let it pass without comment. I was relieved, but probably nowhere near as much as that guy and his family. They were allowed to slip into oblivion quietly.
That room was an extreme example, but the moral is that everyone who shows has an investment. But more, they have a dream. Most of us makers measure our investments, and have thick enough skins to take criticism. We can either defend what we do, or write off the guy criticizing as an idiot. There is a difference in criticism, however. Criticisms can be illustrative, or constructive, but some can be trivial and mean-spirited. Think before you make unfair comparisons, or write just for something to do.
A few years ago I attended a show, not as an exhibitor, but as an enthusiast. One room that I particularly remember was inhabited by the manufacturer, his wife, and his kids. I don't even remember his product, but I remember the feel of the room as if it were yesterday. There was a sense anxiousness about it, a presence of desperation, and maybe on the part of the wife, a sense of impending doom. All this was tempered by the guy's enthusiasm for the product and an unconscious projection of hope. No one besides my friend and I was in the room, and I got the feeling that it had been pretty much empty for the entire show. To make matters worse, it sounded bad, not your typical bad, but it met the criteria for a room where there was something bad for everyone. No one I know could have possibly fixed it. I don't think I have heard a worse room at a show anywhere.
I am soft-sell where my product is concerned, but that guy redefined hard sell to a level that rivaled anyone who ever graced NYC's gem district. I got the sense that he didn't just want to sell something, he absolutely had to sell something. I could tell that everything was riding on his product and that show. But, the ship had already sunk. Apparently, his dream had taken the ultimate financial toll and all that was left was for him to take in that last gulp of air. I wanted to give the guy a hug, and tell him that everything would be alright, but I knew better. We thanked him as courteously as we could muster and left the room instead.
Later, I scoured the magazines for comments about that room, but found none. Fortunately, any reviewer or attendee who had been there had the common decency to let it pass without comment. I was relieved, but probably nowhere near as much as that guy and his family. They were allowed to slip into oblivion quietly.
That room was an extreme example, but the moral is that everyone who shows has an investment. But more, they have a dream. Most of us makers measure our investments, and have thick enough skins to take criticism. We can either defend what we do, or write off the guy criticizing as an idiot. There is a difference in criticism, however. Criticisms can be illustrative, or constructive, but some can be trivial and mean-spirited. Think before you make unfair comparisons, or write just for something to do.
Last edited:
If a person is a reviewer for an audio show, why does it matter whether or not the reader pays money for the critique? The reviewer should have honesty and the integrity to give his honest evaluation. If you are writing a critique, I don't see it a matter of anybody owing anyone something because it is paid for or free. If you are a writer, people look up to you as an expert and they should be respected by your being honest with them in your reviews.
If you are putting yourself out there as a reviewer, you should say what you honestly thought about a product, not keep your mouth shut because it didn't live up to your expectations because that might affect your ability to get other products to review at a later date because you demonstrated your honesty by not liking a products you reviewed.
Last edited:
Well, how about this, Ralph -- bad reviews may be the product of unethical reviewers.
A review, conducted dispassionately, which yields a less than favorable conclusion has merit.
It occurs to me that one need evaluate the reviewer as critically as the component under review.
Counselor, grab my sleeve if I start to say something that won't hold up under cross-examination.
As with all things, it's not as simple as it first seems.
Setting aside any potential duplicity in the process, assume you have a reasonable and uncorrupt manufacturer, editor, and journalist involved in the process. Better yet, let's assume Spendor (because I'm looking at a pair of D1s as I write this) is the manufacturer, and you are the journalist.
The said pair of D1 loudspeakers arrive in the offices of the magazine. They perform as a pair of D1s should - as an extremely honest-sounding, small sealed box loudspeaker. They are sent to you for review.
And you hate them.
You hate them because they don't have anything like the bass you expect from a pair of loudspeakers. You hate them in spite of understanding on a surface level that these D1 loudspeakers are designed for near-field monitoring in small rooms, where restricted bandwidth is a benefit rather than a limitation. You simply can't live by the editor's suggestion that you should walk a mile in the shoes of the prospective buyer, because they are so far from what you consider to be 'right' in audio terms that you could only slaughter them in print. Even doing due diligence and seeing that they are extremely highly praised for their performance both in measurement and observational listening, setting a new standard in small sealed box design.
Do you write a review that ultimately (and unfairly) kills off the D1, or call up the editor and suggest someone else might be a more suitable writer?
I'd love to say there was a middle path, that a review could conclude with "I don't like it, but if you like X, it's going to really ring your bells". Sadly, that's not how these things are read. "I don't like it, but..." is read as "It eats babies for fun".
In the above case, I wouldn't put this down to a reviewer being honest about a product. I would think it a poor choice of reviewer by the editor.
Part of the editor's role in all this is to act as matchmaker, ensuring the right product goes to the appropriate reviewer. This doesn't just mean 'never give a cartridge review to someone who signs their name in binary': it means trying to find someone who will give the product a fair assessment. Sometimes, that doesn't work out as expected, and it's the job of both editor and reviewer to determine whether this is down to it being a bad product, or a bad fit for the reviewer.
Currently, Hi-Fi+ reviews about 150-180 products per year. At a rough estimate, I have to make these kind of determinations about a product maybe five or six times a year. In fairness, that number may double or even triple if I am 'running up' a new reviewer, as I get used to what they like and don't like.
I disagree, if someone sticks the head in for 15 seconds and leaves, then at least to that person the sound must have been BAD. I have done this myself as i can hear right away if a system has the engaging elements to warrant further investigation.
I again disagree, the audio is shrinking because of other diversions that simply didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago. High end audio was always a niche for the dedicated and it should be presented in a realistic light, neither overtly positive or negative but on a company by company and system by system basis. Bad companies die and good companies (notice I did NOT say products) thrive...that is free market. If the market shrinks to support only a few companies then I guess it is time to up your game to make sure you are one of those that survives. Personally, I wouldn't care if there were only a few manufacturers in each category as long as they were really GOOD manufacturers. What do I care about the 90+% of companies that have no clue about making good sound? They are out there taking their chances and will live or die based on the quality of their products and their business savvy.
Again, I disagree. Taking the unethical behaviors you described out of the equation (not all reviewers operate this way...I sure didn't) an honest negative review needs to be published. The editor should perhaps be much more closely involved in the case if a negative review is forthcoming and they should have the responsibility to question the reviewer to determine if there are hidden motivations. If the editor has doubts about the sincerity then he can opt to not publish but barring that it should be sent out. If it was thought the unit is broken then give the maunfacturer another shot.
Nothing but positive reviews give the consumer NOTHING to base a buying decision on and often leads to bad purchases (I usually try to listen before buying but not in all cases and I have been burned by so-called "reviews"). This is the whole point of critical journalism to give the consumer some power of discrimination when they obviously can not try everything. Car magazines have no issues in bashing poor cars.
I have never heard a Quicksilver amp so I cannot comment if they are worth a damn. Based on the designs I would not expect exceptional sound but also probably not poor sound.
We asked the Editor of our local mag why there are never "slamming" reviews.. he said they "can" them.. they only publish the good reviews.. the rationale is that they promote good stuff and not bad. Better to say nothing rather than damn the product...
In any published review , one has to have some comprehension of the ethos of the reviewer.. I like it loud , all enveloping massive scale , bass slam etc.. I would HATE that D1 being mentioned...so as alan says , I would be a bad reviewer of this product
In any published review , one has to have some comprehension of the ethos of the reviewer.. I like it loud , all enveloping massive scale , bass slam etc.. I would HATE that D1 being mentioned...so as alan says , I would be a bad reviewer of this product
It's not clear to me whether you are accusing reviewers or manufacturers of "nonsense or outright fraud".
There are probably good examples of both out there, but I'm not sure that an (honest) bad review falls into that category
Speak for yourself. Perhaps this is the problem for some folks. They put their faith in someone else to help them make decisions instead making the decision themselves. It's comforting to have someone else to blame when it all does t work out as planned. But thats not my style. The word expert is meaningless in this context. As long as folks understand and don't put any faith in what writers say, all will be okay. These "reviews" are strictly for infotainment.
Shouldn't the reviewer know the product, be able to place this speaker in the proper context? Describe the sound, what you are getting for the money? How it was designed to be used? If not, he is a bad reviewer. It would be like a guy taking a lawnmower and using it as hedge clippers and then reviewing it saying is a terrible hedge clipper and it cut off my hands to boot.
Then it's time to turn in your press pass. And this, from Alan Sircom...
Is either a dismissal of the reader's intelligence or his own writing ability. If he can detail here, in a few words in a post, how a speaker might be very good for a specific purpose, a kind of listener, but not right for his use, he should be able to do it in the much longer format of a review. And his readers, if they understand the language he writes in, should be able to understand it. If they cannot, the error is his.
Tim
Last edited:
Hello Peter
Just because you post something negative you are elevating yourself??? I find this odd to say the least. If it's a pat on the back it's OK but not from an expert?? Wouldn't it be better the other way round??
I am no expert but I have been in this hobby since my teens. I build speakers and have a measurement system as part of the hobby. I have been to many shows and heard some absolutely horrible sound. Don't know what the exhibitors were thinking?? I am fully aware how hard some rooms can be and as exhibitors who have to deal with this I would expect you to be prepared for it. I would also take the negatives as constructive criticism. Point of view being well I guess we didn't set-up as well as we thought. Do better next time.
Rob
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |