Right, it was another person just wanted the thumbs up/down, not you, and that may not have been clear in my post.
Usually do not see criticism this harsh.
- Thread starter Randall Smith
- Start date
I am sorry but I don't follow. What I described is factual about Nick. He is a friendly person and reviewer. I had that impression the very first time I interacted with him before he wrote anything about our technology.
Nick reflects that in how he approaches his job and people who give him products to review. He is not this way because he wants to push dirt under the rug, mislead people, etc. He simply is a nice person. And as he said, his style is reflected in his work.
Amir-I agree that Nick is a friendly person and reviewer. He only reviews products that he is going to give a positive review to. If he doesn't like your product, it will be silently returned to you with advice on how to improve it. What's not to like from the point of a manufacturer? What I don't agree with is that if a manufacturer sends in a product for review and 6moons finds it fatally flawed, the public is not informed of their findings-only the manufacturer. If this product remains in the market place in its flawed form, then I would say that some dirt has been swept under the rug.
Then feel free. But they aren't reviews. No problem, if that's what you want. And he has disclosed it, so he probably is a nice, honest guy. But he doesn't write product reviews. And no, this isn't an advertorial, it is a message board with many people participating. Let's just get the facts straight.
It's a message board, not our website, so it can't be an advertorial.
He is the one that said he doesn't "review" products. Not my insinuation.
You're free to read what you like. I'm just getting the definitions straight.
I don't know Mark, personally I don't feel consumers need nannies. We'd have to define what you mean by fatally flawed. To me that means it doesn't work or has serious reliability issues. What a reviewer might find lousy sounding, I and others just might like.
That said, there really ARE reviewer groupies out there. Lots of guys getting burned out because their favorite reviewer has a new BEST every month. I know a couple of 'em, more than a couple actually. In almost every instance this very thing weaned them away from their idols and had them following their own paths and while some gave up completely those that didn't are enjoying themselves much more. A few friends downsized, a few went DIY, a few gave up altogether and a few are still frustrated because they are still chasing the flavor of the month instead of their personal preferences but I am certain that can't go on forever. Many are happy with what they have right now with nary an itch to scratch.
Would I like to see bad reviews? No. I wan't the reviews to be honest, that's all. Give the warts along with the beauty marks but save the space for products that have at least some redeeming values.
That said, there really ARE reviewer groupies out there. Lots of guys getting burned out because their favorite reviewer has a new BEST every month. I know a couple of 'em, more than a couple actually. In almost every instance this very thing weaned them away from their idols and had them following their own paths and while some gave up completely those that didn't are enjoying themselves much more. A few friends downsized, a few went DIY, a few gave up altogether and a few are still frustrated because they are still chasing the flavor of the month instead of their personal preferences but I am certain that can't go on forever. Many are happy with what they have right now with nary an itch to scratch.
Would I like to see bad reviews? No. I wan't the reviews to be honest, that's all. Give the warts along with the beauty marks but save the space for products that have at least some redeeming values.
More than two decades ago I read the editorial of a Far East high-end audio magazine describing their review policy – my apologies, I do not remember the name anymore.
When a product arrived for testing, it was given to a reviewer that tested it in his own system. If he did not like it because it did not sound good with his usual system, the equipment would change hands to another reviewer. This process would repeat until someone produced a non negative review. If none of the reviewers could find anything positive to say about the equipment, it would be returned to the manufacturer with a letter thanking him for submitting the piece for review and apologizing for not being able to make it sound good in their systems.
I have to say I appreciate this editorial style.
When a product arrived for testing, it was given to a reviewer that tested it in his own system. If he did not like it because it did not sound good with his usual system, the equipment would change hands to another reviewer. This process would repeat until someone produced a non negative review. If none of the reviewers could find anything positive to say about the equipment, it would be returned to the manufacturer with a letter thanking him for submitting the piece for review and apologizing for not being able to make it sound good in their systems.
I have to say I appreciate this editorial style.
I simply thought the articles would provide a spark for discussion. I have read so many times on forums like this one that audio reviews are usually too positive. Makes it seem like there is something dishonest going on. Are reviewers writing the reviews to provide audio companies with free advertising or are they being 100% faithful to the idea of an independent review? While I enjoy additional excitement focused on our sites content, that wasn't my goal.
I've always felt that using reviews for purchase decisions should be carried out in an "investigative" fashion by the consumer. When many reviewers agree on certain aspects of a product's performance, you can feel a bit more confident that these statements are true. When there are conflicting opinions or 'lukewarm" comments about something, I believe it is incumbent upon the consumer to look more carefully into the situation. So, it seems that combining reviews from a group of different "approaches" may provide the best buying experience.
The underlying question is: Is is really the responsibility of an audio reviewer to disclose every aspect of their experience with a piece of gear, or are they free to write what they see fit to print?
The purpose of audio review publications, as well as music content reviews, is partly (IMO) to stimulate interest in the industry and their products. If the industry fails, so do the publications. Although many moralistic intentions may be desirable, the reality is not so clear. I doubt that most any of us would knowingly sabotage our livelihood by making statements that would leave us jobless. Bad review = less products for review = less work = less circulation = less products for review , etc. The pressure is quite obvious.
It's up to the individual writer and their publication where the editorial policy stands on these issues. Typically, readers find reviewers that they align with. This agreement can occur as the result of a buyer's positive experience with a product that was reviewed "accurately" by a certain writer, or by agreeing that a certain component is not a great performer, etc. Perhaps this type of confirmation is all we can expect from the audio review contingent, and that's understandable to me. Caveat emptor.
Lee
The underlying question is: Is is really the responsibility of an audio reviewer to disclose every aspect of their experience with a piece of gear, or are they free to write what they see fit to print?
The purpose of audio review publications, as well as music content reviews, is partly (IMO) to stimulate interest in the industry and their products. If the industry fails, so do the publications. Although many moralistic intentions may be desirable, the reality is not so clear. I doubt that most any of us would knowingly sabotage our livelihood by making statements that would leave us jobless. Bad review = less products for review = less work = less circulation = less products for review , etc. The pressure is quite obvious.
It's up to the individual writer and their publication where the editorial policy stands on these issues. Typically, readers find reviewers that they align with. This agreement can occur as the result of a buyer's positive experience with a product that was reviewed "accurately" by a certain writer, or by agreeing that a certain component is not a great performer, etc. Perhaps this type of confirmation is all we can expect from the audio review contingent, and that's understandable to me. Caveat emptor.
Lee
To Lee's point, in TV industry we call everything you all watch "fillers." The real "programming" are the commercials which pay everyone's salary and keep the lights on!
why should we care about hurting the manufacturers feelings? i would rather they get hurt feelings and design better products.
one problem I have with reviews are those that lack comparisons (which make it a proper review to me)---to not do so means the entire "review" is basically just a promotional piece.
on the TAS website, I called out RH for not doing this anymore---his Sasha review was threadbare and didn't mention a Magico or Revel---two speakers that he compared at quite length the year before. that comparison was extraordinarily helpful as a reader/consumer.
on the TAS website, I called out RH for not doing this anymore---his Sasha review was threadbare and didn't mention a Magico or Revel---two speakers that he compared at quite length the year before. that comparison was extraordinarily helpful as a reader/consumer.
Jack-since your comments are always thoughtful, I wanted to make sure I have read and understood them before I shot from the lip. I'm not looking for a nannie either. However, if you review a product like a D/A converter or something and it won't lock on to any signal and you end up having a roundtable discussion with other engineers in order to help them fix their screw-up, inquiring minds want to know. If you have another piece that starts wreaking havoc with your system like Nick described, people should know about it so they don't buy the same piece of junk. It's not that you want to see bad reviews for the purpose of seeing bad reviews, for me it just lets you know that reviewers are doing their job and calling out products that are flawed if warranted and warning the general audo public to steer clear. I would call that a service to the readers. All is not peaches and cream in the world and we should be informed if baby has made a mess in his diapers. If we are going to have rags with no bad reviews, why not just let the manufacturers write their own reviews? Any magazine that returns any defective product(s) to the manufacturer and acts as a consultant to help them improve their products without telling their readers is not a magazine that I will ever read again. This practice does not pass the smell test with me.
In the glory days of TAS when HP really ran the magazine, he was adamant that reviewers were not industry consultants. That is a very slippery slope to be going down. Being a consultant behind the scene and helping fix a product that you later give a favorable review after you get your ego stroked by the manufacturer and not disclosing any of that history in your review is very deceptive and troubling in my book. I just want a little honesty Jack and I think we should call a spade a spade. At least Stereophile doesn't pull that crap with pulling bad reviews and sending the product back.
I really don't think any of the above is new news; this question of reviewing vs. sending the gear back w/o a review has been hashed out on forums for years.
There is one point that most don't realize since they haven't ever had a review published. What a "reader" regards as a positive review, isn't seen in the same light by the manufacturer.
And you haven't been on the opposite end as I have of writing a negative review
I've written a few and they're no fun writing. And one does have to exhaust every possibility that there's not a problematic interaction going on between the different components for instance, a bad tube (and this happens no matter how carefully selected) and even damage occurring in shipping that isn't manifested in obvious way eg not turning on. I don't know about you, but I hold my breath whenever I ship a product that it will arrive undamaged. I 've had amps, cartridges, DACs, etc all damaged by Fed Ex, UPS, and you name it.Bear in mind also, that for many of us, reviewing is a part time gig and spending a month or two on a non-product detracts from our time to review other more deserving products. For instance, there is one well known manufacturer who to this day, always take the opportunity to harp on the review of his product written some ten or more years ago. And the product deserved the given review (and other reviewers had raved about it)!
One must also be careful to maintain a careful balanced between negative and positive reviews too. Years ago, HP (say issues 1-18) never pulled his punches. But many suggested that people latched onto reading the magazine to see what HP trashed and not for the positive reviews of products.
Myles-All good points. If something is defective, I would hope that it wouldn't take a month or two to figure it out. Ditto for shipping damage type problems. And I understand that a reviewer may think he wrote a positive review only to have the manufacturer upset for what they perceive as a negative review. I can see where it's a tight rope to walk. Now days, good reviews are incredibly short-sometimes only one page (Remember the good old days when TAS would pubilsh a review of a product and it would run pages long and then the product would be passed to another reviewer and they would comment on the first review?). So if a good review only runs a page or two, let a bad review be a paragraph. I don't care if they just said something to the effect that product X does not work correctly and was returned to the manufacturer. I think the balance of good reviews to bad reviews should settle itself. If a magazine has scheduled 10 products for review in a given month and 8 out of 10 turn out to be defective in either design or manufacture, what does that say about the high-end industry? I would be just as happy if 10 out of 10 reviews were positive as long as I knew the magazine wasn't gaming the system and lets us know when something is amiss.
We need to let the chips fall where they may I think. And by the way, I'm sick of the covers of TAS and Stereophile each month shouting out, "Worlds Best Speaker?" and all of the rest of the crap. I liked TAS back in the days when they accepted no advertising and the front cover was a work of art and the rear cover was a cool photograph. Those days are gone forever.
We need to let the chips fall where they may I think. And by the way, I'm sick of the covers of TAS and Stereophile each month shouting out, "Worlds Best Speaker?" and all of the rest of the crap. I liked TAS back in the days when they accepted no advertising and the front cover was a work of art and the rear cover was a cool photograph. Those days are gone forever.
Was it the speaker or the source? Reference analog tape can make most sound fantastic
There a small magazine in Canada called UHF and for years they have reviewed products by not just one person, but up to 3 and sometimes 4 people. The lead reviewer covers most of the review, and they are fairly extensive, but at the end there is always a short summary by all of the reviewers citing their impressions. Myles and Kal are probably quite familiar with the magazine and it's editor Gerard Resjkind. As a non-technical audiophile I really appreciate that aspect of the magazine.
A similar thing happens with some european magazines - Nouvelle Revue du Son and Stereoplay for example. This last one sometimes shows a reviewer with like (Pro) and another with (Contra) dislike views.
Similar threads
