What is a reviewer?

[Elliot G.]

What is a reviewer? Qualifications? Purpose? responsibilities? are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?
What should there place in the Industry be and how do we get there?
Limits? rules?
What are your opinions?

I read in so many threads comments about all the "reviewers" maybe a place to actually discuss it will be useful

 

[andromedaaudio]

Id say in general a reviewer is an enthousiast.

 

[Elliot G.]

Id say in general a reviewer is an enthousiast.

Id say an enthusiast is an enthusiast , maybe a reviewer should be more? IMO being an enthusiast isnt credentials. I love football but Im not a QB in the NFL. Liking to cook doesnt make you a chef. dont you think thats a very low bar?

 

[sbnx]

There was a thread related to this topic a few years ago. In it I said the main criteria to be a reviewer is to be able to say in 1000 words what should take less than 100 words to describe. Of course this is in the space of the written word such as magazines. The first critera of any reviewer that is going to be hired by a magazine is they have to be good writers. Not that they can listen or evaluate. That is probably farther down the list. Reviews are sales tools for the manufacturers. If the review doesn't do a good job of selling the product then why would the manufacturers pay for the review?

 

[tima]

What is a reviewer? Qualifications? Purpose? responsibilities? are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?
What should there place in the Industry be and how do we get there?
Limits? rules?
What are your opinions?

I read in so many threads comments about all the "reviewers" maybe a place to actually discuss it will be useful

I've been writing audio reviews for publication for the past 20 years. I"ve covered both equipment and music. Based on my experience I'll speak to the ad hominem questions first.

Reviewers are hired by publications or editors according to whatever qualifications the publication chooses to adopt. I've written for three publications. None of those had specific qualifications and I believe there are no general or industry wide tests or qualifications for being a reviewer. Each publication has its own set of rules and protocols a reviewer must follow.

If you think there should be formal qualifications to be a reviewer, you can clamor on the internet but to get something like that to happen you really need to direct your views to a specific publication -- an employer. There is no industry-wide organization or council that sets rules for the audio industry.

I was doing rudimentary alpha and beta testing for a friend who worked for a major industry manufacturer and who had been a reviewer for Soundstage. That casual work involved listening to products being considered for production and giving feedback to my friend who passed them to the manufacturer. Both the manufacturer and my friemd found helpful the descriptions that I wrote. It was fun. For over a year my friend encouraged me to write for publication. I kept taking a pass on that but finally he and and someone at Soundstage convinced me to try my hand. If success associates to continued employment, then I've been successful.

As to what counts as 'employment', that means continued publication of one's writing. Unless you are a columnist or in the editorial hierarchy there is little monetary compensation for a reviewer. Reviewers are paid so the publication can own the rights to a review. I can't remember being paid more than $150 for a review. Given the amount of time and work required for a conscientious review, it is clear to me that I'm not doing it for the money.

Being a reviewer for an established publication places you as a participant in the industry. Members include manufacturers, distributors, retailers and the media. It is an unwritten acceptance that as an industry participant a reviewer accrues entitlement to industry accomodation pricing, just like any other member. That is some percentage cost below MSRP as determined by the manufacturer or distributor. This, in my opinion, is the primary compensation a reviewer receives. There are rules governing accomodation purchases set by the manufacture and/or the publication. For example: a reviewer needs to get permission from his publisher to make a purchase. The reviewer is barred from reselling an accomodation purchase for some period, usually 2-3 years.

As to titles or descriptions ("are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?") -- you tell me. From your list, the closest for me, is reporter.

 

[PeterA]

I've been writing audio reviews for publication for the past 20 years. I"ve covered both equipment and music. Based on my experience I'll speak to the ad hominem questions first.

Reviewers are hired by publications or editors according to whatever qualifications the publication chooses to adopt. I've written for three publications. None of those had specific qualifications and I believe there are no general or industry wide tests or qualifications for being a reviewer. Each publication has its own set of rules and protocols a reviewer must follow.

If you think there should be formal qualifications to be a reviewer, you can clamor on the internet but to get something like that to happen you really need to direct your views to a specific publication -- an employer. There is no industry-wide organization or council that sets rules for the audio industry.

I was doing rudimentary alpha and beta testing for a friend who worked for a major industry manufacturer and who had been a reviewer for Soundstage. That casual work involved listening to products being considered for production and giving feedback to my friend who passed them to the manufacturer. Both the manufacturer and my friemd found helpful the descriptions that I wrote. It was fun. For over a year my friend encouraged me to write for publication. I kept taking a pass on that but finally he and and someone at Soundstage convinced me to try my hand. If success associates to continued employment, then I've been successful.

As to what counts as 'employment', that means continued publication of one's writing. Unless you are a columnist or in the editorial hierarchy there is little monetary compensation for a reviewer. Reviewers are paid so the publication can own the rights to a review. I can't remember being paid more than $150 for a review. Given the amount of time and work required for a conscientious review, it is clear to me that I'm not doing it for the money.

Being a reviewer for an established publication places you as a participant in the industry. Members include manufacturers, distributors, retailers and the media. It is an unwritten acceptance that as an industry participant a reviewer accrues entitlement to industry accomodation pricing, just like any other member. That is some percentage cost below MSRP as determined by the manufacturer or distributor. This, in my opinion, is the primary compensation a reviewer receives. There are rules governing accomodation purchases set by the manufacture and/or the publication. For example: a reviewer needs to get permission from his publisher to make a purchase. The reviewer is barred from reselling an accomodation purchase for some period, usually 2-3 years.

As to titles or descriptions ("are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?") -- you tell me. From your list, the closest for me, is reporter.

Thank you for that perspective, Tim. It seems to me that another benefit for the reviewer is exposure to and time with different gear in his own system, gear that interests him, and perhaps better access to the manufacturer. The reward is increased experience and knowledge.

 

[tima]

Elliot - I find a far simpler question is "What Makes a Good Reviewer?"

Here is what I wrote a few years back:

" What makes a good reviewer?" Apart from whatever we each mean by "good", a good reviewer is one who writes good reviews. There is no standardized list or set of industry guidelines covering the qualities of a good reviewer or a good review, although several comments here mention characteristics to which all of us (most) can agree.

A good review undergoes an edit, typically by an experienced editor. Prior to publication, a good review is checked for technical accuracy by the manufacture - the vast majority know they have no say outside this area. (And they don't.) Perhaps from a writer's perspective, the good review is one that is read - the best reviews read repeatedly.

Rather than post my own comprehensive list (believe me, I've had plenty of time to think about it) I'll tell you a little bit of what I try to do in my own reviews. Feel free to comment.

As I've said before I believe audiophile reviews are fundamentally expository writing and the root of expository is 'to expose.' It is a virtue to craft clear straightforward prose and anything that gets in the way of exposition is embelishment. Alas, I'm not Hemingway. Perhaps the harshest criticism I level against myself is my writing is (sometimes) baroque with convoluted sentences. But I do work at that. A good review is respectful of language, grammar and spelling.

A good review should be helpful to the reader. In addition to a basic product description you can find on the product Web site, I believe a good review should provide information about a product that may not be found elsewhere or is otherwise arcane. This is not easy. Often it involves a deep dive into the product, considerable research about relevant technologies, and interaction with the manufacturer, trying to coax information from them.

Most manufacturers believe customers are not curious about technologies or not capable of appreciating technical detail. Also, most manufacturers are very very leery of revealing anything they gauge proprietary, or might be copied, stolen, or be of a competitive advantage to another maker of a similar product. Those latter things do happen, more frequently than you might imagine and it is easy to understand manufacturer disclosure reluctance. The industry is highly competitive. A good reviewer does more than scratch a product's surface and needs to be sensitive to manufacture concerns, strictly honoring NDAs. With diligence it is possible to ferret out product information that would not get published unless the reviewer took the time and energy to do so. I think it incumbent on a reviewer to do this. (And it sets a formal review apart from the 'drop by the showroom for a listen' type reviews.)

A good review includes the review context - the other equipment used in the system on which the review is based. A good review includes an account of product use, includes options the product offers and choices the reviewer made when using the product. This needs be somewhat balanced because describing every option or choice can make for tedious prose. A good review of an electronic component should use the power cords that came with it - that's the product. If there are problems or idiosyncracies with product usage, describe them.

A good review takes its time. After doing reviews over the years I am absolutely committed to the notion that a quick A/B/A product comparison has very limited value. I grant that some readers claim they cannot make a decision about a product without flipping a switch between it and some alternative. But a good review is not about that - it's not about choosing one product versus another. I believe one needs to live with a product for some time (more than a month) to understand and appreciate its character - it doesn't matter how much experience you think you have.

A good review needs sonic descriptions of pieces of music the reviewer knows well. I agree with Stehno 100% when he said of a good reviewer: "possessing the ability to discern / interpret what they hear and conveying what they hear to the reader." Someone mentioned correlating what one hears with measurement - I don't do that; at best it is speculative. Infrequently do I claim to hear this or that and say it is because a product has some feature set.

My approach to sonic description may be different from many reviews. I describe what I hear and experience playing a piece of music with the review product in my system; I don't describe the product, I describe the music, what I hear listening to it. Infrequently do I claim what I hear is because of something a single product claims to do. I'm listening to an entire system. There may be affinities or not among components. That usually is difficult to assess on a physical basis. (Maybe with cartridges, tonearms or a phonostage.) Only when obvious synergy obtains with one component and not another will I mention it.

Whenever possible a good review should include a sonic compare/contrast of the review product with a similar product in a similar price range. Most of my reviews do that but it is not always possible. One may not have anything similar to the review product or not have something in the same price range. I don't have the luxury of a backroom stocked with alternatives, so in my case I typically use what is in my system at the time. It's nearly impossible to borrow another manufacturer's component for the sole purpose of comparing it to the competition. (It's a reason you don't find many comparisons of equipment racks.) But where possible a good review does a sonic-level compare/contrast with an alternative that the reviewer has spent time with.

I could go on, as well as include my approach to reviewing albums. This is already way long. Thank you for reading about my review process to this point."

What makes a good reviewer?

Is it their ability to ‘sell’ a product? Absolute transparency? Technical prowess? Golden ears? Product discovery? When you read (or watch) a review, what is it about the content that makes you want to come back and take in more of that creator’s work?

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Elliot G.]

I was attacking anyone or anything , seems you are looking for that, I was opening a discussion to this forum that IMO is all over the place when it comes to reviews and those who write them. It is however a subject best discussed with those who aren’t reviewing as their opinions and objectives were what i was trying to find out.

 

[PeterA]

I am curious to learn if members respect the opinions of hobbyists with experience and knowledge more than those of formal reviewers.

I would rather listen to a system video and a written description of the sound from the guy who made the video than read most reviews out there. Of course there are a couple exceptions from a few very good reviewers who both have experience and great writing skills.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am curious to learn if members respect the opinions of hobbyists with experience and knowledge more than those of formal reviewers.

It is not possible to generalize across the two suggested groups.

My answer is: it depends on which hobbyist, and it depends on which formal reviewer.

 

[PeterA]

It is not possible to generalize across the two suggested groups.

My answer is: it depends on which hobbyist, and it depends on which formal reviewer.

That is why I qualified hobbyists as those with knowledge and experience. I am sure each of us knows one or two. The question is addressed to those members who have the opportunity to read both and who then judge and choose.

I have decided which hobbyists and which reviewers I choose to listen to based on my own judgment. There are more hobbyists than formal reviewers for me.

 

[Ron Resnick]

That is why I qualified hobbyists as those with knowledge and experience.

The qualification doesn't make sense to me. Which high-end audio hobbyists whom you know personally or you read on WBF believe that they have no knowledge and no experience?

I personally don't know any high-end audio hobbyists who believe that they have no knowledge and no experience. Each of us individually appraises our perception of the knowledge and experience of our fellow hobbyists, no? Just like each of us decides whether or not we like and respect a particular formal reviewer.

So, again, I don't think we can generalize the answer to your original question.

 

[PeterA]

The qualification doesn't make sense to me. Which high-end audio hobbyists whom you know personally or you read on WBF believe that they have no knowledge and no experience?

I personally don't know any high-end audio hobbyists who believe that they have no knowledge and no experience. Each of us individually appraises our perception of the knowledge and experience of our fellow hobbyists, no? Just like each of us decides whether or not we like and respect a particular formal reviewer.

So, again, I don't think we can generalize the answer to your original question.

You’re agreeing with what I wrote. We read, we judge, and we choose, based on our own criteria and values.

 

[bonzo75]

I am curious to learn if members respect the opinions of hobbyists with experience and knowledge more than those of formal reviewers.

Yes.

 

[tima]

I was attacking anyone or anything , seems you are looking for that, I was opening a discussion to this forum that IMO is all over the place when it comes to reviews and those who write them. It is however a subject best discussed with those who aren’t reviewing as their opinions and objectives were what i was trying to find out.

I assume you meant to say "I was not attacking anyone or anything, seems you are looking for that..." and that was just a typo. But you don't say to whom you are addressing it.

And ... if you want to find out about reviewer's opinions and objectives it seems odd you don't want to hear from those you are asking about.

But, so it goes ...

 

[tima]

I personally don't know any high-end audio hobbyists who believe that they have no knowledge and no experience.

Strikes me as a moot point. Granted some have more than others. I agree about generalizing across broad categories, hobbyists and reviewers. To generalize and disagree with myself, I find different agendas between the two.

 

[Lee]

The silver lining about experienced hobbyists is that they can start a YouTube channel. I think if they have credibility then the channel will do well (often this is even independent of production quality). TAS has even brought on a few reviewers this way.

Citizen journalism is a positive development for society.

 

[PeterA]

The silver lining about experienced hobbyists is that they can start a YouTube channel. I think if they have credibility then the channel will do well (often this is even independent of production quality). TAS has even brought on a few reviewers this way.

Citizen journalism is a positive development for society.

Independent voices are always a good thing.

 

[Another Johnson]

One “type” is confident and opinionated, with a strong desire to lead the pack by informing others of their opinions.

Another “type” is the English major who is trying to figure out how to make a living through clever writing.

Some “reviewers” are just trying to share some fun with others.

All reviewers, regardless of type, want to be seen as relevant and authoritative. In my experience, dating back to before the appearance of HP or JGH, my sense is that some are legends in their own minds. In my opinion, the less seriously reviewers take themselves, the more likable and entertaining they present in my world.

I’ve read an incredible number of bonehead reviews over the last 60 years. I’ve read a few good ones too.

Since the advent of YouTube, the general noise on the signal has become overwhelming. This is true in every hobby as people try to monetize their “collection of information” by convincing the masses to click.

YMMV

 

[PeterA]

I also think there is a difference between those who write a review every month and end up on 3-6 magazine covers every year, and those who write very few reviews, keep the gear a long time to get to really know it, and do not simply move onto the next piece of gear to bring to our attention. For some hobbyists, it is simply out of interest and sharing an opinion to like minded people. We can learn. Some reviewers are like this too. The other distinction worth noting is how mainstream the brand is that submits a component for review. Do people know about the brand and this is just a new version of a past product, or it is a little or unknown company that would benefit from some exposure.

Bonzo does an admirable job of exposing members here to an alternative approach to the mainstream. We benefit from that introduction and can decide if we want to learn more about it. There is a whole spectrum of voices out there and avenues for sharing information. This variety and diversity of information is good for those who have specific interests.